Zeiss victory rf vs newest Swarovski EL range glass

[Adventurfreak]

I’m looking to finally bite the bullet and get great glass. I wish I would have just bought once, cried once. I’ve read about the previous Swarovski el range but wondering how their new glass compares to zeiss before I buy

 

[alaska_bou]

I used the Zeiss 10x42 victory rf the last two years and traded to the Swaro 10x42 EL Range TA this year. Optically, both are very good but I prefer the swaro. The biggest reason is the much better edge to edge clarity with the swaro, particularly noticable when glassing from a tripod. The swaro, so far, seems to range just as good, just as far and the ballistic calculations are spot on. I have not yet used the tracking assistant feature but that is something I do intend to learn and use.

I can say the buttons on the zeiss were hard to use with gloves. A bigger issue I had with the zeiss I later learned when shooting at a long range with known distances was that the lazer was not properly aligned with the square aiming box. This could have been a major problem had I not known this in the feild. The ballistic function worked great and stores more rifle profiles than the swaro, if that matters.

What I don't like about the swaro; I wish the range/MOA/info readout was up on the display a little longer each time you take a range. I also don't care for the "field pro" style of attaching a bino harness or neck strap as I have had them come undone unexpectedly.

 

[Adventurfreak]

I used the Zeiss 10x42 victory rf the last two years and traded to the Swaro 10x42 EL Range TA this year. Optically, both are very good but I prefer the swaro. The biggest reason is the much better edge to edge clarity with the swaro, particularly noticable when glassing from a tripod. The swaro, so far, seems to range just as good, just as far and the ballistic calculations are spot on. I have not yet used the tracking assistant feature but that is something I do intend to learn and use.

I can say the buttons on the zeiss were hard to use with gloves. A bigger issue I had with the zeiss I later learned when shooting at a long range with known distances was that the lazer was not properly aligned with the square aiming box. This could have been a major problem had I not known this in the feild. The ballistic function worked great and stores more rifle profiles than the swaro, if that matters.

What I don't like about the swaro; I wish the range/MOA/info readout was up on the display a little longer each time you take a range. I also don't care for the "field pro" style of attaching a bino harness or neck strap as I have had them come undone unexpectedly.

Thank you very much for the feedback!

 

[Ucsdryder]

I have the RFs. No experience with the swaro but really don’t like the big compartments on the tubes.

 

[idig4au]

I would forego for range finding capability and just focus on getting truly great glass. Will last you a lifetime and will be truly buy once, cry once.

RF component of binos are just something to get out dated or fail.

 

[WRO]

I would forego for range finding capability and just focus on getting truly great glass. Will last you a lifetime and will be truly buy once, cry once.

RF component of binos are just something to get out dated or fail.

I've been running my el range ta next to my 12x50 els alot, the glass in New El ranges gives up nothing imho..

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Adventurfreak]

I've been running my el range ta next to my 12x50 els alot, the glass in New El ranges gives up nothing imho..

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

From what I read they use the same glass in those binos. The only better glass I believe is the NL pure series