Old vs new scopes

[Ray B]

Trying a test I used two scopes, 1935 manufacture Zeiss Zeilvier 4x compared to recent manufacture Zeiss Diavari V 1.5-6x T*. Sundown at this latitude today was 8:03PM PDT but in the mountains the valleys are dark with just the sky having light. So I picked out a portion of the side of the hill about 700 yards away. At 8:10 I started looking through one scope then the other, noting how much detail I could see and if it was enough that I could determine if I was looking at a log, rock, stump, animal etc. this back and forth went on until 8:17 when the older scope became marginal and by 8:20 I wouldn't trust the image to be a verified target. Looking through the newer scope the scene was very slightly brighter but it too was beyond confirmation by 8:22. So from my perspective, I'd have gained 2 minutes- hardly enough to cash in the tried and true scope that is now 85 years of age.

It is clear that the advancements in design and coatings allow for a clearer image, but to what extent do they provide utility worth the marginal cost? Or I could say, those Germans in 1935 really knew how to make a scope.

 

[Ray B]

I should have added that with unaided eye it was too dark to make out detail by 8:15.

 

[Ray B]

Compared two more at dusk. 1982 Schmidt & Bender 4x36mm and a 1990 Zeiss Diavari C 3-9x36mm set at 4x. both scopes allowed visibility well past unaided eye ability. The S&B was slightly brighter than the Zeiss but I did note that the Zeiss had a slightly larger Field of View. The difference in identifying objects was about a minute longer with the S&B.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Thanks for sharing this. I enjoy it.

 

[Sika98k]

Interesting thread, I have a few golden oldies, like myself ! Well, not quite there yet. I must take them out some evening for a similar comparison.
Kahles Helia 3-9x42, a Zeiss Diavari C 3-9x36, an old MSW from Wetzlar, I believe a forerunner to S&B and a few more modern scopes for comparison.

 

[CBH Australia]

Interesting, and if we are talking about just minutes of benefit then the expense may not be proportional.
Do you have any budget scope that you can compare with the good ones?
I tried similar in town one afternoon but just looking for a difference in clarity.
An old Tasco seemed ok but I do think there can be. Difference in colour, image and clarity I sold a Leupold vxII because it seemed dark in the afternoon pest hunts, I had others .
I think spotlighting is aided by big objectives and quality optics.
I think comparing with an eye will tell us which suits us personally and that’s aassuming all scopes are focussed to the individual testing
I wonder if there is basic equipment to get a graded reading?
I didn’t like my Leupold spotlighting either, it worked but after using others it wasn’t the same , I sold it cheap enough that someone got a good Vx 2 and i put the money toward another scope.

 

[Opposite Pole]

There’s a factor in light transmission that a lot of us overlook. That is the cleanliness of the lens. I read an interview with someone from Swarovski once where they stated that smoking a single cigarette over a scope or binos can limit light transmission very significantly. If my memory serves me right they even quoted the figures but I don’t remember it exactly. If I find the article I’ll post the link.

 

[The Engineer]

Another trend I see is for larger objective lenses and higher multiples of magnification on the newer socpes. When the Swaro Z6i came out i treated myself to one in 2-12 power. Because of the large eyepiece I had to mount it much higher than my other scopes to clear the bolt handle. After not getting a shot off due to not finding the animal in the scope I determined it was combination of two factors - turning the power ring the wrong way and not having a proper cheek weld due to the high mounting of the scope.

I put the Z6i on a single shot were it could be mounted lower and went to a Zeiss Victory HT in 1.5/6 power for my plains game rifle. I find I can still shoot minute of angle at 6x with no problem, the USEFUL twilight time is essentially the same, the scope is mounted low enough to have a good cheek weld, the scope is much smaller and lighter, the rifle/scope combination is much easier to carry, the "black band" around the edge the eyepiece is less, and the scope should be more durable due to less internal moving mass associated with power zoom multiples.

I can see the allure of a 2 to 16 power scope with a 56mm objective as a "universal" scope but for me I will pass on the bulk and mounting issues and stay with what is working for me.

 

[WAB]

Another trend I see is for larger objective lenses and higher multiples of magnification on the newer socpes. When the Swaro Z6i came out i treated myself to one in 2-12 power. Because of the large eyepiece I had to mount it much higher than my other scopes to clear the bolt handle. After not getting a shot off due to not finding the animal in the scope I determined it was combination of two factors - turning the power ring the wrong way and not having a proper cheek weld due to the high mounting of the scope.

I put the Z6i on a single shot were it could be mounted lower and went to a Zeiss Victory HT in 1.5/6 power for my plains game rifle. I find I can still shoot minute of angle at 6x with no problem, the USEFUL twilight time is essentially the same, the scope is mounted low enough to have a good cheek weld, the scope is much smaller and lighter, the rifle/scope combination is much easier to carry, the "black band" around the edge the eyepiece is less, and the scope should be more durable due to less internal moving mass associated with power zoom multiples.

I can see the allure of a 2 to 16 power scope with a 56mm objective as a "universal" scope but for me I will pass on the bulk and mounting issues and stay with what is working for me.

I agree, these monster objective lenses too often are mounted on rifles which do not have the stock dimensions to allow proper cheek weld. At the same time we are seeing a great expansion in availability of straight tube scopes. I put a Swaro Z8 1-8x on my 7x57. I can’t imagine a better scope for that rifle!

 

[Shootist43]

Ray B, this is great news. I've been a proponent of the old Weaver K4 scopes for a long time. For me they are the cat's meow. There are others in my family that think they are "junk" by comparison to the newer scopes of today. I've often said that I may loose a couple of minutes at daylight and dark but that was it. You've just made my case. THANKS.

 

[Red Leg]

I am as old school as anyone, but I have several drawers full of pre-war and early post-war German and American scopes. I have played around with them a lot and have them mounted on several period rifles just because. The brightest (and I love the old steel K4) are the Lyman All American series. The pre-war German optics generally have relatively narrow fields of view and regardless of clarity (very unimpressive in my view) it makes them difficult to use. Adjusting them for sight-in is art rather than science, and they fog at the merest hint of humidity. Modern, first quality optics, are light years ahead of such artifacts.

All that said, I agree whole heartedly that 50+ mm objectives are generally an abomination. Their negative impact on ”shootability” outweighs whatever theoretical advantage is gained in light transmission.

One of the advantages of a quality modern scope is the ability to actually use higher magnification in low light. Often shot placement is the real challenge early and late. A modern quality scope allows us to increase power to 8 or 9X in those twilight minutes to insure the crosshairs are precisely where they need to be; a capability that is well beyond any of the older scopes that I own.

 

[Ray B]

So tonight(unless I get otherwise occupied) I'll try some scopes not considered to have the quality of Zeiss or S&B. I may even expand the testing to more than two at a time if I can get the logistics controlled.

 

[DrBob]

Like to add the Nickel Supra line of scopes to vintage list. Reticle non-centering.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Trying a test I used two scopes, 1935 manufacture Zeiss Zeilvier 4x compared to recent manufacture Zeiss Diavari V 1.5-6x T*. Sundown at this latitude today was 8:03PM PDT but in the mountains the valleys are dark with just the sky having light. So I picked out a portion of the side of the hill about 700 yards away. At 8:10 I started looking through one scope then the other, noting how much detail I could see and if it was enough that I could determine if I was looking at a log, rock, stump, animal etc. this back and forth went on until 8:17 when the older scope became marginal and by 8:20 I wouldn't trust the image to be a verified target. Looking through the newer scope the scene was very slightly brighter but it too was beyond confirmation by 8:22. So from my perspective, I'd have gained 2 minutes- hardly enough to cash in the tried and true scope that is now 85 years of age.

It is clear that the advancements in design and coatings allow for a clearer image, but to what extent do they provide utility worth the marginal cost? Or I could say, those Germans in 1935 really knew how to make a scope.

Nothing on you Ray, that test just proves Zeiss hasn't improved much in 85 years.

 

[wesheltonj]

Nothing on you Ray, that test just proves Zeiss hasn't improved much in 85 years.

Or it took 85 years for the others to catch up to Zeiss.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Or it took 85 years for the others to catch up to Zeiss.

How's that? The test was a comparison of two Zeiss, not Zeiss with another brand.

 

[steve white]

The S&B 4x is one of the brightest scopes I have ever seen. I too, like the Nickel Supras--they were ahead of their time.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hello,

Good point, Ray! I also love and use a few rather old scopes:
1- Hensoldt Diasta 4x32 ret 4 from the sixties. Non centered reticle. Great optics and mechanics! Is in my first big game rifle, a DWM Original Sporting rifle, 1893 action, in 7x57.
2- Redfield 4x32 Bear Cub. Really still Kollmorgen. 26 mm one piece tube. Centered reticle. GREAT SCOPE with the BEST RESOLUTION OF ALL I WILL MENTION. Better than any other same period scope. Better even, in resolution and free aberration field than most actual scopes. Period. Coated lenses. GREAT SCOPE.
3- Redfield Denver 1" tube scope. The first line after the Bear Cub Redfield-Kollmorgen. Also an Excelent scope with a wide field and long eye releif. I have used in my .375 H&H for many shoots without any issue.
4- Zeiss Diatal 4x32 ret 1 from the early seventies. Non centered reticle. Same scope as the Hensoldt but with improved coatings. Same light transmission as any other actual 4x scope. Great! Bought new in 1972. Is the scope I have in my Mauser 1935 7x57.

I have also a Schmidt & Bender 4x36 steel tube Ret 4 from the 90's and a Zeiss Diatal ZA T 4x32 Ret 4 from the same period. Truly great modern scopes. The Zeiss ZA is the scope I actually use in my .375 H&H Winchester Pre-64 (1954). I cannot consider this two as really "old" scopes, but discontinued ones...!

As I said, the best overall optics of them, to me are the ones in the Redfield-Kollmorgen Bear Cub.
The second two, a tie, are the Schmidt & Bender 4x36 and the Zeiss ZA. With an advantage in the light transmission.

Best!

CF

 

[Dwight Beagle]

Everyone’s eyes are different. I can tell a big difference in clarity and brightness in current scopes vs scopes from even 25 years ago. I also don’t care for large objectives. The biggest I have is 44mm.

 

[Red Leg]

Everyone’s eyes are different. I can tell a big difference in clarity and brightness in current scopes vs scopes from even 25 years ago. I also don’t care for large objectives. The biggest I have is 44mm.

+1