suprising optics test results

06 June 2004, 10:59

SAKO75

I was amzed at some of the results i read in the new outdoor life on optics testing. The S&B zenith 1.5-6x42 performed "poorly" in low light and the leupold vx-3 with a 50mm obj was the hands down winner in the lowlight test beating a 56mm zeiss "v" and a 56mm meopta as well as everyone else............WOW

07 June 2004, 03:14

Old Dog

If you have ever read the reviews, particularly optical, in Outdoor Life before, you will not be at all surprised with the results of their latest review.

Jim

07 June 2004, 04:06

Chuck Nelson

Old Dog, you're an arogant man. May I ask what makes you more qualified to pass judgement on optics than the men who did it for Outdoor Life. I would appreciate specifics as they relate to each tester. Why don't we start with Bill McRae...........

Chuck

08 June 2004, 03:16

SempreElk

Looked at that article last night . I would think Bill Mcrae should be a pretty good authority on Optics.

08 June 2004, 04:02

Kwagga

Quote:

S&B zenith 1.5-6x42 performed "poorly" in low light and the leupold vx-3 with a 50mm obj...WOW

WOW - I agree indeed!

I'm deeply impressed about the tester's expertise, comparing a 42mm versus a 50mm objective!

08 June 2004, 04:10

SempreElk

Some here have said they felt the Euro 42's were indeed better or equal to 50mm Leupolds

08 June 2004, 08:02

Old Dog

Chuck, you sure are quick to pass judgement on people, aren't you. You ask what makes me more qualified to pass judgement on optics than the men who did it for Outdoor Life?

Let me explain something to you, amigo. I don't need to be more qualified than anyone to have an opinion. And I certainly don't need to have my qualifications approved by the likes of you. I have owned and/or used hundreds of scopes over the years and I'm perfectly capable of looking through them and forming my own opinion.

If you are not and need someone to compare them for you then I can understand your need to be sure that they are qualified. You want to be very sure that the person who forms your opinion for you knows what he is talking about.

I made my comment because I have read other optics reviews in Outdoor Life and have found that their results have always been different than my own. I could care less if you feel I'm qualified to comment, or not. You may think I'm arrogant and from your perspective, I may be. However, from my perspective, you're ignorant. That's worse.

Jim

08 June 2004, 08:28

Chuck Nelson

You can't believe a thing OL says, I can't take your word for anything, you think I'm ignorant, Joe Blow quotes brochures. Wait, I have an idea! Instead of waisting time on the optics thread, why don't we all go and bang our heads against the nearest wall. Wadya think?

Chuck

08 June 2004, 10:13

GeorgeS

I would be leery of ANY product reviews that are published in a magazine that accepts advertising.

OL and all the other gun rags have no credibility with me (which is why I no longer subscribe to any of them).

Was the test subjective, i.e., the author 'felt' this scope was better than that one? Or was instrumentation used to reach these 'conclusions'?

Were there any ads from Leupold in the magazine?

George

08 June 2004, 12:23

SAKO75

kwagga
so a 50mm tasco will be better than a 42mm zeiss?

08 June 2004, 19:58

Kwagga

Quote:

kwagga

so a 50mm tasco will be better than a 42mm zeiss?

Sorry, but you are comparing apples and berries.

You buy a Tasco for a quarter of a high end scope. Or do you see Leupold on the same quality level as a Tasco?

For a 50mm Leupold you have to pay here something between a 50mm S&B and a 50mm Nickel. The discussions here are whether you can actually SEE the (technically measurable) optical differences between S&B, Zeiss, Swarovski on the one hand, and Nickel, Kahles on the other hand. Resp. whether this would also make a difference in the field.

So if you settle Leupold around the same price level, you should also compare the same performance level. 42 versus 50 looks like comparing a Cadillac with a Wrangler complaining about the Caddis poor offroad performance...

I have some friends in my gun club, using Leupolds - highly satisfied! I could not see through a Leupold at dawn, so I can not give a statement about their performance. The only reason why I would categorically not taking a Leupold into consideration is the longer waiting-period in case of maintenance. My Swarovski was returned within less than one week when it was under repair. A time Leupold can not meet due to the sheer distance, so this has nothing to do with their quality.

But if you really see Leupold on the same level as Tasco, this test makes as much sense as comparing a Volkswagen with a BMW.

Edit: I 've once compared 2 binos: Optolyth 8x56 and Swarovski EL 8,5x42. Although the Optolyth does not reach Swarovskis quality and price level, it was the better one in the night...

09 June 2004, 03:38

SempreElk

There was also a Zeiss VM 56mm objective scope included in this same test. Is that comparing apples with apples and more to your liking?

09 June 2004, 09:57

SAKO75

i think my eyes would have to tell me a 50mm leupold is brighter than a 56mm Zeiss V for me to believe it

09 June 2004, 10:23

SempreElk

Quote:

i think my eyes would have to tell me a 50mm leupold is brighter than a 56mm Zeiss V for me to believe

Oh I totally agree unless these VX-III's are a 180 of before . This was for the benefit of Kwagga who thought the Leupold was compared with only 42mm scopes. I think the Leupold won out because its lighter and way cheaper then the Zeiss yet still did the job.

09 June 2004, 17:12

SAKO75

They said leupold was the "hands down" winner in the lowlight test. None of those are factors are implied. Since i own a S&B 1.5-6x42 and have owned leupolds, conquests, simmons, redfields, bushnells, and looked through swaro Ph series scopes in lowlight, I really have trouble beliving the S&B did "poor" in lowlight. Mine doesnt. I know that of all the companies that had scopes tested, S&B were the only scopes that do not advertise ever in outdoor life. I dont know if thats a coincidence or not...

09 June 2004, 17:21

Longbob

Everyone is due their opinion, but my S&B's and Swarovski's are great in low light. My Leupolds are pretty good, but not as good as the others. My S&B's and Swarovski's are the only scopes I own that will give me the same image as my Leica and Nikon LX binoculars in poor light. It makes it pretty handy when I can spot something with my binos and see it as clearly through my scope.

27 June 2006, 20:59

D99

George is 100% on this one.

No one can trust anything written by someone that accepts money for adverstising a certain product.

Independent labs are the way to go.

There are instrements to measure light transmission and optical clarity, why don't we ever see those things mentioned in gun rag articles?

27 June 2006, 21:40

mstarling

Based on the experience of ownership with the 1.5-6x42 S&B and several other scopes with a similar objective diameter ... I'd say someone is comparing apples and horses. The S&B is superb at dawn and dusk.

Much prefer it to the Zeiss Conquest, Leupold, and junkers that I own ... and the Zeiss and Leupold scopes aren't bad!

27 June 2006, 22:17

Buzz

quote:
Originally posted by SAKO75:
They said leupold was the "hands down" winner in the lowlight test. None of those are factors are implied. Since i own a S&B 1.5-6x42 and have owned leupolds, conquests, simmons, redfields, bushnells, and looked through swaro Ph series scopes in lowlight, I really have trouble beliving the S&B did "poor" in lowlight. Mine doesnt. I know that of all the companies that had scopes tested, S&B were the only scopes that do not advertise ever in outdoor life. I dont know if thats a coincidence or not...

That is an interesting point to ponder. If I am not mistaken last year's article also had the S&B performing poorly and a cheap BSA scope performing "good" in the low light test.

28 June 2006, 18:13

mr rigby

One classic for hunting in in Europe is the 8x56 scope, i agree in that the 1,5-6x Smichdt%Bender arnt so good in lowlight, they havent got the lens diameter and the magnification for it.

I have a S&B 3-12x42 thats better because the magnification is better to see that target, but the best soultiion is a scope with a 56 lens The Zeiss VM/V in 3-12x56 is a very good allround scope, its light,

good optic, and good magnification aswell. in short a super scope that can be used for darn near eveything.

with the exception og big game huntin up close that is. but Zeiss have the 6-24x72 scope that prowed to be a lightgtherer of the few goo one, i havent one of them since thery EXPENSIVE . but for along range rifle and night use if youre comfortable with and can afford it, buy it.

Other good European scopes is for instance tha Meopta line theyre nearly in quality to Swarovski and Zeiss, but half the price, theyre depenadble, i have one 3-12x50 thats been on a 5,6x57, 308, 300 win mag with no problem.

And the 8x56 is a good scope which can be had less than the price for the Meoptas, but thery severeal thats made thaem ,like zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, the great austrian one that made regular looking scopes in 1898 while Zeiis hadn`t begun yet and several others.

28 June 2006, 18:23

Bushchook

Haven't had the opportunity to read the article but have done my own visual comparison of my Leupold VX 111 6.5 - 20 x 50 with my Meopta Meostar 3 - 10 x 50 .
I could identify things in darkness with the Meopta that I couldn't with the Leupold when at the same power setting .

28 June 2006, 18:34

tnekkcc

quote:
Originally posted by SAKO75:
They said leupold was the "hands down" winner in the lowlight test. None of those are factors are implied. Since i own a S&B 1.5-6x42 and have owned leupolds, conquests, simmons, redfields, bushnells, and looked through swaro Ph series scopes in lowlight, I really have trouble beliving the S&B did "poor" in lowlight. Mine doesnt. I know that of all the companies that had scopes tested, S&B were the only scopes that do not advertise ever in outdoor life. I dont know if thats a coincidence or not...

I have never looked through an S&B and I own more Leupolds than I can count.
But my guess is that you get SOMETHING when you pay $3k for an S&B.

Gun rags are notoriously corrupt and unscientific.

The one gun writer I know personally gives even gun writers a bad name. He does not even know what the copy means that the advertiser hands him. He owns a big house and has been in print for 30 years. That is how the game is played.

28 June 2006, 19:41

D99

I read the article and I thought it was total bullshit.

The only thing that had anything to do with anything on that test was how many adverts the manufacterer had in the magazine.

28 June 2006, 20:24

scr83jp

Sports writers are for sale just hand them free optics,a rifle,shotgun,handgun,pr of boots,etc., and ask them to write up an excellent report and they'll do it everytime.I only listen to other experienced hunters and shooters who will tell you such and such a scope is a great buy or a POS. Leupold 3x9x40 Vari X 2's with a CPC reticle are my favorite scopes.

28 June 2006, 20:47

mr rigby

S&B have the reticle thats thicker so its easier to see in the dusk. But if they wasnt good ,why did U:S:M:C Sout/snipers buy the 3-12x50 for the daytime rifles instead holing onto the Unertl they have used for the rifles for 25 years now?

28 June 2006, 21:11

Savage99

Someone named Metcalf wrote up the new Simmons Master whatever it is and told how good it is. I commented on that report in some forum to the fact that he had never seen a Simmons Master whatever it is when he wrote the acticle.

It's really difficult to write about a product when they are a potential or actual customer. It's the same for any product such as cars, boats etc.

"This kind of article is why I don't read gun magazines any longer. Our club has a magazine exchange pile and I don't even look there.

If Metcalf had even a slight bit of honesty or character he would have mentioned that he had seen one of these "miracles" or maybe even, pray tell, shot a rifle with one of them. But no. He just copied the marketing direct from Meade. I have done better on eighth grade reports when I copied some of it right out of the encyclopedia.

Metcalf wrote "Riflescope construction begins with the main tube. Redfield invented the original one-piece main-tube design in 1982" Now I have some Lyman "Wolvorine" scopes in 6X and 10 X that were Lymans premium line back in the late 40's. These scopes had one piece main tubes. So does an very old Weaver scope along with the K-4 that I have.

Thats how I see it this morning. "

Link

29 June 2006, 00:44

Stonecreek

There continues to be a myth that a larger objective lens necessarily means a "brighter" picture. Let's do this just one more time:

*The eye pupil of most adult males can only dialate to 6, or if you're young and have never smoked, maybe 7mm.

*The exit pupil of a scope equals the objective diameter divided by the magnification.

*At 6x magnification, a 36mm objective provides the maximum exit pupil that (most) human eyes can use. Likewise, at 8X magnification, a 48mm objective provides maximum effective light.

*A 6x50 can appear no "brighter" than a 6x36 (unless you're a horse or a cat).

Therefore, the 6x42 S & B (or any other brand) has every chance to be as "bright" as a 50mm scope at 8.3x, and can be slightly "brighter" than a 50mm at 10x (which would only provide a 5mm exit pupil that might well be below the capacity of the eye). Comparing the relative "brightness" of a 42mm scope with that of a 50mm scope truly is apples-to-apples, so long as the magnification is not above about 7X on each.

But all of this "brightness" or "low light performance" talk misses the point. It is irrelavent how "bright" your scope is if the reticle adjustments drift, or if it fogs, or if it is so heavy and long that it compromises portablity, or if the eye relief is so critical that you cannot quickly acquire the sight picture, or if . . . you get my drift.

A scope is not just a telescope; it is an optical gunsight and must meet a range of criteria in order to be useful and dependable. "Low light performance" is hardly the most important performance feature of a scope, and subjective arguments about which scope is superior to another in this feature is not a constructive way to select a scope.

30 June 2006, 20:33

tnekkcc

30 June 2006, 22:54

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by tnekkcc:

More accurately, 7mm equals:

**Maximum usable exit pupil in absolute darkness for teenage non-smokers. You old guys can back up one column to the left.

01 July 2006, 20:26

tnekkcc

My pupil may not be 7mm as it was when I was a teen ager, but my ability to line up the image with my eye is so bad, I need safety margin on exit pupil size.

As I move my head, the image goes in and out if blurry.

The faster I have to get off the shot, the worse that problem is for me.

03 July 2006, 20:11

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by tnekkcc:
My pupil may not be 7mm as it was when I was a teen ager, but my ability to line up the image with my eye is so bad, I need safety margin on exit pupil size.

As I move my head, the image goes in and out if blurry.

The faster I have to get off the shot, the worse that problem is for me.

Throughout history liberal religion has fought science

Trouble in acquisition of the sight picture is usually a problem with stock fit and/or overly high scope mounting, although it is true that some makes of rifle scopes do have extremely critical eye placement (having little to do with exit pupil size).

BTW, are you talking about those Midieval Popes who excommunicated the likes of Galeleo? Most people would hardly regard them as "liberal".

04 July 2006, 20:29

tnekkcc

The liberal religion is a cult that has taken over the values of the TV shows, movies, teacher's union, newspapers, novels, music, and lectures in publicly funded universities.

This liberal religion cult clashes with the scientific method in a culture war on several fronts:
1) Gun control does more harm than good, but the liberal faith believes in it.
2) Replacing car transportation with rail transportation does more harm than good, but the liberal faith believes in it.
3) Global warming has no basis in science but the liberal faith believes in it.
4) Divorce laws do more harm than good, but the liberal faith believes in it.
5) Supply demand curve is a great theory of how market work, but is blasphemy to the Marxist view of the liberal faith.
6) Entitlements do more harm than good, but the liberal faith believes in it.

This has turned children into a political football with liberal cult members wanting public school to be converted from a place where marketable skill are learned to a place where liberal values are indoctrinated.

When very small children are being taught about gay marriage and darwinism, it is to rent the control of values away from the parents and convert the child to the liberal cult.
When very small children are taken from public schools by the parents and then not taught about gay marriage and darwinism, it is to rent the control of values away from the liberal cult.

--

04 July 2006, 21:47

Jay Johnson

quote:
Throughout history liberal religion has fought science.

05 July 2006, 19:40

Stonecreek

Now, let me get this straight: There is a religion called "Liberal" and it fights science, right? But then it promotes accepted scientific methodology such as used by scientists like Darwin?

I'll admit to being confused. I can only conclude that my confusion must be a result of being unwittingly converted to the liberal cult as a small child by the public school system. And this happened in the 1950's!

09 July 2006, 01:24

paa

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Now, let me get this straight: There is a religion called "Liberal" and it fights science, right? But then it promotes accepted scientific methodology such as used by scientists like Darwin?

I'll admit to being confused. I can only conclude that my confusion must be a result of being unwittingly converted to the liberal cult as a small child by the public school system. And this happened in the 1950's!

why dont you guys take this to the politics forum?

09 July 2006, 06:04

Zeke

ZM