Crossbow Nation banner

1 - 20 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,578 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I’ve been fortunate to be able to buy quality optics. I have/had Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica.

I bought a pair of Zeiss Victory T* FL 8x42 a few years ago but they were soooo heavy. Then I bought the same model in 8x32 and they were much lighter, although not as good in low light but good enough. I sold the 8x42 for what I paid for them.

I paid $1300 for the Zeiss 8x32 about 8 years ago - last night a guy from another forum sent me $1350 via PayPal for them. :) In the pic below I sold the Leica rangefinder for what I paid for them as well. Right now I only have the Leica 8x20 Ultravids (left arrow) and the Sightron Blue Sky 8x32 (right arrow) that are the best inexpensive bins on the market. I keep the Sightrons in my console and take them to Michigan football games. They’re not that far behind the Zeiss.

I sold a Vortex Razor LH scope recently for more than I paid as well as a Zeiss Conquest HD5 that I made out on really well too. The Zeiss XB75 that’s on my Deathstalker and the XBR sitting on the shelf aren’t going anywhere unless something really special comes along - and those 2 would probably sell like hotcakes.

Great optics seem to hold they’re value - buy once, cry once.

fullsizeoutput_10f8.jpeg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
Agree 100 percent. They aren’t cheap but they are so much clearer than the competitions slightly cheaper models it is worth the pain!

I actually have a like new set of zeiss 8 X 32 FLTs and have thought of listing them a few times. But they are so clear and well made I can’t bring myself to selling them!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
I agree 100%. I own Swarovski, Zeiss scopes, plus a factory reset parallax Viper XBR! None of them are going anywhere....Several nice Leupolds as well.

At the moment I'm trying really hard to talk myself out of buying the new NL Pure bino! Those are getting rave reviews,but a serious chunk of change! Trying to justify it by telling myself I'm not buying a new bow anytime soon, so would be money well spent! Hell it's cheaper than the new release bows anyway, LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
My Swarovski 10x42’s will never go anywhere. My Leica Rangefinder went bad & Leica replaced it. Before using I traded them on the best Luepold Rangefinder Scheels had since the Leica didn’t have an inclinometer. The Luepold then quit & they said it was out of warranty. Now I want a Swarovski Spotting Scope but just can’t justify it over the best Vortex I have. As TP said, buy once & cry once. If I was any younger I’d only go the best glass on everything and never look back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,788 Posts
Quality optics are the way to go if you can afford it. I have not sold anything I have for optics but would probably make out well if I did.
 

·
Senior Member
SE VA
Joined
·
12,232 Posts
I was employed by Zeiss for 31 years. Spent time in Germany and saw first hand how optics quality was always top priority. I designed the reticle of the XB75 crossbow scope. I tried to get them to use an illuminated reticle design and shorter scope body but was not successful with that effort☹. I still use XB75’s and Z-Point red dots.
197437
197438
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
10,863 Posts
Cheaper ... isn't just about picture quality. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica are downright bulletproof. Hand a Hawke and a Zeiss to a woman at church and she wouldn't have a clue which cost $250.00 and which cost $2,550.00. What you don't see is making all the difference in the world. Quality materials, quality machining, quality assembly and product testing can't be seen with the naked eye. High end German and now Japanese optics didn't have their reputations manufactured by some Madison Avenue marketing firm that made the no talent Kardashians into legends. They got their reputation from a century of performance from battlefields, on oceans, steaming tropics, frigid Artic, mountain tops, and in the mud, blood and corruption.

"Buy once, cry once." Buy the best optics you can afford. Buy better than you think you can afford...lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,578 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I tried to get them to use an illuminated reticle design and shorter scope body but was not successful with that effort☹.
If you look at scopes atop sniper rifles, they’re all long. The long scopes have a longer focal length and greater Depth of Field (not to be confused with Field of View), short scopes have a shorter focal length with a lesser Depth of Field . A greater Depth of View means the distance between the nearest and farthest objects is longer and in sharper focus.

Longer focal lengths have a longer eye relief, shorter focal lengths have a short eye relief.

Shorter focal lengths require an objective the is more rounded to focus the object to the center of the scope’s inner lenses. Grinding a spherical lens is more costly to be done correctly to have a perfect image. That’s some of the reason why the short Zeiss, Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender scopes cost a fortune.

You’re not going to get a great image looking thru a short $150 Hawke scope. But the nearly 12” long Zeiss XB75 that retailed at $400 is a gem imo. And the Vortex XBR that has a strong following is a long scope as well.

As Paul Harvey would say “Now you know the rest of the story”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEW and Iron Duke

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,598 Posts
Cheaper ... isn't just about picture quality. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica are downright bulletproof. Hand a Hawke and a Zeiss to a woman at church and she wouldn't have a clue which cost $250.00 and which cost $2,550.00. What you don't see is making all the difference in the world. Quality materials, quality machining, quality assembly and product testing can't be seen with the naked eye. High end German and now Japanese optics didn't have their reputations manufactured by some Madison Avenue marketing firm that made the no talent Kardashians into legends. They got their reputation from a century of performance from battlefields, on oceans, steaming tropics, frigid Artic, mountain tops, and in the mud, blood and corruption.

"Buy once, cry once." Buy the best optics you can afford. Buy better than you think you can afford...lol
I totally agree depending on what you are using the optics for. I use Swarovski 8.5x42 EL binoculars when I hunt but then again I am satisfied with my TR XV530IR scopes and my Sig Sauer BDX combo for my crossbows as I doubt I will ever shoot over 50 yards while hunting with them and I could care less about shooting at 100 yards with them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
342 Posts
Cheaper ... isn't just about picture quality. Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica are downright bulletproof. Hand a Hawke and a Zeiss to a woman at church and she wouldn't have a clue which cost $250.00 and which cost $2,550.00. What you don't see is making all the difference in the world. Quality materials, quality machining, quality assembly and product testing can't be seen with the naked eye. High end German and now Japanese optics didn't have their reputations manufactured by some Madison Avenue marketing firm that made the no talent Kardashians into legends. They got their reputation from a century of performance from battlefields, on oceans, steaming tropics, frigid Artic, mountain tops, and in the mud, blood and corruption.

"Buy once, cry once." Buy the best optics you can afford. Buy better than you think you can afford...lol
I believe my wife has been reading these posts because she gives me the same explanation concerning her purses and shoes when she comes home from the mall. Now on the serious side......You all have made very valid points in your posts and I couldn't agree more.(y)
 

·
Senior Member
SE VA
Joined
·
12,232 Posts
If you look at scopes atop sniper rifles, they’re all long. The long scopes have a longer focal length and greater Depth of Field (not to be confused with Field of View), short scopes have a shorter focal length with a lesser Depth of Field . A greater Depth of View means the distance between the nearest and farthest objects is longer and in sharper focus.

Longer focal lengths have a longer eye relief, shorter focal lengths have a short eye relief.

Shorter focal lengths require an objective the is more rounded to focus the object to the center of the scope’s inner lenses. Grinding a spherical lens is more costly to be done correctly to have a perfect image. That’s some of the reason why the short Zeiss, Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender scopes cost a fortune.

You’re not going to get a great image looking thru a short $150 Hawke scope. But the nearly 12” long Zeiss XB75 that retailed at $400 is a gem imo. And the Vortex XBR that has a strong following is a long scope as well.

As Paul Harvey would say “Now you know the rest of the story”.
True, but I knew that the longer scope would not be well accepted for crossbow use. That and the price probably had lots to do with its fate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,578 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
True, but I knew that the longer scope would not be well accepted for crossbow use. That and the price probably had lots to do with its fate.
That’s probably true Tom.

What’s comical is people will pay $2500+ for a crossbow package and replace the included scope with something better, but balk at a truly great scope for $400.

I’ve had several setups on my Deathstalker so far - this is my favorite.

DSCN2601.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEW and Moon

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
10,863 Posts
True, but I knew that the longer scope would not be well accepted for crossbow use. That and the price probably had lots to do with its fate.
Amazes me ... that snipers have no issue with crawling all over the planet earth with long scopes. Shooting pirates off of rolling seas, terrorists off of rocky mountain ledges, and bad guys through jungle understory. Yet some of us get all postal over a scope that is longer and weighs more than a cardboard toilet tube. :rolleyes: (n) Most of us walk less than a couple blocks to our stand or blind and shoot off a rail or stick, or in my case toss in a shooting bench. The fixation on small puzzles me.

As far as cheap being all required for a close range weapon? One of the requirements for ANY weapon platform is the optic has to work when you need it...lol And in my opinion "quality of life," or quality of experience is what life is all about. I read time and again the "I don't need to kill something" to enjoy my hunting experience" statements. It falls right in line with that philosophical principle that top shelf optics only add to your enjoyment without ever having to take a shot. Just looking through them allows you to savor the quality.

Let's face it, few if any of us can afford a new Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Mercedes AMG SUV, or even a 92K Ram TRX pickup truck. BUT, most can manage to swing a pair of Swarovski 8-30mm binos, a Zeiss Duralyt scope, or a Leica rangefinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1hunter and SEW

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
As with any performance related, high end item, it is really hard to define under what circumstances only the best will do. While I know that my preferred optics (Leupold, Nikon and similar) are junk compared to the high end brands listed, I can't ever think of a time when the choice to use these optics limited what I could do in hunting/shooting/achery endeavors. Granted, I live east of the Mississippi, by a few miles, and I'm not looking to shoot MOA at 1000 yards or aim at the tick behind the shoulder of a buck at 500 yards.

Of course high end stuff is always better & of interest - but that doesn't necessarily equate to a truly meaningful difference. The limiting factor always seems to be the human using the tool more so than the tool itself.

I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the 'spend as much on the scope as you did on the gun' was a salesman - who sold scopes!
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
10,863 Posts
As with any performance related, high end item, it is really hard to define under what circumstances only the best will do. While I know that my preferred optics (Leupold, Nikon and similar) are junk compared to the high end brands listed, I can't ever think of a time when the choice to use these optics limited what I could do in hunting/shooting/achery endeavors. Granted, I live east of the Mississippi, by a few miles, and I'm not looking to shoot MOA at 1000 yards or aim at the tick behind the shoulder of a buck at 500 yards.

Of course high end stuff is always better & of interest - but that doesn't necessarily equate to a truly meaningful difference. The limiting factor always seems to be the human using the tool more so than the tool itself.

I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the 'spend as much on the scope as you did on the gun' was a salesman - who sold scopes!
I agree ... pretty much with everything except the "spend as much on the scope as you did on the gun' was a salesman - who sold scopes!" part. There's some pretty good Nikon and Leupold glass out there but it's not the cheaper stuff they sell. I think the hardcore, life on the line, and most experienced shooters on earth are the ones who coined and adhere to that principle or axiom. Those who have experienced a lot more than we have and know more than we do from it. (It is pretty funny though...lol)
197466
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
I agree ... pretty much with everything except the "spend as much on the scope as you did on the gun' was a salesman - who sold scopes!" part. There's some pretty good Nikon and Leupold glass out there but it's not the cheaper stuff they sell. I think the hardcore, life on the line, and most experienced shooters on earth are the ones who coined and adhere to that principle or axiom. Those who have experienced a lot more than we have and know more than we do from it. (It is pretty funny though...lol)
View attachment 197466
My two main hunting rifles have scopes on them that cost almost double what I have in the rifles. They shoot lights out and I never have to worry about SEEING the aiming point! If I miss ,it was definitely my fault ,period, I have no excuses now, but I guess I COULD blame the wind, LOL.
 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top