tow2atm

Is there a big differance between a 40 or 42 and a 50mm objective for light?
or does the 50mm had the advantage at longer ranges. Could not tell in a store, cannot get any distance indoors.

I guess I would like to know if it would be worth it, to put a 50mm on my 22.250?
Probably going to go with 6 x 18 or 6.5 x 20 power.
Thanks for any input!

oldelkhunter

Scope construction, quality of glass is much more important then the difference between 40 and 50mm.

stubblejumper

My 42 mm swarovskis are every bit as bright if not brighter than my friends 50mm leupold.Lens and coatings mean more than lens size.

trailer

As previously mentioned , the quality of optics is what counts...

timbercruiser

Amen, quality of glass, quality of constructionand lens coatings are much more important than diameter.

MichaelT.

Apparently no one wants to answer the question you asked, directly, so I will try.

Just to satisfy everyone else on here as far as scope quality goes, even though it had nothing to do with your question...... we will say we are using two scopes for this comparison. We will be using two Zeiss Conquest scopes. But note.... you could just as easily compare 2 Nikon Monarchs or Buckmasters scopes, or 2 simmons Aetec scopes.

Here is the long and short of it.

If you are using two scopes , side by side, during the daylight hours you will not be able to tell any difference, BUT at dusk and dawn ( low light situations ) you can see a difference. say you are using a 3-12 x40 scope, and you can see fine on 9x at dusk and dawn , then the difference would be that you could see equally as well on 10 X using a 50 mm scope.

The visual equality difference between a 40 mm and a 50 mm scope ( all other things being equal ) is about 1 power setting , in the same light. a 50 mm is a little brighter than a 40 at the same power, and it will allow 1 power higher magnification to equalize with the 40mm.

SO yes, a 50 mm is better than a 40mm but not a whole lot. And it will only be noticable in lower light situations. And it is only worth about 1 power setting.

Hope that helps, AND answered your question

God Bless

MichaelT.

trailer

I’ll just add a little to this thread. I have 2 Swarovski scopes. One is 3-10 x 42 mm and the other is 4-12 x 50 mm. Both are excellent scopes. Do I see a difference between the 2 at low light. So little it’s not even worth mentioning for my eyes that is.

Now, I made a comparison with some other scopes I have/had one evening. All scope were set at 6 power .One was a Leupold Euro 3-9 x 50 mm with a 30 mm tube. Did it do better then my 42 mm , not at all .The 42 mm was still better in low light because of better optics. As far as I’m concern the quality of optics is more important then size of obj. lens as I previously mentioned...

bigcountry

Mostly, its not about light gathering or whatever buzz word they use. Its about resolving small objects far away. In theory, a 50mm will resolve an image than a 40mm will. It is 36% more surface area.

For deer, moose, etc, I like 40-44mm. But groundhogs, and such, I like 50mm.

chasu

Resolution is all about light gathering. That's what the image is when you're looking through a scope. It's light. Resolution of the image you see through your scope is only as good as the optimum exit pupil rating your scope is capable of producing in relation to what our eyes are capable of receiving. Light transmission through the lens is what makes resolution clearer. The better the light transmission, the better the image during low light conditions. That's the way it's been explained to me. Low power scopes do not need big obj. lenses if the glass and coatings are first rate.

bigcountry

Well, its what I do for a living. But what I am trying to explain is 50mm is more than just being able to see an object at the edge of dark. Its about seeing the image more clear at 600 yards or more.

You can have lenses that have very low back reflection and perfect matched to the index of refraction of air and low loss going thru it, but still resolution is not what you desire, but the not the other way around.