Best low light scopes?

[coloradokevin]

Is it taking it personally to point out that no one on this thread said they "believe that (all else being equal) a 40mm objective lens can "collect", "gather", or otherwise "find" more light than a 56mm lens?"

But no one involved in this discussion has made such a claim. Please do not accuse us of saying things we did not say.

Dude, seriously, are you even reading my posts? Are you just looking to argue with me here? I've repeatedly explained where these kinds of statements came from, and didn't accuse you (or anyone else in this thread) of saying such a thing. I also explained why I went into the "light gathering" debate in the first place, based on the OP's opening post, and questions.

It is my belief that this was a commonly held misconception, based on conversations I've had with numerous shooters in the past (not necessarily shooters in this thread). Anyway, since the OP specifically asked for the scopes that "gather light the best", I felt it was important to explain what that doesn't mean, along with what is actually important.

What is the issue you're trying to argue with me at this point? Perhaps we should continue this debate over PM's if you still feel that this is unresolved... There's no sense in derailing an otherwise useful thread simply because you don't understand that I'm not referring to you, or your posts in this thread.



Anyway, one final thought for the OP:

Generally you get what you pay for with optics!

I have a real cheap fixed power 3x40mm scope laying around here that you can barely see through in the dark. I also have a 3-10x40mm Weaver Grand Slam Tactical (circa $300) that really does pretty well in lower light conditions. Then I have a S&B PMII 3-20x50mm scope (ten times the cost of the Weaver), and I find that it's pretty darn excellent in low light conditions.

You usually have a "need" for a scope like a S&B before you buy one, and I have to admit that for the purposes of a hunting rifle in low light, my Weaver stacks up fairly well against the FAR more expensive scope (the Weaver is on my hunting rifle). The S&B definitely has better glass, better coatings, and a larger objective. But, 20x magnification doesn't do as well in low light as 10x magnification. So, while the S&B is still superior, I'm actually really pretty impressed with how the Weaver compares for the price point (in fact, I just did another hasty comparison out a window using both scopes set to ten power).

 

[Lloyd Smale]

does show that peoples eyes are different. Ive got a conquest 3x9x40 and a bushnell elite 4200 3x9 and the newest versions of the Nikon monarch 3 2.5x10 and my newest versions of leupolds vx2 3x9s both beat out the bushnell and ziess in low light to my eyes. the bushenell hands down beats the zeiss to my eyes too and beat out the older leupold vxII and the older monarchs. Zeiss was a bit better then the older vxII though. the newest vx3 that I have is hands down better then any of the others. I find a lot of people judge leupolds by the scopes they had. Leupold has come leaps and bounds in the last couple years in glass quality. Used to be a vari x 2 was easily beat out by scopes that cost half what they did. Now the newest vx2 is probably the best bang for the buck with the exception of maybe the vx1. check out a new vx1 if you get a chance. they use the same lense quality and same coatings the the vxIII did just 3 years ago and cost a 1/3 what the 3s went for back then. Heck of a scope for 200 bucks.

 

[Walkalong]

Please drop the gathers vs lets in vs transmits vs whatever else one wants to call it. It detracts from the subject matter and I would like to see this discussion continue.

It is also a waste of time. Like a fellow I used to work with would say.... " Just let it die".

 

[Clint M]

I just skimmed over the post, I do want to give some experience I have had.

This may be important the landscape/setting deer hunting pine tree area sitting in logging road looking down the logging road over an open area (size of football field)around 100 yards away. The pine trees really soaked the light up, however the open are was still well visible light wise.

Leupold 1.75-6 vs Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10, the Zeiss was brighter, not by very much but I along with my son could tell a difference, also the less light the more difference between the two became apparent. This however would not effect taking a shot as the Leupold still plenty bright enough to see objects clearly.

Leupold 3.5-10 vs Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10 I'm not sure objective sizes however neither is a 50mm, I could tell no difference in brightness.

I have owned and used 50mm objective scope high quality and they do seem to present a clear picture more crisp so to speak however no comparison in dim light. The area I mentioned above was the perfect testing area for brightness/light gathering capability it seems. I don't think with a quality scope you will have any problems even with aging eyes to clearly see a target be it deer/hair in hunting situations to give much thought or worry. I also think the Leupold 1.75-6x32 as said above has plenty of brightness to clearly see target in legal hunting times. Many things come into play when I purchase a scope I have come to enjoy the lower magnifications and my favorite hunting scope ranges are 1.5-5, 1.75-6, 3-9/3.5-10 one of these in a well manufactured scope has become standard attire atop my hunting rigs.

 

[Gordon]

I bought this scope for my Christmas present. I consider it a steal for optics that look as good as the S&B short dot. The objective lens is pretty big for the low power , combine that with the state of the art coatings on it and the great illuminated dot and you got the best low light scope I have yet seen and & for $700 and change
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007402DDQ/
It is going on my Noveske Rogue Hunter 16" upper

 

[redneck2]

I have a 6.5x20-40 Nikon Monarch that I need to get sold/traded for something lower power for my new Hornet. Probably either a VX-2, Conquest, or Vortex. Gonna go to Cabelas today to get out of the house. Will check them out there.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

For what it's worth, I have a Weaver K6 on my Hornet (a Model 82 Kimber) and it seems close to ideal for that rifle. It's enough scope for crows out to 200 yards, and not too much for a running coyote at 50 yards.

 

[Packy]

Explain to me how a scope "gathers" light? Is that like your "glass etched reticles"?

 

[hq]

Explain to me how a scope "gathers" light?

While we shouldn't go there (again), and I gave a brief explanation earlier in this thread, you can think of it as the surface area ie. diameter of the lens that's exposed to whatever little light is available. Only the light coming from the direction and angle of field of view - meaning the "picture" you're looking at through the scope - matters, no scope can gather it elsewhere.

Once light enters the scope, glass quality and coating determine how much of the light will pass through to exit pupil. Coating serves a dual purpose of reducing unwanted reflections (= loss) on lens surfaces and filtering a very small amount of wavelengths that have detrimental effect of perceived and observable sharpness and contrast of the image. Modern NC technology has made shaping and polishing lenses very precise and relatively cheap, which has vastly improved the glass quality of mid-priced scopes. Coatings still require far more R&D, hence genuinely good low light scopes are expensive and the technology trickles down slowly.

This technology is proprietary and varies by manufacturer. Not all of them are that interested in spending vast amounts of money in low light specific R&D. Generally speaking, if a scope is primarily intended for market where nighttime hunting is common, it has a 50-56mm (or even larger) lens, magnification somewhere between 2 and 15 and it carries a breathtaking price tag, it most likely has decent low light performance.

 

[GetmeoutaCT]

First, scopes don't "gather" light, they allow the transmission of ambient light through the lens, to some measurable degree that is always less than what is actually there (no scope transmits 100% of the light it is exposed to… that's the nature of glass. Some come very close to doing so, but none do it 100%).

Anyway, as others have already mentioned, a larger objective lens diameter on a scope is going to allow for more light transmission, all else being equal. But, things aren't always equal.

I personally think there's a lot to be said for high quality glass in this regard (both in terms of glass quality and coatings). I can use my S&B in conditions that I'd never get by in with a comparable size/magnification scope that cost $300. My S&B has a 50mm objective lens, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it would give me better low light performance than a Barska scope with a 56mm lens.

Magnification is another issue. As you increase magnification you'll have a harder time seeing your target in low light. I'm not a scope engineer, so I can't explain exactly how that works out, but it does.

All else being equal you are going to get better performance with these three factors accounted for:

1) Larger Objective
2) Better glass
3) Lower magnification

I've come to this discussion late and have not read all the posts (although I do see it's strayed a bit from the subject matter and devolved to backs and forths about what was said and meant, and not, as long threads are likely to do) but this post gets it right.

I'm far from an expert on guns and riflescopes, but I was a fairly serious amateur astronomer as a teenager, and I can tell you that the most important single factor in a refractor telescope (which is what a riflescope is) is the size of the objective. All other things equal, a larger objective will show more detail in a distant object. Also, higher magnification is not necessarily better; many junk telescopes were purchased because the salesperson bragged on maximum magnification as the most important attribute. It's not. Lower power gives a better field of view and much better resolution.

As for buying a cheaper large objective as opposed to a more expensive smaller, I think you need to check reviews and such, since many factors are at play.

All in all, though, if low-light performance is your most important criteria, the first thing you should consider is objective size. Just my two cents; your mileage may vary

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Explain to me how a scope "gathers" light? Is that like your "glass etched reticles"?

The easiest way to explain it is like this: Go outside at noon on a hot, cloudless day. Take a powerful magnifying glass and focus it on the back of you hand and hold it there for five minutes.

At the end of the experiment, you will have positive proof the lens has gathered SOMETHING.

 

[taliv]

time to stick a fork in this one