Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What scopes have the least tunnel effect?

I was talking to a friend the other day and he mentioned hating the tunnel vision effect so many scopes display today. You know when the image doesn't go all the way to the edge of the tube and there is a black ring no matter how you place your eye.

I was just wondering what scopes you have found that have the most complete image. For me it is some of my older Leupolds and the Kahles AH scopes. I find it strange that some of the newer Leupolds have a slight tunnel effect and my Kahles CL scopes have a slight amount as well.

My primary interest is in scopes with a 1.5X-2X low end. My favorite hunting scopes are in the 2-7X36 range or 1.5-6 range.I would like to know of any full image scopes you may have experience of in that range.

Almost everything I have is high magnification. Therefore I can only speak about them: Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and Leupold VX-6 4-24X52.

I suggest you find a gun store that has a special stock setup for testing scopes. In my area, that would be my local Sportsman's Warehouse.
That's the only way I've found for checking on things like a scope's eye box, etc. I suspect tunnel effect would also show up using such a stock. E

There are, I think, two basic ways in which eye relief and scope zoom can be interrelated.

The first let's call the Leupold effect: eye relief and eye box are huge at lowest settings, then get shorter/smaller as X's increase.

Second is how my Conquests and Swaro work: the so called constant eye relief scope. Eye relief is shortest at low and high powers and longest in the middle.

My 3-9x40 Conquests have the best ER/EB characteristics that I personally have experience with; that said if they are gonna tunnel, it'll be a 3x, which is not what the OP wants.

My Leup 2.5-8's have huge ER/EB at low powers.

The 2-12 VX6 is the eyebox king at any mag, IMO.

I only have to look through them to be able to tell. I don't have to have it mounted to a stock blank. The problem is that there are a few scopes I'll never get to lay hands on unless I order it or drive 200 miles.

I don't know if we are on the same page or not. I'm not talking about eye relief( distance the eye needs to be for a perfect view) or eye box( how much the eye can be misplaced from perfect and still get a full view).

What I'm talking about is a tunnel effect ( when there is still a portion of the glass that the image will not fill no matter where the eye is located. Some scopes allow the image to fill the entire lens all the way to the edge of the tube, but some scopes will have a black ring between where the image stops and where the tube begins. The larger this ring the worse the tunnel effect.

R_H_Clark,

That's what I understood you were talking about.

Yes sir, and I appreciate your original response.It's just that I will never have one of the higher powered scopes you prefer on a hunting rifle.

Have you ever had a chance to try the view through a Zeiss Victory 1.5-6X42?

I have the Victory 1.5-6x42 with #60 IR. It is absolutely my favorite scope for deer hunting in GA. I can sit in a stand where shots are 15 feet, to a stand where shots are 200 yards. It is about perfect for where I hunt.

fwiw, I think the Zeiss Victorys I have had has the least amount of black oval in the "picture".

That is, the part that is not an ER or head placement issue

Have had the Swaro 1.5 but not the Zeiss Victory.

I don't know about anything illuminated, however

try Bobby Tomek

Baffling:

Baffling. The field of view should be surrounded by a black or very dark background and not be affected by shiny reflections from internal parts or the improper placement of field stops. Anything less will result in a loss of contrast.

R_H_Clark,



I went from fixed 4X to 4-16X and then to 5-25X groups. I never gave them a thought. Even my .375 has a 4-16X.

I know exactly the "tunnel effect" you speak of and it drives me crazy as well. Stragely, I can pick up the same make and model of scope side by side and one might have more tunnel than the other even with high end scopes. Leupolds and high end Zeiss, Swarovski seem to have the least variability. Almost all newer Weavers have it really bad and many Nikons do as well. Almost every Zeiss Terra I have looked through has it.

Maybe so, but in a fast action hunting scope I would rather have a larger,full image than perfect contrast. I'm shooting ,not taking pictures.

My older Vari X Leupolds have full image to the tube. The contrast may be slightly less than newer high end scopes I have or have had but I still prefer the characteristics of a huge eye box and full image all the way to the edge of the tube.

so would I and one of the reasons I enjoy the Diavaris on hand

not any kind of critique--that is what you are seeing, I believe.

I also hate that "tunnel" look however I've always thought the two Leupold 6's (both 36mm and 42mm) were about as good as it gets for making this ring disappear completely. The VX-3 3.5 to 10 is nearly as good. Hope this helps...

The worst tunnel effect of any scope I've ever owned is a newer Weaver 3 to 9! So bad I put in the parts basket, I couldn't bring myself to sell it to someone else!

Maybe so, but in a fast action hunting scope I would rather have a larger,full image than perfect contrast. I'm shooting ,not taking pictures.

My older Vari X Leupolds have full image to the tube. The contrast may be slightly less than newer high end scopes I have or have had but I still prefer the characteristics of a huge eye box and full image all the way to the edge of the tube.


I couldn't agree more. I have a vari x-ii 2-7 that I bought new in 1983 that has an edge to edge view. But even much cheaper scopes have better glass today.

I have a Vortex Diamondback 1.75-5x32 that has a very wide field of view and rivals the edge to edge view of my older Leupold. It's brighter and does a great job for me in the woods. Not crisp enough for the long ranges but perfect for a 358 BLR.

Dan