Thread: SWAROVSKI Z5 2.4-12 x 50

Any body running one of these ? any problems with parallax on 12 power as it does not come with a parallax dial ?
Just wanting it for a bit of a all rounder as its nice and light and ticks my boxes for power range, the other option is the Z6 2-12 x 50 , its heavier and maybe more robust with 30mm tube but cant really see any other advantage .

I know it won't be for everyone, but when trying to decide on the importance of adjustable parallax for a given scope/application I found it useful to crunch the numbers:

Parallax Error = (Distance your eye is off-centre from the scope)*(magnification)*(distance factor). The distance factor is (Target Distance - Parallax Free Distance)/(Parallax Free Distance)

Let's assume for the moment that with a decent cheek weld you can get your eye within 1mm of centre behind the eyepiece. Assuming also that this scope is parallax free at 100m (it would pay to check this, I haven't looked around thoroughly but I saw a forum suggestion that Swarovski set the parallax free distance differently depending on the reticle installed?) then:

Scope on 2.4x, target at 200m: Parallax error =1*2.4*(200-100)/100 = 2.4mm
Scope on 12x, target at 200m: Parallax error - 1*12*(200-100)/100 = 12mm

Scope on 2.4x, target at 500m: Parallax error =1*2.4*(500-100)/100 = 9.6mm
Scope on 12x, target at 500m: Parallax error - 1*12*(500-100)/100 = 48mm

A couple of notes to the above: 1) If the target range is less than the parallax free distance then the error figure comes out negative - but just forget about the minus sign and it still works. (2) The above equation works for when your eye is offset from centre up to a maximum of half the exit pupil diameter. Exit pupil is objective diameter (i.e. 50mm in this case) divided by magnification.

Play around with the numbers, estimate how repeatably you think you could get centered behind the scope in a hunting situation, and decide if you can live with the resulting parallax error.

Or you could just go ahead and buy what will undoubtedly be a very nice piece of glass and go shooting. That works too.

Just get the 3.5-18x44


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My wife has the Z3 version (4-12 x 50mm BT) of this scope on a bolt action 250 Sav AI and having no parallax adjustment hasn't caused any issues at all. She has shoot several hares at ranges between 300 and 375m with it and a nice 13 pointer at 348m through the neck. It has a slight advantage in low light over the Z5 3.5-18 x 44mm when compared side by side but if I was looking at the Z5 models I would go with the 3.5-18 x 44mm.

There'd be a justification for both the 3.5-18x44 and the 2.4-12x50. The 2.4-12x50 is an inch shorter, has 29% more objective lens area and should have more depth of focus. As I understand it, side focus parallax adjustment gives the ability to focus perfectly at any given range, but you lose focus more quickly when you move away from the parallax-free distance than you would with a non adjustable scope. Means that the benefit is you have adjustment, and the downside is you have to use it.

Thanks @PaulNZ , the 3.5-18 x 44 is undoubtedly a fine scope but just going to look stupid on the little K95 I want this scope for and I have no need really for all that magnification over 12 anyway in this rifle , it was just the parallax setting I was curious about and the possible error size , will do a bit more research on it I think.

Just get the 3.5-18x44

Why?
Not everyone needs 18 power and may like a lighter lower power scope with better light gathering.
Like Lucky I think the 2.5-12x50 would be a great light weight bush scope on compact rifle with good light gathering with the 50mm objective.

Originally Posted by winaa

Why?
Not everyone needs 18 power and may like a lighter lower power scope with better light gathering.
Like Lucky I think the 2.5-12x50 would be a great light weight bush scope on compact rifle with good light gathering with the 50mm objective.

The 3.5-18 is lighter, by 10grams, it has parallax adjustment, which was one of his main concerns. It’s a bit slimmer, albeit an inch longer. The gain in light gathering would be marginal. I’d have either, can’t go wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I went the vx5 route but was very keen on the 2.4-12. Had a look through one and really rated it. Be epic as an all rounder

Originally Posted by MSL

The 3.5-18 is lighter, by 10grams, it has parallax adjustment, which was one of his main concerns. It’s a bit slimmer, albeit an inch longer. The gain in light gathering would be marginal. I’d have either, can’t go wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a fare comment I didn't check the weight. It all depends on what you want in a scope, open tops and long shots a higher power scope with Parallax would be an advantage, in the bush with the odd longer shot the lower power would be better. I find scopes with adjustable Parallax a real pain for bush stalking, it all depends on what @Lucky wants.