Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 low light test - 12/10/14
December 9, 2014
Yesterday the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 arrived. I didn�t get a chance to look at it so took it to work this morning. When it was barely light enough to see the distant hills I took it out the back of the shop. I looked beyond the freeway and found a tree several hundred yards away in a grassy area. I turned the magnification up till I could see the first branch and then back down and back up till I was convince it was on its lowest magnification setting for me to see the first branch. Then I did the same thing with the Bushnell 6500 4 �-30X50. Finally I looked at the setting on both. Leupold:5X Bushnell :6X.
When I arrived at home this evening I grabbed the scopes and a couple sand bags and headed to the porch. Darkness was quickly setting in. I dialed the scopes on the antlers 131 yards away. The Leupold needed 10X. Believe it or not the Bushnell required 24X! I hurried to get the Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. It normally matches the Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for resolving detail in bright or low light. I adjusted it for the antlers and had to turn it to 16X. By then the VX-6 needed 13X. This Leupold certainly appears to be better than my Swarovski z5 for low light. When the z5 gets back from customer service for a checkup, I don�t know if there is anything wrong with it, I will compare it with the VX-6.
Here is something about the 4200 and the z5 from May 12, 2014:
At this time I decided to get the Swarovski z5 5-25X52. By the time I got up stairs and back down stairs and laid out the .257SLR carrying the z5 and all dialed in the time was 8:30. By then it was dark enough in the woods I was limited to the first line of the �Can you read this?� chart . Once I could read it I switched to the Bushnell. I noticed it came to the magnification stop before I could read line #1. I checked the magnification settings on them. Both were on 16X. I am constantly delighted by the cost/performance value of the Bushnell 4200.
Yesterday the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 arrived. I didn�t get a chance to look at it so took it to work this morning. When it was barely light enough to see the distant hills I took it out the back of the shop. I looked beyond the freeway and found a tree several hundred yards away in a grassy area. I turned the magnification up till I could see the first branch and then back down and back up till I was convince it was on its lowest magnification setting for me to see the first branch. Then I did the same thing with the Bushnell 6500 4 �-30X50. Finally I looked at the setting on both. Leupold:5X Bushnell :6X.
When I arrived at home this evening I grabbed the scopes and a couple sand bags and headed to the porch. Darkness was quickly setting in. I dialed the scopes on the antlers 131 yards away. The Leupold needed 10X. Believe it or not the Bushnell required 24X! I hurried to get the Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. It normally matches the Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for resolving detail in bright or low light. I adjusted it for the antlers and had to turn it to 16X. By then the VX-6 needed 13X. This Leupold certainly appears to be better than my Swarovski z5 for low light. When the z5 gets back from customer service for a checkup, I don�t know if there is anything wrong with it, I will compare it with the VX-6.
Here is something about the 4200 and the z5 from May 12, 2014:
At this time I decided to get the Swarovski z5 5-25X52. By the time I got up stairs and back down stairs and laid out the .257SLR carrying the z5 and all dialed in the time was 8:30. By then it was dark enough in the woods I was limited to the first line of the �Can you read this?� chart . Once I could read it I switched to the Bushnell. I noticed it came to the magnification stop before I could read line #1. I checked the magnification settings on them. Both were on 16X. I am constantly delighted by the cost/performance value of the Bushnell 4200.