Zeiss, Nikon, Leupold? Low light scope.

Which is better for low light?

  • Zeiss Terra Rifle Scope 3-9x 42mm Plex Reticle Matte ($399)

    Votes: 25 36.8%

  • Nikon MONARCH 3 Rifle Scope 2.5-10x 42mm ($399)

    Votes: 13 19.1%

  • Leupold VX-3 Rifle Scope 3.5-10x 40mm Duplex Reticle Matte ($479)

    Votes: 30 44.1%
  • Total voters
    68
The Zeiss uses low defraction glass, which will help, but I would go for a reasonably long sunshade in your situation.
Click to expand...

It's when the sun goes down that I have the problem, will that help? I can aim above the treeline into the sky and it's clear as can be, I go back to the field which has a tree-line about 135 yards away and it's hazy/foggy.
 
You'll never get 100% clarity when the sun is directly shining into the lens no matter what you get. Even a shade won't help once the suns disc is in your field of view. (Its also very dangerous, think magnifying glass & ants!). I tried the honeycomb type ARD's & they took so much optical quality away from the scope I refuse to even own one nowadays.

However good design & good glass will reduce or minimize it by quite a lot & allow you to get closer to the sun actually appearing in the glass.

Strangely enough fixed power scopes do better than zooms (of equal quality) because they have far less internal air/glass surfaces to allow flare & ghosting to happen.
 
The sun is already down past the tree-line 130 yards in front of me, but not set, so there is no glare and I'm definitely not staring at the sun :rolleyes:. I'm going to take the VX2 out there tonight and see if there is a difference from the Nikon.
 
You are just going to have to look through all three in low light. A lot of how "bright" a scope is depends on the eye behind the scope. Different coatings and different wave lengths allowed through look different to different people. For my eyes, Meopta is by far the brightest glass out there. Bushnell 6500 runs a close second. My NightForce and Leupold scopes are not even in the game with the above mentioned. It all depends on the eye of the viewer.
 
I have a Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42 and I'd say it's equal or better than the VXIII for a few bucks less. Way better than my VXII. I've never had a Zeiss.

Boomer
 
''The sun is already down past the tree-line 130 yards in front of me, but not set, so there is no glare and I'm definitely not staring at the sun . I'm going to take the VX2 out there tonight and see if there is a difference from the Nikon.''
__________________

Knowing the nature of your exact problem helps & the best advise I can give you ( given that i have had the same problem in some of the areas I hunt) is that Zeiss optics realy help.
 
I have a Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42 and I'd say it's equal or better than the VXIII for a few bucks less. Way better than my VXII. I've never had a Zeiss.

Boomer
Click to expand...

The Monarch is an inferior scope to the VX-3 (the current generation).. The Zeiss gives you a few more minutes of light but thats about it.. I have the Leupold and the Zeiss Conquest.. I haven't seen a Zeiss Terra in a shop yet..

of those I would recommend nikon though I would recommend vortex over all of the above.
Click to expand...

Nikon does a good job of marketing.. I'm not impressed with their scopes, most seem ok but not exceptional.. The Vortex scopes do look pretty good but they aren't superior or in many cases as good as the other scopes I own..

I seem to remain satisfied with optics as long as I buy something made in the USA, Japan, Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic.. No Chinese or Phillipine contructed optics for me..
 
Last edited:
The net is, at this price level, I'll bet that there is NO OBSERVABLE DIFFERENCE in low-light performance among these scopes.
For a constant price, if low-light performance is paramount, and as others in this thread have cited, look for a bigger objective, eyepiece and tube. But of course you risk other optic property tradeoffs if you have to build a big objective lens and a lower price.
B
 
Nikon does a good job of marketing.. I'm not impressed with their scopes, most seem ok but not exceptional.. The Vortex scopes do look pretty good but they aren't superior or in many cases as good as the other scopes I own..
Click to expand...
I could say the same for leupold. the only scopes I've ever sold that were not made in china were leupolds and redfields... pieces of overpriced junk in my experience. maybe I was just cursed with lemons... oh well, my Nikon prostaffs have lasted me since my teens and are still going strong. don't have quite as nice of pictures as leupolds but they don't magically develop chipped lenses in the gun safe and actually hold a zero so I'm ok with them.
 
''The net is, at this price level, I'll bet that there is NO OBSERVABLE DIFFERENCE in low-light performance among these scopes.
For a constant price, if low-light performance is paramount, and as others in this thread have cited, look for a bigger objective, eyepiece and tube''

There is quite a difference, the Zeiss has measurably better light transmission , is better coated, less refractive & has much better contrast, that is observable to anyone prepared to compare the Leupold to it, side by side.
I used to think that my Nikon bino's were good until I tried some Steiners.
While I have some top end camera lenses from Canon & Nikon, they fall short in comparison to my Zeiss T* lenses.
You are right about the size of the objective lens being irrelivent, in most cases more of the same can be a hinderence rather than a benefit.
 
None of the scopes listed are worth a crap in low light. Look for an older Bushnell 4200 30mm with 50mm objective. for cheap and darn good in low light. Picks up light so late it should be banned. Next I'd look at a Meopta Meostar, then Swarovski, Khales, NF, ETC.

I hunt to the absolute edge of darkness and a bit beyond. Down in swamps and bays most people won't go into, I demand low light performance because without it, I'd never get to shoot anything.
 
Pick up the VX-3 and never look back.
Skip the Nikon trash.
Skip the Vortex hype.
Skip the Zeiss warranty hassle.

Buy quality. Buy American. Buy the Leupold.



The 4200 still has some of the best light transmission numbers ever registered.
Click to expand...
In a lab... maybe.
Take it out in the real world, and the lack of color and clarity in low light make that light transmission mean... absolutely nothing. Just because the image you're seeing is brighter, doesn't mean it helps distinguish what's in the image.
I had a 4200 Elite 3.5-10x50mm. It was decent enough for daytime hunting. But, when it came to low light conditions in the real world, the cheap Tasco World Class on my .22 WMR was better.

Compared side-by-side with my VX-3 3.5-10x40mm (exactly what the OP was considering), the VX-3 absolutely blew away the 4200. It was a joke, the difference was so massive. Next to the Leupold, that Bushnell felt like a Daisy air rifle scope.

I replaced that 4200 Elite with a Redfield Revolution, and still consider it to be a significant upgrade. That Redfield gives me much better low-light performance than the 4200 could have ever hoped to. There's a reason they discontinued that scope line ... everyone was returning them or using the "Money back guarantee" (including me), because they didn't live up to the marketing hype.
 
The Monarch is an inferior scope to the VX-3 (the current generation)..
Click to expand...
Maybe on paper, but in my experience there is little discernible difference between the two well standing in a Cabala's. Except the price tag:)

The Monarch is also different from the monarch 3. They sell both.

Most peoples eye's aren't good enough to differentiate a scope with 95% light transmission from a scope with 96% light transmission.

Sorry there's no way I'm paying twice as much money for one percent extra light transmission.

Boomer
 
there is little discernible difference between the two well standing in a Cabala's.
Click to expand...
True, but I hardly ever hunt inside a Cabela's, or even a Cabala:D.

Its not just about light transmission either.
Other things like flare & ghost resistance, contrast & micro-contrast come into play.

Mechanically does the reticule drift as you change magnification? How about clicks. Can the scope "do the box"? Does it take a shot or 2 to come to the new setting when you adjust the reticule or is in immediate & repeatable?
 
I have a couple of each of the 3 listed and I would pick the Zeiss over all. I just feel the Zeiss is clearer, sharper and brighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top