After reading army aviator's post about Leupold seeming to put more $$ in marketing than development got me thinking. Are we at the pinnacle of mechanical optics ie coatings, glass and tubes?

There is a limit to what optics can do, thanks to good old physics.

Sure a new coating here or there, but for the most part, I think we are there.

The next battleground will be in electronically enhanced optics. And I think I am a bit too old fashioned to jump on that bandwagon. (even though I do ahve

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
After reading army aviator's post about Leupold seeming to put more $$ in marketing than development got me thinking. Are we at the pinnacle of mechanical optics ie coatings, glass and tubes?

There is a limit to what optics can do, thanks to good old physics.

Sure a new coating here or there, but for the most part, I think we are there.

The next battleground will be in electronically enhanced optics. And I think I am a bit too old fashioned to jump on that bandwagon. (even though I do ahve

I believe you are 100% correct in your observations, and I will also say that this took place sometime ago and we are just now starting to realize it.

Leupolds new rangefinder, in my opinion, is a small preview of what you are going to be seeing in future scopes. Electronic/digital scopes with multiple reticles in memory, laser range finding, GPS features and day/night capablities. Hopefully they won’t include cell phone, email, and MP3 features as well!

While we've come a long way optically, I believe that we have not climbed to the top of the mountain with regard to optical development. I don't have any first hand experience or facts to reference my opinion but I do have history in my favor. Bottom line is that anytime humankind seems to feel that we've reached the apex of development, somebody, somewhere will come up with a new innovation and a new door will be opened. There are some very smart people at NASA, universities, and some large engineering & chemical corporations whose sole purpose is to conduct optical research. I can't imagine that these people believe that there is no further improvement that can be made???

Right now scope companies are incorporating what they have TODAY but that doesn't mean that they don't have products or innovations in the pipeline that are far & away better than anything you & I are used to mounting on a rifle...

Just my humble $.02...

Don’t look to history, look to the present day. How many optical manufacturers have introduced a product with improved optical quality in the last five or ten years?

You see an almost unending array of mechanical and ergonomic improvements and whiz bang additions, but very little if any real improvement in the optical quality.

Take your pick of top brand scopes and check the actual optical quality of their newest top of the line scope against their top of the line model from 10 years ago and see if you can notice a difference. Just the quality of the image you see, nothing else.

There is room for improvement in understanding of all matter and physical processes. Our understanding of physics and the subfield of optics is not nearly complete. Some of these quotes from history seem quite ridiculous now....

The professor that dedicated the new laboratory at the University of Chicago in 1894.

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

Or another one from the great scientist Lord Kelvin from 1900:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

If I had a crystal ball on the future of optics, I'd be rich, but there's no doubt in my mind that they will improve perhaps dramatically and as duckear suggests the next generation of optics may enhanced electronically.

It‘s pretty silly to “enhance†something that in its present state offers more than the human eye is capable of taking advantage of. Or perhaps, the human eye will be replaced in the future with bionics and we won’t need scopes at all on our electromagnetic rail guns shooting smart bullets at 28,000 FPS.

Optical understanding is pretty much a wash but the quality of grind on the lenses as well as coatings will go on for some time....

Ion deposited coatings have been around for several years in the telescope industry but have only recently arrived in "sports optics"... It does allow for better light gathering as well as sharper images... Older eyes may not make much of the sharper image but the amount of light transmission is always important, especially in older eyes...

Quality and consistency of the grind will assist in sharper images and again this depends on your eyes as to whether it is an "improvement"...

I do like the concept of electronic reticles as well as being able to program in YOUR bullets ballistics for improved aiming ... What a concept... But then you have to consider a dead battery at that crucial moment ..

Ken....

I own a Carl Zeiss Jena 7 x 50 Nobilem Super in mint collectors condition, but 27 years old.
These were the very best that Zeiss Jena ever produced and sales discontinued after only a few years because the costs of manufacturing were so high that a decent profit was not possible.

I have compared these with today's high end Zeiss and Swaro stuff in the most difficult light conditions and but for the angle of field I fail to notice any difference.

IMHO most 'new' developments in optics are offered from a marketing point of view; after all, why would anyone buy new optical products if the one's they have are the latest developement, covered by a 30 years waranty?

i think optics today handle stray light better than older optics

quote:

Originally posted by Slatts:
There is room for improvement in understanding of all matter and physical processes. Our understanding of physics and the subfield of optics is not nearly complete. Some of these quotes from history seem quite ridiculous now....

The professor that dedicated the new laboratory at the University of Chicago in 1894.

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

Or another one from the great scientist Lord Kelvin from 1900:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

If I had a crystal ball on the future of optics, I'd be rich, but there's no doubt in my mind that they will improve perhaps dramatically and as duckear suggests the next generation of optics may enhanced electronically.

There were also discussions around that same time period about shutting down the U.S. patent office, it was felt by some that everything that could be invented had been invented. Somehow I think the "experts" got that one wrong, judging by more than a few inventions I can think of that happened during the 20th century.

Assuming that everything that can be done optically has been done is a naive position. There WILL be advances made, that you can bet on. What they will be I don't know, but we have not reached the pinnacle of optics design, not even close.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
After reading army aviator's post about Leupold seeming to put more $$ in marketing than development got me thinking. Are we at the pinnacle of mechanical optics ie coatings, glass and tubes?

There is a limit to what optics can do, thanks to good old physics.

Sure a new coating here or there, but for the most part, I think we are there

No...nada...no way. Your Leupold VXII's and III's have been obsolete for many years. Most other manufactures have passed them by. They got into marketing and skipped the R&D part and are now trying desperately to catch up. There are so many innovations out there it isn't even funny. I suggest you do some homework and I would start with the Zeiss Conquest, Burris Black Diamond and Bushnell Elite. Regards, Rick

I guess I should go ahead and take the plunge and say that y'all are full of horse hocky.

I can see a world of difference between optics that are 5 years old and today's optics. Are y'all looking through lasic improved eyes or possibly quality contact lenses? I can't imagine that you could possibly tell if you use glasses.

In rifle scopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes out in the field in varying conditions I see huge differences.

In a store these differences are so hard to spot that it's easy to believe that the differences are miniscule or non-existant.

I agree that the next technology differences will be mostly electronic and we'll have more and more "features" and "bells and whistles" but to say that optics aren't still improving at a steady pace, in my honest opinion, is a big mistake.

$bob$

Imagine making glass in zero gravity.

I have a Leupold Ultra M3 10x40mm scope that I bought in 1988 or 89 and I have compared it side by side with a Leupold Mark 4 10x40mm LR/T M3 (the new model of the Ultra M3), and have had numerous people of varying ages look through them, and not one person so far could see any difference in brightness or sharpness even though the Ultra is close to 20 years older than the LR/T Mark 4.

I test my scopes using USAF resolution targets that are used to test resolving power on gun and observation cameras mounted on aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
I have a Leupold Ultra M3 10x40mm scope that I bought in 1988 or 89 and I have compared it side by side with a Leupold Mark 4 10x40mm LR/T M3 (the new model of the Ultra M3), and have had numerous people of varying ages look through them, and not one person so far could see any difference in brightness or sharpness even though the Ultra is close to 20 years older than the LR/T Mark 4.

I test my scopes using USAF resolution targets that are used to test resolving power on gun and observation cameras mounted on aircraft.

EXACTLY!!! Leupold has made little if any advances in optics for SEVERAL years while the Germans, Fins, and Japanese have made fantastic leaps forward.

This is why Leupold scopes are dinosaurs.

$bob$

The cost of optical glass and the cost of the procedures for coating lenses and manufacturing optics has dropped dramatically over the years.

The fact that some companies can now afford to use the better glass, coatings and manufacturing techniques may explain why “their†line of optics have improved over their earlier models, but that doesn’t mean that what they are now using and doing hasn’t been available up till now.

Leupold used to make the scopes for Leica and Zeiss that were sold in the USA, and Leupold scopes literally dominate BR matches in the USA. Are they the “best†available scope made? NO, but they are hardly “dinosaurs.â€

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
The cost of optical glass and the cost of the procedures for coating lenses and manufacturing optics has dropped dramatically over the years.

The fact that some companies can now afford to use the better glass, coatings and manufacturing techniques may explain why “their†line of optics have improved over their earlier models, but that doesn’t mean that what they are now using and doing hasn’t been available up till now.

Leupold used to make the scopes for Leica and Zeiss that were sold in the USA, and Leupold scopes literally dominate BR matches in the USA. Are they the “best†available scope made? NO, but they are hardly “dinosaurs.â€

The reason Leupold dominates benchrest competitions is because they cater to benchrest shooters and give them a lot of freebies to maintain that business.

Benchrest shooters don't need ultra high quality glass anyway... They just need a scope that holds point of impact once adjusted and that has a good reticle system that's solid. The BR line of Leupold scopes does just that.

Leupold has a smart marketing department that knows what the customer wants and knows that it's a huge feather in their cap that benchrest shooters use their products.

Go over to benchrest dot com... They've known this for years and freely acknowledge it. Leupold undoubtedly looses a lot of money catering to benchrest shooters. They're a very high maintenance bunch of guys and gals.

Also... If "the cost of cost of optical glass and the cost of the procedures for coating lenses and manufacturing optics has dropped dramatically over the years" then why is Leupold so far behind? I'll tell you why... PROFIT. Simple as that.

$bob$

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
The cost of optical glass and the cost of the procedures for coating lenses and manufacturing optics has dropped dramatically over the years.

The fact that some companies can now afford to use the better glass, coatings and manufacturing techniques may explain why “their†line of optics have improved over their earlier models, but that doesn’t mean that what they are now using and doing hasn’t been available up till now.

Leupold used to make the scopes for Leica and Zeiss that were sold in the USA, and Leupold scopes literally dominate BR matches in the USA. Are they the “best†available scope made? NO, but they are hardly “dinosaurs.â€

I am aware of the Leica/Leupold's. Which scope did Leupold make for Zeiss?

quote:

Originally posted by RDF51:

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
The cost of optical glass and the cost of the procedures for coating lenses and manufacturing optics has dropped dramatically over the years.

The fact that some companies can now afford to use the better glass, coatings and manufacturing techniques may explain why “their†line of optics have improved over their earlier models, but that doesn’t mean that what they are now using and doing hasn’t been available up till now.

Leupold used to make the scopes for Leica and Zeiss that were sold in the USA, and Leupold scopes literally dominate BR matches in the USA. Are they the “best†available scope made? NO, but they are hardly “dinosaurs.â€

I am aware of the Leica/Leupold's. Which scope did Leupold make for Zeiss?

Pardon my error, Leupold made US sold scopes for Leica and Steiner, not Zeiss. My mistake.

I would gladly take an improvement in repeatability and recoil integrity over any small improvements that may be made in the glass or coatings. After all these years even some of the best scopes suffer from inability to hold zero due to recoil damage. With all that modern engineering and technology has to offer, one would think this could be remedied without too much effort or expense.

Zupspoon,

What scopes are you having that trouble with? I haven't had a scope fail or give me repeatability problemns in about 5 years now and I shoot a LOT.

$bob$

quote:

No...nada...no way. Your Leupold VXII's and III's have been obsolete for many years. Most other manufactures have passed them by. They got into marketing and skipped the R&D part and are now trying desperately to catch up. There are so many innovations out there it isn't even funny. I suggest you do some homework and I would start with the Zeiss Conquest, Burris Black Diamond and Bushnell Elite. Regards, Rick

John Deer tractors and Sako rifles....just doesn't get much better.

Sakorick, .....John Deer tractors and Sako rifles....just doesn't get much better .....yes it dose, stick a Schmidt & Bender on top of that sako and your about there!!!

http://www.wildundhund.de/r30/vc_content/bilder/firma43...ernglastest_0206.pdf

check this out

quote:

Originally posted by LDHunter:
Zupspoon,

What scopes are you having that trouble with? I haven't had a scope fail or give me repeatability problemns in about 5 years now and I shoot a LOT.

$bob$

LD...I haven't personally had a problem with a quality scope in quite a while, but there are enough reports on the various boards to suggest that it happens often enough, even with big dollar scopes. Barring dropping or smashing a scope against something(aka neglect), what one type of failure do you suppose is the most common? I'd guess erector failure(no Viagra jokes please). Is it so difficult to design a robust system? Perhaps it is...I'm not an engineer...but it doesn't seem to be rocket science, except for the percentage of failures. Maybe someone could shed some light on the subject.

The more moving parts that a scope has the more prone they are going to be to failures of some type, no matter what company is building them.

The advent of CNC machining techniques has vastly simplified and improved the manufacture of the more complicated mechanisms used in variable power scopes and side focus models, but they still have allot of moving parts that get beat around by recoil, transporting and handling.

Not that many years ago the 06 was considered a fairly large caliber and most rifles weighed in at nine plus pounds. Now days its magnum this and magnum that and the rifles using these calibers are getting lighter and lighter and the scopes are being subjected to more of a beating from recoil.

With the numbers of scopes out there I think it is quite a tribute to all the manufacturers that there are so few scope failures and problems.

I've worked as a studio photog and photo-journalist on and off since circa 1964.

50 yrs ago a "good lens" for a camera was fundamentally superior in optical quality to a "cheap lens."

Now, the glass is basically all comparable in "good optics." Yes there are "cheapo" items on the market, in binoculars, lenses, scopes.

The upper end stuff is all pretty much the same. A Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold are all pretty much the same piece of glass.

Then you get into things like eye relief, features, reticles. But the glass is mostly comparable in terms of light transmission, resolution, clarity, contrast.

But you see how small cell phones are getting? And then stuff like "Blue Tooth" for hands free.

I expect rifle scopes with select reticles, range finders linked to GPS in some sort of wireless interface you carry in your pocket.

Bullet drop calculators that function like "auto focus" and "auto exposure" for a digital camera.

Can you imagine a scope where placement of the reticle on the target automatically calculates range, bullet drop, (windage?), and adjusts reticle position for the gun, ammo, target?

The technology is available. Can it be brought to market?

-- I'm fine with my Leupolds. The VXIII reticle gives me a range finder at variable power if I know the size of my target. I'm not shooting groundhawgs; I'm shooting elk.

quote:

Can you imagine a scope where placement of the reticle on the target automatically calculates range, bullet drop, (windage?), and adjusts reticle position for the gun, ammo, target?

These type scopes and reticles are in the planning. Some electronic reticles are already in place. As has been stated above, this will be the only upgrade as glass is as good as it gets right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Heat:
Optical understanding is pretty much a wash but the quality of grind on the lenses as well as coatings will go on for some time....

Ion deposited coatings have been around for several years in the telescope industry but have only recently arrived in "sports optics"... It does allow for better light gathering as well as sharper images... Older eyes may not make much of the sharper image but the amount of light transmission is always important, especially in older eyes...

Ken....

Ken,

Zeiss was coating lenses with Magnesium Fluoride in the 1930’s, so that isn’t something new at all. The physics of light rays will never allow 100% transmission of light rays through a lens system. Some amount of light is lost just going through the atmosphere between the image and your eye even if you aren’t viewing through a scope.

The human eye has limits on the amount of light that can enter it and also on the amount of detail (resolving power) that can be perceived. Eyes are not like camera film where the sensitivity to light can be manipulated.

Once an optical device has reached a certain level of sharpness and brightness that exceeds what the human eye can perceive it’s a waste of time to try and go further. It’s sort of like Dolly Parton trying to fit into Twiggy’s bra!

I have no doubt the cost of manufacturing will go down, my point is where is there to go with glass and coatings.

When you transmit 99% of available light with x amount of distortion, what is your next trick? Bumping up to 99.5% light transmission and doubling the cost?

Sure, the composition of the glass and body will change, perhaps even a novel reticle adjusment system will be developed to improve reliability, but when you have a scope that is virtually impervious to recoil, repeatablity in zero, no distortion detectable by the human eye and transmits more light than the eye can use, you are at the top.

My prediction?

The next BIG optic breakthrough will require a battery.

fyj... Yes, magnesium fluoride is a compound that has been around for a very long time... Fluorite has also been around for a long time but not that long in optics... On the other hand using ion deposit technology is fairly new and not cheap (it's kinda like electro platting except glass is not generally a good conductor)...

Have to agree with your points about the limits of the human eye... At some point, the clarity of the image coming into the eye will excede your eye's abilities to perceive the differences being offered in today's optics...

The majority of my "optics" background is in telescopes so I tend to lean to what I am well versed in..
"Sports optics" are a somewhat different beast but the principles are the same.. Coatings are essentially to remove glare and reflections.. As to their ability to increase light transmission, they don't, they simply help ensure the reflectivity of the optics don't affect the image... Ion depositing allows for minimum light transmission reduction by those coatings so the coatings themselves aren't decreasing transmission... For those who demand maximum light transmission from high quality optics the only way to increase the amount of light observed is to increase the amount you gather... In other words, bigger objective...

Ken....

Ken,

I believe the topic here concerns someone coming up with something “new†that will improve the optical performance (quality) of rifle scopes.

Just because materials and technologies (that have been around for many years) are now becoming available at much lower prices for manufacturers doesn’t make those materials and technologies “new.â€

Fluorite (an artificial crystal made from calcium fluoride) has been around and being used on lenses for at least 30 years. Canon L series 35mm camera lenses are an example.

The use of aspherical lenses as opposed to spherical ones is also starting to be used more to help control aberrations in some optics, but that technology has also been around for many, many years, and is nothing “new.â€

fyj,

Didn't mean to throw anything argumentative your way...

Not saying anything here is "new" just that some of the newer technologies are becoming more economical to the mass market...

And yeah, new lense grinds may make them sharper but that too is to a point our eyes can't tell... I thought it was great when apo designs hit the sports optics market... It certainly made the sight picture more clear and useful..

I doubt we'll see anything truely new but those that are different are already hitting the market such as the "electronic" scopes...

Me personally, I have no issues with today's scopes in a hunting situation.. My eyes are certainly old enough that I have a hard time telling any differences in well made scopes...

Some of this electronic stuff might prove useful down the road but I don't really see any of them in my future... I know enough of the ballistics of the cartridges I shoot and my abilities that a good quality "normal" scope sits with me just fine...

By the way fyj, where abouts in the Southwest ??

Ken....

Not Arizona.

Spent allot of time in Phoenix though. My uncle spent 40 years with the Maricopa County sheriffs department, and I have another uncle living in Prescott.