More lenses means less light transmission. Increased magnification and more compact design means more critical eye relief/eye box as well as more eclipsing at the extremes of the erector travel range, etc. Optical design certainly involves tradeoffs, but throwing money at the design can help mitigate some of the downsides inherent in the tradeoffs.
I agree with all of this. I will also clarify that I am certainly not a long range shooter.
I avoided illuminated reticles, definitely subscribed to less lenses the better, nothing over 4 times zoom, and 1st focal plane reticles for many years.
I think it all had merit to my eyes, at least in earlier production.
But, I now have scopes with illumination. Pretty much forced on me due to very limited choices otherwise. I have scopes with 5x and 6x zoom, and now a 8x. They could have stopped at the 5x for my use. I have some 2nd focal plane reticles that are as good or better than some of my 1st focal plane in low light.
Perhaps my eyes but I have an extremely hard time saying I lost any noticeable optical quality in low light, with the scopes that I have. These are mid-upper to upper end optics.
The eye box, I think this has improved also. Or I have adapted and don’t really notice it.
It also appears, that at least some of the manufacturers have usable low light illumination without spending 2k on a scope.
The more-zoom-is-better, and the illumination was pretty much forced on me by limited selection otherwise.
I still like my 1.1-4x24’s, 1.5-6x42’s, and 2.5-10x42’s with very usable and simple 1st focal plane reticles.
