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.