40mm vs. 50mm obj. lens
 

Word on the street is that the larger the obj. lens, the more light the scope transmits. I also hear that the dia. of the tube makes a difference. W/ that being said, what's better, a 40 or 50mm obj. lens on a 1" dia. scope tube? I'm thinking of a new Leupold VX3, either the 3.5-10x40 or 50 or the VX3 4.5-14x40 or 50. When would you want a 40mm vs. 50mm & vice versa?

I like 40mm objectives it allows better head alignment for myself. If I was shooting long range I would go for a 30mm tube, for more verticle adjustment. Good luck.

Plans for the said scope?

Whitetail deer & pronghorn antelope, out to 400 yds. (most shots w/in 150 yds.) Mounted on Win. Mod 70 .270

Dont go higher than the 3.5-10 magnification. For shots that close you dont need to have the scope set past 5 anyways. I think a 2-7x40 is a great option. If you are constantly taking shots at dawn or dusk than a 50mm objective might help but most likely you wont see a difference in the 40 to 50 except in price

Agree that 3.5-10 would be perfect. I actually have a 50mm leupold, and it does have great light transmission early and late. It was slightly better than the 40mm leupold I replaced, but not neccessarily needed. Both were alot better than lesser scopes for sure.

The only advantage I see for the 50mm (+) objectives is: The exit pupil can be a bit higher at higher magnification. In other words, in order to achieve a desirable EP, the 50mm may be able to be used at slightly higher magnification levels than a 40mm lens.

I prefer 40-42 mm objectives for most hunting applications...as long as the glass is great with good coatings. Most 50+ units are heavier and seem more bulky to me.

Will prob. stick w/ the 3.5-10x40 as 50mm I'll need to to mount high rings wont I?

50+ mm objective scopes often times need high rings and may hinder good cheek weld and/or constant, repeatable sight picture alignment.

Cheek weld.....gotta have that! You cant shoot without drooling/groping your gun? Nothing like absorbing recoil with your face. Just saying.....

For me it's a matter of using low rings or high rings - yes, it's all about having a good cheek weld !

I use a 44MM objective and still use low rings (best of both worlds) !

I use 40mm obj or less. Keeping the scope low to the barrel and the head alignment are more important to me than possibly having more low light retention. It has never been a problem for me before, so I don't intend to change it.

99.98 % of the time all things considered a 40mm will get the job done.

I prefer 50mm objectives, and 30mm tubes. If cheekweld is a problem, add a riser.

You're talking about a $500-900 scope (depending on which you end up with), you can't really complain about adding $80 rings and a $30 cheekpiece.

Larger objectives and larger tubes mean better light transmission, less distortion/better resolution (generally), and wider field of view. All of these are benefits that I want in my scopes. The downside is that they come at a higher cost, more weight (negligible in my opinion), and may require a cheek riser. None of these are show-stoppers for me, so I'll benefit from the good, and won't really be effected by the bad.

Then again, this isn't the first time I've had a different opinion than most of the users here, don't get us started on scope magnification.