Zeiss Diavari FFP vs. Other Scopes

[BayouBuck985]

Hey, I’m looking at getting another scope for one of my deer hunting rifles. I bought a couple used scopes recently such as a Meopta Meopro 3-9X42 and Swarovski Z6 2-12X50, and I am tempted to buy another quality scope on the used market. I have been seeing some used Zeiss Diavari Z MC scopes, a Diavari V Victory as well as a Zeiss Conquest MC 3-12X56 scope. All models have the reticle located in the first focal plane. That being said, my first question would be do any of you have any FFP hunting scopes, and if so, how do you like that compared to second focal plane (SFP) scopes? From what I gather, is that generally hunting scopes are preferred to be SFP, but I assume part of this is personal preference.
Overall, will I gain a noticeable edge in clarity and brightness in low light by going with a Zeiss Diavari compared to something like a used Zeiss Conquest (I also have a 4.5-14X44) or my Meopta Meopro? I know the Conquest and Meopro look very similar, and I am satisfied with my Meopro, although I haven’t a chance to take it to the range or the field yet. I’m looking at spending under $1000. That being said, does anyone have any firsthand reviews of the Meopta Meostar R2 and/or how might this one compare to the Zeiss Diavari Z? I see that EuroOptic has the Meostar R2 for about $1000 now.

 

[Potsie]

Many would argue that ability to hold zero and repeatable dialing are much more important that optical clarity.

Start there.

Could have the greatest glass in the world but it’s useless if it’s 1.5” off everytime you pull it out of the safe.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

All of my scopes are FFP. For standard Max point blank range type hunting id advise against them. If a guy is going to be holding measured windage or elevation corrections FFP makes more sense especially if over 9 or 10x magnification. The reticle design is very important on a FFP scope if it's going to be used at lower magnifications under 5 or 6x as the reticle can become too fine to easily discern at low magnifications.

 

[BayouBuck985]

All of my scopes are FFP. For standard Max point blank range type hunting id advise against them. If a guy is going to be holding measured windage or elevation corrections FFP makes more sense especially if over 9 or 10x magnification. The reticle design is very important on a FFP scope if it's going to be used at lower magnifications under 5 or 6x as the reticle can become too fine to easily discern at low magnifications.

Thanks. I was looking at a Diavari V with and without illumination as well as a Diavari Z, all with the standard duplex reticle. It seems that it would not be a detriment to my hunting/shooting experience as I only make a range trip to shoot at 100 yds, and most of my whitetail and pig hunting covers shots under 200 yds. I’ve just never looked through a FFP scope, so I didn’t know how much of an adjustment would be needed on my part. I also need to evaluate to see if spending $1000 or maybe more on a lightly used older Zeiss would be advantageous over a less expensive new or used scope, likely for more of a backup rifle. Or if I like it more, it may replace my Z6.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I've often been tempted on a trijicon accupoint 2.5-10x56 as an ideal point and shoot eastern whitetail scope with great low light performance. Its just that the FFP scopes I have work well enough for the application to avoid spending another $1k on a scope.