Zeiss hd5 vs Swarovski z3
- Thread starter TODD6336
- Start date
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 36,980
- 5,221
Both are good scopes. The Swarovski is top of the line sans erector. The HD5 is a Conquest, which though a fine scope is not a Victory. For all practical purposes, you likely won't notice any difference save for some distinction in flare, colour fidelity and resolution at extremes of light.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
The Swarovski (as DrMike said) will beat the Conquest in resolution (lines/mm) and contrast just before BMT (dark except for the ionosphere). I own (2) Conquests and I really like them but they are not a Swarovski. I have an Swarovski as well, a 4-12x50 and a Zeiss Diavari V. They are better scopes than the Conquest. Not by much but noticeably.
Dr. Vette
Handloader
- Apr 16, 2012
- 1,438
- 271
If you like to shoot longer, and accurately, note that the Swaro does not have parallax adjustment. I don't know about the Zeiss offhand. We were shooting my partner's Z3 on Wednesday, and the 200 yard group was a bit larger than we'd like as we both noted some parallax issues. Not huge, but it's there.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
Run the Swaro at 10x and the parallax disappears. This is true of many 12X scopes which do not have a separate parallax adjustment. Zeiss does has not made any Conquests without parallax adjustment except the new 3-12x42. I do not know anyone who has one of these scopes to look at? However, even the older Victories that did not have parallax adjustment, had parallax at 12X or above.
I have never noticed the parallax in my Swaro at 12X but it most likely is there.
I have never noticed the parallax in my Swaro at 12X but it most likely is there.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
I just bought an HD 5 from Cameraland. I also have a Swarovski 4-12x50 AV and a Zeiss Diavari V to compare it to when it arrives. Additionally I have a 2.5-8x32 and a new 3.5-10x44 Conquest that I purchased when they announced the they were making the HD5 in Germany. So, when the HD 5 arrives, I will have 3 Zeiss scopes and a Swarovski scope to run a comparison with. I am very curious to see if the Tessar (T*) lenses are that much better in resolution in the HD 5, plus coatings (contrast) than my newer Conquest MC and my older Diavari Zeiss (T*). We will find out soon!
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
It just left Cameraland today via ground. I probably will not see the new scope until Saturday or Monday. In any event I have been talking to myself about which rifle to mount it on. All of my rifles except the CZ 527 have Zeiss Conquest or better scopes now. The CZ 527 has a 4.5-4x40AO that I bought in 1991. It has never broken down and has been a good scope. However it is not the best scope that I have for low light conditions or for seeing .20 caliber bullet holes at 100 yards. The other varmit use rifle, the .257 Roberts, has a 5-15x42 Zeiss Diavari V on it which I paid $1500 for new, years ago. I think that since the .204 Ruger shoots 1/2 inch groups day in and day out, that I will put the 3-15x42 HD5 Conquest on it to reward it for blowing up small varmits at long range.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
I just received my 3-15x42 scope on Saturday evening from Cameraland NY. I had not done a lot of workup on this scope and which rifle it would be best suited for until I received the scope. This morning, I mounted and set up the optimum settings chart for this scope while I was mounting it on my .270 Win. Apparently this 3-15 scope is optimized for the standard cartridge listing of primarily .30-06 type case capacities.
With the #81 (Rapid Z600) reticle, the optimum set-up is 14.5x magnification setting which when zeroed in at 200 yards on the top reticle bar and 14.5X sets the scope to be zeroed on each respective downward crossbar at 303, 399, 499 and 595 yards!! Well ain't that some kick in the shins? So ole dumb me buys this thing for the CZ527, which it won't work with very well because of the large (36mm) eye-box. The scope mounted on the CZ527 would need extra-extra high ring mounts to clear the bolt handle. So high in fact that my cheek weld would become a chin weld!
So now the HD5 3-15x42 is mounted on the .270 Winchester with low TPS rings and the set up looks and functions great but it is not exactly what I wanted. Plus now I have a surplus Kahles 3.5-10x50 scope which would look goofy on the CZ 527 and has the same issue as the Conquest HD5 on the CZ 527! So, I have to put the Kahles 3.5-10 on the Model 70 30-06 which would move the 3.5-10x44 Zeiss Conquest to another gun. This is another one of these rifle scope Chinese fire drills that I seem to go through every time I buy a new scope.
I have to go and work all of this out. I will be back when I have moved 4 or 5 more scopes and will let you know what the drill was. Bye!
With the #81 (Rapid Z600) reticle, the optimum set-up is 14.5x magnification setting which when zeroed in at 200 yards on the top reticle bar and 14.5X sets the scope to be zeroed on each respective downward crossbar at 303, 399, 499 and 595 yards!! Well ain't that some kick in the shins? So ole dumb me buys this thing for the CZ527, which it won't work with very well because of the large (36mm) eye-box. The scope mounted on the CZ527 would need extra-extra high ring mounts to clear the bolt handle. So high in fact that my cheek weld would become a chin weld!
So now the HD5 3-15x42 is mounted on the .270 Winchester with low TPS rings and the set up looks and functions great but it is not exactly what I wanted. Plus now I have a surplus Kahles 3.5-10x50 scope which would look goofy on the CZ 527 and has the same issue as the Conquest HD5 on the CZ 527! So, I have to put the Kahles 3.5-10 on the Model 70 30-06 which would move the 3.5-10x44 Zeiss Conquest to another gun. This is another one of these rifle scope Chinese fire drills that I seem to go through every time I buy a new scope.
I have to go and work all of this out. I will be back when I have moved 4 or 5 more scopes and will let you know what the drill was. Bye!
HA! I know it's a pain Charlie, but those are some excellent scopes you have. Looking forward to seeing what you think of the Zeiss when you start looking it over. I have seen a few of them now and they look to be very nice.
It does sound perfect for your 270 though.
It does sound perfect for your 270 though.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
Okay, not too much pain in all of this. Since they share rings and mounts, I traded the 3.5-10x50 Kahles with the 4-12x50 Swarovski on the 7mm Mag. Than I put the 4-12x50 Swarovski on the CZ 527 which just fit great and cleared the bolt. So I ended up with the 0ld Leupold 4.5-14x40AO in the closet on the shelf. The new 3-15x42HD5 Zeiss with Rapid Z600 on the Model 70, .270 Win; the 3.5-10x50 Kahles on the 7mm Mag Mauser and the 4-12x50 Swarovski on the CZ 527, .204 Ruger, replacing the Leupold 4.5-14x40AO. Now I am scope capable!
Having been fooling around with the 3.5-10x50 Kahles, 3-15x42 HD5 Conquest and the Swarovski 4-12x50 all morning, I have to say the just initially fooling around with all three scopes, that the HD5 conquest is every bit as clear as the Swarovski AH scope (same as Z3). I will do some more formal testing on these scopes vis-à-vis one another over the next few days but I do not expect any surprises?
Having been fooling around with the 3.5-10x50 Kahles, 3-15x42 HD5 Conquest and the Swarovski 4-12x50 all morning, I have to say the just initially fooling around with all three scopes, that the HD5 conquest is every bit as clear as the Swarovski AH scope (same as Z3). I will do some more formal testing on these scopes vis-à-vis one another over the next few days but I do not expect any surprises?
- Nov 4, 2004
- 24,422
- 6,801
Sounds good Charlie. I am looking forward to your testing.
I am thinking hard on a HD5 for my 338 RUM.
JD338
I am thinking hard on a HD5 for my 338 RUM.
JD338
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 36,980
- 5,221
I'm sure your tests will be instructive, Charlie.
Oldtrader3":3p8g3pqh said:
I'd say so! That eyepiece was one of the things I noticed about the HD5 as well, side by side they look even bigger than the MC Conquest. And the three 3.5-10x44 Conquests I have are about .070" bigger in diameter than any of my Leupolds' eyepieces.
Oldtrader3
Ammo Smith
- Nov 6, 2009
- 8,406
- 5
So far I have not been able to find a test media that or eye chart that can differentiate resolution clearly enough between the 2.5-8x32, the 3.5-10x44 Conquest, the 3-12x43 HD5, the Z3 Swarovski 4-12x50 and the Diavari V 5-15x42 Zeiss. Not in my yard at least, at 75 feet.
I tried a standard eye chart and page 3 (4ft to 15ft) gave the best results at 25 yards. With all of the scopes set at 6X at 6PM Pacific Daylight Time, the best that I can determine so far is that: The two most expensive scopes will not focus fully at 25 yards. These two are the Swarovski and the Diavari as one would expect, despite age for resolution. For top contrast, it is nearly a tie for the Conquest 3-12x42 Hd5 and the Diavari 5-15x42 V. For resolution the Swarovski and Diavari were slightly better with the Diavari at the top. For resolution the Hd5 and the Diavari were very close. For contrast, the Diavari slightly edges out the Conquest Hd5 with the Swarovski 3rd. It is very close and the 3.5-10x44 Conquest being nearly as good for contrast as the Hd5 but not a s good for resolution. The best two got down to 6 feet on the chart (shown below for reference)
This test does not differentiate the scopes enough to make a definitive resolution test on all of these scopes. The older Conquest 2.5-8x32 is enough older to be left behind by both of the newer Conquests and therefore all of the test scopes.
I will find another optic test that differentiates these scopes better and makes the decision more apparent. It is obvious that Zeiss has clearly produced a top notch scope with the Hd5 Conquest. It is in the 3-15x42 a scope to be reckoned with. I would like to compare it to a new Diavari, I bet that they would be very close in performance.
I tried a standard eye chart and page 3 (4ft to 15ft) gave the best results at 25 yards. With all of the scopes set at 6X at 6PM Pacific Daylight Time, the best that I can determine so far is that: The two most expensive scopes will not focus fully at 25 yards. These two are the Swarovski and the Diavari as one would expect, despite age for resolution. For top contrast, it is nearly a tie for the Conquest 3-12x42 Hd5 and the Diavari 5-15x42 V. For resolution the Swarovski and Diavari were slightly better with the Diavari at the top. For resolution the Hd5 and the Diavari were very close. For contrast, the Diavari slightly edges out the Conquest Hd5 with the Swarovski 3rd. It is very close and the 3.5-10x44 Conquest being nearly as good for contrast as the Hd5 but not a s good for resolution. The best two got down to 6 feet on the chart (shown below for reference)
This test does not differentiate the scopes enough to make a definitive resolution test on all of these scopes. The older Conquest 2.5-8x32 is enough older to be left behind by both of the newer Conquests and therefore all of the test scopes.
I will find another optic test that differentiates these scopes better and makes the decision more apparent. It is obvious that Zeiss has clearly produced a top notch scope with the Hd5 Conquest. It is in the 3-15x42 a scope to be reckoned with. I would like to compare it to a new Diavari, I bet that they would be very close in performance.
