Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Apparently I need to say a few things, otherwise this same old argument is going to occur over and over again.

The scientific brightness tests in my book were already about 3-4 years old when I wrote it, but they were the best available. I wrote the book in 1998, it took 11 months for it to be printed, and a lot of things have happened in optics since. To quote 15-year-old results as gospel is simply not valid, and I sincerely wish Eremicus should indeed quit doing it.

If I had some newer, independent data I would publish it, but unfortunately I don't. (There are a bunch of tests from individual optics makers, but I simply don't trust them like the independent data from DEVA.)

All the better manufacturers have made advances in lens coatings, glass, etc. Leupold's Multi-Coat 4, for instance, was their state of the art in 1998. It is now the standard coating on the VX-II's, which are two steps down from Leupold's very best scopes. Other manufacturers have made similar advances.

There are also other things that affect apparent scope brightness than glass and coatings. Interior baffling or finish is one that E. has mentioned, but the size of the OCULAR (not just objective) lens also has an effect, along with eye relief. So to argue that lab tests of light transmission are THE answer is incorrect. They do not take into account the interaction of the ocular and eye.

There have also been great advancements in the ruggedness of optics. At the time I wrote the book, most heavier scopes were indeed more likely to fail than lighter scopes OF THE SAME MAKE, because apparently most manufacturers did not reinforce their larger scopes in any way, despite the necessary heavier lenses, erector tubes, etc.

This has changed considerably in the last decade, especially with the advent of more and more "tactical" scopes. The Nightforce scopes are REALLY tough.

Some of the stuuff I wrote about in OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER is still valid. Some is not, due to technical advances, and I personally really wish everything in it was not held up as the last word on everything in optics 10 years later. It is still a useful book, the reason it is still selling pretty well after a decade, because it describes how consumers can make their own comparisons while shopping. But any optics tests made at ANY point in time are only valid for right then, because all optics are advancing so rapidly anymore.

Digital cameras, for example, are pretty much obsolete within months after they are introduced. This is in large part due to electronics, but also due to optics. Advances in other optics are coming almost as fast. It ain't the 90's anymore.






Excellent Post JB.

I would add however that even though your book is from a few years ago, it's still well worth buying today. It has lots of good information on How to evaluate scopes, how to properly use optics, etc. and that is just as important as specific scope models. I bought a copy and reread it every year or two. I'll buy an update as soon as you get one printed.........................DJ

Remember this is all supposed to be for fun.......................