Awesome write-up Hammer! You write like I talk, when talking to guys about optics, as I have become an optics 'snob' also. I was lucky enough to be stationed in Germany when the mark-dollar exchange rate was very good. I came back from Germany with no less than 2 sets of Leica bino's and 3-4 Ziess Diavari VM rifle scopes, which awere their extreme top end scopes. The Leica brand glass is my absolute favorite due to their usability with eyeglasses, they have twist down eye cups that make viewing with eyeglasses nearly as good as someone without them. I have a set of the pocket compacts and the Geovid ranging in 10x42.
Many years ago I swore by Leupold and Burris's top of the line optics, but one hunting season in Germany opened my eyes to the much superior optics with the European glass. The hunting at night was the real wake up for how quality glass gathers light much better than the typical US brand scope.

Hammer.....I am damned impressed. I have read several " professional" reviews on binocs ( most read as if the writer was an employee of a particular company) and while you sound that way too in some spots due to your appreciation of the glass you own, I have got figure out how to save that treatise for reference, as I need new glass for my pack. I have been carrying a set of small Nikons for years in my flight bag, and they always get in my day pack for hunting or hiking.

fabricman wrote:Hammer.....I am damned impressed. I have read several " professional" reviews on binocs ( most read as if the writer was an employee of a particular company) and while you sound that way too in some spots due to your appreciation of the glass you own, I have got figure out how to save that treatise for reference, as I need new glass for my pack. I have been carrying a set of small Nikons for years in my flight bag, and they always get in my day pack for hunting or hiking.

Thanks fabricman. When it comes to Swarovski I have definitely drunk the kool aid, but I also appreciate that there are other binoculars out there that will work better for different people. I feel sorry for those people for sure, but I accept they exist...

fabricman wrote:... Nikons for years in my flight bag, and they always get in my day pack for hunting or hiking.

I have a set of Nikons that are 20 +/- years old. They are 10x50's. Between the larger objective, and the fact that they are Porro prism, they absolutely rock. These would get my vote for 'best bang for the buck' binos, and unless a person spends a boat load of time behind top tier binos really putting them through the paces, the difference is going to be hard to appreciate. The difference is there, and if you really need it, well... then you really need it, but these are darned close.

A1Skinner wrote:I really like my Leica binos. I would love to try a Leica rifle scope on my .338 lapua, but am having a hard time justifying one. I do like my Zeiss scopes a lot, just want to try something different I guess.
Great write up hammer.

Leica's are the bomb. If I was in the market for binos with an integral RF, they'd be my pick, unfortunately electronic gear seems to go obsolete amazingly quick, while good binos, seem to be good forever. For now, if I feel the need to lug an RF into the field I bring a stand alone. I would really be interested to hear which Zeiss you are using, and if you don't care to derail the bino thread with scopes you can shoot me a PM. For the 7-08 the goal is light, and since I have always had great experiences with Leupold I am currently looking at a Leupold Ultralight in 3-9x33. However, I am building this rifle up for my daughter, and the extended eye relief of the Zeiss would be welcome, not that a 7-08 packs much wallop, but as light as we're shooting for, I suspect it'll jump enough to try and induce a flinch. To date my only real experience with Zeiss scopes are a couple of older American built Conquest models (one on the Wby in the pic of my daughter). I have heard no good of the newer Asian built Conquest line, and have no interest in trying to debunk the bad press. I *think* the Diavari line WWh speaks of has been replaced with the Victory line, which I have shot a few rounds behind, but at 4-5 times the Leupold in cost, I'm just not sure... and then there is a fair amount of extra weight... WWh... any suggestions for a lightweight?

Rob wrote:

fabricman wrote:... Nikons for years in my flight bag, and they always get in my day pack for hunting or hiking.

I have a set of Nikons that are 20 +/- years old. They are 10x50's. Between the larger objective, and the fact that they are Porro prism, they absolutely rock. These would get my vote for 'best bang for the buck' binos, and unless a person spends a boat load of time behind top tier binos really putting them through the paces, the difference is going to be hard to appreciate. The difference is there, and if you really need it, well... then you really need it, but these are darned close.

A1Skinner wrote:I really like my Leica binos. I would love to try a Leica rifle scope on my .338 lapua, but am having a hard time justifying one. I do like my Zeiss scopes a lot, just want to try something different I guess.
Great write up hammer.

Leica's are the bomb. If I was in the market for binos with an integral RF, they'd be my pick, unfortunately electronic gear seems to go obsolete amazingly quick, while good binos, seem to be good forever. For now, if I feel the need to lug an RF into the field I bring a stand alone. I would really be interested to hear which Zeiss you are using, and if you don't care to derail the bino thread with scopes you can shoot me a PM. For the 7-08 the goal is light, and since I have always had great experiences with Leupold I am currently looking at a Leupold Ultralight in 3-9x33. However, I am building this rifle up for my daughter, and the extended eye relief of the Zeiss would be welcome, not that a 7-08 packs much wallop, but as light as we're shooting for, I suspect it'll jump enough to try and induce a flinch. To date my only real experience with Zeiss scopes are a couple of older American built Conquest models (one on the Wby in the pic of my daughter). I have heard no good of the newer Asian built Conquest line, and have no interest in trying to debunk the bad press. I *think* the Diavari line WWh speaks of has been replaced with the Victory line, which I have shot a few rounds behind, but at 4-5 times the Leupold in cost, I'm just not sure... and then there is a fair amount of extra weight... WWh... any suggestions for a lightweight?

Hey Rob. I don't have the RF Leica, just the straight binos. I like the integral rfs too, but I love the straights. Less weight and complexity.
I have a Conquest scope. 6.5-20 on my 243. It's awesome. Great quality and shoots great. I like the long eye relief as well, and am thinking I'll definitely need it on my .338 Lapua. That and I doubt my crappy Vortex viper will handle the recoil. I can't stand that scope...

OK, besides myself, how many others here routinely, like always, fly with "glass"? I remember a passenger first suggesting it to me, a non pilot so I blew the idea off as naive. Then I tried it, since then they are a gotta have, for me any. I am probably the only crane operator who keeps a pair handy there also, not for looking at the load but at other stuff while on a job with lots of downtime.

Smooth air use is a given, and a slow plane helps also, most of my usage is at 500 too 1000' with one notch of flaps so about 50 mph more or less. they often are still too jittery, but also they are often a huge aid for figuring out what's what down below. Fun too, cruising over some small town in the middle of nowhere it's like you're at 50' and you can really snoop around with no one the wiser!

One regrettable use I have put them to is one particular contractor who had owed me well over $3,000.00 for some time (almost a year) knew that he couldn't call me for crane work as he was so far arrears, so he calls a competing crane outfit. Now if he pays that competitor instead of paying down what he owes me, I have a real problem with that So, I have flown over, well off to the side (this contractor knows I fly etc., the Swiss Muffler comes in handy here) and scoped out the job site, and was able to see which crane company he was using. As I was on friendly terms with this outfit i was able to find out that they had NOT been paid after the jobs completion, so at least we were all in the same boat! Eventually the deadbeat ( who I still like and trust, he just got behind) paid up and continues to use me, and I doubt he ever figured out I was doing a little aerial industrial espionage. It didn't hurt that the other crane guy is also a pilot, he got a kick out of it.

I have a Conquest scope. 6.5-20 on my 243. It's awesome. Great quality and shoots great. I like the long eye relief as well, and am thinking I'll definitely need it on my .338 Lapua. That and I doubt my crappy Vortex viper will handle the recoil. I can't stand that scope...

People scoff at spending a couple thousand dollars on glass, but which money was really harder earned...the thousands spent on the Conquest, or the hundreds spent on the Vortex?

Hammer wrote:

I have a Conquest scope. 6.5-20 on my 243. It's awesome. Great quality and shoots great. I like the long eye relief as well, and am thinking I'll definitely need it on my .338 Lapua. That and I doubt my crappy Vortex viper will handle the recoil. I can't stand that scope...

People scoff at spending a couple thousand dollars on glass, but which money was really harder earned...the thousands spent on the Conquest, or the hundreds spent on the Vortex?

The Vortex doesn't even touch the capability of the conquest. And it cost about 3/4 of what the Zeiss did. Needless to say, I'm very dissapointed.

The Vortex doesn't even touch the capability of the conquest. And it cost about 3/4 of what the Zeiss did. Needless to say, I'm very dissapointed.

That's a bummer. I felt a little silly putting a thousand dollar Zeiss Duralite on my AR since I rarely shoot it, and then only for shits'n'grins, but I knew I'd just be endlessly disappointed if I settled for crappy glass. With the money long spent and the checking account back up to normal I have nothing but happy thoughts when I pull the rifle out and look through the scope.

Yesterday I went for a local hike...one I do purely for exercise and which rarely rewards me with anything other than an elevated heart rate and sweaty socks. At the halfway point I pulled out my binoculars and within two minutes I'd found a bear, invisible to the naked eye but quite clear thought the glass. Big old cinnamon bear turning over rocks for snacks. I watched her for ten minutes...really made my day.

I guess I'm a simple person in many ways, but actually finding that bear is infinitely more rewarding to me than just seeing their tracks and knowing they're out there. Maybe it's the hunter in me, even though I'd never shoot a bear for "sport". Hell, I can think of a dozen people I'd shoot for sport and feel better about it than shooting a bear. But hunting animals doesn't mean killing them...that's two separate things in my book.

Anyone who gets the same sort of thrill out of finding game is crazy not to invest in top-shelf glass, and the sooner the better. Conversely, I guess if finding a bear that's too far away to see with the naked eye leaves you wondering what the appeal is, investing in good binoculars is probably a poor financial choice.

hammer whats the deal? you trying to make us all go broke?! first the fire thread then all your comments on the knife thread about now for glasses? oh forgot the tie downs!!! maybe a warning next time do not read if you dont have money to spend?? lol I have a $50 dollar pair of bushnells somewhere I liked them up till now.

A1Skinner wrote:The Vortex doesn't even touch the capability of the conquest. And it cost about 3/4 of what the Zeiss did. Needless to say, I'm very dissapointed.

Can you elaborate? What can you do with the Zeiss that you can't with the Vortex? I've been very happy with my Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP EBR MRAD. It has good elevation travel, though I've only been out to 1000 yards. I just bought a SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 based on good reviews but have yet to try it out.

I admit I won't allow myself to look through any scope that costs more than $1200. Whatever magic exists there will continue to be a mystery.

A1Skinner wrote:The Vortex doesn't even touch the capability of the conquest. And it cost about 3/4 of what the Zeiss did. Needless to say, I'm very dissapointed.

Some bold statements being made here. What are you basing you're comparison on? When you reference 'capability' what do you mean?

TradeCraft wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:The Vortex doesn't even touch the capability of the conquest. And it cost about 3/4 of what the Zeiss did. Needless to say, I'm very dissapointed.

Some bold statements being made here. What are you basing you're comparison on? When you reference 'capability' what do you mean?

I'm basing it on a 2 things. Clarity and light gathering. In both areas the Zeiss is far and above the Vortex. The Zeiss was $1100 and the Vortex $750. The store I bought this from talked me out of the Zeiss the second time as they were really pushing Vortex and claimed the vortex to be equal in everything but cost. I know I shouldn't listen to everything I hear, and it's pretty tough to tell the difference in a bright store. But when you can see a big buck through nice binoculars in lower light and you cant make it out through your scope it's a major tick off. The Zeiss has no problem at night in moonlight. Needless to say, only one rifle gets picked when I think I'll be out later. I need to buy a couple more good scopes. And a 88" prop, and bushwheels, and.... damn priorities. Haha.
I dunno, maybe I got a crappy one, but the low light abilities have been terrible on both the ones I have. I expected it from the cheap one, but not one I paid 750 for. I've looked through a lot of $3-500 scopes that are a lot better.

Davids statement was not bold nor inaccurate (for his intended mission). It is also not surprising that when scopes are used for different purposes or in different fashions people come to differing conclusions. It could have very easily been argued that the Vortex Viper smokes the Conquest in VALUE after all, they are (now) both asian built scopes designed to provide quality approaching the big name European glass at a price point closer to the economy brands / models. Just like everything else, there are three parts to the glass equation, the mission, the product quality, and the user's ability. Misalign any of these three and your results are not going to be the same as someone who didn't.

Davids story (in reverse) is exactly what prompted me to up my game in binoculars. I guess it would have been at least 30 years ago, I hunted with a hand me down Model 70 that was older than I am. That gun wore an even older Wby Imperial scope on it. It was pretty common to have my then hunting partner seeing game I could not pick up with my also hand me down Bushnell 7x35's, but I could easily see with the Wby scope. Since I wasn't about to try and spend my days 'glassing' through a scope, I scrimpt until I could afford my first pair of high end (to me) binoculars. They are Leitz, (now Leica) and still a pretty darned good set to look through. Many years later I moved to southern Arizona where I picked up the Coues bug. I managed my way to a couple decent examples, but it seemed like I was always finding these darn things out at 800 yds and already looking at me. At that time I had an employee who I was aware was a hunter. This guy wears the proverbial 'coke bottle thick' glasses. He was also a pretty simple guy, never caring for anything flashy or expensive. I knew he was a good hunter, but always kinda figured really hardcore glassing was probably not his cup of tea... until one day we paired up on a Coues hunt. He was the person who introduced me to glassing from a tripod. With his Kmart tripod, and Bushnell 10x50's he could easily pick up the little grey ghosts at a mile or better and would continuously point out game at two or three times the rate I could find... I simply couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that those Bushnells were smoking my higher end European glass... Gerry being a 'matter of factly' kind of guy pointed out it wasn't the glass, although no one in their right mind should be spending that much on binos, it was the way I was using them... The tripod being the most obvious, but the most important piece was that I was looking for deer, while Gerry was looking for deer parts. An ear, that looked like a prickly pear leaf to the untrained eye, or an antler tine that poked out of an old cat claw or scrub oak... Starting at one end of the horizon, and panning at a given elevation, never raising or lowering the elevation until that scan had been thoroughly dissected. Then slowly and methodically working his way up (or down) the landscape until he ran out of ground to look at. He never just jumped from one region to the next without methodically clearing everything in between them.

Anyways... alot of years, and many deer later, I can now almost keep up with Gerry... He still won't touch the European stuff.. although once on a juniors pig hunt where he and my dad had tagged along to help my son onto his first javelina he did drop and knock his glasses out of alignment. Sitting behind a set of my Swaro's he then began picking out pigs at just under 2 miles. This was my dads first introduction to Gerr, and while talking us through to the first pigs location, my dad piped up something like 'that ridge is probably 2 miles out' followed by .... something to the tune of "this guy's full of sh!t" (never been very PC, and definitely not one to sugar cote). thinking I could almost make out what Gerr was seeing I suggested we hike down to wear we left the Jeep and work our way around the ridgeline to get to a location we could stalk into a shooting range of what Gerr was seeing. A half hour later we were over looking the pigs and after sitting on a patch of Cholla, my son collected himself and took his first pig. My son remembers fondly the hunt, and all my efforts of trying to keep Gerry and my pops from going at it on the first ridge. My pops fondly remembers it as his first hunt (of many,many more) with Gerry, and only now admits 'that kid has the best glassing eyes I've ever seen'. And Gerry disdainfully remembers it as the day he picked up a set of glasses he really didn't want to have to learn to afford

AT the end of this long story, my take away is that there are a lot of things we run into that may or may not seem better than something else in our hands / minds... but that doesn't mean it's really not better...

Take care, Rob

The store I bought this from talked me out of the Zeiss the second time as they were really pushing Vortex and claimed the vortex to be equal in everything but cost.

Sometimes the less expensive items actually have a higher mark-up from the store. A friend of mine owns a gun shop and said he would make more money per unit selling Taurus handguns even though they were the least expensive handgun offered. Sort of counterintuitive.

And there are bonuses based on sales goals of course, and sometimes sales people just believe what the reps tell them, even if there isn't anything in it for them financially.

I've found things where "equal in everything but cost" applied, but never in optics of any type.

A1Skinner wrote:I'm basing it on a 2 things. Clarity and light gathering. In both areas the Zeiss is far and above the Vortex.

I think it's important to know how one is going to use their riflescope, and in this case it sounds like low light conditions and clarity of the glass at those low light conditions are your major criteria for performance. I can respect that, though I choose to dump my glass money mostly on camera lenses and a little less on scopes. I haven't tried the Conquest (which model?) so I can only speak to what I have found to be my performance metrics on the Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP MRAD. I honestly have not shot in light conditions low enough to be able to make the distinction.

The MRAD reticles on the FFP are great for ranging. One of the things I enjoy most about long range shooting is the calculation of the shot, and ranging with a Mildot or MRAD reticle (or any of the derivatives) is super useful. The Conquest appears to have a drop-compensating reticle specific to a few popular calibers. The FFP reticle is nice because you can range accurately at all magnifications vs SFP reticles that require a specific magnification value, often marked on the zoom ring, to be accurate.

I only hunt imaginary bad guys cut from AR500 steel and painted white, but at real distance they can be hard to pick out. For that reason one of my new scope criteria is a zoom ring that is quickly and easily adjusted. Zoom out, get on target, zoom back in.

Sorry for the derailment, back to the binoculars for perverts discussion... I'm just excited that we have as many learned glass aficionados as we do.

Yeah, different strokes I suppose. I've never had any issues with the Viper scopes not gathering enough light. Where they certainly excel and exceed the Conquest is in Tracking. That's all topic for another discussion. This thread is about high quality glass; Apologies for drifting off subject!

Sorry for the derailment, back to the binoculars for perverts discussion

This is actually the "not just for perverts" discussion. The "for perverts" discussion is at nambla.org...same discussion, different people (I hope).

An easy way to compare the relative brightness of two different binoculars (or scopes) is to hold them at arms length while facing a uniform light source such as a blank wall or indirectly lit window, and just look at the light dots that float around on the eyepieces. The size and intensity of the dots will show you straight away which set is brighter.

Brightness and the ability to discern things in low light are not 1:1...there's also clarity and how the lens coatings affect what you see...a very bright pair of low-quality binoculars might give you a ripping bright dot but not a very good image. But assuming both test sets are of equal quality, the brighter pair will work better in low light.

I had the chance to look through a pair of Swarovski binoculars a couple of weeks ago 8x42's and they were great; however, $2k for a pair of binocs was a bit much.

After some looking I popped for a pair of Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 binocs. They may not be as good as the Swarovski's but are pretty damned good and saved over 300 gallons of av gas.

TD

Re-read Rob's last post......many people "look", but very few "see". Good glass helps, but it's no substitute for being a good "observer".

MTV