Is your scope as good as your binoculars?

[steve white]

Sadly, for me the answer is no. I have 8x56 Zeiss fl as well as 15x56 Nobilem porro prism, and even my Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 is no match. I wonder if anything is a match for those binoculars. Is it just because there are two tubes vs the one for any rifle scope? The only scope glass I have not owned is Swarovski, though I have one pair of older Habicht binoculars.
I know I shouldn't complain, we've never had it so good, and I can definitely see--just not at the same eye popping level.

 

[steve white]

Of course one could have the opposite problem--a Swarovski scope and a not up to speed bino.

 

[Philip Glass]

I can say for sure that there is nothing like the Swarovski Z8. It is terribly expensive but unless you own one you do not know what you are missing. You do not know what quality is. I am still astonished that I paid that much for a scope but I am equally astonished at the glass quality each and every time I look through this fantastic piece of glass.

 

[steve white]

I can say for sure that there is nothing like the Swarovski Z8. It is terribly expensive but unless you own one you do not know what you are missing. You do not know what quality is. I am still astonished that I paid that much for a scope but I am equally astonished at the glass quality each and every time I look through this fantastic piece of glass.

So is it better than previous Swarovskis that were just not the 8x erector system? What did they do to the glass itself to elevate the performance?

 

[Nhoro]

I think it is the zoom function on scopes.

 

[Tom Leoni]

I go with Leica on both, so I never have a problem *grin*

 

[mdwest]

It depends on which scope and which bino we're talking about

Ive got a wide variety of scopes across all of my different rifles, ranging from lower end Leupolds like the VX-Freedom line on some, to higher end Zeiss and Swaro optics on others, and several scopes in between...

For binos Im sort of in the middle of the road.. Ive got a set of Leupold BX-4 Pro Guide 10x42's as well as a set of Zeiss Conquest 10x42's...

So.. in some cases, depending on which rifle I am carrying, my bino capabilities are superior.. in other cases, by scope is superior to my bino... and in a few cases, theyre about on par with each other (for example my Christensen 308 wears a Zeiss Conquest scope.. and as said above I also have Zeiss Conquest binos)..

 

[JimP]

I upgraded my main binoculars to some Swaro's a number of years ago. I figure that if I can find the animal with them then the Leupold scopes on all of my rifles will be adiquite for the job of seeing the animal for the shot.

I have never had a problem finding a animal with my rifle scope once I have found them with the binoculars, even in thick brush. And as I mentioned all of my scopes are Leopold's, older VXII's and VXIII's. Except for a old Redfield on my old 06 or the Burris on my Contender.

 

[meigsbucks]

My main binos are Zeiss and Swarovski. Scopes range from Burris and lower end Leupold (Freedom and VXll) to Swaro Z5, Zeiss and Leupold VX-V.

 

[Philip Glass]

So is it better than previous Swarovskis that were just not the 8x erector system? What did they do to the glass itself to elevate the performance?

I don't know for certain but it is without question the best glass made now. The Z8 stands alone.

 

[FlyGuy]

I spend a lot more time behind binoculars than a riflescope, so that's where spending more on high quality glass makes more sense to me.
Bino's are Zeiss Victory HT 8x42, and my scopes vary from Arken, all the way to the top end European stuff.

 

[KY Hunting Guy]

I have a lot of scopes from low end Vortex to Swarovski Z5s. None of them compare to my current binoculars that I acquired several years ago (Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure), and probably never will. I find that I use my binoculars probably 100 times to every one time I use my scopes, so that is where I made my investment.

 

[Muskox]

I have a Zeiss V8 1.4-14 or something like that and a Swarovski EL Range TA 8x42.

My binoculars are ok. The LRF Unit in them sucks. I also carry a Leupold 1600 that I paid $150 on a military deal for that is 10 times the LRF the Swarovski has.

They are the NL Glass but EL body, about 2 years old. This is what Swarovski told me. When I got them they were the most expensive LRF binoculars you could buy.

I owned the EL 10x50 Swarovski. For my eyes, these are as good as things have ever been. I have also owned the Victory version of the Zeiss 8x54. Both of these are way better than my current 8x42 EL Range TAs.

I don't know that you could do better than the Zeiss V8, the Swarovski Z8 is a similar product.

But really any decent 8x56 will out class any rifle scope.

 

[reinwood]

I don't know for certain but it is without question the best glass made now. The Z8 stands alone.

I disagree- Leica glass is superior. It might be marginal, but if shooting low light is important then Leica wins

 

[Muskox]

Calibrated eye balls vary. I am a near sighted eye glass wearer. To me Zeiss is the best binocular.

 

[Surgeon1]

I did a lot of side-by-side testing of rifle scopes in critical lite conditions with myself and 2 other
experienced hunters. We did comparisons of 19 different rifle scopes we had. We tested in low light
morning and evening conditions as well as dark with variable artificial light. To my surprise in the top three scopes Leica was 2 of them. The Leica 2.5-15x56 was what I've now used on 2 leopard hunts.
I even purchased Leica RF binos recently and they beat my other RF binos (Zeiss 10x42 RF). Swarovski
RF binoculars don't hold even compare to the Leica's so mine went to my daughter.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

My left eye is badly screwed up due to retina surgeries so binoculars generally don't work well. In addition I wear prescription glasses which makes using binoculars a hassle. Scope is more practical for me, especially when hunting alone.

 

[Muskox]

My left eye is badly screwed up due to retina surgeries so binoculars generally don't work well. In addition I wear prescription glasses which makes using binoculars a hassle. Scope is more practical for me, especially when hunting alone.

My father used to be the same. I gave him an old pair of 10x56 Zeiss I have. We adjusted them to fit him on individual eyes. He is far sighted, but has a lot of vision issues.

He now knows what he has been missing.

I have 20-450 vision in both eyes. Once I found a pair of binoculars with 22mm of eye relief, the vignetting that most near sighted people complain about with binoculars is mostly gone.

You can buy your way out of this problem if it interest you.

 

[steve white]

I have a Zeiss V8 1.4-14 or something like that and a Swarovski EL Range TA 8x42.

My binoculars are ok. The LRF Unit in them sucks. I also carry a Leupold 1600 that I paid $150 on a military deal for that is 10 times the LRF the Swarovski has.

They are the NL Glass but EL body, about 2 years old. This is what Swarovski told me. When I got them they were the most expensive LRF binoculars you could buy.

I owned the EL 10x50 Swarovski. For my eyes, these are as good as things have ever been. I have also owned the Victory version of the Zeiss 8x54. Both of these are way better than my current 8x42 EL Range TAs.

I don't know that you could do better than the Zeiss V8, the Swarovski Z8 is a similar product.

But really any decent 8x56 will out class any rifle scope.

"But really any decent 8x56 will out class any rifle scope."
I think you are right. I may have stumbled upon WHY in an article over on "Cloudy Nights" astronomy site. They said that two eyed vision automatically results in 40% more contrast in the view. I just know it is what it is, but wondered if any scope was so advanced that it might have closed the gap.

I also read, over on "Snipers Hide" a quote: "rifle scopes are an aiming device, not an observational device."

 

[greyfox]

I use Leupold BX-4 Binos and VX-III Scopes. Never seen a difference in that, If I can see it with Binos, I can shoot it with scope.