I use quite old optics and seldom buy new stuff. Favorite hunting rifle has a 2x7 vari-x ll I bought new in early 80s. This year it seemed more than ever that low-light conditions were pretty tough to see in with it. Because I seldom look thru newer scopes, I don't know how much better they are in that respect. How much better in low light will the newer Leupolds have with their lower level, such as the freedom models. Or do you need to go to the top end to see much difference. thank you.

Once you look through even a newer VXII you will quickly convince yourself how far behind the old VARI-XII is optically and mechanically since the new model also has 1/4" clicks, never mind the higher end VX5 etc, long story short go higher for better optics and features.
BB

quote:

How much better in low light will the newer Leupolds have with their lower level, such as the freedom models. Or do you need to go to the top end to see much difference

Several decades of manufacturing and lens coating improvements does give the later Leupolds a bit of advantage over those from the 1960's. In particular, later lens coatings substantially reduce "flare", meaning that you can point the scope more directly at a light source (into the sun) without losing the sight picture due to wash out.

However, you'll get 99% of the low light capability out of the Freedom line (assuming exit pupil is the same) as with any of the more expensive Leupolds. The primary difference in their base line and their most expensive is that they use a lens coating on the more expensive one which filters out blues and enhances reds. Since the human eye is more sensitive to the red end of the spectrum the sight picture gives the illusion of being "brighter". Actually, it's just colored differently (and not truly).

For any hunting rifle, save your money and buy the least expensive Leupold available.

thank you much stonecreek: very informative

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

How much better in low light will the newer Leupolds have with their lower level, such as the freedom models. Or do you need to go to the top end to see much difference

Several decades of manufacturing and lens coating improvements does give the later Leupolds a bit of advantage over those from the 1960's. In particular, later lens coatings substantially reduce "flare", meaning that you can point the scope more directly at a light source (into the sun) without losing the sight picture due to wash out.

That's interesting, Stonecreek, and may help explain why Leupolds seem to have less tunnel vision than many brands. According to a friend skilled in optics, the heavy field stops in many image-movement scopes were to mask the flare from inside crooked erector tubes in badly mounted scopes.

Just the same, the scope should be mounted as well as possible for several reasons, optical and mechanical, and I recommend Burris Signature rings and their eccentric inserts to achieve that.

quote:

That's interesting, Stonecreek, and may help explain why Leupolds seem to have less tunnel vision than many brands.

I'm not informed on what optical/mechanical factors cause the tunnel vision effect of many scopes, but having the FOV go all the way to the edge of the sight picture has always been one of the superior features of Leupold's hunting scopes. The second I look through many of the very high-dollar European-made scopes I'm repulsed by the big black ring around the sight picture.

Yes, Stonecreek, the Europeans have dropped the ball on this one.

They used to have the best field blending until finally succumbing to constantly centred reticles. My thoughts are that they knew image-movement needed a heavy field stop and decided to hide it inside the tunnel created by adding fat rubber eye pieces, tunnel vision they could explain with a straight face.

Meopta has the worst I've seen but the Zeiss Duralyt wasn't far behind. Some of Zeiss's top line with the tapering ocular are not bad, though their thin rubber eyepiece wouldn't save you from much.

I use older fixed 3 & 4s, and variable 2x7x28 on my hunting rifles and its never been a problem, waiting until first light to shoot is seldom a problem and shootable light can be very dull, you only need an image not a pure clean image IMO, binoculars are a different story..SAmbarman is correct in his analogy, but I choose the option to use the centered reticle as its worked well enough for me with a few failures in my lifetime of hunting, a good enough trade off.

Thanks Ray, Merry Christmas/Compliments of the Season to you and all who look in here.

Yes, constantly centred reicles do make mounting easier, but not so much if you worry about the result. A writer here called Bill Hambly-Clark Jnr reckons it's still important to align the scope well for best accuracy. He also obsesses about not bending the scope - and considering how light and whippy 1" scopes are now, I'm not surprised he sees that danger.

That's why I think those Burris Signature-type ring inserts are the way to go. Not only do they prevent bending and scratching the scope but their eccentric inserts can be used to make sure it is aligned. Using them it is even easier to mount my old scopes because I don't have to count the clicks to get the reticle centred, I just eyeball it. Not that getting them centred is too hard with the low-powered ones I use; and if they are a little low in the field after I add some elevation, it just reminds me I'm using the good stuff

quote:

He also obsesses about not bending the scope - and considering how light and whippy 1" scopes are now

Actually, if there is a difference in the "bend resistance" of scopes the 30 and 34mm tubes may be more subject to deformation. In order to make them lighter the manufacturers use thinner material on some of them, thus making them easier to dent either from outside sources or from misaligned rings.

That may be true now, Stonecreek, but the old German scopes had very solid bodies. The steel ones were mostly 26mm (0.6mm thicker than 1"), the dural fixed powers an mm or two thicker and many of the variables were 30mm, years before image-movement and twiddling for long shots became all the rage.

I've pulled crippled scopes to bits and know that the walls of those old models were much thicker than the recent 1" American and Japanese ones. If the 30mm models are now just as thin, I would imagine they are even more likely to get dented, as you assert. Lifting the o/d to 30mm should give slightly more resistence to bending, though, even if they lack the traditional mounting rail.

I have no doubt bending a scope is counter productive BUT if one bends a scope during the mounting process I suggest he can not chew gum and walk upright!!

Such tools are available such as a one inch steel bar or indexing bars and a knowledge of how to use the available tools..In other words there is more to it than meets the eye..

The worst low light scope I ever used in the woods was a Leupold Vari-Xii 2-7 x 28mm. It is a nice compact, trim looking scope but useless in low light.

I switched to a Leupold Vari-Xiic in 2-7 x 33mm (or 32?) and it was a remarkable upgrade. I could actually see better through the scope in low light than with my naked eyes. It was that much brighter. Get you a Vari-Xiic or newer scope in 33mm.

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
The worst low light scope I ever used in the woods was a Leupold Vari-Xii 2-7 x 28mm. It is a nice compact, trim looking scope but useless in low light.

I switched to a Leupold Vari-Xiic in 2-7 x 33mm (or 32?) and it was a remarkable upgrade. I could actually see better through the scope in low light than with my naked eyes. It was that much brighter. Get you a Vari-Xiic or newer scope in 33mm.

Agree.

The newer 2x7’s are definitely brighter than the old 28 mm Leupold scopes. But none of them is really a low light scope.

quote:

The newer 2x7’s are definitely brighter than the old 28 mm Leupold scopes. But none of them is really a low light scope.

In jurisdictions which limit shooting hours for game to 30 minutes before/after sun, almost any scope of reasonable quality provides ample light transmission. European stand hunters hunting by moonlight have different needs.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
In jurisdictions which limit shooting hours for game to 30 minutes before/after sun, almost any scope of reasonable quality provides ample light transmission. European stand hunters hunting by moonlight have different needs.

That's true. I ran a VX-2 3-9x40 with a German #4 for a while and took hogs well after legal shooting time for deer had passed. Ditto for a VX-3 3.5-10x50 with heavy duplex. The bolder reticles certainly made it easier. The standard duplex would not have worked in some of those situations.

But I still don't consider lower-end Leupolds to be what I call "low light scopes."

With low light, it's not so much about transmisison/apparent image brightness. A scope must resolve ample detail in order to work in the worst of lighting, and that's where lower-end Leupolds tend to fall a bit short. But again, that's more of a specialty situation and not something most hunters ever deal with. Like StoneCreek noted, most modern scopes will handle just about any hunting scenario. Heck, one of my chunkiest bobcats was taken at first light with a Vari-X IIc 3-9x40 at well over 250 yards.

But taking hogs or predators in moonlight is another story altogether...

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

The newer 2x7’s are definitely brighter than the old 28 mm Leupold scopes. But none of them is really a low light scope.

In jurisdictions which limit shooting hours for game to 30 minutes before/after sun, almost any scope of reasonable quality provides ample light transmission. European stand hunters hunting by moonlight have different needs.

Well add very dark timber to 30 minute rule and you will notice a difference at times.