Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
06-23-2006 | 07:29 PM
#13
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth WI
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
I would suggest that you wait to get one until you save up some money and get somthing that is good. Because it is not a good combo to get a good rifle like you got and then get a piece of junk scope it will not help with your hunting. I have heard many people say that they know or have seen others who had junk scopes and because the resolution was so bad they could not find the deer in the scope. As for scopes go that are good but pretty well priced I would go with either a Nikon Monarch($300) or a Leupold V-Xll Both are great optics and are very well priced. Just my thought.
06-24-2006 | 03:07 AM
#14
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
Resolution has nothing to do with finding a deer in the scope. Resolution has to do withelectronic screens like cameras, computer, or tv's for example. Resolution is in short the number of pixels per inch. I know this because I have a graphics degree. You buddy's probably had their scope turned all the way up on the highest maginifacation. Maybe not though.
06-24-2006 | 07:56 AM
#15
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
Until you can afford a higher dollar scope I suggest you see if you can find an N.C. Star scope. They are about $75.00 and will do everything you need to do. My sons has held perfect zero for 2 years so far. It is as clear as my redfield and does a good job in low light.
06-24-2006 | 09:18 AM
#16
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,293
Likes: 0
From: Blissfield MI USA
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
Cheif, that is how it is applied to graphics, but not optics. Resolution is simply how clear and detailed an image is. In a lens it is called angular resolution or the angular frequency. And when it is transferred to a flat plain it is called Optical Transfer Function.
There are cards and other devices available to test the resolution of magnified optics like scopes and binoculars. Usually it is just a bunch of lines you look at through the optics to determine how close together they can be and still be defined and not blur together.
The difference in clarity or resolution between a 50 dollar scope and 500 dollar scope can be pretty significant, Especially at higher powers and longer distances. It would also have to do with how well the scope would focus. Next time you go to a store compare a BSA Contender against a Zeis Conquest or even a higher priced scope. Look at something about 100 yards away on the same settings. If you can't tell a difference in the image you should have your eyes checked.
Another big issue is how much light the scope will transfer. That will depend on the quality of the lenses and what coatings are used on them and how well the tube is constructed (optically damped is what I call it, not sure if it's the correct term though.) Scopes don't "gather" light, they only transfer it and there is always some loss. They key is minimizing that loss.
Cheaper scopes usually don't have very good lenses or coatings so they are not as clear or transmit as much light. This means they will not be as "clear, crisp, and bright" as a more expensive scope. Do you need that to hunt with one. Not really, depends on what you are going to use it for. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. It sure is less strain on your eyes though. You really don't spend a whole lot of time looking through a rifle scope, unless you do a lot of bench shooting or something. Now the difference between cheap binoculars or spotting scopes is huge since you will be spending more time looking through them.
Paul
There are cards and other devices available to test the resolution of magnified optics like scopes and binoculars. Usually it is just a bunch of lines you look at through the optics to determine how close together they can be and still be defined and not blur together.
The difference in clarity or resolution between a 50 dollar scope and 500 dollar scope can be pretty significant, Especially at higher powers and longer distances. It would also have to do with how well the scope would focus. Next time you go to a store compare a BSA Contender against a Zeis Conquest or even a higher priced scope. Look at something about 100 yards away on the same settings. If you can't tell a difference in the image you should have your eyes checked.
Another big issue is how much light the scope will transfer. That will depend on the quality of the lenses and what coatings are used on them and how well the tube is constructed (optically damped is what I call it, not sure if it's the correct term though.) Scopes don't "gather" light, they only transfer it and there is always some loss. They key is minimizing that loss.
Cheaper scopes usually don't have very good lenses or coatings so they are not as clear or transmit as much light. This means they will not be as "clear, crisp, and bright" as a more expensive scope. Do you need that to hunt with one. Not really, depends on what you are going to use it for. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. It sure is less strain on your eyes though. You really don't spend a whole lot of time looking through a rifle scope, unless you do a lot of bench shooting or something. Now the difference between cheap binoculars or spotting scopes is huge since you will be spending more time looking through them.
Paul
06-24-2006 | 09:50 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
ORIGINAL: chiefks
Resolution has nothing to do with finding a deer in the scope. Resolution has to do withelectronic screens like cameras, computer, or tv's for example. Resolution is in short the number of pixels per inch. I know this because I have a graphics degree. You buddy's probably had their scope turned all the way up on the highest maginifacation. Maybe not though.
Resolution has nothing to do with finding a deer in the scope. Resolution has to do withelectronic screens like cameras, computer, or tv's for example. Resolution is in short the number of pixels per inch. I know this because I have a graphics degree. You buddy's probably had their scope turned all the way up on the highest maginifacation. Maybe not though.
Alot of folks believe the only reason to buy a 52mm scope is wider field of view, but there's alot more to it. A person witha large diameter objective at the same power can view say points of a deer at longer distances than with same power scope with smaller objective. Its just simple physics. Issac Newton is one of the pioneers of this. Its hard for commercial dealers to explain this to customers, and they put on these gimicks like light gathering.
If you ever get into telescopes, you will the serious hobbiest having some serious lenses or collimators.
06-24-2006 | 09:57 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
ORIGINAL: Paul L Mohr
Cheif, that is how it is applied to graphics, but not optics. Resolution is simply how clear and detailed an image is. In a lens it is called angular resolution or the angular frequency. And when it is transferred to a flat plain it is called Optical Transfer Function.
There are cards and other devices available to test the resolution of magnified optics like scopes and binoculars. Usually it is just a bunch of lines you look at through the optics to determine how close together they can be and still be defined and not blur together.
The difference in clarity or resolution between a 50 dollar scope and 500 dollar scope can be pretty significant, Especially at higher powers and longer distances. It would also have to do with how well the scope would focus. Next time you go to a store compare a BSA Contender against a Zeis Conquest or even a higher priced scope. Look at something about 100 yards away on the same settings. If you can't tell a difference in the image you should have your eyes checked.
Another big issue is how much light the scope will transfer. That will depend on the quality of the lenses and what coatings are used on them and how well the tube is constructed (optically damped is what I call it, not sure if it's the correct term though.) Scopes don't "gather" light, they only transfer it and there is always some loss. They key is minimizing that loss.
Cheaper scopes usually don't have very good lenses or coatings so they are not as clear or transmit as much light. This means they will not be as "clear, crisp, and bright" as a more expensive scope. Do you need that to hunt with one. Not really, depends on what you are going to use it for. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. It sure is less strain on your eyes though. You really don't spend a whole lot of time looking through a rifle scope, unless you do a lot of bench shooting or something. Now the difference between cheap binoculars or spotting scopes is huge since you will be spending more time looking through them.
Paul
Cheif, that is how it is applied to graphics, but not optics. Resolution is simply how clear and detailed an image is. In a lens it is called angular resolution or the angular frequency. And when it is transferred to a flat plain it is called Optical Transfer Function.
There are cards and other devices available to test the resolution of magnified optics like scopes and binoculars. Usually it is just a bunch of lines you look at through the optics to determine how close together they can be and still be defined and not blur together.
The difference in clarity or resolution between a 50 dollar scope and 500 dollar scope can be pretty significant, Especially at higher powers and longer distances. It would also have to do with how well the scope would focus. Next time you go to a store compare a BSA Contender against a Zeis Conquest or even a higher priced scope. Look at something about 100 yards away on the same settings. If you can't tell a difference in the image you should have your eyes checked.
Another big issue is how much light the scope will transfer. That will depend on the quality of the lenses and what coatings are used on them and how well the tube is constructed (optically damped is what I call it, not sure if it's the correct term though.) Scopes don't "gather" light, they only transfer it and there is always some loss. They key is minimizing that loss.
Cheaper scopes usually don't have very good lenses or coatings so they are not as clear or transmit as much light. This means they will not be as "clear, crisp, and bright" as a more expensive scope. Do you need that to hunt with one. Not really, depends on what you are going to use it for. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. It sure is less strain on your eyes though. You really don't spend a whole lot of time looking through a rifle scope, unless you do a lot of bench shooting or something. Now the difference between cheap binoculars or spotting scopes is huge since you will be spending more time looking through them.
Paul
You know whats sad is coating lenses is dog cheap. My company has this equipement and the intial cost is expensive. But once its setup, its very simple and cheap, but scope companies charge a fortune for it. But my company works on yeild. We coat thin film filters but have a very small yeild, but who cares, we have up to 1000 filters on one wafer we grow.With coatings you are trying to match the index of refraction with air so you have no loss of photons. I am still amazed how well lense companies are able to do this today. For us, we look at each filter (lense) individually and tweak as needed. These guys have a very good process for mass producing.
another thing, is those numbers like 95% transmistivity, is not the same from one enviroment to another. These numbers depend on humidy/air density, etc.
06-24-2006 | 10:02 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
With all that boring stuff behind, my opinion of the best scopes these days are the bushnell elite scopes. I am a hardcore ziess/leupold guy, and some say a scope snob. I was sceptical when everyone started clammering on these elites. But now I own 3 of em. For the money they can't be beat.
Its rare to get a good scope for under 100 dollars. It happens. Those cheaper scopes have a low yield, and QA is just not there. Quality assurance is expensive. If the cheaper companies tested each scope for quality and construction and picked out the best, you could get a fine scope. Problem is most are going to get what they paid for.
Its rare to get a good scope for under 100 dollars. It happens. Those cheaper scopes have a low yield, and QA is just not there. Quality assurance is expensive. If the cheaper companies tested each scope for quality and construction and picked out the best, you could get a fine scope. Problem is most are going to get what they paid for.
06-24-2006 | 10:24 AM
#20
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,145
Likes: 0
From: IOWA/25' UP
RE: Buying a Scope: Best value in Optics right now?
Me too BC. I have a couple of Elites and they are great scopes. I have a Firefly on a muzzleloader and a 2-6 on a .500 S&W. Both perform flawlessly. I love leupolds and I have one on my .300 wsm. Bushnell Elites are a heck of a good bright scope.
HCH[/align]
HCH[/align]