Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Quality optics or Objective Bell Size

Been doing some thinking lately about scopes with making a purchase and crossed this thought. It is concerning scope brightness and clarity. Many people say that the bigger the objective bell, the more light the scope will gather. Others say its not so much the bell size as it is a good optic scope with great clarity. I think it is both myself but wondering to which degree you can gain the most light from or shall I say perceived light(scope clarity)? I see many people with higher end scopes but with less power and bell size. Like alot with fixed power or variable x32mm scopes. Then some with cheap, low end scopes with huge 50mm bells on the end to try and acheive the same thing. Which is most critical to get you where we all want to be? Size or Quality?

I'll take higher quality glass over a bigger objective any day, and twice on opening day... More than that in the last minutes of light on the last day.

Example: I'd one helluva lot rather spend my coin on a 4x32 FX-III or Conquest... or similar... than on a 3-9x50 Simmons.

Compare the two, and get back to me.

Quality over quantity everyday...

(another way to look at it... Quality = Jessica Simpson... QuantitY= Krispy Kreme Calendar girls... which would you choose?)

I'll take both,thank you....

The big glass will generally give you good low light performance but cheap optics will be a blurry mess though bright...

Quality glass in a 40-44mm objective scope is all I have ever used and needed. It's clear to me when the example is Jessica (that's qualiTiTTY).

quality, you only need a large bell at higher magnification, and high mag cheap optics are about as muddy as it gets.

On the other hand , you have the Simmons Aetec , which is both cheap and moderately large at the objective at 44 mm ............they show up a critter in low light very , very well .

So , I got a hunch objective size can in part , make up for optical quality.

I would agree that quality trumps size. It is commonly accepted that the human eye can only use about 6mm of exit pupil so jumbo objectives lens' dont always offer an advantage. don't get me wrong, I have an 8x56 and it is cool but the glass is top quality. in that event, I have the best of both worlds with a 7mm exit pupil (56/8=7mm). however, a 6x42 offers the same exit pupil.

I am not convinced that the jumbo objective lens make much of a difference when the glass is top quality. the only real advantage is for higher magnification like 8-10 x. there, a 56 mm objective can help.

Quality before objective size, no question!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Quality first.

Quality of the glass no doubt. The only exception is night hunting where in the US means hogs or predators. Many years ago on a hunt in Europe I refused the Gameskeeper(guides) hugh Zeiss scoped rifle & used my Leupold 2.5x8-36 for a shot in the moonlight. I was lucky & killed the animal but 7mm(pupil size) max. aside those hugh obj.'s work for night hunting. I have learned a lot since then.

Whitey,

I go for quality glass and coatings first, then ensure the objective is of the right size for what I am doing.

If you are hunting most game in Africa, there is so much light that 20 mm is usually enough objective. If you are thinking about leopard hunting (AKA night shooting) something like 32-36 mm on the minimum size is needed and 40 to 42 mm is mo' bettah. If you go places where you can shoot at night like much of Europe then the big night glass like the 8X56 is useful.

Your eye may only be able to open its pupil so far, but having a bigger light pencil makes it easier to keep your head behind the scope.

jim

What really matters is if you can identify the quarry or target and then see the reticule in order to aim at it. Thus everything counts with resolution being what you want. Part of resolution in a scope is magnification. Thus a scope capable of higher magnification will resolve better and do it in low light as well.

For my old eye they say that an exit pupil of five is all I can use and youngsters can enjoy a 7. Thus a larger objective will allow more light regardless of other factors.

For low light I would not use a scope capable of less than 9X magnification and a 40mm objective. Those like the Zeiss have a superior reticule system that will last longer as the light goes out.

I agree with a post above that the old Simmons 2.5-10 -44mm Aetec is a heck of a scope for low light.

"Simmons 2.5-10 -44mm Aetec" - I was told those Aetec scopes had objective lens made of some sort of plastic, that's how they were made in an "aspherical" shape.

anyone else here that?

I dunno what the lenses are made of , they *look* like glass , but the fact remains it is a cheap made scope , yet it is very, very, good in low light ...........I'd wager about as good as anything unless you go to one of the top Euro scopes with the 56mm objectives .

Objective bell size can not make up for lack of optical quality. While a large objective lens can increase the amount of light that passes through a scope, that does not mean that your eye pupil dilates enough to take advantage of that. It also does not mean that you can resolve the image no mater how bright it looks. Optical quality effects resolution of the image. If you can not resolve it, brightness does not matter. Ideally, you want a combination of reasonably large objective (and "large objective" can mean different things dependng on scope magnification) lens with high quality optics.

ILya

I know of a number of hunters that use the leupold 2.5x8x36 scope and hunt all over the country. they don't think that they are at a disadvantage with that 36mm objective. that just may be the perfect scope for a short action. for a long action, the 3.5x10x40 is typically my choice. I would like to see a leupy 3.5x10x45. in my mind, that would be an ideal compromise to the bigger 50mm stuff. my lps 2.5x10x45 is a nice scope but the 30mm tube does give it a bit of a top heavy look.

Clarity is one thing, low light image brightness is another. Sure one affects the other, but there are some limitations with both.
A decent scope with single coatings on it's optics, like the old VariXII Leupolds and their older 4X scopes won't resolve quite as well as the same or a similar scope that's fully multicoated. My fully multicoated 4X B&L Balfor, for instance, can pick up .25 bullet holes at 100 yds if I make sure it focused just right for that distance. But my single coated Leupold 4X can't pick up anything much smaller than .30 caliber bullet holes at the same distance. With a variable, the difference in transmition of light runs 84-86% for a single coated scope to 92% plus for a fully multicoated scope.
When it comes to really dim light conditions, then magnification with the same exit pupil, which means a larger objective, trumps all other characteristics. Going from a 4X to a 6X gives you a 50% increase in image brightness. Sure, a fully multicoated 4X will do better than a single coated one, but a single coated 6X will beat the fully multicoated 4X by a wide margin. E

E, if a SC 6X scope is "50%" brighter than a FMC 4X scope, than how much brighter is a FMC 6X over a SC 4X scope? Leupold states their single coated scopes transmit approx. 82-83% of available light and they state that the new VX3's transmit 98% of available light. Who's right here? Doesn't magnification just make the object in the FOV appear bigger/closer?

Just get the biggest, chittiest coated scope you can find. As long as you turn the magnification up it'll look better than all the rest at twilight....LOL---2MG

I'm still trying to figure out how magnification boosts actual (measured) light transmission.