Hi everyone,
Through some crazy sales, coupons and other financial chicanery I managed to get some nice optics over the last couple years. I thought I'd provide my thoughts on how they compare. A few caveats up front. My use case --thus far-- is deer hunting, under 200 yards. Not doing long range shooting or dangerous game or knocking the scopes around a truck. I am comparing these scopes primarily on image quality (whatever that means) and a few practical attributes as they relate to sighting in and field use. As always, these things are very subjective. I am not a professional, just someone who's spent a lot of time behind a scope trying to lay down some deer.
If this helps any fellow over thinkers, hoarders or second-guessers, I've done some good! Feel free to ask me any questions or correct me if I have any terms wrong.
The models:
Zeiss Victory HT 2.5-10x50 #60 illuminated reticle (illuminated pin prick in the middle of a German 4A)
Schmidt and Bender Polar T96 2.5-10x50 L7 FFP illuminated (illuminated "+" in the middle of a German 4A)
Meopta R2 2-12x50 4C illuminated reticle (round dot in the middle of a German 4A)
All of these scopes are terrific and everything below is absolutely splitting hairs. There were some interesting discoveries, though.
In no particular order, and don't draw any conclusions from any single attribute:
Color
By color I mean color palette and how the scopes pass various parts of the spectrum.
Victory HT: Cooler image, passes more blues.
Polar T96: wonderfully vivid, very full spectrum. Seems well balanced
R2: A warmer image, reds were brighter.
Brightness
Victory HT and Polar T96 both are amazingly bright, breathtakingly clear and bright. I want to say the S&B is very slightly the winner. About 10 minutes after dusk I could still make out faint colors maybe a minute or two longer than the Victory HT. The R2 doesn't hang on as long, but easily gets through last legal light so does it even matter?
When looking at areas with shadows during the daylight, the shadows were just a bit darker with the R2, and lighter with the other two. The R2 seems to be a higher contrast scope which I'll get to in a second.
Resolution and Contrast
I am discussing these two together because this is where I think each manufacturer had to make their choices/compromises. It's also true that different situations will expose different strengths and weaknesses. There are no absolute bests all the time (yet!).
Victory HT: The Zeiss seems to be toward the resolution end. The color rendition is so subtle, I see every shade, every hue. If there is moss on a rooftop I see the bright green high growth spots, the gentle green/grays of the newer patches, and everything in between. It's not as contrasty as the other two, but the sharpness and detail are terrific. Looking at wooden fence posts 50 yards away I see every shade of brown in the wood grain. It's a softer image but it's all there.
R2: The R2 is insanely sharp and high contrast. This is where the R2 shines, the crispness of the image is superlative. There is less subtlety to the image, I don't see all the infinite shades and hues, but the image pops and the eye is quickly drawn to the standout details. Looking at the fence posts the grain is super sharp and the darker lines stand out more than on the Zeiss.
Polar T96: The S&B can best be described as in the middle. It seems to split the difference between high detail sharpness and color fidelity.
"Aliveness"
This is my term for how alive the image appears to be, and is related to resolution and contrast. How well do you see movements through the scope, does the image seem to be fluid and three dimensional or projected onto a flat surface? Are you seeing what there is to see?
Victory HT: This is my benchmark for aliveness. Rustling leaves, individual blades of grass swaying in a breeze, a single leaf of ivy waiving on a tree. The swish of a white tail along a tree line. The Zeiss just sends it as if you were looking with your own eye. It's amazing to watch.
Polar T96: Very similar. The color reproduction is fantastic and is clearly the top priority for this product. Just a tiny bit more contrast makes the colors vivid but sacrifices just a hair of movement. I mean a hair, maybe I'm just making it up in my mind.
R2: The high contrast of the image makes it a stiller, flatter image. I almost hate to say it, there's nothing "wrong" with this image at all, this only shows up when comparing it to the titans of the industry. For some folks the higher contrast may be desirable. The Zeiss definitely has a softer image.
"Image Size"
I don't know the technical term for this, but this is how big the image looks through the eye piece.
Victory HT: The image is huge, the eyepiece disappears when you get behind it. Really no black border at all. It almost gives another 10% or 20% zoom level compared to the others.
R2: Pronounced black border around the image that is ever-present. That said, it doesn't affect function (afaik) and it's only so apparent when comparing it, quite unfairly, to scopes that cost 2X.
Polar T96: Again, in the middle. A thin black border that is clearly present.
Eye box
The Victory HT was the least sensitive to eye positioning, the R2 was the most, and the S&B was in the middle. No issues with eye relief distance on any of them.
Chromatic abberation
I would say the S&B controlled CA the best, there was almost none even when looking at high contrast things like white window shutters against a slate gray house. The R2 was excellent in this regard as well. The Victory HT seems to be just a bit more sensitive to eye positioning when it comes to inducing CA.
Reticle/Illumination
I like the German 4A reticle because it's simple, doesn't confuse me and doesn't obscure the top of the animal. Each of these scopes has a different illuminated reticle and all will work just fine.
Victory HT: The illumination is best described as a tiny pin prick of light in the dead center of the cross hairs. It is totally invisible when not on, and I believe the subtension of the light is 0.6cm at 100m on 10x or 12x zoom. The illumination range seems infinitely variable, via a control wheel, from day light bright to can't see it even in the dead of night. It must be a digital control because the scope doesn't care about the position of the dial. Just turn one way for brighter and the other way for dimmer.
R2: The 4C is a circle dot in the middle of the crosshairs. I was concerned that it might appear "big", but it really is quite small and when zoomed up becomes no issue at all. I think it's 2MOA at 4X, so obviously smaller with higher zoom. It is a VERY clear dot with no flaring whatsoever. It goes from pretty dim in the twilight to mostly daylight bright. Starts to wash out a bit in the bright sun, but that's ok-- it's not meant to be an Aimpoint. I like this reticle, it's light weight, crisp and easy to see. I'll enjoy hunting with it. As a note, this is a digital control as well. Even though the dial range is fixed, the mapping gets changed if you don't have the dial on "8" when you change the battery.
Polar T96: Let me say that I ended up with the L7 FFP reticle because that's what was on crazy sale. I have no need for a FFP and I was hoping that I didn't make a mistake. So far, I think it will be just dandy. I kinda like the "+" sign in the middle of the cross hairs. The lines are super thin and light at 2.5X and, even when zoomed up, are still light enough to not obstruct the view. Of course the lines are super sharp. The plus sign illuminates without any bleed or flare. The only downside is that the illumination is not daylight bright at all. Not surprising, I guess, for a scope that markets itself as a twilight/night hunter. The range is from completely dim in the dusk to "I can barely see it in the day light."
Build Quality and Controls
All three are high quality. Turrets are crisp.
Victory HT: Graceful lines, refined look. Magnification dial is stiff. Diopter is smooth and easy to turn.
Polar T96: Built like a tank, all metal, no rubber. Magnification dial is stiff. A little hard to turn the diopter dial since it's metal, but whatever.
R2: Very nice, magnification dial is smooth and easier to turn, as is the diopter.
Dimensions/Weight
They are all within 4.5 oz of each other.
Victory HT: The shortest and lightest among them.
R2: Longest
Polar T96: heaviest
General impressions
Victory HT: This scope is so damn easy to get behind, so easy on the eye. It's just effortless to look through it and focus on different things. I have not been able to look through a Victory V6 or V8, and I know on paper that the HT still has higher light transmission, but it's easy for me to see why the HT is still sold and still commands high prices. It is the lightest and most compact with the most capable illumination.
Polar T96: The image color and brightness are just off the charts. Given that is the stated purpose of the scope, I think it's achieved that spectacularly. Not quite as effortless to look through as the Zeiss, but a gorgeous picture with rich, vivid colors. I eagerly await taking this scope in the field.
R2: This is a thoroughly impressive scope that can be had for close to $1,000 depending on what sales are on. The sharpness is marvelous, I could read the small writing carved onto a stone monument about 80 yards away. The glass is beautiful, the scope well built, and the illumination capable. I'll happily field this one as well.
Just as another point of comparison for the R2, I would rate it better than anything else I've seen aside from the Victory and Polar. From Burris to Leupold VX-6 to Nikon Monarch to Bushnell 6500, Vortex Razor HD, etc. NOT saying it beats every product from those manufacturers, just the ones I've looked through.
I'd be curious to know how a Leica Magnus, Swaro Z6 or Minox E5.2 would compare, but I think this is the end of the road for my wallet. Plus, I'm guessing that they all have to make certain compromises and choices and they just do them differently. As we always say, there's only so dead a deer can be!
-Stooxie
Through some crazy sales, coupons and other financial chicanery I managed to get some nice optics over the last couple years. I thought I'd provide my thoughts on how they compare. A few caveats up front. My use case --thus far-- is deer hunting, under 200 yards. Not doing long range shooting or dangerous game or knocking the scopes around a truck. I am comparing these scopes primarily on image quality (whatever that means) and a few practical attributes as they relate to sighting in and field use. As always, these things are very subjective. I am not a professional, just someone who's spent a lot of time behind a scope trying to lay down some deer.
If this helps any fellow over thinkers, hoarders or second-guessers, I've done some good! Feel free to ask me any questions or correct me if I have any terms wrong.
The models:
Zeiss Victory HT 2.5-10x50 #60 illuminated reticle (illuminated pin prick in the middle of a German 4A)
Schmidt and Bender Polar T96 2.5-10x50 L7 FFP illuminated (illuminated "+" in the middle of a German 4A)
Meopta R2 2-12x50 4C illuminated reticle (round dot in the middle of a German 4A)
All of these scopes are terrific and everything below is absolutely splitting hairs. There were some interesting discoveries, though.
In no particular order, and don't draw any conclusions from any single attribute:
Color
By color I mean color palette and how the scopes pass various parts of the spectrum.
Victory HT: Cooler image, passes more blues.
Polar T96: wonderfully vivid, very full spectrum. Seems well balanced
R2: A warmer image, reds were brighter.
Brightness
Victory HT and Polar T96 both are amazingly bright, breathtakingly clear and bright. I want to say the S&B is very slightly the winner. About 10 minutes after dusk I could still make out faint colors maybe a minute or two longer than the Victory HT. The R2 doesn't hang on as long, but easily gets through last legal light so does it even matter?
When looking at areas with shadows during the daylight, the shadows were just a bit darker with the R2, and lighter with the other two. The R2 seems to be a higher contrast scope which I'll get to in a second.
Resolution and Contrast
I am discussing these two together because this is where I think each manufacturer had to make their choices/compromises. It's also true that different situations will expose different strengths and weaknesses. There are no absolute bests all the time (yet!).
Victory HT: The Zeiss seems to be toward the resolution end. The color rendition is so subtle, I see every shade, every hue. If there is moss on a rooftop I see the bright green high growth spots, the gentle green/grays of the newer patches, and everything in between. It's not as contrasty as the other two, but the sharpness and detail are terrific. Looking at wooden fence posts 50 yards away I see every shade of brown in the wood grain. It's a softer image but it's all there.
R2: The R2 is insanely sharp and high contrast. This is where the R2 shines, the crispness of the image is superlative. There is less subtlety to the image, I don't see all the infinite shades and hues, but the image pops and the eye is quickly drawn to the standout details. Looking at the fence posts the grain is super sharp and the darker lines stand out more than on the Zeiss.
Polar T96: The S&B can best be described as in the middle. It seems to split the difference between high detail sharpness and color fidelity.
"Aliveness"
This is my term for how alive the image appears to be, and is related to resolution and contrast. How well do you see movements through the scope, does the image seem to be fluid and three dimensional or projected onto a flat surface? Are you seeing what there is to see?
Victory HT: This is my benchmark for aliveness. Rustling leaves, individual blades of grass swaying in a breeze, a single leaf of ivy waiving on a tree. The swish of a white tail along a tree line. The Zeiss just sends it as if you were looking with your own eye. It's amazing to watch.
Polar T96: Very similar. The color reproduction is fantastic and is clearly the top priority for this product. Just a tiny bit more contrast makes the colors vivid but sacrifices just a hair of movement. I mean a hair, maybe I'm just making it up in my mind.
R2: The high contrast of the image makes it a stiller, flatter image. I almost hate to say it, there's nothing "wrong" with this image at all, this only shows up when comparing it to the titans of the industry. For some folks the higher contrast may be desirable. The Zeiss definitely has a softer image.
"Image Size"
I don't know the technical term for this, but this is how big the image looks through the eye piece.
Victory HT: The image is huge, the eyepiece disappears when you get behind it. Really no black border at all. It almost gives another 10% or 20% zoom level compared to the others.
R2: Pronounced black border around the image that is ever-present. That said, it doesn't affect function (afaik) and it's only so apparent when comparing it, quite unfairly, to scopes that cost 2X.
Polar T96: Again, in the middle. A thin black border that is clearly present.
Eye box
The Victory HT was the least sensitive to eye positioning, the R2 was the most, and the S&B was in the middle. No issues with eye relief distance on any of them.
Chromatic abberation
I would say the S&B controlled CA the best, there was almost none even when looking at high contrast things like white window shutters against a slate gray house. The R2 was excellent in this regard as well. The Victory HT seems to be just a bit more sensitive to eye positioning when it comes to inducing CA.
Reticle/Illumination
I like the German 4A reticle because it's simple, doesn't confuse me and doesn't obscure the top of the animal. Each of these scopes has a different illuminated reticle and all will work just fine.
Victory HT: The illumination is best described as a tiny pin prick of light in the dead center of the cross hairs. It is totally invisible when not on, and I believe the subtension of the light is 0.6cm at 100m on 10x or 12x zoom. The illumination range seems infinitely variable, via a control wheel, from day light bright to can't see it even in the dead of night. It must be a digital control because the scope doesn't care about the position of the dial. Just turn one way for brighter and the other way for dimmer.
R2: The 4C is a circle dot in the middle of the crosshairs. I was concerned that it might appear "big", but it really is quite small and when zoomed up becomes no issue at all. I think it's 2MOA at 4X, so obviously smaller with higher zoom. It is a VERY clear dot with no flaring whatsoever. It goes from pretty dim in the twilight to mostly daylight bright. Starts to wash out a bit in the bright sun, but that's ok-- it's not meant to be an Aimpoint. I like this reticle, it's light weight, crisp and easy to see. I'll enjoy hunting with it. As a note, this is a digital control as well. Even though the dial range is fixed, the mapping gets changed if you don't have the dial on "8" when you change the battery.
Polar T96: Let me say that I ended up with the L7 FFP reticle because that's what was on crazy sale. I have no need for a FFP and I was hoping that I didn't make a mistake. So far, I think it will be just dandy. I kinda like the "+" sign in the middle of the cross hairs. The lines are super thin and light at 2.5X and, even when zoomed up, are still light enough to not obstruct the view. Of course the lines are super sharp. The plus sign illuminates without any bleed or flare. The only downside is that the illumination is not daylight bright at all. Not surprising, I guess, for a scope that markets itself as a twilight/night hunter. The range is from completely dim in the dusk to "I can barely see it in the day light."
Build Quality and Controls
All three are high quality. Turrets are crisp.
Victory HT: Graceful lines, refined look. Magnification dial is stiff. Diopter is smooth and easy to turn.
Polar T96: Built like a tank, all metal, no rubber. Magnification dial is stiff. A little hard to turn the diopter dial since it's metal, but whatever.
R2: Very nice, magnification dial is smooth and easier to turn, as is the diopter.
Dimensions/Weight
They are all within 4.5 oz of each other.
Victory HT: The shortest and lightest among them.
R2: Longest
Polar T96: heaviest
General impressions
Victory HT: This scope is so damn easy to get behind, so easy on the eye. It's just effortless to look through it and focus on different things. I have not been able to look through a Victory V6 or V8, and I know on paper that the HT still has higher light transmission, but it's easy for me to see why the HT is still sold and still commands high prices. It is the lightest and most compact with the most capable illumination.
Polar T96: The image color and brightness are just off the charts. Given that is the stated purpose of the scope, I think it's achieved that spectacularly. Not quite as effortless to look through as the Zeiss, but a gorgeous picture with rich, vivid colors. I eagerly await taking this scope in the field.
R2: This is a thoroughly impressive scope that can be had for close to $1,000 depending on what sales are on. The sharpness is marvelous, I could read the small writing carved onto a stone monument about 80 yards away. The glass is beautiful, the scope well built, and the illumination capable. I'll happily field this one as well.
Just as another point of comparison for the R2, I would rate it better than anything else I've seen aside from the Victory and Polar. From Burris to Leupold VX-6 to Nikon Monarch to Bushnell 6500, Vortex Razor HD, etc. NOT saying it beats every product from those manufacturers, just the ones I've looked through.
I'd be curious to know how a Leica Magnus, Swaro Z6 or Minox E5.2 would compare, but I think this is the end of the road for my wallet. Plus, I'm guessing that they all have to make certain compromises and choices and they just do them differently. As we always say, there's only so dead a deer can be!
-Stooxie
Last edited:
