I can't afford Swaro/S&B/Zeiss scopes for all of my Rifles. But I have been blessed enough afford several for my "go to" hunting rifles. I'm not saying that you can't hunt with an inexpensive scope, I do when necessary. But better is better and just because I can't afford a new Cadillac doesn't mean it's not a little nicer than my Chevy.........................DJ

I like to actually look at my scopes in pitch dark(moonlight) out my window from the kitchen table. Obviously I'm not in the city! I have one Swaro and the brightest nighttime scope in my place is a 1.5-6x42 Nikon Monarch Gold. I have several Zeiss Conquest scopes and them and the 1 in. tube Swaro are virtually identical in brightness and there is quite a bit of difference in price of course. The reticle on the Zeiss and Swaro are however quite a bit better in daylight or moonlight. Maybe a S&B or Swaro 30mm would be a bit better, that I don't know. This is what lead me to the conclusion that the Zeiss Conquest is the best bang for the buck that I have used. I have a Premier Reticles 4A in my 1.75-6x Leupold and would love to have that reticle in all my big game rifles.

quote:

Zeiss Conquest is the best bang for the buck

I'm with you on that. Great scope. The cheapest one in the lineup happens to be my favorite. The Conquest 3-9X40.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Zeiss Conquest is the best bang for the buck

I'm with you on that. Great scope. The cheapest one in the lineup happens to be my favorite. The Conquest 3-9X40.

+3

I have a Zeiss 2.5x10x50mmx30mm VM/V T* and a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x50x1". The Conquest appears to have a little better resolution, however the VM/V has the grestest field of view and is a little (very little) bit brighter in low light.

At $419.00 for the Conquest, I could have bought 3 of them for what the other Zeiss costs.

Just because money is no object doesn't mean you must buy the most expensive scope available.

A 45/70 in dense cover = low magnification + wide field of view + generous eye relief + large exit pupil

I would consider in no particular order:

Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6x42
Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x32
Leupold FX-II 4x33
Swarovski PV 1,5-6x42
Schmidt & Bender 1,5-6x42

This list could certainly be extended but any one would be suitable for the above scenario. IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Stonecreek:

I'm going to say this one more time, if you think for one second that a 20mm Leupie at 3x will give you just as much "night" vision as a 3x9 Leupie (to use apples and apples) at 3x you obviously have never tried them at night.

Apples and oranges, I am afraid, my friend.

The Leupold 3x20 (now unavailable, but there's been talk of bringing it back) has an actual magnification of about 2.8X or so. It also was last made prior to the most recent improvements in lens coatings. A Leupold 3-9 has an actual magnification of about 3.3X at lowest setting (if the somewhat suspect factory specs are to be believed), and might have been made later and with better lens coatings than the 3x20.

The combination of 1/2X (or about 18%) greater magnification coupled with better lens coatings in the 3-9x40 might reasonbly be expected to provide better low-light resolution than the lower powered 3x20.

But then, of course, you would never use the 3-9x40 at lowest magnification for night time stand hunting because your best resolution would come at between 6X and 7X. AS I have had occassion to use this very scope for night hunting and consistently found that the "3X" setting was inferior to higher settings, I do speak from actual experience. And while I have not had occassion to use a fixed 3x for night hunting (and wouldn't select one for this purpose since greater magnification is preferred for the type of night hunting I [and apparently you] have done), I'm quite sure that it would be inferior to the 6 or 7X setting on the 3-9x40.

While a given 3-9x40 may provide better real-world low-light resolution for a variety of reasons, there is no OPTICAL reason why there should be a difference in the low-light resolution of a 3x20 and a 3x40 (or even a 3x500). As a matter of fact, if the scope is a variable, it suffers the disadvantage of having an additional lens to soak up some of the light as compared to a fixed power. These remarks assume, of course, that you are a human with a normal eye pupil dialation capacity of between 6 and 7mm, and not a horse, cat, or cave-dwelling salamander.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If money is not a consideration, then I would buy a Leupold VX-II in 1-4X. However, if spending more money were important, then a similar scope in the VX-III would do as well.

Damn, Stonecreek, you can't even be internally consistent, first you recommend a 1-4x20 and now all of a sudden you can see better at 6 or 7x with a 40. Give it up, you talk the talk but haven't walked the walk. I don't know what kind of night hunting you do, if any, but I get out and stalk wild hogs quite often. And I sure as hell don't and won't use a 20mmm ANYTHING. Why, to repeat myself, they suck for low light, and you can quote all the optic "rules" you want, I and most of the responders on here know what works and what doesn't.

Gato: This is the original question I was answering with my comments on buying a VX-II 1-4:

quote:

Looking to put a scope on a Ruger Number 1 Stainless, 45/70 Govt. for Elk is dense cover.

"Elk in dense cover" is completely and totally unlike hogs at night. The writer was not looking for the best night vision, but for the best scope for dense cover, close and fast shooting, and presumably in the "dark" timber where light, even at noon, is not the very best. He ultimately chose a low-power Leupold variable, which is a very good choice for this kind of hunting. It is not, as I have stipulated, the best choice for nighttime stand hunting, but there could hardly be more difference in the two types of hunting. One requires low magnification for a large field of view and quick shooting, the other requires very good low-light definition of a (preferably) motionless target.

In regard to the amount of light that a human eye can use and the diameter of an optical instrument's objective lens, neither of us can rewrite the laws of physics. I assumed that you had the capacity to understand those laws, but I seem to have overestimated your intellect.

Your arguments remind me of Bush the Younger: If you can't win on the facts, simply misstate your adversary's position, refute it, then repeat the view you wish to have prevail enough times that someone starts to believe it.

Hey!!! Don't make me separate you two.

Damned kids.

Stonecreek:

At least he listened to us enough NOT to choose a shitty 20mm objective. He was obviously not looking for a "money no object" scope before he posted the initial thread.

There are a helluva lot more similarities between elk in black timber and hog hunting in low light than there are differences.

I'm going to print this just ONCE so read it slowly and maybe you can understand it: (bold emphasis mine)

The other important parameter is the diameter, or aperture , of the lens. The brightness of the image depends on the aperture (as the square of the radius).

A refracting telescope is comprised of two effective lenses, characterized by their focal lengths. The optical performance of the telescope is defined by the focal length of the objective (front) lens, the aperture of the objective, and the focal length of the eyepiece assembly. The ratio of objective to eyepiece focal length is the magnification. The aperture divided by magnification equals the exit pupil. In general, telescopes with small objective focal lengths have larger fields of view, and telescopes with small magnification have large exit pupils. Both qualities are desirable.

For a given magnification, a large aperture scope is brighter than a small aperture scope. Image brightness increases as the square of the objective radius (aperture/2). For a given lens aperture, a scope is brighter at lower magnification. Image brightness is inversely proportional to magnification.

See if you can follow that, dummy. "rewrite the laws of physics" your ass.

also, for those of you who think a 30mm tube brings in more light than a 1" tube your wrong, all the extra 4.6mm is for is a little extra adjustment

"There are a helluva lot more similarities between elk in black timber and hog hunting in low light than there are differences."

So, your recommendation for elk in black timber is closer to an 8x56 than a 1-4x20?

quote:

For a given magnification, a large aperture scope is brighter than a small aperture scope. Image brightness increases as the square of the objective radius (aperture/2). For a given lens aperture, a scope is brighter at lower magnification. Image brightness is inversely proportional to magnification.

See if you can follow that, dummy. "rewrite the laws of physics" your ass.

"Brightness" as expressed by exit pupil is only meaningful to the extent that the eye pupil matches it. Obviously, you must have found some way to artificially enlarge your pupils, much as you have inflated your ego.

Do you simply not understand the relationship between the exit pupil and the size of the eye pupil, or do you insist on ignoring it merely for the purpose of defending your prejudices?

The eye pupil is the orafice which allows light to enter the eye. Like other bodily orafices, its capacity is physically limited. However, I can see that you must possess some extremely outsized bodily orafices with extraordinary capacity to pass certain "material".

LOL. Wrong. The exit pupil image, at any given diameter, will be brighter with a larger objective. Try to read, I know it is hard for you. Bushnell's site has an image showing this FACT (you know, the laws of physics) using 32mm and 50mm objectives if you can't understand the language.

Twist it all you want, I knew it by actual usage of various scopes, it just took me a bit to find it written out where I thought EVEN YOU could understand it. But stupidity has no bounds.

quote:

Bushnell's site has an image showing this FACT

Ah, yes, the unerring wisdom found on the website of a marketing company that has never produced an optical instrument in its entire existance might be very informative.

I'd be happy to take advantage of this enlightenment if you would be so kind as to furnish a link.

By the way, how 'bout them Bushnells for unrequieted quality?!

Here's what Carl Zeiss has to say:

"By the way, the average adult eye dilates to a maximum of 7mm in extreme low light conditions. For binoculars to deliver their full light gathering capability, the exit pupil must be equal to, or greater than the diameter of your pupil at any given moment."

From "Astro Tom":

For astronomical applications, the exit pupil of the binocular should correspond with the amount of dilation of your eye's pupil after it has adapted to the dark. This number will be between 5mm and 9mm. 9mm of dilation is the maximum amount for the human eye, and this number tends to decrease with age.

Hmmm... "astronomical applications", sounds like low-light to me.

And directly to the point,

As the size of the exit pupil increases, the image appears brighter, up to the point at which the exit pupil is the same diameter as the pupil of the eye and the entire area of the pupil is illuminated. After that, further increases produce no gain in brightness.

As people age the maximum opening of the pupil diminishes. The pupil of a healthy young person's eye has a diameter of about 2 mm in bright light, 5 mm in dim, and 7 mm in the dark. People in their thirties typically have a maximum pupil diameter of about 6 mm, which shrinks to 4.5 to 5 mm in their forties. (See the chart.) Thus, at dusk, people in their twenties would see a brighter image through 7 × 50 (exit pupil dia. 7 mm) binoculars than through 7 × 35 (exit pupil dia. 5 mm) binoculars, but persons in their sixties would perceive no difference.
From http://www.sizes.com/tools/binoculars.htm

Sorry about the bad news for us old farts.

Now, Gato, you are welcome to disagree with these sources or dozens of others like them. Just please stop questioning my intelligence, and by inference, my integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

But then, of course, you would never use the 3-9x40 at lowest magnification for night time stand hunting because your best resolution would come at between 6X and 7X. AS I have had occassion to use this very scope for night hunting and consistently found that the "3X" setting was inferior to higher settings, I do speak from actual experience. And while I have not had occassion to use a fixed 3x for night hunting (and wouldn't select one for this purpose since greater magnification is preferred for the type of night hunting I [and apparently you] have done), I'm quite sure that it would be inferior to the 6 or 7X setting on the 3-9x40.

While a given 3-9x40 may provide better real-world low-light resolution for a variety of reasons, there is no OPTICAL reason why there should be a difference in the low-light resolution of a 3x20 and a 3x40 (or even a 3x500). As a matter of fact, if the scope is a variable, it suffers the disadvantage of having an additional lens to soak up some of the light as compared to a fixed power. These remarks assume, of course, that you are a human with a normal eye pupil dialation capacity of between 6 and 7mm, and not a horse, cat, or cave-dwelling salamander.

I think what you are noticing when you see a brighter image in low light with higher magnifications is what they call "Twilight Factor". I couldn't tell you exactly how they figure it but basically you are looking at a larger image of a given area of reflected light when at higher magnifications.
BTW I had Lasik surgury a couple months ago and one of the things they measure was Pupil diameter. Before being chemically dialated they measure the diameter of my Pupils in a Dim room - the eye charts were illuminated the the overhead was off. Without any chemicals in Dim not Dark my Pupils measured 7.2mm. I'm 45 years old and not a Cave dwelling Salamander. The 5-7mm is just a W.A.G. average YMMV..............DJ

quote:

my Pupils measured 7.2mm. I'm 45 years old

I did find one reference that lists a normal pupil dialation of up to 9mm for some young adult eyes. I'm sure it varies significantly.

I'm guessing you've never smoked (even though that would be pretty rare in an Okie .) The eye specialists indicate that smoking is pretty detrimental to night vision. I'm also fortunate to have pretty good low light vision at ten years your senior, but I have no idea what my normal maximum pupil dialation is. But having never smoked may be a help.

DJ, twilight factor is the square root of the magnification times the Objective lens size in mm. Hence the TF of an 8x56 scope is about 21.2 and of 6x42 is less than 16.

This works in the real world.

And by the way, the TF of a 1.5-4x20 scope, set on 3, is about 7.71, less than half a 6x42.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

I'm guessing you've never smoked (even though that would be pretty rare in an Okie .) The eye specialists indicate that smoking is pretty detrimental to night vision. I'm also fortunate to have pretty good low light vision at ten years your senior, but I have no idea what my normal maximum pupil dialation is. But having never smoked may be a help.

Stonecreek, that's pretty interesting about smoking. No I've never been a regular smoker past maybe a cigar every year or two. One more good reason not to smoke huh?.................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by Claret_Dabbler:
DJ, twilight factor is the square root of the magnification times the Objective lens size in mm.

Thanks for the formula, so basically the higher the magnification the higher the twilight factor for a given objective size. i.e. a 10x40 should appear brighter than a 7x40 even though the 7x40 has a larger exit pupil.
Makes me wonder a bit about "twilight factor".................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Makes me wonder a bit about "twilight factor".................DJ

Takes into account that the larger the object appears that you are viewing (at the greater magnification) the more details you can distinguish. More a measure of practical use than technical details.

The thing about smoking effecting your night vision is pretty well established as far as I know.

I would regard twilight factor as an indicator of performance, and the laws of diminshing returns apply. You get big step up going from 4x to 6x, a reasonable step up from 6x to 8x, once you go over 10x, exit pupil will kill you.

I experimented last January in a high seat in the Czech Rep. I was waiting for boar and there were a lot of deer around. I had a S&B 3-12x50. Light gathering and image resolution were ok at 5-6x. Performance for me peaked around 8-9x, but noticeably dropped off once I went over 10x.

That is a scientific sample of one. Take it for what it is worth.

quote:

That is a scientific sample of one. Take it for what it is worth.

FWIW: Your sample compares quite closely with my own in which the best low-light resoution with the ubiquitous Leupold 3-9x40 appears to come at around 6-7X, and drops off noticeably at full power. Both the 40mm objective at 7X and the 50mm objective at 9x provide around a 5.5 mm exit pupil, which corresponds pretty closely to the maximum usable exit pupil for most people.

I have been a full time range master at a public shooting range and I can promise that Leupold scopes cause a lot fewer problems than any others including the high dollar European stuff. The inconsistant clicks don't really vary enough to be a problem when zeroing. Hunting rifles should be zeroed then left alone while you hunt. Leupold's weather proofing is the best; a big factor for the North West. The VXIII 1.5-5X should be perfect for your rifle and hunting conditions. A friend had one in northern Wisconsin and we would have been able to shoot well after legal hours if we would have been so inclined so I don't see lack of light gathering as a problem.

leupy 1,5-5

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
If price is no object IMHO the Schmidt & Bender Zenith is the best. I have Swarovski and Zeiss but the Zenith is just a little better.

Just bought myself a schmidt&Bender zenith today.I tried Leopold,zeiss,and swarovski in store and thought I would go with Leopold. I own both leopold and a zeiss diavari.Iasked the store owner which one he thought was better,being there for 30yrs or so and he said take a look at this and handed me a schmidt and Bender.It was the clearest scope I ever looked through.

Schmidt un Bender and Swarovski both make optically superb, durable, 30mm tube scopes the 3-12x50 Zenith and 3-12x50 PH.
The SchmidtundBender weighs 22 ounces.
The Swaro weighs only 16.8 oz. To get an idea of how 16.8oz compares a 1" tube Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 weighs 16 ounces! The Swaro costs a couple hundred less than the S&B, has unexcelled factory service available in the US and has a telescoping ocular which can mean the difference in a bloody eybrow or not, the S&B does have 10mm more eye relief but in my experience 80mm eye releif with a moving padded occular works better on heavy kickers. The Swaro's are available with the TDS reticle as well as the typical 4a's, Plex's etc., They don't currently make the S&B's with the TDS.

S&B's are great scopes but the Swaro's are lighter, have better service, better reticles, are at least as durable, as good or better optically, cost less and are much lighter..............DJ

LightForce, LightForce and then LightForce. You have to see the assembly process to beleive it. Absolutely positively amazing quality. I went to the factory several months ago and was blown away. Not bragging, but I've been in manufacturing consluting/management for about 18 years and have never seen anything like it.

They provided me with a sample and I'm loath to return it (have to after a military show in a few weeks).

Just to name a few benefits:
-they go to great pains to match each lens in the assembly to maximize light transmission and clarity.
-the company has several custom made testing and assembly fixtures and tools to ensure that every scope withstands pressure differentials, immersion, recoil, etc.
-the military has confirmed that Lightforce is the only scope they've found who's "clicks" actually track accuratley/repeatably/consistantly
-crazy HALO jumpers use Lightforce scope, leaping from aircraft above 20,000 feet (low pressure, low temp) and land at low altitude in swealtering heat and high pressure. They work.
-The same quality that goes into the military scopes goes into civilian scopes.
-THESE GUYS ARE CRAZY ABOUT QUALITY!!

If I could ever afford one I'd do it, but money IS an object so I have a decent Weaver Grand Slam...

djpaintles,I saw the swaro hunbricht(Something like that) and I think it cost more or about the same.I saw through all the scopes and was thinking of buying the swaro and dishing out the 1800 cdn dollars.Then I said to myself there isn't anything that made me believe that it is better than the leopold in terms of picture clarity,and that I should not spend my money for nothing or big names.So I was going to settle for the leopold.The swaro seemed attractive,finish,shape and all.The guy behind the counter who has been selling guns and scopes for 30 yrs says "let me show you something",and hands me a S&B.It was not as pretty as the swaro or zeiss but as I looked through it I could see the details on the objects I was looking at that I could not see with the other scopes. This was the first time I saw through a scope and believed I was seeing something clearer than any scope that I ever tried.So,I disagree with you when you say that swaro's optics are as good or better.This guy seemed convinced long ago that the optical quality of the S&B was the best by far.He has had all the scopes from all manufacturers in his store forever,and I was conting on his knowledge to pull through and it did.

I personaly own scopes by Swarovski, Schmidt und Bender, Zeiss, Nightforce, Leupold and Bausch and Lomb. The S&B's and the Nightforce good the Swaro's are better. Optically the Zeiss are as good but I prefer the service and some of the features of the Swaro on a hunting rifle. On a Tactical style rifle I like the Nightforce and can live with the extra weight there. That's my personal opinion but it's based on experience with several dozen high end scopes I've actually used not by listening to what someone behind a counter trying to sell me something...........................DJ

I can't go on that because other posters here have the swaro and choose the S&B over it.You say you prefer the service,is that because you are used to it breaking down often? I have never needed to service any optical instrument I owned in my entire life.I agree on the weight,but sometimes weight is necessary to do things right.

I currently have one of each S&B and a Swarovski. I personally cannot tell the difference between the two for optical quality, both are beyond criticism.

However, as DJ says, the Swarovski is significantly lighter than the Schmidt, also, the Swarovski new PVI reticule is amazing. For those reasons, I am considering trading the S&B 3-12x50 in for a Swaro of similar spec. Won't do it this side of Christmas, but I will at some point next year.