Which one is the best rangefinder?

[Jordan Smith]

My Bushnell Fusion has a RF that matches the performance that wheels has reported from his CRF1600, and a bino with optics that matches the Vortex Viper. All this for $700-$850, depending on where you buy from. I doubt if the Geovid can match or beat the RF performance, and you're paying a lot of extra $$$ for a little bit of extra optical performance. I'm not saying that the Geovid isn't worth buying, since it is optically superior to the Fusion, but it's not worth the extra $1000 from my wallet...

 

[rar]

i use the lieca crf 1200, farthest i have ranged with it is just over 1300 yards .

 

[plainSight Solutions]

I hesitate to comment on these types of threads due to an obvious bias it may be perceived that I hold.

I respect that people have budgets and differing levels of utility. Likewise I respect that everyone has their favorite brand and preference.

However I can speak from direct experience as well as extensive feedback from competitive shooters, hardcore gear-nuts, and professional guides. There is a significant difference in performance and durability between a tier 1 rf optic and a tier 2 or 3 model.

Again, no offense to anyone, however I have yet to speak to a professional guide who would risk a client's animal by ranging with something other than a Leica, Zeiss, or Swaro.

In terms of sheer performance, the Swaro Laserguide still has the edge in terms of accuracy and response time. The Leica CRF 1600 is perhaps more desirable due to its size and ergonomics, as well as its features.

In terms of overall value, the Geovids are incomparable given the outstanding performance of the HD glass, coupled with the 10x mag and very accurate rf.

The Geovids will be eclipsed by the soon to be released Swaro EL rf binos, which will offer better optical performance than the old EL's and better overall rf performance than the Laserguide, including angle compensation.

Once again, not here to ruffle feathers.

 

[bellero]

I hesitate to comment on these types of threads due to an obvious bias it may be perceived that I hold.

I respect that people have budgets and differing levels of utility. Likewise I respect that everyone has their favorite brand and preference.

However I can speak from direct experience as well as extensive feedback from competitive shooters, hardcore gear-nuts, and professional guides. There is a significant difference in performance and durability between a tier 1 rf optic and a tier 2 or 3 model.

Again, no offense to anyone, however I have yet to speak to a professional guide who would risk a client's animal by ranging with something other than a Leica, Zeiss, or Swaro.

In terms of sheer performance, the Swaro Laserguide still has the edge in terms of accuracy and response time. The Leica CRF 1600 is perhaps more desirable due to its size and ergonomics, as well as its features.

In terms of overall value, the Geovids are incomparable given the outstanding performance of the HD glass, coupled with the 10x mag and very accurate rf.

The Geovids will be eclipsed by the soon to be released Swaro EL rf binos, which will offer better optical performance than the old EL's and better overall rf performance than the Laserguide, including angle compensation.

Once again, not here to ruffle feathers.

Your input is more than welcome and seems unbiased to me. It wouldn't be wrong either for a forum sponsor to promote his products especially when it's top quality optics with a proven reputation.

 

[bellero]

Can someone explain me the angle compensation option available on some models??

 

[Moosetracker]

I've owned Bushnell, Leupold, Leica and Swaro. I now have a Zeiss Victory RF 8x45 which is a delight to use. Crystal clear optics and fast, accurate rangefinder.

 

[wheels]

the Swaro Laserguide still has the edge in terms of accuracy and response time

I had always heard the one complaint against swaro was the slow response time?

 

[plainSight Solutions]

I had always heard the one complaint against swaro was the slow response time?

I haven't heard that or experienced it myself. The issue with the Swaro is the large size of the ranging donut: it is 20 MoA at 100 yards which can sometimes make it difficult to zero in on the correct target (i.e. you hit the grass just below and behind the deer rather than the deer itself).

 

[cam1936]

I have the bushnell 1600 fusion 10x42's...really like these RF's...I know I'll get jumped on here but tired the Leica's out at the same time with the Fusion's and honestly if someone was handing you either pair without you knowing which one it was I don't think 9 out of 10 people could tell the difference...just my opinion!!! and 1/3 the price.

Are you kidding? You couldn't see the difference between a Geovid and the Bushnell 1600 fusion? The bushnell coatings kill light transmission and give everything a greenish hue. The clarity right out to the very edge of the FOV in the Leica is remarkably better than the Bushnell. Kudos to Bushnell for making a RF Bino for under $1000, but absolutly no comparision to a Leica.

I choose Leica 1600, they are light and have no bulk (although that makes them a little less steady) which is why I choose it over the Swaro laser guide. Both have excellent optics, but I've only used Leica products in the field. The good thing with Leica is their published range is not overstated even on a game animal. I've had Geovids, that are published to 1300, range game at that distance. Where as a Bushnell 1200 has a tough time picking up a deer at 400.

 

[TDC]

Can someone explain me the angle compensation option available on some models??

When shooting downhill or uphill at any angle, your "dope" or range adjustments will be different than shooting at the same range horizontally. With the angle compensation feature, it gives you what Leupold calls "true ballistic range". The number it reads is the range you need to dial in or hold over to make the hit while taking the angle into account.

I haven't heard that or experienced it myself. The issue with the Swaro is the large size of the ranging donut: it is 20 MoA at 100 yards which can sometimes make it difficult to zero in on the correct target (i.e. you hit the grass just below and behind the deer rather than the deer itself).

The issue of a mis read on range is reduced by ranging the same target 3 times for the average.

TDC

 

[bellero]

When shooting downhill or uphill at any angle, your "dope" or range adjustments will be different than shooting at the same range horizontally. With the angle compensation feature, it gives you what Leupold calls "true ballistic range". The number it reads is the range you need to dial in or hold over to make the hit while taking the angle into account.TDC

Thanks for the explanation. I can see this be very helpful for Sheep or goat hunters. I don't think an average joe hunter like me really need this feature on his RF.

 

[Epoxy7]

Well there you have it, Zwaro, Leica, Zeiss.

X2. All three will no doubt work well.

I have the Swarovski. Originally I ordered the Leica, but due to a demo sale and the Canadian dollar being at par I decided to spend the extra. I don't know if it was worth the extra or not, but it was my one shot to get a Swarovski at a resonable price.

When the dollar is at par or higher, check out Camera Land. Also look for their demo sales. Mine looked to be brand new. I doubt it was demoed at all. They are a site sponsor.

 

[alta780]

I have received my Zeiss, and am quite happy with it. Very clear, and easy to range, also everything I ranged was repeatable. Now that I have it though, I am more disapointed with the fact that it does not have clips for a bino harness, like the Swaro does. A very good RF with one fault IMO.

 

[hawk-i]

Are you kidding? You couldn't see the difference between a Geovid and the Bushnell 1600 fusion? The bushnell coatings kill light transmission and give everything a greenish hue. The clarity right out to the very edge of the FOV in the Leica is remarkably better than the Bushnell. Kudos to Bushnell for making a RF Bino for under $1000, but absolutly no comparision to a Leica.

I choose Leica 1600, they are light and have no bulk (although that makes them a little less steady) which is why I choose it over the Swaro laser guide. Both have excellent optics, but I've only used Leica products in the field. The good thing with Leica is their published range is not overstated even on a game animal. I've had Geovids, that are published to 1300, range game at that distance. Where as a Bushnell 1200 has a tough time picking up a deer at 400.

I knew I'd get jumped on but maybe it was the conditions that equalized the comparison for me...it was a very bright, sunny, warm day...don't know if a duller day would change things (quite possibly may) also the ranged distances between the Leica and Fusions where within 1 yard all the way out to over 1700 yards. I do have a Swarovski rifle scope with 56 mm objective lens and its mostly in very low light conditions that I see a larger amount difference with other scopes.

 

[Cummins4x4]

My Leica 1200 has been doing the job just fine. The Swaro is too big IMO. Wouldn't hesitate to get the Geovids if I had the coin.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Are you kidding? You couldn't see the difference between a Geovid and the Bushnell 1600 fusion? The bushnell coatings kill light transmission and give everything a greenish hue. The clarity right out to the very edge of the FOV in the Leica is remarkably better than the Bushnell. Kudos to Bushnell for making a RF Bino for under $1000, but absolutly no comparision to a Leica.

I choose Leica 1600, they are light and have no bulk (although that makes them a little less steady) which is why I choose it over the Swaro laser guide. Both have excellent optics, but I've only used Leica products in the field. The good thing with Leica is their published range is not overstated even on a game animal. I've had Geovids, that are published to 1300, range game at that distance. Where as a Bushnell 1200 has a tough time picking up a deer at 400.

Hey Cam,

Just curious, have you used the Fusion 1600 at all? It certainly has changed my opinion of Bushnell RF's 180 degrees. The older ones sucked until they came out with the Elite 1500. That was the first good Bushy RF that I came across. The Fusion RF bino is more of a good thing.

 

[cam1936]

Hey Cam,

Just curious, have you used the Fusion 1600 at all? It certainly has changed my opinion of Bushnell RF's 180 degrees. The older ones sucked until they came out with the Elite 1500. That was the first good Bushy RF that I came across. The Fusion RF bino is more of a good thing.

Maybe I came on a bit strong lol. I'll be honest, I've used Geovids and other Leica products in the field, but my Bushnell fusion 1600 experience was in a store only. I looked through the ones at Bass Pro and at Wholesale and it just was not my cup of tea. Am I the only one that thinks the coatings they use kill colour correction? It's a totally different coating than they use on say the Ultra HDs (which I think are a damn fine bino) and to my eyes it hurts light transmission and colour correction. Maybe I should give em a chance outside, but I have no friends who have picked up a pair.

 

[westcoaster]

Which one of the following rangefinder do you prefer and why?

I have owned a Bushnel and now own a Swaro. It went someting llike this...

Gee I need a rangefinder, hmmmm Bushnell Elite scopes are some of the best bang for your buck out there and the local shop highly recommended it so I brought home the top of the line (at that time) Bushnell. In all honesty I cannot recall the exact model but it had angle compensation and was good for I think 1200 yards.

In actual use it would range reflective objects out to about its claimed parameters. However, something with bark, hair, fur or a rockface could not be ranged past 200 to 400 yards.

Fortunately for me the local shop took it back.

I looked at Leica, Zeiss, and Swaro. At that time the Leicas were reported to be having some quality issues. Also, for me, the Leica is so tiny it gets lost in your hand and I found it a bit awkward. The Zeiss, while very clear and bright had only been out for a few months. A little larger than the Leica and ranged quickly and consistantly. I was pretty conflicted on this one because I really liked it. The Swaro had very clear bright optics, the ranging was quick and dependable and the size fit my hands very well. The only downside is that the aiming reticle is a little larger.

From my own experience and watching others with various units I dont think you could go wrong with Leica, Zeiss, or Swaro. They all have features that are better and worse, I think to a degree it will come down to your personal preference between these three.

I would have a hard time recommending or arguing that one of these three is better although I feel the Swaro edges the other two out.

Some will say that others are just as good - they are not. Ive been side by side in the field for a few years now mostly with Bushnells and Leicas. The Bushnells are not consistant and their optics are not in the same class.

 

[TDC]

Thanks for the explanation. I can see this be very helpful for Sheep or goat hunters. I don't think an average joe hunter like me really need this feature on his RF.

You're exactly right, the sheep/goat hunters are the primary users for such features. It isn't a bad thing to have, but if you don't do much high angle shooting then its not a big loss.

TDC

 

[Jordan Smith]

Ive been side by side in the field for a few years now mostly with Bushnells and Leicas. The Bushnells are not consistant and their optics are not in the same class.

This used to be a general rule that held true. The game has changed a bit now, and I would not be too quick to lump all Bushnell RF's into one basket anymore...