But my question would be has anyone noticed if a more reasonably priced scope for example a VX-2 with a 50mm objective would be better than the VX-3 with a 40mm objective in low light? Or do the better coatings in a higher tier scope, of any brand really I just happen to like Leupold, trump the objective size?
Bob.
That is the heart of your post. The quality of glass is the key. I do not think you would percieve any quantifiable difference between the VX-2/50 and the VX-3/40.
This was settled for me many years ago. I have a farmer friend whose motto for deer hunting is, "they only come out 15 min. before dark." Base on that, he went out and bought a
"low-light" scope...a 3-9 X 50mm Tasco.
He asked me to sight it in for him, as he does every year. What a waste of metal. Worst scope I ever looked through. For years I hunted with a Leu. 1.5-5 X 20. Best low-light scope I ever used for my type of hunting. Putting the rifles side-by-side, my little 20mm scope shed a lot of light on the subject.
Short answer. First is good glass. Stay with what you have. To your question about the K-series Weaver. The glass in your Leu is better.
