Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics VX2, VX3, versus old Vari X2 and Vari X3

I spent close to an hour today looking through examples of these scopes in the 2.5 x 8 and 3 x 9 class.

For my eyes, I get a better image with old the Vari X III over the old Vari X II. I think for most people this is a given.

I see no difference in optical quality between the new VX II and old Vari X III line.

Comparing a new VX II 3 x 9 to a new VX III 2.5 x 8, I see no difference in quality or clarity.

I am asking myself, what is the difference, and why even bother with the VX III. Seems the VXII 2 X 7 and 3 X 9 are all you would need, why spend extra?

Any thoughts or opinion on this?

the VX-III does transmit more light, i have seen it in lowlight and check out the conquest eye relief thread by roe_deer...
his lab test conforms this

You would probably see more of a difference if you were to compare them in the evening when there is very low light. It is hard to tell much difference in clarity between a $50 Bushnell and a $400 Leupold when there is a lot of light, the difference will just right out in the first few or last few minutes of light when your hunting.

I agree with what you found. I can tell a big difference between the Vari-x II and the VXII, but not the Vari-x III and the VXIII. The new finger click knobs are nicer and the construction seems to be better on the VXIII.

I think if you didnt want to spend the money the VXII is the way to go.

Same goes for the FXII and FXIII hard for me to tell the difference.

Your experiences pretty well match mine.

I can see a little difference in my VXII's and VXIII's, and I think my Kahles 3-9 is a little better optically than the VXIII's, but the eye relief and generally "huntworthy-field friendly, easy eyebox, looks-good-on-the-rifle" factors, along with weight and warranty all put the Luepys in the lead overall for a hunting scope, IMHO.

DJ

If you are comparing them, a VXII against a VXIII, I suggest you do so with 40mm models, not a 36mm model against a 40mm model. E

I agree with DJ and KK. VXII is best bang for buck.

Thats hard to do, since they dont make the same powers in the same models. The lower power scope of the same model should be a little briter correct?

you could use a 3.5-10 and just set it on 9...call me crazy...

That's really just like using a 36mm obj and a 40mm though right? Because of the higher power of the vxIII.

or like comparing a FXIII 6x vs a VXIII in 3.5-10 set on 6x. The FX will be much brighter.

Set both scopes in question here at 4X and you can do a fair comparison. Any exit pupil advantages would be cancelled out in doing so.

Roy

The FX would tend to look brighter simply because it has fewer lenses than the VXIII. E

I knew that, but doesnt the higher power scopes eat up more light? So a lower power would be brighter?

Not trying to be be an ares just really trying to find out.

E,
We are talking humans......

I would bet there aren't two eyes connected to a head that could see the difference in having one or two less lens'.

Dave

Laffin......Dave

Roy

Some of the older Vari X III like the one I bought in 1977 did not have click adjustments.

First of all, you can see the difference. I've seen it between my VariXIII when set on 6X and my 6X42. I've seen it between the same size scopes such as the 40mm Mk.4, 10X and the 40mm Mk.4 3.5-10X40 when set on 10X.
Barsness reported similar results between scopes with and w/o an AO option in "Optics for the Hunter," etc.
Second, yes, the image will look brighter when a variable is set on a lower magnification during twilight. But, even though the image looks dimmer, you can see more details when the scope is set at the highest magnification that light conditions will allow. One of the things that comes with understanding how these things work. E

I understand better than you think.......

How dare you compare a VariXIII at 6x which probably had only a 40mm objective and the fixed 6x has a 42mm.......

I'm out.....


Dave