Rick,

I do not know what is in the glass or in the coatings that makes the difference, since I am not an optical specialist. Like you, I am always interested in the what and how questions.

Here is a quote from the Zeiss website that might explain what I mean:

Straylight
Straylight is caused by reflections from the housing, lens edges and mounts and other components. As straylight is superimposed on the image, it results in markedly reduced image brilliance. In Zeiss binoculars and riflescopes, straylight is kept to a minimum by a large number of measures/precautions. These precautions not only include the careful selection of the glass types used and a special treatment of the inner surfaces of the housing or the painting of the lens edges, but also the use of special procedures for the lens and prism mounts and the reversal systems in binoculars/riflescopes to reduce straylight to below 2%, if possible. Table of contents


Transmission
This is the amount of light in % which can pass through an optical system. Here, it is not only important that it is as high as possible - 90% is standard in binoculars and riflescopes from Carl Zeiss - its maximum must also lie in the right spectral range, an important factor in binoculars to be used in low light conditions. As the sensitivity to blue of the human eye increases in twilight, an image with a yellow or pink tinge in daylight indicates a low transmission in the blue spectral range and hence poor detail recognition in low light conditions. Table of contents


Twilight factor/Twilight performance
The twilight factor makes it possible to compare the performance of binoculars in low -light conditions. It is calculated by first multiplying the magnification by the objective lens diameter and then finding the square root of the result. In a 7x42 binocular, the twilight factor is therefore 17.2 - the minimum for sufficient detail recognition in twilight - and an 8x56 binocular has a twilight factor of 21.2. A comparison: An 8x30 binocular, on the other hand, has a twilight factor of 15.5 and is therefore less suitable for viewing in very low light conditions.
Note: The twilight factor is only one parameter among many, it does not say anything about the image quality which is a determining factor in detail recognition in twilight (twilight performance)! Twilight performance is mainly determined by as high a transmission as possible in the right spectral range, as low a straylight portion as possible, as high contrast as possible and as high a resolution as possible. Only if all these requirements are met at the same time - and only then - can the twilight factor be used a measure of the twilight performance in binocular viewing. Table of contents

reindeer,

Good stuff. I wasn’t asking a “rhetorical†question...I am just always interested in anything having to do with optics.

The top makers (US and Euro) realize that their scopes need to be usable when game animals are out and about and they match their lenses and coatings to maximise low light transmission.

“Brightness†in a optical instrument, in my experience, is a very subject term. Individual eyes and conditions in the field can vary enormously. I have some older Unertl and Weaver scopes (made in the 40’s and 50’s) that are as bright to me as many of the newer high end scopes sporting objective lenses the size of dinner plates!

You can also measure the color temperature of the light emitted from a scope to see what the lenses/coatings are filtering out and/or absorbing.

Fascinating stuff these optics!

Why is it that the high-dollar Euroscopes can't match the eye relief on a $200 Leupold of Bushnell? Is it a technical problem or marketing?

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Why is it that the high-dollar Euroscopes can't match the eye relief on a $200 Leupold of Bushnell? Is it a technical problem or marketing?

Why would it matter if you're a $200 scope kinda guy?

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Why is it that the high-dollar Euroscopes can't match the eye relief on a $200 Leupold of Bushnell? Is it a technical problem or marketing?

Optics are a zero sum enterprize...whatever you gain in one area, you will lose in another. Long eye relief is bought...it isn’t something you get for free, and it is up to you to decide what your are willing to sacrifice in order to have that long eye relief.

To increase eye relief you can:

1. Increase the focal length of the ocular lens. Result...decreases the magnification and field of view.

2. Decrease the focal length of the objective lens. Result...decreases the magnification.

3. Decrease the focal length of the erector lens system. Result...reduces the field of view.

You get the idea? Scope design is a game of compromise.

I have very limited experience, so take my comments with that in mind. I have a .270 with a Kahles 1.5-6x42, which is the only thing I shot for a year or so. I had no problems with that scope.

I was ready to move up to what I considered my minimum African caliber - .300WM, which I ordered from H-S Precision, with a Swarovski 1.5-6x42 with the 4A reticle (ill). I could not believe the differnece in what I saw. It was like the Kahles was blurry (which it most certainly was not) and the Swaro was the nice, crisp, clean vision.

Since then, I try to be pretty open-minded but it is very difficult when you get something of that quality early on, to really view anything else without comparing it to the Swaro.

In my opinion, the Swaro, scopes or binoculars, are well worth the money. Not that I wouldn't entertain a Schmidt&Bender, because I would. Just that in the scheme of things I would rather wait and get the optics of my choice than to compromise.

I understand not everyone an afford to buy optics of that quality/price. I don't think I could justify it to an accountant (or IRS examiner), but to me I would rather wait for what I think is my minimally exceptably optic than just get something because the price was right.

JMO

quote:

Originally posted by gotogirl3:
I have very limited experience, so take my comments with that in mind. I have a .270 with a Kahles 1.5-6x42, which is the only thing I shot for a year or so. I had no problems with that scope.

I was ready to move up to what I considered my minimum African caliber - .300WM, which I ordered from H-S Precision, with a Swarovski 1.5-6x42 with the 4A reticle (ill). I could not believe the differnece in what I saw. It was like the Kahles was blurry (which it most certainly was not) and the Swaro was the nice, crisp, clean vision.

Since then, I try to be pretty open-minded but it is very difficult when you get something of that quality early on, to really view anything else without comparing it to the Swaro.

In my opinion, the Swaro, scopes or binoculars, are well worth the money. Not that I wouldn't entertain a Schmidt&Bender, because I would. Just that in the scheme of things I would rather wait and get the optics of my choice than to compromise.

I understand not everyone an afford to buy optics of that quality/price. I don't think I could justify it to an accountant (or IRS examiner), but to me I would rather wait for what I think is my minimally exceptably optic than just get something because the price was right.

JMO

With occasional exceptions, optics are normally something where you do get what you pay for. Higher quality glass and manufacturing techniques come at a price...but I totally agree with you that in most cases it is money very well spent. You can‘t shoot what you can’t see clearly!

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Why is it that the high-dollar Euroscopes can't match the eye relief on a $200 Leupold of Bushnell? Is it a technical problem or marketing?

The answer is actually very simple:

They don't shoot magnums as often as we do and prefer the larger field of veiw that can be obtained with a shorter eye relief..............DJ

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Why is it that the high-dollar Euroscopes can't match the eye relief on a $200 Leupold of Bushnell? Is it a technical problem or marketing?

The answer is actually very simple:

They don't shoot magnums as often as we do and prefer the larger field of veiw that can be obtained with a shorter eye relief..............DJ

Or maybe European’s don’t mind getting whacked in the face!

I guess I've never understood the need for long eye relief. The first thing I look at in a scope is field of view.

My 338 win mag has a Zeiss 2.5x10x50 Diavari V T* with a 30mm tube with a field of view of 43.5' at 100 yards. Eye relief is 3.54". It has no muzzle break.

My 300 win mag has a Zeiss 3x9x50 Conquest with a 1" tube and has a field of view of 37.5' at 100 yards. Eye relief is 3.34". I bought it rather than the 3x9x40 because it has a wider field of view.

A comparable Leuopold 3.5x10x50 VXIII with a 1" tube has a field of view 29.8' at 100 yards. Eye relief is listed at 4.4" to 3.5".

The difference is that when I shoulder my rifles I have an instant sight picture, crisp and clear. I loaded some for a friend who had a 7mag with a 3.5x10x50 VXIII and took it to the range to sight it in. I also had my 300 win mag with the Conquest 3x9x50 to shoot. After shooting with the 7 mag I could not see the holes. I had to bench the gun with the 3x9x50 Conquest and the holes were crisp and clear. I tried adjusting that Leupold with no success.

I can't understand how shooters who insist on a wide field of view with a pair of binoculars (where it is not as imprortant IMO) will settle for a narrow field of view in a scope where the wide field of view is essential for finding and tracking the game when it really counts.

JMHO

A disadvantage of the longer eye relief and more generous 'eye box' in a scope is the greater amount of stray light which gets into the picture--pun intended--

and as usual, DJ is right, the Europeans don't shoot magnum calibers frequently, and look for greater precicison, which shorter eye relief lends itself to.

I think the Swaro's are worth the $$$, but I've got a Unertl on the way......

The answer is : "No"
If you want the best, buy the new Zeiss 4-12x56 with integrated laser range finder.
I would rate S&B on place 2 (why did the USMC choose the S&B as their new sniperscope?)
Swaros are overpriced and IMHO equal to Leupold, maybe with a small advantage in light transmission.

quote:

Originally posted by HKman:
The answer is : "No"
If you want the best, buy the new Zeiss 4-12x56 with integrated laser range finder.
I would rate S&B on place 2 (why did the USMC choose the S&B as their new sniperscope?)
Swaros are overpriced and IMHO equal to Leupold, maybe with a small advantage in light transmission.

I believe the Corps chose S&B because that company would provide modifications that the other bidders would not. Premier reticle has the contract with the Corps to install their 1st focal plane GEN II illuminated mil-dot reticles in the S&B scope.

Back in the late 1970’s the Corps contacted Leupold about building their sniper scopes but Leupold wouldn’t make the modifications the Corps wanted so they ended up having John Unertl build them from scratch to their specs.

Allot of the bigger companies, I guess, just don’t find it economical to build a “custom†scope for a small end user like the Corps.

Hello Rick,

To me this says a lot about the attitude and craftmanship of the S&B people.

Over here they are looked upon as highly specialized scope builders, who, unlike Zeiss, only know one quality; the very best.
From what I read about this contract, this scope was developed as a joint venture between S&B and firearms specialists in the Corps

" You name it and we build it" is a more and more rare company attitude these days.

quote:

Originally posted by reindeer:
Hello Rick,

To me this says a lot about the attitude and craftmanship of the S&B people.

Over here they are looked upon as highly specialized scope builders, who, unlike Zeiss, only know one quality; the very best.
From what I read about this contract, this scope was developed as a joint venture between S&B and firearms specialists in the Corps

" You name it and we build it" is a more and more rare company attitude these days.

I spoke with Dick Thomas at Premier Reticle just before he passed away and right when he had just gotten the contract from the Corps to supply his reticles in the S&B scopes. From what he told me your info is correct. The Corps was looking for a company that would provide exactly what they wanted and S&B filled the bill for them, just like John Unertl had done back in the late 1970’s for them.

I also understand that after seeing the scopes, the Army is also contemplating getting them to replace their Leupolds.