Quality versus quantity

sy247

Well-Known Member
A good comparison - thanks.

It would be interesting to add in a good 6x42 and 8x56 - i would nt be surprised if they were better than the rest!

Where i think the “better” scopes win is the quality of build and in particular the turrets. S&B in particular feel very strong and smooth. Cheaper scopes just feel - well cheap. But once zero is set - just leave it alone.
I was out the other night with my S&B 8x56 and Vortex 8x42 HD. Vortex are great (especially for the money) but the bigger objective lens on the scope makes a big difference to the image brightness as the light started to fade
 

Tf223

Well-Known Member
Excellent post.
Makes me pleased to have stuck with Hawke!! Having never been able to justify the additional expense for my limited use.
 

caorach

Well-Known Member
Reviews like this are interesting and important because your "impression" of how the glass performs is what is important - I can list all the numbers I want but if you think that two things are as close as makes no difference then that is all that matters.

I honestly believe that the optics market is, and has been for some years, almost completely driven by marketing and brand image and you can see that in a lot of the advertising which focuses (if you'll excuse the pun) less on glass quality and more on image, gadgets, lifestyle, and similar values. One particular brand is said not to allow their scopes to be measured or tested against those made by other brands - again this is to bolster brand image as they don't sell on glass quality and so make little or no mention of it but being known as having the (say) 5th best glass would destroy the brand image that you are buying a perfect lifestyle and wonderful quality glass, having 5th best simply doesn't appeal to the sort of people who make purchasing decisions based on magazine adverts and brand image. No magazine will ever publish "We use science to prove that the optical differences between a big name scope and a brand that costs £2000 less are imperceptible to the human eye."

My view is that all the top end glass is adequate for our purposes, yes Zeiss almost certainly make the best glass in the sporting riflescope market but if this gives you no practical advantage it is no longer a big selling point. It is also the case that they've probably been doing this for many years now and so what you might call "2nd tier" manufacturers have caught up in the sense that they also make glass that is adequate for our use as this is now old technology. All this has to be good as it opens up a lot more choice - I've been using Minox binos for years and I've compared them side by side to one of the big names and the Minox allowed us to see antlers at last light that we couldn't see with the big name plus I didn't have to pay for as many magazine adverts thus saving me cash. There's no down side to that for the end user.
 

Loki

Well-Known Member
Hi

As I have said before re requests for advice on optics - all can (do?) get 'overlaoded' with the stats/marketing/reviews/others opinions forgetting the most important factor of all - how our own eyes find the image.

L
 

bogtrotter

Well-Known Member
There is not huge difference in the quality of glass these days but seems to be a big difference in build
quality.
its no good having decent glass if the scope or binoculars are going to fall apart
 

Milligan

Well-Known Member
There is not huge difference in the quality of glass these days but seems to be a big difference in build
quality.
its no good having decent glass if the scope or binoculars are going to fall apart
In many cases mid level is well made and has a good warranty. Nikon, hawke, etc etc.

With all these things there is a value price point and then a luxury price point with rapidly diminishing returns.
 

Milligan

Well-Known Member
To the op, no offense but your 60 year old eyes are not going to be able to make full use of a 7mm exit pupil in any event so there comes a point when the optics make no difference for you but might do for a younger eye
 

HistoricBore

Active Member
I am not a serious user of 'scopes, but I find that my 1952 Bausch & Lomb Balvar 2.5 - 4 variable (with no turrets) and my 1960s Peccar 4 x 30 scopes are very sharp and clear for use on the range. But out on the hill after sunset might be another matter...

HB
 

slider

Well-Known Member
Great write up.

I have been banging on about Vortex stuff for years - usually falling on the deaf ears of the "brand snobs" (don't mean to be so disparaging but no belter term comes to mind!).

I used Viper HD's for a number of years before upgrading to Fury range Finders (same glass).
 

Bryan7

Member
To the op, no offense but your 60 year old eyes are not going to be able to make full use of a 7mm exit pupil in any event so there comes a point when the optics make no difference for you but might do for a younger eye
He's using the same pupils to test all the gear so the comparisons are valid.
 

Top