The Nikon ProStaff verses Leupold VX2 thread left me wondering why there isn't an industry standard for measuring optical quality. I have several Nikon ProStaffs and a couple dozen Leupold VX2s. I know that the Nikon ProStaffs aren't as good a scope as the Leupold VX2s, but how inferior are they and in what catagories? I've shot several deer, plus many coyotes and rabbits, with both the 2-7x32 and 3-9x40 ProStaff without feeling at an "under-scoped" disadvantage.

I think that it would be nice if scopes came with a 3 or 7 point, whatever the number is, rating system, kind of like the rating on tires. 650-tread wear, A-traction, B-temperature.

Actually, over the past 20+/- years there are only a very few scopes that I have tried and really did not like. The Weaver V-10, 2-10x40, comes immediately to mind as a scope that didn't work for me at all. The Sightron S-1 3-9x32 rimfire scope and everything from BSA seemed also to be poor choices to me.

What do you experts think?

Jeff

For the most part, light transmission figures are used by the manufacturers for advertising purposes. Some measure total light transmission (for the visible spectrum) and others use a segment (usually in the middle of the visible spectrum) of total light transmission. Problem is that while it is useful information for the consumer, it only tells part of the story. For example, you could take two scopes that measure similar light transmission figures and they could look very different to the end user(s). Lets say you were to compare a high end euro scope to one from a cheaply made pacific rim manufacturers. Both scopes advertise the same amount of light transmission, but the high end euro scope has an image that shows you much greater detail (color, resolution, contrast etc). That's because the high end scope uses much more expensive glass and lense coatings than the low end pacific rim scope uses. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't place much weight on advertising figures. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I know of no mechanical device that can replicate what the human eye can/will see.

Scope quality is too subjective. If it wasn't, there would not be all these heated arguments on the optics forum.

Bruce

I know of a couple of standards that I find useful.
One is light transmition. The better the glass, the coatings and the system used to control stray light passing through the scope, the higher it tests. The trouble is that scope makers often advertise stuff that doesn't test that well when tested by reliable outside sources. Another thing that comes into play are the added lenses in certain designs. That alone will make them test less bright over the same scope w/o these added features.
Another standard is how well a scope will resolve. The problems I've seen with this is that the differences are often expressed in how well the tested scopes do on somebody's resolution chart. Which means we have to know just what's involved with that chart. For simplicity, I like to use basic bullet hole sizes at various distances. While perhaps not as precise as some of the resolution charts, at least it gives us something we can all easily understand.
Another problem I've run into frequently is that many don't understand that all scopes can have both their images and reticles, not just their reticles, focused for the best resolution. I was ignortant of this for most my years. Fortunately, JB pointed out the error of my ways some time ago.
The last standard I use is that of eye box size, a quality that is probably the hardest to quantify, yet important to at least some of us just the same. What I've found is that if you insist on lots of eye box, you are going to loose a little resolving ability. So you need to decide which trade offs you desire. E

The OP wanted to know why there isn't an industry standard. Any thoughts on that topic?

There are industry standards, but some would be baffling to the average shooter, and some are way too expensive to use in independent tests.

I suppose the real question to the original poster would be: "how do you define optical quality?" or "what does optical quality mean to you?"

There are many things that can be measured, but they do not always translate directly into how well you see through a scope.

ILya

An excellent point, because eyesight varies between individuals in various ways.

The way a PAIR of eyes matches up with binoculars can make a difference. One of my favorite binoculars is an 8x32 Nikon Premier LX, at least 7 years old. It is still excellent optically, thouigh the outside is somewhat dinged because I've used it a lot. My wife Eileen also has one, and likes it a lot too, another reason I have recommended this model highly in the past.

A friend of ours bought one on our recommendation, and it didn't match up at all well with his eyes for some reason. He even returned it and ordered another, thinking he might have just gotten a cull. Second one didn't work with his eyes either. he also once bought a 2.5x Leupold Compact scope on my recommendation for his particular use, and just didn't like the view, even though he likes lower-power scopes. He could see fine, and aim fine, but just didn't like it somehow.

Companies and magazines and Internet sites could publish all sorts of sophisticated stuff, just the camera magazines do, but taking a photo is not the same as looking through a scope or binocular.

Don't need sophisticated tests.

Eye charts - at a distance - in varying light - tells everyone, all there is to know, about the quality of the optics being compared.

The further down you can read - the better the scope.

I really like my Optic 1050's with the 1000X magnification

My name is also Brian and in MHO this is CRAP, rest up and go again tomorrow with a better attitude gnn..............GOOD NIGHT NOW !!!!!!!!

John, do you mean a standard for testing or reporting the results?

Spot on, John.

Here is another quirk on eyecharts: they are black and white. A scope's ability to differentiate between colors (or shades of gray for that matter) is not accurately predicted by black and white eyecharts alone.

Then there is a matter of lighting conditions. Some scopes will do better on sunny days, some on cloudy days and some at dusk.

If you are using artificial lighting, then the type of the bulb will make a difference.

ILya

ILya

There are quite a few standards for measuring all the parameters of optical quality.

There are targets for measuring fineness of resolution.
There are instruments for measuring light transmission.
There are filter tests for measuring color neutrality.

+1
dave

"The nice thing about standards is there are SO MANY to choose from." - Credited to the VP of Marketing everywhere...

I'm no expert, but I'll toss this out as a lifelong salesman:

I think there's no standards in optics because the manufacturers LIKE all the buzz about the specs and the subjective qualities, and they love the brand loyal "koolaid drinkers" to market for them. Think about how many posts you've seen on just this board that are certain that Brand X is the best and Brand Y is past it's glory days...and US scopes can't compare with Martian scopes etc.

Reminds me of my misbegotten youth and the "High Fidelity Audio Quest" for lowest THD (from 20-20K Hz)and all those other specs you could not hear...wouldn't I like to have 10 cents on the dollar back on that hobby...and they only got "standards" in that industry when the government got involved...Marantz, Magnepan, McIntosh (can't think past the "M's"...)Nothing was perfect, so which distortion do you prefer? Anyone want a working pair of MG-IIA's?

While vision is more unforgiving than hearing, there is and always will be differences in what looks better to you vs. someone else. Standards or not.

Sad as it sounds I think a double blind test of mid priced versus high priced scopes would surprise a lot of folks here. I expect a $1000 scope to perform better than a $500 scope, so when I know what they cost can I make an impartial decision, really? Especially if it's my money?

Remember that no manufacturer will support any standards that aren't likely to aid them in what they do, sell optics...not to mention the expenses of certification testing...and meaningful testing for meaningful standards will cost meaningful dollars...

Besides, everyone knows you can't beat a Redfield or Weaver for optics...

Vagabond,

There used to be a poster here who gave some really good info. He uses the name Brocksdad. Hopefully he will chime in more often than not in the future. He had some objective testing procedures that may have frosted some folks here 'cause theri favorite didn't fare so well.