high magnification scope question

[greyling22]

I don't really know how to ask this question, but I'm going to try and muddle through it.

I always heard that as scope magnification got higher, the quality of glass mattered more. for example, a $200 3-9x is a nice clear scope, but take that same quality of glass, crank the power up to 18 or 20x, and you end up with a dark and murky image. And that if you have a 5-20x scope, the 5x might be nice and clear, but as you get up into the upper range you lose image quality.

These days, I'm seeing a lot of high magnification 5-25x scopes in the $300-700 range. Does that still hold true? For example, meopta offers their optika 5 line in 2-10, 3-15x , and 4-20x. Assuming the glass quality is the same in all of them, If I set them all on 10x, should I expect the same quality of image? or do you run into issues at the top end of the magnification range? If I really didn't think I needed 20x, but somewhere in the 8-12x power, would I get a better picture with the 4-20 than the 3-15 since I wouldn't be in the upper range of the magnification?

I guess that I'm trying to ask, if I really wanted a nice 15x scope, and the same model line offered a 15x and a 25x, would 15x look a lot nicer on the 25 than on the 15, because I wasn't pushing the scope to it's optical limits?

 

[entropy]

For starters, if you want the best image at 15x, get a 15x non-variable scope with top quality glass. Fixed scopes with the same glass quality as a variable will always give you crisper images, because the light isn't refracted around inside the tube near as many times as with a variable. Every lens light passes through in a scope degrades the image a small amount; light in a variable scope passes through many more lenses than in a fixed scope. That glass quality improves optics is self-evident.

 

[Slamfire]

Can I offer, the older you get, the quality of glass becomes less important, as your eyes suck.

The Gun Club President purchased an expensive Zeiss scope and ran a sort of "reading" test at 200 yards. And, since there were teenagers available, he asked one to look through the scope, They saw stuff he did not, so, his graduated comparison test between the Ziess and cheaper scopes was bogus.

I gave away my cheap Barska spotting scope. It was a 20-60X, with box, less than $100. I took it to a 500 yard match, to compare with my good scope Zooming the Barska up and down, the edges of the field of view were green. I suspect the lens was not coated on the edges. However, I could distinguish the pasters on the target face by the color difference, which ain't bad for a $100 scope.

My good scope, (which I had set up along side the Barska ) I could the white to the edges of the black pasters.

Good scope, about $1000


Given my poor vision, I really can't tell any real difference in image between the Pentax, and this $400 spotting scope



This is a $250 scope, and it is pretty darn clear for a pocket scope





but the bigger scopes see more at the 200 yard range, which is where I compared the thing. It works just fine in Bullseye Pistol.

I have been using some inexpensive 1970's scopes when shooting at CMP Talladega, and they are surprisingly clear within their range, which is typically 3 X 9. I have Luepolds, 4-12X, better magnification, hard to say better clarity. My El Paso Weaver 4X looks gray in comparison to modern scopes, and it gets darker as the sun goes down.

This monster scope is clear throughout its field of view, however, at some magnification, the mirage washes out the image. So I tend to dial the magnification down





all my good F Class friends are shooting rifle scopes that are larger than the spotting scopes of yore, so there has to be something about big and expensive. Big scopes require expensive mounts!

Carl Zoos used to bring a bunch of rifle scopes, and a dummy stock to Camp Perry. The customer could take a couple of scopes outside and see how they looked. That is truly the only way to tell if the optics are good enough. I cannot say the optics of a $1000 scope are better than a $400 scope. You do get better accessories, such as scope covers and scope bags. Maybe this clicks will be more repeatable, but I have heard so many complaints about that, with $2000 rifle scopes, all I did was stick with Leupold.

 

[Varminterror]

Scopes get “dark and murky” at high magnification predominantly due to their exit pupil size. What used to be relatively common in the past as a cost control measure - price reducing - was to utilize a small objective body, small lenses, but with a high magnification. Plainly, it’s cheaper to make a 6-24x40mm than a 6-24x50mm. But the consequence is that at 24x, the exit pupil is only 1.7mm. A 50mm objective at 24x has an exit pupil of 2.1mm. Doesn’t seem like much difference, but it accounts for ~50% brighter image reaching your eye. Commonly, we also can note the human pupil can really only constrict to about 2mm, when exit pupil crosses below our minimum pupil diameter, our eye will start seeing progressive darkness very quickly. I used to have a 40x45 Leupold, looking through it felt like looking into a mountain tunnel with no lights... the 1.1mm exit pupil didn’t bring me much light. Hated it.

So in the past, many cheap high mag scopes were made which were cheap, at least in part, because they used smaller diameter elements, much less expensive than larger elements. But the consequence was that they could not be used in any light condition except open, midday, high light.

However; the 50mm revolution has came, and folks have realized the advantage of objective diameter, and shunned the cheap designs of the past which robbed us of light. Most of the low priced high mag optics you see today have larger objectives and will be commensurately brighter than the crippled scopes of the past.

So onto the question of relative performance within a model line: IN GENERAL, a higher magnification model within a given model line will be commensurately higher priced than its lower magnification brethren, in concession to the increased cost to produce the magnifying elements.

I’ll also note, as a caveat to the transmissivity and refractivity index references made above - glass quality makes a huge difference. Many fixed power scopes are very inexpensive, and use inexpensive glass - and are low market volume items. We can’t be certain a low relative market volume item is priced commensurately with its input costs, so we can’t be truly certain the glass quality in an FX model is equivalent to that used in a VX model... As an example, the Canon EF-S 75-300mm f/4-5.6 camera lens uses 13 elements (individual lenses), and is either the worst or second worst lens Canon makes. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L III uses 23 elements, and is demonstrably the best zoom lens Canon makes, and one of the best optical quality lenses on the market. More glass doesn’t always mean reduced image quality, if the glass is better too. (Conceding of course, in this extreme example, one is a $200 “scope” and the other is $2,000). Personally, you can’t give me a fixed power scope, especially a high magnification optic - unless I am exclusively shooting fixed distance Benchrest, and even then, I don’t really want it. Too often, mirage gets heavy and I want to zoom out to avoid the eye strain, and in any field condition, I may want to zoom out or in to find and then engage my target.

 

[243winxb]

do you run into issues at the top end of the magnification range?

Yes, mirage and heat coming off the barrel may be an issue above 18 power. The higher powers tend to loose some brightness. Bushnell trophy 6x18 fits my wallet. No idea how good the $2000 scopes are?

I would never buy a fixed power Leupold 36 Power Scope again, (if they still made it) A variable scope can always be adjusted down when conditions are bad.

 

[Varminterror]

No idea how good the $2000 scopes are?

I can tell you, there are a few high end scopes which aren’t as good of value as others, but I can tell you, I’ve never used a $1600-4500 scope which wasn’t fantastic, especially compared to the common $250-500 optics with which most guys are familiar. At the risk of sounding elitist, it really does make a huge difference when you need ragged edge performance in harsh conditions.

 

[greyling22]

I asked because I've been thinking about consolidating and upgrading my rifles. Turn 3 mediocre rifles with 3 $200 scopes on them into 1 good rifle and 1 good piece of glass. I shoot mostly at the range, 100-200yds, but I want to be able to take the rifle out hunting as well. Now, I know that that's like saying I want a race gun target pistol that can also be a concealed carry gun, but the bergara HMR is a possibility. I've found I mostly hunt in the 4-6x range, but I like something 14x or greater for the range. Don't really want or need 25x, but there are a lot of them out there. I was thinking about something like this https://redhawkrifles.com/used-zeiss-conquest-v4-4-16x44-rifle-scope/ but I am certainly open to other options.

 

[Varminterror]

@greyling22 - I’ve found 4-16x44mm scopes to be about the perfect blend of size, weight, cost, magnification, and light for a field scope for most of my life. Enough zoom that if I want to reach to 1,000yards, I can, but not so much that I’m hauling significantly heavier, larger, or more expensive scope than necessary to do the job. I shoot with both eyes open, and honestly, I’d rather shoot at 30 yards with my scope at 18x than shoot at 400 yards with a 9x. I have a few SigSauer Tango4’s in 4-16x44mm on some of my hunting rifles now which are serving me well. Not the best scope I’ve ever touched, but brighter than a Leupold VX3, first focal plane, illuminated reticle, graduated reticle, and right in the sweet spot for magnification and size.

 

[ms6852]

I guess that I'm trying to ask, if I really wanted a nice 15x scope, and the same model line offered a 15x and a 25x, would 15x look a lot nicer on the 25 than on the 15,

You won't probably hear the reply you want from me but I will try to clarify some issues here. Depending on the price point of what you consider a "nice" scope , viewing through a scope of a max magnification of 15X and viewing through another scope with a max magnification of 25X but viewing at 15X and they were valued at the same price I would give the 15X scope the advantage of better clarity viewing because the cost of that scope probably will have better optics than the 25X.

Depending on how you plan to use your scope and style of shooting higher magnification is not always the best way to go. For example In my half century of hunting, I have never shot elk or deer above 7X in my 3X90 scope. Depending on location and atmospheric conditions they limit me to 5x and 7x , providing clearer picture. The more magnification you use and depending on temperatures of the day you also will magnify those atmospheric conditions. If it is hot and there is mirage that gets magnified as well as the haze.

If you plan to shoot targets only at a set distance and precision is more your style than you want a fix scope that will provide more clearer picture without the color aberrations or fringing that occurs on less expensive scopes or variable scopes. After a certain dollar value anything you pay over two grand in my opinion will not give you the return you seek. Yes the optics are better at two grand than at 300 dollars but only you can decide what looks best to you. Sometimes the dollar value from one scope to the other may be so close that there is no discernible difference to the naked eye. The most expensive scopes I have were priced at 50% because there were being discontinued. These were Bushnell Forge supposedly valued at $900. I put these scopes on my 10/22 ruger because I shoot it at 200 yards. It is a 3-18X50 scope and comparing to other similar like scopes with the same magnification, mine seems more clearer than the Primary Arms 3-18x50 but when I compare it to my brothers 3-18x50 $1700 Vortex Razor riflescope, my scope falls short of the wow factor. Also know that your vision with some optics will look better to you and some won't. You just have to look through them yourself. But I do know one thing that as I get older my vision becomes worse to where I have to shift from buying $300 to $500 scopes to buying scopes with a higher dollar value. Better optics give me clearer pictures allowing for more correction of visual aberrations due to color fringing and atmospheric conditions.

 

[Slamfire]

I’ll also note, as a caveat to the transmissivity and refractivity index references made above - glass quality makes a huge difference. Many fixed power scopes are very inexpensive, and use inexpensive glass - and are low market volume items. We can’t be certain a low relative market volume item is priced commensurately with its input costs, so we can’t be truly certain the glass quality in an FX model is equivalent to that used in a VX model... As an example, the Canon EF-S 75-300mm f/4-5.6 camera lens uses 13 elements (individual lenses), and is either the worst or second worst lens Canon makes. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L III uses 23 elements, and is demonstrably the best zoom lens Canon makes, and one of the best optical quality lenses on the market. More glass doesn’t always mean reduced image quality, if the glass is better too.

I talked to an optics manufacturer, and the reason cheap scopes have much better optics than they did, lets say 60's,70's, 80's is all due to the fact, it is not cost economical to have a production line producing both poor quality and good quality optics. Production lines, people, processes, have to held to tight standards or they loose their cost competitiveness. Glass for lenses was from only a few factories, and I don't remember if any were US based.

I remember I could not see 30 caliber bullet holes on a 100 yard target with a 70's Tasco spotting scope. The optics were very poor, and at the time, it was a $100 scope. Today's cheap scopes are much improved optically.

Yes, there are better quality lenses and optics out of a production run, but the difference between bad and good is a lot narrower than before. And, as the guy I talked to said, at some quality level you have to use an optical interferometer to tell the difference between lenses, because human eyes are not precise enough. The very expensive stuff has the highest quality lenses, but the inspection to sort them out costs more.

I know John Unertl company had a human dedicated to lens grinding and Mr Unertl used to examine lenses with a magnifying lens. Those days are pretty much gone, everything that can be automated is, and process control equipment measures characteristics to unbelievable precision.

The better scopes are better than ever, and optically, so are the cheaper stuff. We live in good times.

 

[Walkalong]

Can I offer, the older you get, the quality of glass becomes less important, as your eyes suck.

Amen to that, good glass matters more and more as eyes age.

 

[Nature Boy]

This is my experience with high magnification scopes.

I have a Nightforce 12-42x56mm that sits on my son’s .223 and a Kahles 10-50x56mm that sits on my 6BRA.

Common traits:

1. The more magnification you dial in, the darker the image is. That’s just a factor of exit pupil size as @Varminterror explained.

2. The more magnification you dial in the more mirage you’ll see, particularly at distance. Not a big issue when shooting early morning before the sun starts to heat up the ground but once it does it really affects image quality.

Most F class matches have first round down range at 8:00. During this time I use maximum magnification but by the 2nd and 3rd matches I have to dial it back to ~30x because of mirage.

As far as glass quality goes, it always matters, particularly if your objective it shooting in some type of target sport so put that into the “you get what you pay for” column. I don’t know of any 50x magnification budget scopes. With that said, the Nightforce 12-42x56mm is a hell of a scope for money. Street price is ~$1,500. My Kahles 10-50x56mm will run around $2,600 but honestly there isn’t a $1,000 worth of difference in quality between the two. They are both excellent for what they were designed to do.

 

[JFrank]

Exit pupil size is interesting to me and perhaps a great contributor to scopes darkening at full power however IME they do not all respond the same.
My 15-60x 52 Golden Eagle will get dark while my buddies 15-55x52 Night force competition stays brite and clear.
My Sightron 8-32x56 stays relatively brite and clear.
Everyone s eyes are different so it seems the best way to judge a scope is to look down the pipe for ones self and hopefully money doesn't get in the way too badly.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I was going to order a athalon. I got a CP 6X20X50 scope for my B-day. Im going to give it a try for my longer range steel shooting. I have one of their 4x16x40 scopes on my CZ 45722 mag. It works fine for it.If it works out it will stay on my 223. And ill move my UTG hunter 4x16x50 to 30.06

 

[jmr40]

In my experience quality is more important than magnification. And above about 10X it becomes even more important. I can't justify a $2000 scope, although I don't doubt they are great. But I can do better with a $500 scope topping out at around 9X-10X than a scope in the same price range with magnification over 12X-14X.

However; the 50mm revolution has came, and folks have realized the advantage of objective diameter,

A 50mm objective will still give you issues with light transmission above 10X. You get exactly the same exit pupil with a 40mm scope on 8X as a 50mm scope on 10X. Once you get to 15X a 40mm and 50mm objective will be next to useless in poor light.

Exit pupil size is interesting to me and perhaps a great contributor to scopes darkening at full power however IME they do not all respond the same.

Exit pupil is the diameter of the beam of light that exits the rear of the scope and is easily calculated. The larger that beam of light the better, but exit pupil does not measure the brightness of the light coming out the back of the scope. That is measured by light transmission. And that is much harder to measure and define. You almost never see optics manufacturers list their light transmission ratings. That is why it isn't uncommon for some scopes to do better than another scope even if it has a lower exit pupil rating. At least up to a point.

 

[Dale Alan]

Exit pupil size is interesting to me and perhaps a great contributor to scopes darkening at full power however IME they do not all respond the same.
My 15-60x 52 Golden Eagle will get dark while my buddies 15-55x52 Night force competition stays brite and clear.
My Sightron 8-32x56 stays relatively brite and clear.
Everyone s eyes are different so it seems the best way to judge a scope is to look down the pipe for ones self and hopefully money doesn't get in the way too badly.

You nailed it Jim . We have four people in our shooting group(family) , we buy scopes knowing one of us will likely have success with it . Even then there are some that none of us can get "just right" .

 

[Varminterror]

Exit pupil is the diameter of the beam of light that exits the rear of the scope and is easily calculated. The larger that beam of light the better, but exit pupil does not measure the brightness of the light coming out the back of the scope.

Exit pupil does not measure the intensity of the beam, but it DOES dictate the area of photoreceptors the beam contacts, availing greater sensitivity to our eye. Same principle as digital camera sensors - crop sensor lenses concentrate the “beam” into a smaller area, onto smaller pixels, meaning less sensitivity and lower apparent brightness of the image.

It’s a pretty fun parlor trick when you have SERIOUSLY restricted riflescopes - you can put shooters behind rifles and find their minimum exit pupil tolerance which they can carry towards other scope purchases. Mine’s actually quite big, unfortunately. Zooming in, shooters will see virtually the same brightness until the exit pupil shrinks below their minimum tolerance, and suddenly the image darkens notably and progressively.

It’s also false to state manufacturers don’t advertise their transmissivity. Vortex, Leupold, Burris, Bushnell... it’s all available in their advertising. Leupold even pats themselves on the back for improved transmissivity during dawn and dusk spectra in their VX3i ad copy.

 

[LiveLife]

I remember I could not see 30 caliber bullet holes on a 100 yard target with a 70's Tasco spotting scope. The optics were very poor, and at the time, it was a $100 scope. Today's cheap scopes are much improved optically.

After using several binoculars and spotting scopes for shooting, I have happily settled on the $100 Visionking 25-75x70 Maksutov spotting scope - https://www.amazon.com/Visionking-2...ting-Waterproof/dp/B00GH2JWTA#customerReviews

Unlike traditional spotting scope with long body, I like the short compact body and 75x magnification allows me to see smaller .22 caliber holes at 100 yards.

 

[Jim Watson]

Exit pupil and depth of focus contribute to the "eye box" that you must line up in.
My club shot BR50 for a while, my level of interest and budget led to a Weaver T36 on my Army surplus CMP H&R 5200. The eye box is tiny, I would get a T24 or the corresponding Sightron to do it again.

Quite the nicest scope I have seen is a March.

They have very wide variable ranges, 8 or 10 to one. It is hard for me to see the point. Would I use a 4-40 to be able to hunt deer, shoot varmints, and Long Range on the same rifle? Probably not.
Even my 8.5-25 Leupold F class scope has not needed anything below about 16X... or above 22X.
I thought a TARGET scope with a power range of 2 to 1 would be handy. 12x to get on target with, 24x for targets on a calm day, back it off a little if the mirage got too distracting.

 

[JFrank]

I couldn't get much past 30x last weekend due to the smoke, hard to hit what you cant see. ive never looked through my scope and question the exit pupil, I consider things like elevation, windage, poi shift and parallax or eye relief and glare.

To the OP I suggest buying the very best quality scope you can afford. You won't regret looking through a good scope that belongs to you.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Well the UTG remains on the .223. New scope wont fit. So i put it on the 30.06. It has a pic rail. Zeroed it 4 shots. At 50 for now. I couldn't see the 100 yard. Because of Shade from the roof over the benches. Then sun and more shade over the 100 yard target stand. I think that's mirage? So ill take it out to the other club with the long range and finish setting it up then.

 

[Walkalong]

Exit pupil size is interesting to me and perhaps a great contributor to scopes darkening at full power

Exit pupil size, glass quality, lens coatings quality is where it is all at. Any scope will lose brightness if the power is run up and the exit pupil gets smaller than our eye can use. How much depends on the quality of the glass and the coatings.

 

[71GTO]

After using several binoculars and spotting scopes for shooting, I have happily settled on the $100 Visionking 25-75x70 Maksutov spotting scope - https://www.amazon.com/Visionking-2...ting-Waterproof/dp/B00GH2JWTA#customerReviews

Unlike traditional spotting scope with long body, I like the short compact body and 75x magnification allows me to see smaller .22 caliber holes at 100 yards.

View attachment 1019371

LiveLife, I realize that this discussion is a few months old, but I wanted to ask you if you are still impressed with the Visionking spotting scope that you listed? I am in need of a inexpensive spotting scope to give to a really nice 75- year old gentleman that I met at the range a few times, but whom unfortunately isn't very well off. Do you still think it's a decent scope to look through out to 100 yds? Thank you for your time.

 

[LiveLife]

Yes.

Even before I had my cataract surgery, I was able to see .223 holes at 100 yards.

 

[45/30-06OKIE]

I don't really know how to ask this question, but I'm going to try and muddle through it.

I always heard that as scope magnification got higher, the quality of glass mattered more. for example, a $200 3-9x is a nice clear scope, but take that same quality of glass, crank the power up to 18 or 20x, and you end up with a dark and murky image. And that if you have a 5-20x scope, the 5x might be nice and clear, but as you get up into the upper range you lose image quality.

These days, I'm seeing a lot of high magnification 5-25x scopes in the $300-700 range. Does that still hold true? For example, meopta offers their optika 5 line in 2-10, 3-15x , and 4-20x. Assuming the glass quality is the same in all of them, If I set them all on 10x, should I expect the same quality of image? or do you run into issues at the top end of the magnification range? If I really didn't think I needed 20x, but somewhere in the 8-12x power, would I get a better picture with the 4-20 than the 3-15 since I wouldn't be in the upper range of the magnification?

I guess that I'm trying to ask, if I really wanted a nice 15x scope, and the same model line offered a 15x and a 25x, would 15x look a lot nicer on the 25 than on the 15, because I wasn't pushing the scope to it's optical limits?

I have a Vortex Viper HS 6-24x50 and even with the 4in sunshade and at 24x power, it is pretty bright in full daylight conditions. I have taken it to the garage and looked down the street at night towards the main road 300ish yards away and I can make out objects easily enough with the streetlights we have spread throughout our neighborhood.