Re: Zeiss victory Diascope 85 vs Swarovski
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunsmithcat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gents,
Finally saved up enough to get a good spotting scope. Narrowed it down to swarovsksi (couple friends have one, glass is damn near amazing) but I just found that I can get a decent discount on zeiss, so now im considering the Victory Diascope 85s.
Anyone happen to have both or have experience with both? Price point comes out damn near the same, so trying to decide whats the better buy.
Thanks </div></div>
I've looked through Swarovski 80s' (both HD and non-HD) as well as Diascope 85T FLs' before, but I haven't looked through them <span style="font-style: italic">side by side</span> which is where optical differences and impressions are usually most memorable and apparent because all of the environmental conditions are the same and you can view the same objects and landscape in real time, <span style="font-style: italic">"comparing apples to apples"</span>. I've also looked through Swarovski 65s' (both HD and non-HD) and Diascope 65T FLs', and have seen firsthand that while Swarovski and Zeiss both make wonderfully bright spotting scopes with awesome clarity, the images from the two respective companie's products appear different.
My experience is almost entirely with the previous-generation (non-rubber-coated) "straight" and "angled" Diascope 65T FL and Diascope 85T FLs' and "straight" and "angled" Swarovski 65mm and 80mm scopes. Although both use Fluoride/Fluorite lens elements, in my experience Diascopes' tend to present images that are more neutral ("cooler") in tone and somewhat "washed-out" when compared to the Swarovski HDs'. Bird-watching web site reviews have written and I agree that the color rendition of the Swarovskis' tends to be more "true to life". The same is true of the color rendition of the Optolyth (the Optolyth's color rendition is more "true-to-life" than the Zeiss).
Also, the focus adjustments are also very different between Zeiss and Swarovski. Since you have friends with Swarovskis' you know that Swarovski spotters have a <span style="font-style: italic">helical focus ring</span> that emcompasses the circumference of the scope body, while [Zeiss] Diascopes' use more conventional <span style="font-style: italic">top-mounted focus knob(s)</span>. Some people like Swarovski's helical focus, while others prefer the Zeiss's conventional focus knob(s). Note that last year Zeiss switched over to a single "Dual Ratio" Focus Knob, replacing the Diascope's original dual focus knobs (Coarse Focus and Fine Focus) that the Diascopes' used to have.
Lastly, if you are <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">at all interested in getting an Eyepiece with a MIL reticle</span></span>, I highly recommend that you read my <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"
Optolyth S80 HD Compact Spotting Scope"</span></span> thread. The Optolyth HD Compacts use Fluorite lens elements and deliver outstanding optical performance in addition to having MIL Reticle Eyepiece options. And AFAIK, Optolyth Eyepieces are the only Eyepieces that feature a <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">rotating</span></span> reticle. Highly-desirable for any reticle-equipped Eyepiece, but indispensible anytime a spotting scope is turned away from the 12:00 position.
What is so great about a reticle that can be rotated independently of the Eyepiece? Normally, when an Eyepiece with a reticle is used on a spotting scope the scope must be positioned within it's mount and/or collar in manner that allows the reticle to still be oriented "square" with the target, allowing the target to be measured accurately and to allow accurate correction calls by an individual "spotting" for a shooter. Without the ability to compensate for a spotting scope's cant when placed on uneven ground and/or when the scope is rotated within it's collar, the reticle will often be skewed in relation to the target area.
However, if the reticle can be rotated within the Eyepiece itself (such as with the Optolyth MIL Eyepieces), the reticle can always be oriented to be square in relation to the target and/or landscape. This is highly desirable on a "straight" spotting scope, but indispensable for an angled spotting scope because the Eyepiece is at a 45-degree angle in relation to the Scope Body. The selection of spotting scopes that are available with reticles isn't very big, the shortcoming of non-rotating reticles is most often overlooked. However, once you set up the spotter and rotate it off of a 12:00 orientation the advantage of a rotating reticle becomes very apparent.
So you can see that in addition to personal preference in the way images are presented to the eye, the ergoomics of a scope's focus control ergonomics also come into play when it comes to determining what <span style="font-style: italic">you</span> should buy. I suggest that you invest the time to drive an optics dealer who carries Zeiss, Swarovski, and Kowa's flagshhip 88mm Fluorite Lens Prominar (as well as the Optolyth HD Compacts) or befriend some birdwatchers who'll let you check-out their scopes before you purchase. Keep in mind that Optolyth isn't very well-known in the U.S. so you there may not be any Optolyth HD Compacts - <span style="font-style: italic">or any Optolyths at all</span>, to look through.
However, if you're looking at Swarovski, Zeiss, and Kowa you should also be looking at Optolyth. The best spotting scopes are expensive, and it's well worth one's time to research prospective scopes as throroughly as possible before plunking down that hard-earned cash. Sure, if you aren't happy with what you buy you can always sell it and but something else, but isn't it better to do your homework and get the right equipment the first time?
Keith
