schmidt and bender disappointment

Sabian223

Well-Known Member
Hi all

i bought a 3-12x42 (FFP) schmidt Klassic at the midland game fair this year to replace the cheap redfield 4-12x40 hoping it would be better in low light conditions. Ive actually found the Redfield was marginally better. Considering the cost of these scopes, have i chosen the wrong one?

Atb

Dave
View attachment 49672
View attachment 49673
 
Wrong one, depends on what you want it to do.
But no matter how good a scope is 12 x with a 42mm objective isn't going to be great in the dark.
I have always been happy with 6x42 S&B scopes in any light conditions, but if I wanted more mag
I would just go with an 8x56.

Neil. :)
 
Sabian223,
Sorry to hear of your problem. If 2 people look through the same scope each persons view is different. Also as we get older our eyes dont work as well as when we were younger. As has been said, if you need a scope for stalking in low light a fixed power 6x42, 7x50 or 8x56 would suit better. Even the 8x50 is worth a look. Also something to bear in mind is that Redfield scopes are not bad.
Try to find a fixed power you can look through to see if it works for you in low light. I always try before I buy.
 
Just screw it down to 6x and leave it there this scope should be as good in low light as any other as mentioned the higher the mag the less effective in low light but as it's a vari power keep it low...........
 
The contrast and sharpness should be better but as the objective is similar then not a lot more light gathering
 
These days there are a lot of scopes that are very close in low light conditions, and the gap between the bigger names and many other brands has well and truly closed.

My eyes tell me that my 6x42 Meopta is better than my S&B, but they also tell me that my Nikon Monarch is as well, and the Prostaff's aren't too far behind, in low light terms at least.

We are all different - a mate of mine swears that he can't see any benefit when peering through my scopes compared to his cheapie Hawke. That could be for other reasons or he might have squiffy eyesight.

I've not found a zoom scope that was as good as a fixed same size objective lens from the same manufacturer in low light.

Redfield are pretty decent overall IMHO.

For the record, I tested some of my scopes as the light failed recently and found a £250 Bushnell Legend Ultra HD left my Leupold VX2 and VX3 for dust in low light.

Leupold might have its brand name in its favour but, in pure low light performance, the much cheaper Bushnell Legend punched way above its weight. Loads of people wouldn't even look at one though, just because of the brand or country of origin.

Meh...

I think a lot of people overlook some serious performance bargains in favour of big brands on the assumption that they will always be better performers. Leupold in particular (just in my opinion of course) appears to be relying on a name made decades ago rather than producing scopes that drop any jaws, at east until you start spending thousands rather than hundreds.

Your mileage may vary - I hope you find a resolution.
 
The scope is usually used on 6 x. I have a variable because some of the stalking I do I have to crank it down to 3 x as it's in valleys no wider than 70 yards and there usually sat in the middle. I had a 42 mm objective to keep the scope low. I'm not saying the light gathering is bad I was just expecting more I guess? Fixed wasn't really an option or I would of had a 6 x 42 and saved a few quid
 
I think the well known scopes like s/b,swar, leup,ziess, are becoming far to expensive for the hobby stalker. I have in the past saved my pennies for expensive scopes and still have them but recently sold a big swaro that I had on my 270 and bought a 12x56 Meopta second hand on here for 400 , its excellent value and the extra light gathering at night has impressed me.My mate swears by them and has 7x50 on one of his rifles.
 
Another question is when was the optic calculation done on this scope... 20-25 years ago?
Also big difference when comparing 3-12x50 classic and newer 3-12x50 Zenith especially against light.
I had a few 8x56 and 6x42 and thought they were lousy at last light compared to Zenith and also a 4-16x50 S&B I had which seemed incredibly bright at low light.
The best optics I looked through at the last IWA was a Helia 5 Kahles 2.4-12x56, things are moving along.
edi

ps, give it some time and get used to the scope. Sometimes it is actually better to crank up magnification at last light. One might loose a bit of brightness but one wins a bigger picture of what one actually wants to see.
 
Last edited:
I checked out a Schmidt and Bender German 8x56 and a Swarovski Habicht 6x42 and I thought to me both were outstanding optically. I think though it must be remembered that its a rifle sight not a birdwatching optic. I like the turrets and tracking on my PM2 and feel their reliability and accuracy is worth paying for... Others may not.
 
Tracking isn't an issue as it's a dedicated stalking scope and I'm more concerned about it holding zero strongly. Which it does very well. In comparison to the leupold vx3 long range and my vortex viper pst, optically it is better but the leupold is better at low light and that's on one of my target rifles. A friends 8 x 56 is better in low light but I guess it's got less lenses to go through being fixed? I did have the option of a zeiss 7x50 diatal with illuminated dot and raised elevation turret but turned it down purely because of not being able to wind it back. I do load testing with it on 10-12 which comes in handy too.
 
Last edited:
Please can someone explane to me why a bigger objective means a scope can gather more light!
Please also include any papers written on the subject.
Internal machanics play a bigger role in light transmission than objective size.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the redfiled has a better design for its internals.
 
Last edited:
This is my understanding I do not have research papers on this though to be honest. The maximum that the human pupil can dilate to normally is 7mm. Therefore if you divide the objective diameter by the magnification of a scope you get what is called the scopes "exit pupil". So 42 mm divided by 6 is 7. 56mm divided by 8 is 7. 50mm divided by 7 is a tad over 7. Apparently that is why optics companies make these particular spec scopes. Unfortunately as we age we lose the ability to make maximal use of the exit pupil of the scope.
Perhaps others with more knowledge could expand or add to this.
 
Please can someone explane to me why a bigger objective means a scope can gather more light!
Please also include any papers written on the subject.
Internal machanics play a bigger role in light transmission than objective size.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the redfiled has a better design for its internals.

Try a 1" magnifying glass in the sun focussed on your hand....then try a 4" magnifying glass also focussed.....some of us will notice a difference.
edi
 
Mmm.... Just illustrates how peoples eye sight and perceptions differ - I have the S&B 2.5x10x56 Precision Hunter and leupold 6.5x20x50 VX3 LR and whilst the Leupold is fine for my foxing by lamp it just cannot touch my S&B
In low light.
 
That's the same leupold as mine. Granted I haven't put them side by side but from taking them out separate it appears the Leupold is better. I'll have to do a fair comparison. Anyone had any hands on use of the Zeiss duralyt?
 
Try a 1" magnifying glass in the sun focussed on your hand....then try a 4" magnifying glass also focussed.....some of us will notice a difference.
edi
Not the same thing Edi.
And no relevance in this case!
 
Of course it is. You asked for light gathering.
Just look at the simple explanation that 762 scot gave.

Another thing is field of view, great to have a huge field of view with low mag, however what you want to shoot can be terribly small in the big picture and at low light it can make things worse......tiny grey deer in a huge grey background. That is why the many who shoot throughout the night prefer an 8x56....more magnification even if they mainly shoot under 100yds. The 56 lens gathers more light and you have 56/8= 7mm exit. More light of what you actually want to see....less trees, grass etc.

Even under the lamp I prefer 10, 15 sometimes 20 mag, just to make sure it isn't a cat.
edi
 
Back
Top