Hunters,

I looked today through a VX3 and a VX2 scope to see if I could detect a difference in brightness and clarity. Both was set at 6x in an empty open plan office at a distance of about 50 paces. I looked a painting on a wall depicting some flowers. The VX3 was may be 5% clearer, but nothing to write home about, as it was so slight. May be it will only become apparent during the last 5 minutes before the sun goes down.

Then I looked through the window of the double story building some 200 paces ahead of me. I targeted a truck with some writing on its door. There was no difference at all - at least to my eyes. This was a simple test in the available 10 minutes that I had.

My conclusion is that I fail to see the substantial premium that the VX3 demands over the VX2. None was as clear as my Kahles scope of similar configuration, despite the hype about the "Index Match Lens System".

What do I like about the Leupolds? They are light-weight, long eye relief, and their recently available Wide-Duplex reticle that gives a more 'open' view of the target. Scopes with 40 mm objectives can still be mounted reasonably low. In the context of hunting, they will not be limiting, but for precision shooting/absolute clarity, there is definitely room for improvement.

Leupold, being an American company, believes in product differentiation as a marketing strategy (VXI; VX2; VX3) as opposed to the European manufactures that just offer one line, and it is their best line . Furthermore, I fail to understand why a company such as Leupold, cannot offer the same quality of lenses as S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski.

I also looked through a Meopta scope (Czech) and was pleasantly surprised at their clarity - they are just too heavy for my liking and they have mostly 30 mm tubes in the scopes that offer bigger magnifications.

Any other observations are welcome.
Chris

All optical companies can purchase the same optical glass and use pretty much the same coatings...but it has to be something that their customers are willing to pay for.

I am sure if Schmidt & Bender was $300, they would out sell Leupold. But...when they are priced at $1000+, it weeds out us working stiffs.

But...I think Leupold is overpriced for what you get. The Nikon Monarch is cheaper and better in my opinion. I think the blind loyalty to Leupold is because they had no competition 10-15 years ago. Now there is equal or better products for less money but people are in denial.

truevelloshooter, The first Leupold I bought was an M8-6X in about 1978. The other 2 scopes I had were a weaver 3-9 and a bushnell banner 3-9. The Leupold fixed 6 was within 10 dollars of the other two but was a better scope than either. I think Leupold jumped on a niche market in this country by making a better scope than what was being offered by the other makers in a particular price range. In the past 15-20 years we have seen some very low priced, low end scopes and the truely expensive European stuff has always been there. What we have today are several optics makers that are riding on the coattails of new engineering, abundant glass lenses, and cheap oversea labor. Therefore there is becoming a squeeze in the middle where lots of companies are making comparable scopes, more or less of the same quality for a given price range. I don't know that much about marketing, but it feels right in my mind that Leupold being now an old line optics maker, of all places, in the U.S., is feeling the crunch of what our economy does to the few things that are still produced here. Engineering is high; R&D is high; labor is high; advertising is high; not to mention their taxes and rent. All this to say that Leupold was and is a good middle to top middle line of scope. Very tough, great eye relief, good resolution. IMO it is not as good as the best European stuff and is far better than some at the lower end, but it is probably pricing itself at the top end of all scopes in its class. I guarantee that if Leupold moved all manufacturing to China and still produced the same quality of scope, you'd see VXIII's priced to compete dollar wise with buckmasters. Then you'd have a choice to make, huh! I'll always like Leupold, much like the fond memories of a first girlfriend, but they are surely pricing themselves into an ever shrinking circle of affordability when compared to the Nikon BM's; Monarchs; Bushnell 32 and 4200; etc. In fact, I'm looking at the Nikons now, just like I looked at that new M8-6X thirty years ago Just rambling in my sleep, nurse jp

I like Leupold scopes....but I love their customer service. Their communication, turn around time, and warranty on a scope that came with a gun I purchased used was outstanding (free). I have a few other brands on some of my rifles, but the majority wear Leupold scopes, rings and mounts.
Keith

quote:

Originally posted by keithv35:
I like Leupold scopes....but I love their customer service. Their communication, turn around time, and warranty on a scope that came with a gun I purchased used was outstanding (free). I have a few other brands on some of my rifles, but the majority wear Leupold scopes, rings and mounts.
Keith

Needed to fix your "used" leup(old) did 'ya? Welcome to the warranty club.

Do yourself a favor and go with Nikon or Burris or.... NOT leup(old).

small fish - Once I had to send in a 20+ yr old Leupold for FREE service and it took almost a week to get it back. Track record for others I've sent for service:

• Burris (NIB): 7 weeks (there is always next season) No charge.
  
  
• Bushnell (2 seasons old): 5 weeks Replaced with new "improved" model.
  
  
• Weaver (4 seasons old): 3 weeks $60

Gotta say - the extra we pay for Leupold is worth something.

I sent them a 20yr old 6x that would fog and had a bably scratched lense-they called me and said i would need a new lense-asked me what i used to scratch it so bad i said i didn't it was that way when i got it--we decided it probably wouldn't have gotten scratched if it hadn't fogged in the 1st place--end result new lense and 1 wk turnaround no charge.

Most all agree that the Nikon Monarch scopes have better lenses than the Leupolds and that at a far better price.

We should pressurize Leupold to leap-frog them. Whilst the Monarch should actually compare with the VX2's they beat the VX3's. What do they know in the East that the Americans can't do? Even the top scope of Leupold, the LPS, cannot compete with European scopes such as Schmidt und Bender and others.

I love good competition and hopefully it will filter through before the decade is out in 2010.

Chris

When you are talking about the Nikon Monarch is it the Gold or Titanium, or is it the regular Monarch that you are comparint the Leupolds to?

quote:

Originally posted by truvelloshooter:
Most all agree that the Nikon Monarch scopes have better lenses than the Leupolds and that at a far better price.

We should pressurize Leupold to leap-frog them. Whilst the Monarch should actually compare with the VX2's they beat the VX3's. What do they know in the East that the Americans can't do? Even the top scope of Leupold, the LPS, cannot compete with European scopes such as Schmidt und Bender and others.

I love good competition and hopefully it will filter through before the decade is out in 2010.

Chris

truvelloshooter,how can you be a new member and have 263 posts?

You have summed up my argument with leup(old) since I came to this forum. The scopes that leup(old) puts out today are perhaps shameful for the price they want and the value of the quality.

The diehard leup(old) guys will go to their deaths clutching these inferior products in their hands cursing guys like me as I simply admit the obvious choice,the dinosaurs they are holding on to are overpriced.

I hold my ground with the better argument.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by small fish:
truvelloshooter,how can you be a new member and have 263 posts?
QUOTE]


Either the software hasn't clicked over, or Don has "dropped off" at his post.

Truvelloshooter: I think you've summed up the Leupolds pretty well. While it may (or may not) be true that some scopes present a "brighter" sight picture (although no instumental resolution test I've seen quantifies this), the weight, compactness, generous window of eye placement, choice of reticles, weathertightness, dependability of adjustments, and factory servicing make Leupold the standard (not necessarily the "best", but that by which others are judged) of OPTICAL GUN SIGHTS.

Anyone can build a good telescope. But adapting it to mount on a gun and provide a fast, dependable, lightweight, and versatile sighting system is a different matter. Generally, European scopes provide high optical quality, but the trade off is weight and size. Similarly, some scopes provide wide field of view at the expense of eye relief, or they provide a "constant" eye relief for variable power at the expense of highly critical eye relief. In optics, everything is a trade-off; and for optical gun sights, Leupold has a repuation of making the best trade-offs to create the most useful gun sight.

I understand that in Europe, because of tariffs, import expenses, exchange rates and whatever, Leupolds are about as expensive as the European "big name" brands, and factory service is not nearly so simple to obtain as in the U.S. So if you don't mind lugging around the extra weight, you're about as well off with one of the optically outstanding European-produced scopes. But here in the U.S., where a VX-I sells for $199 everywhere (and as you note with the VX-II vs. III, is optically indistiguishable), there is simply no real competition in that price range.

For those who insist on buying Asian-made optics of uneven quality bearing recycled American names, please, be my guest. After all, the competition they provide is all that keeps Leupold from jacking up their prices on their I and II lines (and the expense of the Euros is what allows Leupold to price its III and LPS lines for the carriage trade). But for those of us who put stock in the ability of the market to value commodities, there is no doubt that the enduring resale value of Leupolds as compared to any other brand of scope speaks volumes as to the consensus view of their value.

(By the way, Bushnells, like small fish, should be thrown back.)

Back about 12 or 14 years ago when I worked in a gun store, we sold LOTS of Leupold and Nikons. I guess that is about when Nikon was really taking off. We hardly ever, and I mean ever(!), sent back a Leupold because it was broke. Nikons came with a big orange stick on label so their owners could return the scopes for repair- and they had to use them a lot too! Also, Nikon would charge $70 back then to trade out a scope when the owner bent the objective bell. Can't ever remember that needing to be done to a Leupold. There was something about Nikon's quality. At the time (and I assume now) the contract for making them was bid out year to year and they were made in various countries from year to year. The only difference was Nikon's name was stamped on them. I took the pain off the door jam of my Toyota by accident with a vari X-3 3.5 x 10 and it never missed a lick. I'll bet Nikon or a whole lot of others won't do that.

Catmandu

Well if Nikon can bid out year by year (which they don't do if they ever did), and make scopes optically superior to Leupold, then what is Leupold's problem?

Whether they were as unreliable as depicted years ago I don't know. They aren't now. The world changes.

And I will take any Elite 4200's that anyone wishes to throw back gladly.

quote:

Anyone can build a good telescope...

So it's time for Leupold to do so as well...
When was the last time Leupold set the standard in spotting scopes, where optical quality is more of an essence than in rifle scopes...
Aic

stonedgeek is at it AGAIN!

quote:

Originally posted by Ratltrap:
small fish - Once I had to send in a 20+ yr old Leupold for FREE service and it took almost a week to get it back. Track record for others I've sent for service:

• Burris (NIB): 7 weeks (there is always next season) No charge.
  
  
• Bushnell (2 seasons old): 5 weeks Replaced with new "improved" model.
  
  
• Weaver (4 seasons old): 3 weeks $60

Gotta say - the extra we pay for Leupold is worth something.

OK, My buddy bought a used Burris 8-32 Sig. off EBay, windage tracking was messed up, sent it back to Burris, back in a week, no charge.

Sent in a 3.5-10 Leupold for my brother-in-law that had a wandering zero. He had It back in 3 weeks. So, your point is? Jay

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Anyone can build a good telescope. But adapting it to mount on a gun and provide a fast, dependable, lightweight, and versatile sighting system is a different matter.

What is it that they say about a picture?

I believe that stonedgeek has succumbed to the fact that leup(old) is in fact due for an upgrade. I was going to quote some of his last post but the whole post pretty much says it all. Good luck on your next purchase stonedgeek because you're going to need it.

quote:

Originally posted by DMCI*:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Anyone can build a good telescope. But adapting it to mount on a gun and provide a fast, dependable, lightweight, and versatile sighting system is a different matter.

What is it that they say about a picture?

Yes, this one certainly appears to be the very definition of "fast, lightweight, and versatile"; well, at least compared to the telescope at Mount Palomar, anyway.

I've used other brands and still occasionally do but I'm one of those guys who will go their grave still clutching my inferior quality Leupolds. Bottom line is that if there is a better quality scope being made I just don't need it.

JBD,

In one sense you are 100% right ... assuming you have a score of rifles that are already scoped, who will throw them off and buy the latest and the greatest. However, if you are buying a scope for a newly acquired rifle, would you insist on having the older model? Would you then not venture to buy a Nikon Monarch over a Leupold VX2? Or would you blindly stick to a Leopold?

Chris

Actually, I sold two Leupolds and bought Nikons to replace them. And I just ordered a Zeiss Conquest ($386.00), should have it in a few days. I am sure I won't be mourning the extra money I didn't spend on a Leupold. I only have one Leupold now. Maybe if Leupold would drop the price $100 they would be priced right.

My last and I mean last Leupold was an LPS. Top of the line, right? The crosshairs when mounted made an x. I called Leupold and was told send it back. I did at a cost of $20.00. Four weeks go by and I'm told they don't have the part but a new scope will be sent. New scope arrives with the wrong reticle. Leupold says send it back, another $20.00 for postage. I complained about the postage cost and was told that was the responsibility of the customer. Nice service!

When leupold sent me a scope that wasn't to my satisfaction they e-mailed me a 3day shipping label had the scope back with new lenses in 6 days-that was 3wks ago-sometimes it pays to talk nice. This was on a 20yr old scope.

I'm with 300 H-H on this issue. If anyone has a problem using Leupold scopes or has a problem with service its a user problem. I've had 2 scopes fog rendering them unusable and back to Europe they went to get repaired,never had a Leupold even hint of fogging.

quote:

Maybe if Leupold would drop the price $100 they would be priced right.

I respect people with strong feelings in life, including brand loayalty. But sometimes one has to concede that things can go both ways with equal joy.

Leupold VX3 3.5 - 10 x 40 mm .... $470
Zeiss Conquest 3 - 9 x 40 mm .... $399
Nikon Monarch 3 - 9 x40 mm ...... $259

Reducing the price of the VX3 by $100 may still not cut the ice, but it has more of a sporting chance against the Zeiss. However, even if it came down by $200, the Nikon still has the edge, which makes me think it is the 'scope of the year', just like they vote for cars to be the car of the year.

Well playing with numbers do not necessarily overide brand loyalty, but gives a little perspective. When we talk about building custom guns, these numbers just fly out of the window if they don't exist.

Chris

I recently bought a very used Leupold scope and it appeared to me to be hazzy. I called Leupold, they told me to send it in. A few weeks later the scope was back in my hands and looked awesome. Great customer and warranty service!

A few months later, I bought a used Nikon Monarch scope and took it Nikon's service center in Southern California. Thinking that Leupold took care of me Nikon would too. I was WRONG! After waiting about an hour,(A lot of people there geting high dollar camers repaired) I was told without the warranty card they would not repair it. I complained to the main dude in charge of their sports optic line and was told the same thing. This is the same man I met a few years ago at a Shot Show in Las Vegas that bragged how Nikon had a warranty just like Leupolds but it was "secret warranty". It was so secret that his employees did not know about it and he forgot about it when I reminded him. I now have a used Nikon scope sitting in my closet collecting dust. I will never buy a Nikon product again new or used. If your Nikon fails for any reason you better keep your warranty card in your safe because they won't honor their warranty without it.

I will stay with Leupold's outstanding products and customer service.

Hello Chom,

Sad to hear. Never stop short of the CEO. Wrtite them a nice letter, but complain about the false promise and ask the CEO if it is actually their official customer policy.

If so, you feel the industry should know about this and in this regard, you will then assist them by sending a copy of your letter to all major outlets, hunting organisations and and maybe just one bill board in the main street in your home town, with the CEO's telephone number.

I think this should solve the problem and forms part of our life-long duty to educate other people or companies.

Chris

quote:

Leupold VX3 3.5 - 10 x 40 mm .... $470
Zeiss Conquest 3 - 9 x 40 mm .... $399
Nikon Monarch 9 - 9 x40 mm ...... $259

Weaver 3 - 9 x 38mm ..... $179

Nikons and Weavers are much better deals, and in my opinion every bit as good as Leupolds. Most of my rifles at home wear older Japanese Tascos which I will venture to say are of as good of optical quality than many Leupolds I have mounted for customers.

The reason Nikons are so nice is because when Tasco bailed out of Japan for Bangkok, Nikon moved right in and so the same factory which used to make the Japanese Tascos, now makes Nikon's lenses.

As for Weaver, all parts and assembly are done under one roof, which makes for great quality control. Pretty much any glass made in Japan is first rate and Weavers and Nikons both are super clear and transmit a great amount of light.

Leupold does have quite the following, much of it I think is because people have never bothered trying anything else, and so you sort of get it ingrained into your head that because other brands are not as popular, they must be inferior. Not the case at all.

Here are my favorite scope lines, Leupold not included, but they would be near the top because they do indeed make a fine product.

Old Japanese Tascos, with Jap made World Class Plus's at the top
New Nikons made in Japan, not the stuff of the mid 1990's where they looked like the lenses had been smeared with Vaseline. This was back when production was first starting to move to Japan, and they were making real crap.

Weavers

Simmons 44MAG series scopes, such as their AETEC. Very sharp and clear, and very inexpensive for the quality

Pentax, as they prove that you don't absolutely have to have your stuff made in Japan to compete in quality. 100% American made.

-Spencer

quote:

Generally, European scopes provide high optical quality, but the trade off is weight and size.

Actually my 3x10x42 swarovski scope is both lighter and more compact than the 3.5x10x40 vxiii.Not by much,but it is lighter and shorter.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcatcher223:
Actually, I sold two Leupolds and bought Nikons to replace them.

It's certainly nice to have that option. However, if you went the other direction and tried to sell two Nikons to replace them with Leupolds, you'd have to put a hefty chunk of change in on the deal.

quote:

The reason Nikons are so nice is because when Tasco bailed out of Japan for Bangkok, Nikon moved right in and so the same factory which used to make the Japanese Tascos, now makes Nikon's lenses.

Interesting, so Nikon did not re-invent the wheel; they capitalized on existing knowledge and probably improved on it with their knowledge and experience of camera lenses.

I also had a Tasco World Calss scope (4 x 40 mm), which I bought in 1979 and I can still remember me comparing it with Leupolds and Redfields and all my mates agreed that it was cleared. Granted it was the Leupolds of then and I cannot remember clearly anymore which model it was. We set all the scopes at 4 x magnification and it was visibly brighter.

In many other respects Japanese products are superior than other eastern products that are made in China, Korea, Phillipines or Thailand.

During the seventies most of us used only 4 x 40's instead of variables and the Redfields were the most common amongst my friends in the Transvaal - those widefields with the TV views. Later I acquired one myself (2-7 x32mm) with a Post Reticle that provided extremely fast target aquisition. Despite their lenses not being up to scratch with todays fully multi-coated lenses, they always worked fine as we live and hunt 99% of the time in sunshine. Even the US Marine Corpse used the Redfields for sniping way back then.

Chris

With all due respect to Leupold owners, the next time I hear that "Leupolds are the standard other scopes are compared to", I'm gonna puke. The only people that compare other scopes to Leupolds are Leupold owners. And most of them already have their minds made up. I own many different brands of scopes, including Leupolds and most of the top European brands and I can assure you that I don't consider Leupold the standard by which I compare all others. Leupolds are nice scopes, but overpriced for what you get. They are certainly not the best scopes by a long shot, even the LPS.

The problem I have with Leupold owners is that as soon as I want to talk about scopes and optics, they want to talk about warranties. The last time I checked, warranties didn't improve light transmission, resolution, durability or adjustment precision. Besides, everyone knows someone that has sent back a broken Leupold for wonderful warranty service but I don't know anyone who has ever sent a broken Swarovski PH or Schmidt & Bender back. I'm sure it happens, but it's rare. If I can believe the posts about the wonderful Leupold warranty service, I have to believe that sending a broken Leuppold back is quite a common occurance.

A Leupold may be your favorite scope, but it isn't the best scope available and it isn't the the most reasonably priced scope available and it isn't enen the best available scope for the money. It is what it is. A good scope that has good glass with good coatings, excellent waterproofing, excellent durability as a result of its light weight, reasonably good adjustment repeatability and excellent eye relief due to the sacrifice of the field of view. Notice the areas where they could be improved? It's good, but it's certainly not the best.

Please don't bring up the warranty. These days almost every scope offers a great warranty. Besides, we're talking about scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Dog:
With all due respect to Leupold owners, the next time I hear that "Leupolds are the standard other scopes are compared to", I'm gonna puke. The only people that compare other scopes to Leupolds are Leupold owners. And most of them already have their minds made up. I own many different brands of scopes, including Leupolds and most of the top European brands and I can assure you that I don't consider Leupold the standard by which I compare all others. Leupolds are nice scopes, but overpriced for what you get. They are certainly not the best scopes by a long shot, even the LPS.

The problem I have with Leupold owners is that as soon as I want to talk about scopes and optics, they want to talk about warranties. The last time I checked, warranties didn't improve light transmission, resolution, durability or adjustment precision. Besides, everyone knows someone that has sent back a broken Leupold for wonderful warranty service but I don't know anyone who has ever sent a broken Swarovski PH or Schmidt & Bender back. I'm sure it happens, but it's rare. If I can believe the posts about the wonderful Leupold warranty service, I have to believe that sending a broken Leuppold back is quite a common occurance.

A Leupold may be your favorite scope, but it isn't the best scope available and it isn't the the most reasonably priced scope available and it isn't enen the best available scope for the money. It is what it is. A good scope that has good glass with good coatings, excellent waterproofing, excellent durability as a result of its light weight, reasonably good adjustment repeatability and excellent eye relief due to the sacrifice of the field of view. Notice the areas where they could be improved? It's good, but it's certainly not the best.

Please don't bring up the warranty. These days almost every scope offers a great warranty. Besides, we're talking about scopes.

Old Dog,you are DA MAN! Stonedgeek will come back with some ill stated rebuke,but we tolerate the ignorant here as well as the informed. The informed have spoken.

Truvelloshooter and company-

I misstated myself when I said that today's Nikons are made in Japan. All but the really high end (thousands of dollar) optics are made in countries that are not Japan.

The transition period I spoke of happened about 5 years ago when they were moving out of Japan.

A brief history of Nikon and Tasco:

Tasco I believe came first, but for our purposes lets say they started at the same time. In Japan there was one factory which made both company's lenses. Nikon, we will all agree, has always had the better name probably due to better marketing.
In the early 90's Tasco left Japan for the 3rd world and never got back on its feet. Though the name is owned today by Bushnell, for all intensive purposes Tasco is history, the quality cutting leading to their demise (you just can't build a quality scope with sub-quality labor and penny-pinchers running the show).
Nikon bailed on the Japanses scene about 5 years ago and it took them until the present to get their act together (honestly, two full years passed before the scopes had lenses in them at the SHOT Show) on the third year, their scopes sucked your eye in and gave you a headache just trying to focus on an object accross the room. On the fourth year, the scopes were pretty much to the old quality and today I think we can agree, Nikon is back.

You see it takes a trained technitian to make scope lenses. A transition period is always inevitable because it indeed takes 5 to 10 years to train a rice picker to make good lenses.

A Reader's Guide to scope lenses:
How many times have you heard your local gun shop employee say "Brand ABC is better than Brand XYZ because they use better glass"

WRONG

Optical glass is optical glass, and the quality of which will not vary much from maker to maker in its raw form.

What does make the difference between your super duper Swaro, and your $19.95 Wal-Mart special is how long the lens is 'polished' for.

A scope lens, throughout its entire manufacturing process, is untouched by human hands. What the technitian must decide on is whether to polish it for say two hours for placement in a $100 scope, or for twenty hours for placement in a $1000 scope.

This is where the 'brightness' and 'clarity' of a scope comes from.

As for coatings, yes they make a difference and I'm not the one to ask why. My opinion is that they are more of an after effect, most good scopes have good coatings, but then again most good scopes have well finished lenses.

So now ladies and gentlemen, when the next Bob's Gun's flunkie tries his best to convince you of why that $$$$$$$$$$$$$ scope is the perfect scope for your gun, using no technical data in his argument, tell him he is full of it and go elsewhere to buy:

An old Nikon
A new Nikon
An old Tasco
A new Weaver (of the non-American variety)
A Leupold
A Smith & Wesson scope or an older Millett (From the looks of them they were made by the same company, the newest Milletts are now crap and the S&W's no longer exist)
A euro brand of your choice (Be it Zeiss, Swaro etc.)

These are not in any particular order and of course a $200 Leupold and a $2000 Swaro probably are not going to compare function-wise, but as far as optical quality goes, your eyes probably are not sharp enough to tell a monumental amount of difference between them.

Honorable mention: Simmons 44MAG series scopes. Superb optical quality for the price, perhaps on the cusp of greatness but for their function. Good, reliable, and rugged, but not custom-rifle worthy.

As a side note, the factory I mentioned in beginning, where Nikons and Tascos used to be made? To the best of my knowledge it is today owned by Canon (the camera company). Somehow I recall being told that Canon made their products at the same time Tasco and Nikon were still there, so possibly you could have a Tasco scope with Canon lenses in it. But I suppose they would never tell you that, or the sales rep would just assume thier lenses were somehow special. Just an interesting bit of trivia.

-Spencer

bejaar-
What Nikon scope do you have, and how much do you want for that "junk" that's collecting dust in your closet?

Please PM me.

clem quotes:
"I must confess to being a Leupold loyalist."

'nough said there clem.

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:

The longer a lens is polished, the more facets are created and the more light is transmitted perpendicular to your eye (and consequently, parallel to the scope tube) The less a lens is polished, the less facets, and the more light beams pass trough the lens and bounce around inside the scope, never reaching your eye.

This is where the 'brightness' and 'clarity' of a scope comes from.

As for coatings, yes they make a difference and I'm not the one to ask why. My opinion is that they are more of an after effect, most good scopes have good coatings, but then again most good scopes have well finished lenses.



-Spencer

"FACETS"!!??!!

I thought I'd heard it all but it just goes to show it can be piled higher and deeper than you ever imagined.