As has been said in different ways but never directly here, an equal quality lens that is larger will transmit more light to your eye. A larger lens of lower quality may or may not transmit more light to your eye. What has been stated in a way that feels misleading is that the larger objective gives a wider FOV. The lens itself has nothing to do with FOV. They tend to go together in that it's easier to get a clear and large FOV with a larger objective, but the front lens diameter doesn't change FOV.
From the Prostaff Vs VX-1 point of view, I feel the image through the Prostaff is better slightly. The turrets are about the same. The Reliability for each has been fairly consistent and good. Leupold's warranty will be better and easier.
Up until the 2012 update, I hated the VX-1 line. The friction turrets were a joke and the lenses weren't good. It did very little right compared to the competition except have Leupold behind it. Now, the lenses are decent/good and the turrets are click adjustable. Add in everything else Leupold does well and it's a solid option. Nikon has always seemed to have better glass for the money, at any of the price points. Their turrets, especially on their more expensive lines, have also always felt better to me than Leupold turrets on a similar priced optic. Both brands seem to track well enough though. Where Nikon fails is warranty work. You may or may not need it, but should that day come, I'd hope the scope had a gold ring.
It's harder (and more expensive) to make a large lens as error free as a small lens. So an equal quality large lens should cost more money. When you try to replace quality with size, it's the wrong approach. It should be buy quality first, and get as much size as the budget allows not buy size first and then as much quality as the budget allows. The other point here is that a less expensive scope with a 50mm objective should reasonably have cheaper/fewer coatings as well as more flaws in the lenses themselves than a smaller objective lens. On a budget optic, I'd rather pay the same for fewer features but better quality than more features and sacrifice a bit of quality. Once you get into $400-$500+ optics, the lens quality seems to be good enough for my uses and adding features in over improved glass makes sense.
The one good thing with your options is that neither are junk. You aren't comparing two bad optics from two bad companies. Neither is a wrong choice. They have their own pros and cons and either can quite realistically be a great option for a long time.
When you start to talk about the VX-2, I'd instantly jump that direction. The VX-2 line seems to me to be Leupold's sweet spot for price/performance ratio. I can't knock people spending more for a VX-3 or other option but if find my diminishing returns fall squarely at the VX-2. If you're really considering a VX-2 along with the VX-1 and Prostaff, buy the VX-2 and never look back.
From the Prostaff Vs VX-1 point of view, I feel the image through the Prostaff is better slightly. The turrets are about the same. The Reliability for each has been fairly consistent and good. Leupold's warranty will be better and easier.
Up until the 2012 update, I hated the VX-1 line. The friction turrets were a joke and the lenses weren't good. It did very little right compared to the competition except have Leupold behind it. Now, the lenses are decent/good and the turrets are click adjustable. Add in everything else Leupold does well and it's a solid option. Nikon has always seemed to have better glass for the money, at any of the price points. Their turrets, especially on their more expensive lines, have also always felt better to me than Leupold turrets on a similar priced optic. Both brands seem to track well enough though. Where Nikon fails is warranty work. You may or may not need it, but should that day come, I'd hope the scope had a gold ring.
It's harder (and more expensive) to make a large lens as error free as a small lens. So an equal quality large lens should cost more money. When you try to replace quality with size, it's the wrong approach. It should be buy quality first, and get as much size as the budget allows not buy size first and then as much quality as the budget allows. The other point here is that a less expensive scope with a 50mm objective should reasonably have cheaper/fewer coatings as well as more flaws in the lenses themselves than a smaller objective lens. On a budget optic, I'd rather pay the same for fewer features but better quality than more features and sacrifice a bit of quality. Once you get into $400-$500+ optics, the lens quality seems to be good enough for my uses and adding features in over improved glass makes sense.
The one good thing with your options is that neither are junk. You aren't comparing two bad optics from two bad companies. Neither is a wrong choice. They have their own pros and cons and either can quite realistically be a great option for a long time.
When you start to talk about the VX-2, I'd instantly jump that direction. The VX-2 line seems to me to be Leupold's sweet spot for price/performance ratio. I can't knock people spending more for a VX-3 or other option but if find my diminishing returns fall squarely at the VX-2. If you're really considering a VX-2 along with the VX-1 and Prostaff, buy the VX-2 and never look back.
