Zeiss XB75 Evaluation
May 23, 2015 22:34:40 GMT -5
Post by sw on May 23, 2015 22:34:40 GMT -5
This is a post I made on a couple of dedicated crossbow forums. It might be of some help to someone here.
This is an evaluation of the Zeiss XB75 compared to some of its competition and some higher level scopes mounted on HHA Optimizers. There's an old saying, "You can have anything you want but not everything". I've been frugal in virtually every area of life and now am having one, actually two, "anythings I want". These are my two Matrix crossbows. This includes their scopes. The following will help shed light on why the XB75 sits atop my most expensive and favorite crossbow. This was a "cost is no obstacle" choice even though the XB75 isn't a high-cost scope.
I've used the Zeiss XB75 for 2 weeks now, and it has earned a place on my "bottomless money pit" Matrix 380. That's an honored place as I've gone all out on my M380, including every Excal option for quietening, radical silencing of the stirrup, custom wooden "Agingcrossboyer" stock, Boo/Vixemmaster strings, scope level, TT trigger, custom constructed Zombies +/- 0.2g, and , until the last 2 weeks, a Zeiss Duralyt lighted 2-8/ HHA Optimizer, etc. My M405 is identically equipped except for the stock and having a Zeiss Duralyt 2-8 lighted scope remaining on it.
I've used xbows for 32 years now (hunting is my only hobby: deer, bear, turkey, and varmints). As optics became available for xbows, I tried virtually all. A common misconception is that at "crossbow ranges"(ranges actually well below modern xbows' actual potential) is that the quality of optics really doesn't matter much. Wrong!! So many factors really do count: low light capability, color acuity, clarity to the edges, readability of the reticle, field of view, physical size, weight, etc. The early crossbow specific scopes ranked relatively low in almost all of these categories . As time went on, these scopes improved with the Hawke XB30 standing out in the crowd, early on. Still, it had relatively poor low light capability and a very bright lighted reticle even on its lowest setting that washed out the scope picture. It's major limitations involved low light limitations and a very cluttered reticle. Then the Nikon Bolt, Hawke XB-30 Pro SR, Leupold Crossbones and others came on the scene with more advanced capabilities. The Hawke XB-30 Pro SR is similar to the XB30 but has range marks to 100 yds and adjusts up to 450'/sec. The Bolt is very compact yet, only has a speed range up to 350'/sec, good optics, but in low light, the tiny dots are hard to see beyond the 20 yard mark. The Crossbones also had very thin range marks yet has very good optics, for its size, which are clear to the edges, is very compact, but also has a lighter reticle than I prefer. Nearly all xbow scopes except for the Hawke XB-30 Pro SR and the XB75 have range marks only to 60 yards or less. The XB75 goes to 75 yds and this Hawke goes out to 100 yds. Most faster speed xbows can shoot to 100 yds within the dial range on the HHA Optimizer? Each of these scopes can be an ideal choice for certain users. One size just doesn't fit all. Each of these scopes deserves consideration. Not everyone wants to see in the dark. Not everyone wants markings beyond 60 yards. However, everyone does appreciate an easy to read reticle, especially in waning light, and bright optics. Likewise, physical size can play a determining factor for some users.
Still , none of these crossbow specific scopes approach the lowlight capability of the Leupold VXR(1-4 or 2-7) or Zeiss Duralyt lighted 2-8. I used both of these, as well as a Leupold VX-1, 3-9x, 40mm/Optimizer, in testing the low light capabilities of all these scopes including the new Zeiss XB75.
As just addressed, there just isn't an ideal scope for all situations and all people. As size decreases, scope performance is adversely affected. None of the crossbow specific scopes approaches the low light capability of the Duralyt, nor even the slightly less bright, and less expensive, Leupold VXR. None of these crossbow specific scopes are serious low light scopes; however, one is a great lower light scope.
I tested all these scopes with 2 different targets at ranges of 20 to 100 yards, in 10 yard increments. The targets were 3" numbered signs of black numbers on a white square and a Mckenzie archery target of a medium sized white tail buck. Ranges that each number could still be read and that the deer could still be clearly seen well enough to be a viable target were recorded as dusk set in. There was quite a contrast. A major problem that all , except one, of the crossbow specific scopes had was loosing the reticle before loosing the target. The Hawke's lighted reticle washed out the view so I saw it as functionally useless. Interestingly, the VX1, as large and optically good as it is, did not quite equal the smaller XB75. However, the VX1 did outperform all of the other xbow specific scopes, optically, and in low light capability. The VX1/Optimizer has a lot to offer.
Results: the Hawke lost the ability to realistically shoot at a deer 10-11 minutes before the highest scoring xbow specific scope, the XB75, and about 5-6 minutes before the Bolt and Crossbones. The XB75 could still make shots from 1-4 minutes later than the larger VX1/Optimizer. This says a lot about both the superb reticle and the optics of the 32mm Zeiss XB75. It's not just a great xbow specific scope: it's a very good scope, period. It was only exceeded in low light capability by the VXR 2-7 (2-3 minutes later shooting ability) and the Duralyt 2-8 lighted (3-12 minutes later shooting ability). The greatest time differences were noted at the longest distances, and the time margins were least at 20 yards.
The greatest time difference was between the Hawke XB1 and the Duralyt @100 yds with the Duralyt being able to make out the deer target and using the appropriate reticle was an amazing 27 minutes. At 20 yards the difference was reduced to 14 minutes. At 20-30 yards, the xbow specific scopes were all within 11 minutes with the Hawke having the poorest showing and the XB75 having the best. The XB75's bold, simple reticle stood out compared to all the other xbow specific scopes. Optically the XB75 was clearer than the other xbow specific scopes with the Crossbones being a close second followed by the Bolt; however, the reticle design of the Zeiss gave it a significant advantage for quick shots or picking the right mark in lower light. IMO, who ever came up with the simple, bold, clearly numbered reticle needs promoted! The numbered range marks (20-75 yds ), with 2 1/2 yd subdivisions, are just elegantly numbered. The XB75 can certainly be used thruout legal shooting hours and then a few minutes beyond or before. The VX1 scored slightly below the XB75 but just by 1-4 minutes. The VXR 2-7 was about half way between the XB75 and the superb Duralyt 2-8 which beat the XB75 by 6 minutes at 70 yards and only 3 minutes at 20 yards.
Of course, those last few minutes come at quite a cost; but for a hunter, they are the most valuable minutes of the day. ! If hunting in a field until 30 minutes after sunset, AND using a maximum range of 50-60 yards, the Bolt, Crossbones and the XB75 will suffice. However, in heavy cover, the XB75 will have a distinct advantage over the other 2 at any time or if hunting past the normal 30 minutes after sunset. Again, as previously stated, the ultimate low light potential lies with the Optimizer/ Duralyt lighted. Personally, being a serious varmint hunter, that extra 6 minutes over the XB75 are pretty important to me. For deer hunting, heavy cover, and hunting only in legal time limits, the XB75 provides the best overall performance according to my testing. There is an advantage to not having to dial a range. The M405 will keep its Optimizer/Duralyt but for the M380, the XB75 has already replaced the Optimizer/Duralyt.
You just won't go wrong with Zeiss, and that includes the new XB75.
Steve White, a vertical recurve(Palmer) and horizontal recurve(Excalibur) shooter.
This is an evaluation of the Zeiss XB75 compared to some of its competition and some higher level scopes mounted on HHA Optimizers. There's an old saying, "You can have anything you want but not everything". I've been frugal in virtually every area of life and now am having one, actually two, "anythings I want". These are my two Matrix crossbows. This includes their scopes. The following will help shed light on why the XB75 sits atop my most expensive and favorite crossbow. This was a "cost is no obstacle" choice even though the XB75 isn't a high-cost scope.
I've used the Zeiss XB75 for 2 weeks now, and it has earned a place on my "bottomless money pit" Matrix 380. That's an honored place as I've gone all out on my M380, including every Excal option for quietening, radical silencing of the stirrup, custom wooden "Agingcrossboyer" stock, Boo/Vixemmaster strings, scope level, TT trigger, custom constructed Zombies +/- 0.2g, and , until the last 2 weeks, a Zeiss Duralyt lighted 2-8/ HHA Optimizer, etc. My M405 is identically equipped except for the stock and having a Zeiss Duralyt 2-8 lighted scope remaining on it.
I've used xbows for 32 years now (hunting is my only hobby: deer, bear, turkey, and varmints). As optics became available for xbows, I tried virtually all. A common misconception is that at "crossbow ranges"(ranges actually well below modern xbows' actual potential) is that the quality of optics really doesn't matter much. Wrong!! So many factors really do count: low light capability, color acuity, clarity to the edges, readability of the reticle, field of view, physical size, weight, etc. The early crossbow specific scopes ranked relatively low in almost all of these categories . As time went on, these scopes improved with the Hawke XB30 standing out in the crowd, early on. Still, it had relatively poor low light capability and a very bright lighted reticle even on its lowest setting that washed out the scope picture. It's major limitations involved low light limitations and a very cluttered reticle. Then the Nikon Bolt, Hawke XB-30 Pro SR, Leupold Crossbones and others came on the scene with more advanced capabilities. The Hawke XB-30 Pro SR is similar to the XB30 but has range marks to 100 yds and adjusts up to 450'/sec. The Bolt is very compact yet, only has a speed range up to 350'/sec, good optics, but in low light, the tiny dots are hard to see beyond the 20 yard mark. The Crossbones also had very thin range marks yet has very good optics, for its size, which are clear to the edges, is very compact, but also has a lighter reticle than I prefer. Nearly all xbow scopes except for the Hawke XB-30 Pro SR and the XB75 have range marks only to 60 yards or less. The XB75 goes to 75 yds and this Hawke goes out to 100 yds. Most faster speed xbows can shoot to 100 yds within the dial range on the HHA Optimizer? Each of these scopes can be an ideal choice for certain users. One size just doesn't fit all. Each of these scopes deserves consideration. Not everyone wants to see in the dark. Not everyone wants markings beyond 60 yards. However, everyone does appreciate an easy to read reticle, especially in waning light, and bright optics. Likewise, physical size can play a determining factor for some users.
Still , none of these crossbow specific scopes approach the lowlight capability of the Leupold VXR(1-4 or 2-7) or Zeiss Duralyt lighted 2-8. I used both of these, as well as a Leupold VX-1, 3-9x, 40mm/Optimizer, in testing the low light capabilities of all these scopes including the new Zeiss XB75.
As just addressed, there just isn't an ideal scope for all situations and all people. As size decreases, scope performance is adversely affected. None of the crossbow specific scopes approaches the low light capability of the Duralyt, nor even the slightly less bright, and less expensive, Leupold VXR. None of these crossbow specific scopes are serious low light scopes; however, one is a great lower light scope.
I tested all these scopes with 2 different targets at ranges of 20 to 100 yards, in 10 yard increments. The targets were 3" numbered signs of black numbers on a white square and a Mckenzie archery target of a medium sized white tail buck. Ranges that each number could still be read and that the deer could still be clearly seen well enough to be a viable target were recorded as dusk set in. There was quite a contrast. A major problem that all , except one, of the crossbow specific scopes had was loosing the reticle before loosing the target. The Hawke's lighted reticle washed out the view so I saw it as functionally useless. Interestingly, the VX1, as large and optically good as it is, did not quite equal the smaller XB75. However, the VX1 did outperform all of the other xbow specific scopes, optically, and in low light capability. The VX1/Optimizer has a lot to offer.
Results: the Hawke lost the ability to realistically shoot at a deer 10-11 minutes before the highest scoring xbow specific scope, the XB75, and about 5-6 minutes before the Bolt and Crossbones. The XB75 could still make shots from 1-4 minutes later than the larger VX1/Optimizer. This says a lot about both the superb reticle and the optics of the 32mm Zeiss XB75. It's not just a great xbow specific scope: it's a very good scope, period. It was only exceeded in low light capability by the VXR 2-7 (2-3 minutes later shooting ability) and the Duralyt 2-8 lighted (3-12 minutes later shooting ability). The greatest time differences were noted at the longest distances, and the time margins were least at 20 yards.
The greatest time difference was between the Hawke XB1 and the Duralyt @100 yds with the Duralyt being able to make out the deer target and using the appropriate reticle was an amazing 27 minutes. At 20 yards the difference was reduced to 14 minutes. At 20-30 yards, the xbow specific scopes were all within 11 minutes with the Hawke having the poorest showing and the XB75 having the best. The XB75's bold, simple reticle stood out compared to all the other xbow specific scopes. Optically the XB75 was clearer than the other xbow specific scopes with the Crossbones being a close second followed by the Bolt; however, the reticle design of the Zeiss gave it a significant advantage for quick shots or picking the right mark in lower light. IMO, who ever came up with the simple, bold, clearly numbered reticle needs promoted! The numbered range marks (20-75 yds ), with 2 1/2 yd subdivisions, are just elegantly numbered. The XB75 can certainly be used thruout legal shooting hours and then a few minutes beyond or before. The VX1 scored slightly below the XB75 but just by 1-4 minutes. The VXR 2-7 was about half way between the XB75 and the superb Duralyt 2-8 which beat the XB75 by 6 minutes at 70 yards and only 3 minutes at 20 yards.
Of course, those last few minutes come at quite a cost; but for a hunter, they are the most valuable minutes of the day. ! If hunting in a field until 30 minutes after sunset, AND using a maximum range of 50-60 yards, the Bolt, Crossbones and the XB75 will suffice. However, in heavy cover, the XB75 will have a distinct advantage over the other 2 at any time or if hunting past the normal 30 minutes after sunset. Again, as previously stated, the ultimate low light potential lies with the Optimizer/ Duralyt lighted. Personally, being a serious varmint hunter, that extra 6 minutes over the XB75 are pretty important to me. For deer hunting, heavy cover, and hunting only in legal time limits, the XB75 provides the best overall performance according to my testing. There is an advantage to not having to dial a range. The M405 will keep its Optimizer/Duralyt but for the M380, the XB75 has already replaced the Optimizer/Duralyt.
You just won't go wrong with Zeiss, and that includes the new XB75.
Steve White, a vertical recurve(Palmer) and horizontal recurve(Excalibur) shooter.
