Print Page | Close Window

THE VX-7 still doesnt measure up

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5872
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 04:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: THE VX-7 still doesnt measure up
Posted By: SAKO75
Subject: THE VX-7 still doesnt measure up
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 08:10
I



Replies:
Posted By: outdoorAg
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 09:06
Why does the FOV decrease with the objective size?


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 09:23
I believe it has to do with focal length. Longer the scope usually decreases FOV.


Posted By: Urimaginaryfrnd
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 09:37
Dam the bad luck. Guess I'll have to spend half the money and buy a Nikon.

-------------

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".
Bobby Paul Doherty
Texas Ranger


Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 12:40
The Zeiss has shorter eye relief, which is common with wider angle eyepieces. Wider angle eyepieces, unless large and heavy, also tend to have softer edges. Weight would be a lower point of comparison for me, and I'd tend to take the heavier one with no other information available, especially since Leupold seems to provide scopes for military. That being the case for me the differences are moot, as I'd prefer to see what the resolution and contrast are between them.   


Posted By: SAKO75
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 14:01
The


Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: February/17/2007 at 20:30

Originally posted by SAKO75 SAKO75 wrote:



No DOubt that the VX-7's are probably great scopes but my New Diavari with the new Lotutec coating was cheaper than a NIB VX-7 2.5-10x45. I got more FOV, lighter scope, larger sight picture for a cheaper price and one more thing at least as good optics!

 

I think you're being kind with "at least as good" optics comment .  I'd say that the new Diavari is a bit better...



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/18/2007 at 01:14

The heart of any optical system is actually the ocular, so it's the ocular that makes the FOV bigger.

The objective has nothing to do with FOV as the objetive main purpose it to collect light.

 

FOV stands in direct relationship with eyerelief and the longer eyerelief the less FOV.

 

I am surprised to see that Leupold still have severe problems with moving eyerelief, Zeiss have produced fixed eyerelief variable scopes since 1922 and 85 years later Leupold can't do the same thing.

Embarrasing........

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/18/2007 at 15:12

"I am surprised to see that Leupold still have severe problems with moving eyerelief, Zeiss have produced fixed eyerelief variable scopes since 1922 and 85 years later Leupold can't do the same thing. Embarrasing........"

 

"I would say that across the 2-5-10 range of my zeiss, its anywhere from 4 to 3.5". "

 

Enbarrasing for both apparently. 



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/18/2007 at 15:36

Not at all, cause on my Zeiss scopes I can hold my head at the same spot over all magnifications.

On the Leupolds I had but now is sold, i couldnt.

 

I can't agree that Zeiss has a problem with moving eyerelief.

 

Regards Technika

 



Posted By: SAKO75
Date Posted: February/18/2007 at 19:07
I went back tonight and set the scope down in a fixed position and adjusted the power from low to high. I barely had to move my eye. SO i'll agree with technika. The variation is almost non-existent, drastically less than the Leupolds


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/19/2007 at 15:29

Originally posted by SAKO75 SAKO75 wrote:

I copied this from another forum. Basically the VX-7 is heavier and with less FOV than the diavari and swaro 30mm model

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23&osCsid=e20e936d6108ea05e7066053ec8605ab - Leupold 's VX-7, even if the glass is AS GOOD, as a diavari from zeiss still comes up short in other areas like field of view and weight

 

If that's the criteria for "coming up short," then doesn't it stand to reason that the Schmidt & Bender 2.5-10X50 likewise "comes up short" to the Zeiss in terms of FOV and weight?

 

S&B 2.5-10X50 Variable

FOV:  39.6/12

Weight:  22oz.

Length:  14.8



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: SAKO75
Date Posted: February/19/2007 at 15:49
S&B


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/19/2007 at 18:49

Sorry, meant 2.5-10X56 S&B -- typo.  However, their 1.5-6X42 Zenith still weighs 21oz. if weight is a criteria for judging whether a 30mm main tube scope in this class is inferior to another and objective dia doesn't have a direct influence on FOV.  All their variable scopes weigh within 3-4 oz of each other, and all are way heavier than either the Zeiss or Swaro scopes you mention.  My point is, depending on the intended use and the merits of a scope's other qualities, individual specs by themselves don't necessarily mean a given scope doesn't stack up well against its competitors.

 

Now, if several aspects of a scope are inferior compared to another -- i.e., optical quality, FOV, eye relief, weight, mechanics, build quality -- then yes, I think it's safe to conclude it falls short of its competition.

 

Just like most of us here, I haven't seen a VX-7, so I don't know whether this scope compares favorably to others in its price bracket or not, but I certainly don't think we can conclude based solely on a couple specs. 



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/19/2007 at 23:01

 

Rifledude

In a way you are right that mostly of us not have seen it yet, but still:

I would never buy a scope with varible eyerelief, regardless of make and price.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/20/2007 at 08:38
Given the option, I wouldn't choose variable eye relief over a decent amount of fixed eye relief either.  That is one thing I don't like about Leupolds, but have to admit, it has never been a problem for me on the ones I've used.

-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: February/20/2007 at 11:13

Well my opinion on the VX7 is posted on other VX7 threads but to sum it up, bottom line:pathetic waste of money.



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 05:51

"I can assure you that this zeiss has no soft edges. I promise you on that."

 

Some night point your rifle and scope towards a clear sky, steady the rifle, and look carefully at the stars in the center of the field and the edge of the field. It's a simple but tough test for any low to moderate power optic, very few have edges as good as the center, and Zeiss is no exception. Good optics will have a tight images to maybe 2/3rds of the field, very good to 3/4ths of the field.



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 05:55

"As far as the military and their scopes, zeiss makes Hensoldt which is used extensively by many sniper teams throughout Europe. Schmidt & Bender is used over there as well and by our own USMC (S&B 3-12x50) here in the USA, word is the US Army is switching to the S&B 4-16x42 PMII for their next scope. Where does that leave Leupold?"

 

Doing well, as the Zeiss sniper scopes seem to have some problems. S&B is a 'crummy scope' though isn't it, as like the Leupold they're heavier than a similar AOS Zeiss.

 

http://snipersparadise.com/sniperchat/index.php?showtopic=3106 - http://snipersparadise.com/sniperchat/index.php?showtopic=31 06

 

I have a Zeiss in my current set: Sako TRG-42 in .338 Lapua with AU Jet-Z silencer and sako bipod.

Good tube, bit pricey though. It has a reticle called Finndot( a mildot with a stadia lines for 1m high target in the bottom.)

Mine got a BDC for our armys .338 ammo, and I load my ammo to those specs .

Got some troubles around 200 rounds. One shattered lense inside the tube. The reason for the "stardust" was most likely the negative recoil while using muzzlebrake or silencer. A little bit loose lense wich get pounded so much that started to brake down. The scope was sent to Germany to repairs and was good as new when returned after 3 weeks. No problems after that...

 

(a reply in the thread)

 

The Finnish Defence Forces uses .338 Lapua Magnum caliber green stock Sako TRG-42s with Zeiss 3-12x56mm SSG-P "FinnDot" scopes as their official primary sniper rifles/sniper weapons system. The Finnish Armed Forces use the military name of .338 LM Sako TRG-42, which is Tarkka-ampujakivääri 2000 or in short Tkiv 2000 (direct translation in English is simply Sniper Rifle 2000).



Posted By: jonbravado
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 09:16

the m995 action on those TRG's is amazing. wish i had one in every caliber.

 

338 lapua is a brutal kicker. but spot on for long range.

 

i will live vicariously through you. and stick to my 308 and 284 calibers.

 

J



Posted By: djpaintles
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 15:15
Originally posted by jonbravado jonbravado wrote:

the m995 action on those TRG's is amazing. wish i had one in every caliber.

 

338 lapua is a brutal kicker. but spot on for long range.

 

i will live vicariously through you. and stick to my 308 and 284 calibers.

 

J

 

 

Actually the TRG-42 in 338 Lapua is a pussycat with the muzzle-brake (a really LOUD pussycat mind you) and not too bad with the muzzle brake off. They are superbly accurate and much fun to shoot:

 

 

 

 

 

........................................DJ



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 15:38

Nice rifles. I have shot this caliber a few times and agree that it is very managable in recoil and very accurate,

with break or without.

 



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 21:44

With heavy recoiling rifles I'd rather have more eye relief than just a fixed one, as the specs originally posted show the Leupold providing an inch more. Weight seems to be a moot point as a number of other well regarded scopes are also heavier than a Zeiss.

 

I couldn't find specifics on the 'thin lens technology', but it appears that Zeiss is using a low dispersion glass, and using triplet lens objectives in some optics. Maybe the glass is special in some way, but people have been using low dispersion glass for a long time. A triplet will typically use a thinner lens than a doublet, so is this all that 'thin lens' consists of ?

 

Looking at a press release below it appears that Zeiss admist that they enhance the blue transmitted portion of the spectrum, something that I suspected when most people say that the Zeiss is 'very bright', as Zeiss binoculars don't seem to have a reputation for the highest transmission when it's measured.

 

These observations and questions don't detract from the fact that Zeiss makes excellent optics, but it maybe it suggests that there is perhaps less substance to some of the claims about their optics being superior to so many other well regarded makes.       

 

http://www.zeiss.com/41256AFB004A4E21/WebViewTopNewsAllE/58B564973ADD5B4985257266005C8250?OpenDocument - http://www.zeiss.com/41256AFB004A4E21/WebViewTopNewsAllE/58B 564973ADD5B4985257266005C8250?OpenDocument

Outstanding optical performance and low-light capability are assured due to the use of Zeiss’ proprietary Advanced Optics System thin-lens technology (AOS), featuring lead and arsenic free glass. The world-renowned T* multi-coatings applied to the AOS lenses enhance the clarity and resolution by affording truer color and higher contrast. These coatings also offer a higher transmission in the blue range, assuring brighter images and better colors in low light situations. In addition, as with all VICTORY series products, these scopes will come with Zeiss’ exclusive LotuTec™ water-repellent coating.



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/23/2007 at 23:56

When it comes to thin lenses Zeiss have actually revolutioned the eyeglasses technologie by "highbreaking" ( don't know if that is the correct english word) glass. MAny people that would need to have 1/2" thick glasses, can today due to those "highbreaking" glasses use thin eyeglasses.

So I suspect they use the same technologie and glass types to have less weight in their scopes.

 

When it comes to the eyerelief, I am very negative to the variable eyerelief of Leupold, but some others light trijicon 1,25-4 does have it as well. The variable eyerelief makes really fast shots impossible as  you never know where to place the head on the gun.

So there can never be anything positive with the variable eyerelief, its only negative.

 

If you due to recoil needs longer eyerelief that is another thing, but the long eyerelief does not have to be variable over the magnification to archive that, look on swarovski Z6 with1-6 that have 120 mm fixed eyerelief.

In mostly cases I prefer shorter eyerelief, as it's better optically, the FOV becomes larger and there is less light problems.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: February/25/2007 at 13:24

It appears that Leupold will continue to supply the Army with scopes for the M24 rifle, while S&B has been awarded a contract to replace the Unertl scopes for the marine's M40 rifles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System

 

Sights: 10 x 42 Leupold Ultra M3A telescopic sight (Mil-Dot), detachable emergency iron sights (Redfield Palma International).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle

 

A Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 rifle scope with illuminated reticle will replace the MST-100 Unertl type fixed 10x day scope currently used for the M40A3.



Posted By: djpaintles
Date Posted: February/25/2007 at 16:46
Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

When it comes to thin lenses Zeiss have actually revolutioned the eyeglasses technologie by "highbreaking" ( don't know if that is the correct english word) glass. MAny people that would need to have 1/2" thick glasses, can today due to those "highbreaking" glasses use thin eyeglasses.

So I suspect they use the same technologie and glass types to have less weight in their scopes.

 

Regards Technika

 

 

I beleive the term you are looking for is "Higher index of Rarefraction".  It's glass that needs less thickness to bend light a given amount..............................DJ



Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: February/25/2007 at 17:37
Not sure if he is referring to refraction index or impact resistance.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/26/2007 at 10:25
Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

 The variable eyerelief makes really fast shots impossible as  you never know where to place the head on the gun.

So there can never be anything positive with the variable eyerelief, its only negative.

Regards Technika

 

Technika,

While I totally agree with your preference for fixed eye relief, I do not agree that variable eye relief is a problem for really fast shots for the simple reason that one should only be attempting fast shots with a low magnification setting.  If you mount the scope correctly so that the full FOV comes into view immediately with a comfortable head position when shouldering the rifle on the lowest power settings, you will be fine for fast shooting situations.  In most cases when mounting a scope with variable ER, I have no problem finding a compromise scope position where I have the full FOV on both the highest and lowest settings without having to move my head.  The only time one should use max magnification is when taking the longest shots, in which case you shouldn't rush the shot anyway, and you should have the rifle in a rested position, therefore, you have plenty of time to position your head for the shot.

 

Having said that, I too don't understand why Leu doesn't adopt a fixed ER, and I don't believe it's because they don't know how.  Obviously they must believe there's some advantage to the variable ER, though I don't know what that advantage would be.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/26/2007 at 15:35

Rifle dude

That was never an option for me, I had mounted the 6,5-20 as long forward as possible and then they fit me perfect on 20X but not at all on 6,5X.

Anyhow those 6,5-20X i had was the ER variable on 44mm, and that is HUGE.

I cant move my head that much and still have a confortable shooting position.

 

When it comes to competettive shooting I am often using betwen 12-24X on my Zeiss, regardless if it's running targets or shooting without rest, I have no problems to quicly mount that rifle to the shoulder and shot fast even on high magnification.

 

I did kill a number of animals by the way with the Trijicon accupoint 1,25-4.

With the scope in its most forward position i could only use it betwen 2-4X magnification, as the ER otherwise was far to long.

 

I can't see the situation when I buy a scope that I should use and that scope has variable ER.

The picture shows my Zeiss Zielmulti 1-4X with 30 mm tube.

This scope was presented to the market in 1922 and it has FIXED eyerelief.

It's kinda fun that Zeiss could do it 85 years ago, and Leupold are still unable.........

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: March/03/2007 at 12:34

"The picture shows my Zeiss Zielmulti 1-4X with 30 mm tube.

This scope was presented to the market in 1922 and it has FIXED eyerelief.

It's kinda fun that Zeiss could do it 85 years ago, and Leupold are still unable........."

 

It's also kind of funny that you're trying to make case about eye relief on Leupold scopes, as 'non-critical eye relief' is a feature that Leupold is generally known for, and in some cases is one of the primary technical reasons that people buy and use Leupolds. In part it's also why low power Leupolds seem to be kind of common on dangerous game rifles.

 

In part Zeiss has never been that popular in the US because Zeiss seems to favor 'first plane reticles' that appear to change in size when zooming, unlike second plane reticles developed in the US by Redfield (as I recall ?). I think that Redfield also developed centered reticles, one piece tubes, and other features. With the use of (US developed) second plane reticles in the Conquest line, Zeiss seems to finally be be doing well in the US.

 

In summary:

 

Weight seems to be a moot point if trying make a case that it somehow suggests better quality when comparing Zeiss and Leupold, as lots of other well regarded scopes weigh the same and more than similar Leupold scopes.

 

Larger FOV often requires larger oculars, which requires higher scope mounting in order to clear some bolts. Larger FOV usually also means softer edges of the field. So, depending upon tradeoffs accepted it could also be a moot point.

 

Fixed (shorter) eye relief compared to a variable eye relief is probably also a moot point for many, as they don't like first plane reticles, don't want the shorter eye relief, and prefer 'non-critical' eye relief over a fixed 'critical' eye relief.

 

          



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: March/03/2007 at 14:51

Another related point..... I don't know what type of oculars are commonly used in scopes, but as previously mentioned a wide angle ocular generally has softer edges and is larger. Wide angle oculars also tend to have more critical eye position requirements. I'll guess that in order to provide 'non-critical' eye relief, which I assume is related to depth of field of the ocular as well as other attributes, Leupold is sometimes using 'normal' field of view oculars by design.



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: March/03/2007 at 16:59

Larger field of View does always means either/or bigger eyepeices or shorter eyerelief.

I have not yet seen the gun where the big eyepeice means a serous problem, yes in very few cases you need a somewhat higher mount, but normally the mount height is more often determined by the objective size.

 

I have not yet seen any problems with softer edges, so i doubth it's much of a problem.

And anyway i don't use the periferi to count points on deer, cause normally it's just the center that is used, the periferi is just there helt the shooter finding the game and give a better image.

 

I havent measuered how critical Zeiss, Swarovski, and SuB is in the eyerelief, but regardless what they are it's very rarely any problem as the eyerelief is always the same.

When its moving back and forth on a Leupold it's impossible to know where the head should be placed for a quick shot.

 

I can mount my 6-24 zeiss at any magnification to the shoulder and look throug the scope without changing the position of my head anythime. But on the 6,5-20 Leupolds I had I could only do that on very high magnification cause when the magnification was lowered the eyerelief became drasticly longer and i had to move my head backwards, this made fast shots impossible.

 

1st and second plane image is funny.

I know the controvery betwen tha contrys, but know is even leupold delivering 1 st plane reticles on some of their tactical scopes, and before that did Premier optics rebuild a lot of leupolds to 1 st plane.

 

Snipers worldwide prefers 1st plane as it's the only way to really know the distance on the reticle, it's also the only way to be sure to not have any POI problems with changing magnification.

 

USO is delivering a lot of scopes with 1st plane image and US marines have adopted 3-12 Sub.

Wonder why if that now is so bad...........

 

I have a few scopes with second plane ( Zeiss ZF6-24x72), I would have prefered those scopes with first plane, but that is unavalible and I bought those cause they have the best optics i have seen so far.

 

Leupold knows that they sell a lot cause they are proudly made in the USA, and there is alot of people that buy them due to national pride. They don't have to compete with the european scopes on image quality, cause mostly people don't care as " if its good enough to my freinds it's good enough to me"

 

Regards Technika

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: March/03/2007 at 17:53

Snipers needs are completely different from other shooters, and shouldn't be used as a comparison, (each stock should have a built in porta-potty). When snipers start buying my stuff I'll take their suggestions. How people were shot by snipers today in the US? In fact in the last 5 years. Then why has this become a criteria for my scope buying needs. ( I''ll admit some of that stuff is just fun). 2nd focal plane scopes only show large changes in poi over long ranges and cartridges that have relative extremes in ballistic profile. In action shooting, other than precision tactical matches, which are different in design and purpose, poi shifts are immaterial. I wouldn't even consider a tube with a "fixed box" (unless really long). Each shot would be a virtual "trap shot" with the stock brought back to the shoulder each time., way to slow. The almost exact opposite is required of a prone check weld, where the weld occurs every time at the optimal part of the eye box (snipers needs) . I need a scope (if using one-- that I can "wipe" thru the target).

FOV problems can usually solved using both eyes open techniques. I've never had a problem with fast or slow on my 6.5x20 leos because, compared with other systems, the entire set up is too slow.

The only reason I would even consider a zeiss 6-24 72 is because it is 2nd. (Although the new S&B 5x25 with the smaller "wires' keeps calling my name and I don't think I can resist ) USO uses a "combined" technology that, according to their press" solves both problems. Most people that buy leo's are out shooting and not reading scope forums. What happens when your friend gets a bigger (insert whatever) with the "cheaper" scope? The simple fact is most shooters simply feel that the advantages of Euro don't warrant the cost. Whether some one is going to slap their forhead and say "I could have had V-7" remains to be seen.

 



Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: March/04/2007 at 12:35

"Leupold knows that they sell a lot cause they are proudly made in the USA, and there is alot of people that buy them due to national pride. They don't have to compete with the european scopes on image quality, cause mostly people don't care as " if its good enough to my freinds it's good enough to me""

Are Leupold scopes seen on dangerous game rifles outside the US, owned by non-US citizens ? (If you don't know, ask around, even in this forum.) Are you suggesting that non-US citizens would own Leupold scopes only because of national pride ? Isn't that a ridiculous statement, one that you would like to withdraw  ?


See below for additional perspective on 1st plane vs 2nd plane reticles on sniper scopes:

http://www.snipercountry.com/InReviews/Nikon25_10x_TacticalScope_II.asp - http://www.snipercountry.com/InReviews/Nikon25_10x_TacticalS cope_II.asp

A few years ago I was approached by Nikon and asked to tell them what I would want in the perfect sniper scope for police work. I say for Police Work because the requirements for a Military Sniper Scope are different.....

Police snipers tend to shoot within 500 yards and need higher precision than their military counterparts. The typical target size target area, for LE is fifty-cent piece size. A sniper needs to be precise to hit this at 200 and 300 yards. That requires fine adjustments, such as quarter minute of angle. The military requires the ability to hit a chest sized target from 100 to 1000 yards in one turn of the adjustment knob....

Reticle options are of either the Nikoplex, or a new modified Miliradian/MilDot Reticle. I chose the Mil Dot Reticle. This new reticle from Nikon has some changes to it to make use far more accurate and simple. Nikon has mounted the glass-etched reticle in the rear focal plane. This places the reticle in a manner that is most common to US made scopes. In the rear plane the reticle appears to be the same size, no matter what the power setting is. This once again was what most snipers wanted. Like anything else it has its advantages and disadvantages.. ....



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: March/05/2007 at 03:16
Leupold make extremely strong scopes, that in combination with a very low price compared to euro scopes makes them interesting for many customers. And espesially as everybody is telling that Leupold is the best....

But I think its very simple, you get what you pay for.
If you pay low prices you get lower image quality than you get if you pay higher prices.
That is not very strange.

As I almost always have bought everything on a budget I have mostly time bought scopes secondhand.
That way I can get Zeiss Imagequality for Leupold prices.

When it comes to sniping there is a discussion if the second plane scope should be sighted in on highest magnification, middle or what you expect to use it on.
This discusson is because few scopes does not have POI problems when delievered second plane.
Regards Technika


Posted By: 1stscope
Date Posted: March/10/2007 at 12:25

"...And espesially as everybody is telling that Leupold is the best....But I think its very simple, you get what you pay for. If you pay low prices you get lower image quality than you get if you pay higher prices. That is not very strange."

 

My experience is that image quality doesn't always follow price, at least looking at binoculars, camera lenses, telescopes, and such. Common advice in astronomy is to not be surprised if some junky looking homemade scope that cost $100 in materials provides better images than your new multi-thousand dollar scope, as it happens. The most expensive, highly regarded 60mm apo telescope available is still just a 60mm scope, and can easily be bettered by a good homemade 100mm scope.

 

With binoculars hunters and briders seem to gravitate towards roof prism models, they're often light, compact, and can be robust, but astronomers still often favor porro prism models for the best images, and boaters like them for durability. I paid $350 new for my Fujinon Polaris a few years back, and at the time roof prism models just didn't compare regardless of how much they cost. I expect that newer roof prism models would fare better, but I still don't take people's words about $1200 roof prism binoculars being the best as that's what they said a few years back, when more than a few people knew better. I do acknowledge that few people would like using my individual focus 7x50 binoculars that weigh about the same as four cans of soda.  

 

Scopes seem to be different, but they also seem to have the least amount of test data available. Leupold typically doesn't get recommended for having better images, but like a lot of products people look at more than image quality. 'Best' would have to be at a price point, including different atributes. Otherwise you'd need to consider that a custom scope would be 'best', one perhaps machined from a titanium billet, hand figured aspherical optics using low dispersion glass, hand polished jeweled tool steel movements, and such. Some people just don't want to have to settle for assembly line tolerances.   




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net