ziess victory rangefinder
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
Moderator
Administrator
We've been testing a unit vs. a Swaro Laser Guide. The Zeiss is very good. It out-performed the Swaro on small and 'soft' targets beyond 500m, sufficiently that we asked Swarovski to provide another unit to make sure both units were working 100%.
The zeiss has a very very nice optic, the reticle is much brighter than the Swaro and it ranges very fast.
We've asked Leica for the latest CRF 1200 to test all three side by side.
The zeiss has a very very nice optic, the reticle is much brighter than the Swaro and it ranges very fast.
We've asked Leica for the latest CRF 1200 to test all three side by side.
I recently purchased the Zeiss PRF and have been very please with the testing I have done. I will have an opportunity to test side-by-side with a new,6 mos old) Leica 1200 tomorrow evening and I will try to post results.
So far I have been able to consistently range mature wheat at 1479 yds, deer at 850 yds, sagebrush at 1150-1200 yds. I haven't seen deer past 850...yet.
The optics are superb, bright readable reticle even in mid-day sun, fast ranging, comfortable feel. I actually like the horizontal configuration. It makes for a more solid platform to rest the unit when ranging distant objects. One feature that is missing from this unit,and the Leica for that matter) is the ability to mount on a tripod. The Nikon and the Swaro both have this ability.
My gunsmith friend looked through the Swaro and the Zeiss and almost instantly preferred the Zeiss reticle. When he tested them outside of the store, he was not impressed with how finicky the Swaro was in order to see the reticle clearly. He also noticed that the Swaro reticle washed out in bright sun.
So far I have been able to consistently range mature wheat at 1479 yds, deer at 850 yds, sagebrush at 1150-1200 yds. I haven't seen deer past 850...yet.
The optics are superb, bright readable reticle even in mid-day sun, fast ranging, comfortable feel. I actually like the horizontal configuration. It makes for a more solid platform to rest the unit when ranging distant objects. One feature that is missing from this unit,and the Leica for that matter) is the ability to mount on a tripod. The Nikon and the Swaro both have this ability.
My gunsmith friend looked through the Swaro and the Zeiss and almost instantly preferred the Zeiss reticle. When he tested them outside of the store, he was not impressed with how finicky the Swaro was in order to see the reticle clearly. He also noticed that the Swaro reticle washed out in bright sun.
For hunting purposes rangefinders with small exit pupils are practically useless, 8x26 gives a 3.07 exit pupil which is practically useless for hunting). Most big game animals move in relatively low light. So in my opinion as long as they are only used for varmiting,target etc they are fine but for big game hunting forget it. That is why I bought the 8x56 leica geovid.Now these things are bright and awesome.Try all the rangefinders in lowlight and you will discover very quickly why I got rid of the rest.
Took the Zeiss on a deer survey last night. We started 1 hr before sunset and finished 30 min after sunset. We saw many deer, but all were under 500 yds or well past 1400 yds. About 15 min before quitting time I finally found some deer that were in between those ranges. Multiple standard click measurements and scan mode measurements confirmed 3 deer, 2 at 996 yds and 1 at 998 yds. My buddy unfortunately forgot his Leica CRF 1200, so we'll have to do a side-by-side comparison another time. I think I'll keep the Zeiss.
Forum Boss
Administrator
canuck said:
A 3.07 Exit pupil is actually not bad. Not ideal, but not bad -- about the same as a 13 power scope with 40mm objective. The max human eye pupil size ranges from 5-9mm in complete darkness. at the peak age of 15, the dark-adapted pupil can vary from 5 mm to 9 mm with different individuals. After 25 years of age the average pupil size steadily decreases. Also, you can't just look at exit pupil size. You also have to consider resolution, contrast, and light transmission % of the lens. The Zeiss has the best resolution and contrast of any monocular LRF I've looked through. As for light transmission %, you have to compare factory specs. Zeiss is up near the top.
Having used the Zeiss in low evening light I would vehemently disagree with the notion that it is 'practically useless' for hunting. It is WAY, WAY brighter than a domestic LRF we had for comparison purposes. I won't knock the Leica Geovid, of course -- it IS superior in fading light. Geovids offer excellent low light performance. And the binocular design is inherently better for low light.
But my point is that you can NOT judge the Zeiss or SWARO until you have looked through them because the lenses transmit more light than most other monocular units with similar specs. If you look through a $350.00 Leupold and then the Zeiss you will be amazed.
Physics and math don't lie.
Zeiss PRF will have a total of:
7.4 square milimeters to transmit light.
Leica 8x56 geovids have a total of:
38.46 square milimeters to transmit light.
The Leica transmits more than 5 TIMES the amount of light the zeiss will.That my friend is a whopper of a difference in light gathering ability!!!!
Anything with a 3mm exit pupil no matter how good the glass is useless at last light.I don't care what name is on it.
I stand by my statements and have used most of them. Most of them are ALMOST USELESS for big game hunting.
Still doubt me? I urge anyone, WHO HAS NO VESTED INTEREST) reading this to simply try them at last light when you often get a chance at a monster whitetail.Take the Leica 8x56 geovid and compare it to any leica,zeiss,swarovski etc that only has a 3mm exit pupil. I know from experience. I had to pass up several absolute trophies over several years of archery hunting.I could see the huge bucks easy with the naked eye but couldn't see squat out of the rangefinder to get a reading. After this happening several times and trying different rangefinders I finally wised up and bought the Leica 8x56 geovids.Now the problem is solved finally.
Zeiss PRF will have a total of:
7.4 square milimeters to transmit light.
Leica 8x56 geovids have a total of:
38.46 square milimeters to transmit light.
The Leica transmits more than 5 TIMES the amount of light the zeiss will.That my friend is a whopper of a difference in light gathering ability!!!!
Anything with a 3mm exit pupil no matter how good the glass is useless at last light.I don't care what name is on it.
I stand by my statements and have used most of them. Most of them are ALMOST USELESS for big game hunting.
Still doubt me? I urge anyone, WHO HAS NO VESTED INTEREST) reading this to simply try them at last light when you often get a chance at a monster whitetail.Take the Leica 8x56 geovid and compare it to any leica,zeiss,swarovski etc that only has a 3mm exit pupil. I know from experience. I had to pass up several absolute trophies over several years of archery hunting.I could see the huge bucks easy with the naked eye but couldn't see squat out of the rangefinder to get a reading. After this happening several times and trying different rangefinders I finally wised up and bought the Leica 8x56 geovids.Now the problem is solved finally.
Forum Boss
Administrator
First, for readers, the Zeiss PRF retails for $699.00, the 8x56 Leica Geovid runs about $2500.00 and the HD version is about $2800.00.
The Geovid and Zeiss PRF,or other monocular RF) are really very different products. There is no question a good binocular will have superior performance in low light. A monocular RF won't substitute for a good pair of large-lens binos, but then it wasn't intended to do so. So, to suggest the Zeiss,or Swaro, or Leica) is 'useless' for hunting is not very sensible, in my view.
There are three factors going on here that seem to be confused by Canuck.
1. Light Gathering ability.
Light Gathering ability is generally a function of the objective size, and is not related, per se to the exit pupil. You could have a 100mm objective with a 1mm exit pupil, but that 100mm objective would still have more 'light gathering ability' than a 2X-20mm scope with a 10mm exit pupil. In this example, because the Geovid does have larger objectives, it has more 'light gathering ability' than the Zeiss PRF. But that does NOT mean you see an image that is 5 times brighter. Not by a long shot.
2. Light Transmission.
This is normally measured as the percentage of the amount of light energy on the outside of the lens that passes through the inside of the lens system to the viewer. Both the PRF and Geovid are rated at 90% or better. Again, this is not a function of exit pupil, per se. You can have a ton of energy in a very small point. Think of a magnifying glass focusing sunlight. Or a laser for that matter.
3. Effective viewed light,Perceived brightness).
This is where exit pupil sizes come into play. The human eye pupil dilates,opens) much like a camera shutter at dark to let in more light. For adults the maximum pupil sizes is probably going to be around 6-7mm, max.
Scopecalc.com is an online calculator that will calculate the low-light performance,in terms of perceived brightness) of various optics. You can compare one to another. Ascribing a light transmission of 93% to the PRF,orange marker) and 95% to the Geovid,green marker), the difference in perceived low-light performance* is about 36%,4.08 vs. 5.56). That's a significant and useful gain, but it's not 500% better.
There is no question that the Geovid is a superb optic for hunting. However, it is misleading to say that the Geovid transmits 5 times as much light simply because it has a larger exit pupil. There is a reason makers of 56mm binoculars are NOT claiming such products deliver 500% more light,to the eye) than 26mm binoculars.
As any one can understand, you can have a lot of light energy in a small area,imagine a laser) or a weak amount of energy spread out over a larger area. Light gathering is generally a function of the size of the objective,other things being equal), but you also have to look at light transmission and the quality of the lens. Poor lenses may transmit 80% of available light, most scopes are around 90%, and the best may approach 95%.
I certainly don't contest that the Geovid is better for low light. But to suggest it delivers 5 times the absolute light energy whether in lumens or F-stop values is just wrong. You can confirm this youself with a spot light meter.
Again, I suggest that it is wrong to say that the Zeiss is 'practically useless' for hunting. That's going too far. Not all hunting is done at 'last light', and it some areas, night hunting is forbidden.
Returning to the original question. Yes, based on our testing so far, we are very impressed with the Zeiss PRF. It is as bright as any monocular LRF in the under $1000.00 consumer category.
-------------
The perceived low-light performance is calculated as follows:
'This calculation derives Low Light Performance as the average of light gain and resolution gain through magnification, as a measure of target image acuity gain in low light similar to Twilight Performance specified by scope manufacturers. Low Light Performance calculated here is much more useful than Twilight Performance, as Twilight performance is the average of the just the objective lens diameter times magnification, while Low Light Performance is the average of the actual Perceived Brightness times magnification, which also includes the exit pupil/eye pupil relation, light transmission, approximated diffraction, as well as the perception of relative light gain. Just as with Twilight Performance, this Low Light Performance calculation does not yet include lens resolution and contrast as factors. Therefore lower quality optics will yield relatively less gains at higher magnifications.
Low Light Performance =,Perceived Brightness x Magnification)^,1/2)'
The Geovid and Zeiss PRF,or other monocular RF) are really very different products. There is no question a good binocular will have superior performance in low light. A monocular RF won't substitute for a good pair of large-lens binos, but then it wasn't intended to do so. So, to suggest the Zeiss,or Swaro, or Leica) is 'useless' for hunting is not very sensible, in my view.
There are three factors going on here that seem to be confused by Canuck.
1. Light Gathering ability.
Light Gathering ability is generally a function of the objective size, and is not related, per se to the exit pupil. You could have a 100mm objective with a 1mm exit pupil, but that 100mm objective would still have more 'light gathering ability' than a 2X-20mm scope with a 10mm exit pupil. In this example, because the Geovid does have larger objectives, it has more 'light gathering ability' than the Zeiss PRF. But that does NOT mean you see an image that is 5 times brighter. Not by a long shot.
2. Light Transmission.
This is normally measured as the percentage of the amount of light energy on the outside of the lens that passes through the inside of the lens system to the viewer. Both the PRF and Geovid are rated at 90% or better. Again, this is not a function of exit pupil, per se. You can have a ton of energy in a very small point. Think of a magnifying glass focusing sunlight. Or a laser for that matter.
3. Effective viewed light,Perceived brightness).
This is where exit pupil sizes come into play. The human eye pupil dilates,opens) much like a camera shutter at dark to let in more light. For adults the maximum pupil sizes is probably going to be around 6-7mm, max.
Scopecalc.com is an online calculator that will calculate the low-light performance,in terms of perceived brightness) of various optics. You can compare one to another. Ascribing a light transmission of 93% to the PRF,orange marker) and 95% to the Geovid,green marker), the difference in perceived low-light performance* is about 36%,4.08 vs. 5.56). That's a significant and useful gain, but it's not 500% better.
There is no question that the Geovid is a superb optic for hunting. However, it is misleading to say that the Geovid transmits 5 times as much light simply because it has a larger exit pupil. There is a reason makers of 56mm binoculars are NOT claiming such products deliver 500% more light,to the eye) than 26mm binoculars.
As any one can understand, you can have a lot of light energy in a small area,imagine a laser) or a weak amount of energy spread out over a larger area. Light gathering is generally a function of the size of the objective,other things being equal), but you also have to look at light transmission and the quality of the lens. Poor lenses may transmit 80% of available light, most scopes are around 90%, and the best may approach 95%.
I certainly don't contest that the Geovid is better for low light. But to suggest it delivers 5 times the absolute light energy whether in lumens or F-stop values is just wrong. You can confirm this youself with a spot light meter.
Again, I suggest that it is wrong to say that the Zeiss is 'practically useless' for hunting. That's going too far. Not all hunting is done at 'last light', and it some areas, night hunting is forbidden.
Returning to the original question. Yes, based on our testing so far, we are very impressed with the Zeiss PRF. It is as bright as any monocular LRF in the under $1000.00 consumer category.
-------------
The perceived low-light performance is calculated as follows:
'This calculation derives Low Light Performance as the average of light gain and resolution gain through magnification, as a measure of target image acuity gain in low light similar to Twilight Performance specified by scope manufacturers. Low Light Performance calculated here is much more useful than Twilight Performance, as Twilight performance is the average of the just the objective lens diameter times magnification, while Low Light Performance is the average of the actual Perceived Brightness times magnification, which also includes the exit pupil/eye pupil relation, light transmission, approximated diffraction, as well as the perception of relative light gain. Just as with Twilight Performance, this Low Light Performance calculation does not yet include lens resolution and contrast as factors. Therefore lower quality optics will yield relatively less gains at higher magnifications.
Low Light Performance =,Perceived Brightness x Magnification)^,1/2)'
canuck said:
I have no vested interest in any company or rangefinder but I totally disagree. ALMOST USELESS for big game hunting,???), not so! My lowly Swarovski LG has adequate glass to range any low light shot that I'd take with a gun and bow hunting for sure. Of course I don't use my rangefinder to count points or score for Boone & Crockett. I do not doubt that the 8x56 Geovid and the new Zeiss are great, probably better, just saying that the ole Swarovski works well for both bow and gun. I own several pieces of 56mm glass, nice stuff but you won't catch me packing it where we elk hunt or climbing trees to hunt back at home!! Long ago I learned to allocate enough weight for a solid stock and stiff barrel but cut back where else you can to succeed in the Rockies. Yes, we load the horses too.
I didn't say the geovids were 5 times BRIGHTER.I said they have the ability to TRANSMIT 5 times more light. That is a huge difference.
There of course is also twilight factor,quality of glass,design and engineering factors to combat stray light etc etc.
I don't hunt on game preserves or areas were animals never see people.In other words the critters I hunt are smart.As such the very mature whitetails were I hunt move in low light and only if you do your homework and get lucky from time to time.Some are practically unhuntable. That is why I use quality glass with a large exit pupil which I can hold steady enough for the power used. This tends to be in the 8 power range.A 3mm exit pupil is practically useless to hunt to monster whitetails in my neck of the woods but perhaps other areas are different.
There of course is also twilight factor,quality of glass,design and engineering factors to combat stray light etc etc.
I don't hunt on game preserves or areas were animals never see people.In other words the critters I hunt are smart.As such the very mature whitetails were I hunt move in low light and only if you do your homework and get lucky from time to time.Some are practically unhuntable. That is why I use quality glass with a large exit pupil which I can hold steady enough for the power used. This tends to be in the 8 power range.A 3mm exit pupil is practically useless to hunt to monster whitetails in my neck of the woods but perhaps other areas are different.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.