Why has everyone gone ape over larger, i.e. 50mm, objective lens on scopes?

When I was in collage 35+ years ago, I was taught that the eye could not use the light from an objective lens larger than a 40mm.
As I have grown older I have found that I can not see any better with a 40mm than I can with a 33mm. So I have moved to the smaller scopes while everyone else seems to be moving to the larger objective lens.
So, why has everyone gone ape over large, i.e. 50mm, objective lens on scopes?

I guess because some people think the Hubblescopes look cool, or will provide them some unspecifiable advantage.

I'm with you...I've gone almost totally to 4x33 and 6x36 scopes.

Dennis

I dunno nuthin' about the how's or why's, but the diff between a Loopy 3.5x10x50mm and a 3.5x10x40mm (or whatever it is) was easily apparant in low light to my eye.

It's the American "Bigger Must Be Better" mentality... turn brain off, follow other lemmings off cliff.

My two big game scopes average out 40mm....grin

The little Leupolds are pretty sweet though.

This Fud thinks they probably look cooler to the buyer, thus the attraction to the so inclined.

I like Leup 2x7s and 2.5x8s.

.

...If a hunter is going to poach after shooting hours the 50mm and larger objectives do gather more light in those low light conditions. For legal hours hunting I see no real advantage to the large objectives, on BIG GAME scopes. I use 2-7X33,2.5-8X36, and a 4X30 on my favorite big game rifles, and a 1.5-6X20 on a dangerous game rifle. I hunt till dark, and have no complaints about thier performance even with 67 year old eyes.

....The varmint guys using 12, 14, 16, and sometimes 18X or greater magnifications could benefit from the larger objectives.

Originally Posted by Brad

It's the American "Bigger Must Be Better" mentality... turn brain off, follow other lemmings off cliff.

Brad, I must march to the beat of a different drumer. I'm not following any lemmings off a cliff.

Ya'll go ahead and use the small diameter objectives,no problem,but don't knock those of us that like larger 1's.I have 7-5.5x16x44s,2-2.5x16x50s and 5-3x12x56s.I just like them better for my eyes.

Originally Posted by olhippie

50mm and larger objectives do gather more light in those low light conditions.

That "gathering of light" term is funny.

Originally Posted by SuperCub

Originally Posted by olhippie

50mm and larger objectives do gather more light in those low light conditions.

That "gathering of light" term is funny.

What good is more light if your I can not use it?

The 40mm limit you mentioned earlier isn't absolute. The size of the exit pupil depends on the magnification as well, and whether a given person can use it depends on that person's eyes. If your pupils don't dilate to more than 4mm then for 10x a 40mm scope will do all you need. If your pupils will accomodate 5.6mm then a big 2.5-10x56 may allow you to see better. It will be bigger, higher and heavier and you may not value the increased brightness enough to accomodate the tradeoff.

It's all about what does it for you. I generally prefer smaller scopes, but I own a couple of biggies too.

The oddest looking rifle I ever bought was used every little Marlin 336 SS with a 3.5x10x50mm Simmons Aztec Scope with see-thru mounts.

I traded the scope and mounts to my old smith for an action and trigger job and he thru in at the end an old Millet sight.

Originally Posted by cole_k

The oddest looking rifle I ever bought was used every little Marlin 336 SS with a 3.5x10x50mm Simmons Aztec Scope with see-thru mounts.

I traded the scope and mounts to my old smith for an action and trigger job and he thru in at the end an old Millet sight.

last year I ran into a guy that huge see thru mounts on a Ruger All-Weather. When asked why it was to accommodate the 56MM scope he had. IMO Ruger makes a nice factory ring set........why nobody would use them is beyond me!

I have never seen any difference in a 33MM over a 50MM obj. But then my name doesn't begin with E !!!

Cuz I like em, You got a problem with that?

Originally Posted by djpaintless

Cuz I like em, You got a problem with that?

No, I don't have a problem with it.
I just want to know if there is a logical reason why you and others like them?
IMO they mess up the handling and balance of the the rifle and are a lot heavier.

Originally Posted by SuperCub

Originally Posted by olhippie

50mm and larger objectives do gather more light in those low light conditions.

That "gathering of light" term is funny.

It's not funny to astronomers who happen to know a thing or two about telescopes and, of course, a rifle scope is a type of telescope. A larger objective lens will collect ("gather") more photons (light) than a smaller objective lens.

[Linked Image]

"The ability of a telescope to collect a lot more light than the human eye, its light-gathering power, is probably its most important feature. The telescope acts as a ``light bucket'', collecting all of the photons that come down on it from a far away object. Just as a bigger bucket catches more rain water, a bigger objective collects more light in a given time interval. This makes faint images brighter. This is why the pupils of your eyes enlarge at night so that more light reaches the retinas."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/telescop/s6.htm
http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/powers%20of%20a%20telescope.htm#Powers%20of%20a%20Telescope

-Bob F.

Quote

I just want to know if there is a logical reason why you and others like them?

As I have gotten older my eyes do not adjust as fast as the light fails in the afternoon. We can deer hunt in Arkansas until thirty minutes after sundown and the 50 mm objectives help me see better in low light in the afternoon. It does not help as much in the morning low light when the light is increasing instead of decreasing. If it does not work for you, you don't have to use it, but don't try to tell me that it doesn't help me. miles

I should have put

:)'s......

Actually there are good reasons to use a larger objective scope if you hunt in marginal light. I'm 47yrs old and actually had the amount my pupils dialate measured in low light (not complete darkness and without dialation drops) at 7.2mm. So I for one go against the commonly held belief that noone over 40 can't use more than a 5mm exit pupil YMMV. If you smoked or had other conditions you might very well not be able to fully use even a 4mm exit pupil. The point is that for some people a larger exit pupil can make a real difference but maybe not for you personally.

The second point is that not all 50mm obj. scopes are heavy, some are a lot lighter than you think. A Swaro 4-12x50 1" tube is actually over 2 ounces LIGHTER than a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40. A 30mm! tube 2.5-12x50 Swaro PH is less than an ounce heavier than the Bushnell even with a 30mm tube vs a 1" tube. Some of the 50mm and larger obj scopes are quite a bit heavier but not all. You really need to check the weight of individual scopes before making blanket assumptions.

I've got Swaro 4-12x50 scopes on 3 or 4 different rifles in LOW rings. They aren't necessarily as high mounted as you think either!

So if you can have a 50mm obj scope that you can see better with, that weighs the same or less as a lot of 40mm obj scopes and you can mount it in low rings to maintain a good cheek weld, why aren't MORE people using 50mm scopes?

(in the Swaro 4-12x50mm case it's because they ain't cheap!)

.................................................DJ

I know for a fact that optically the lunker Zeiss 3.5-10x44 spanks my very functional 6x36 Leupold. Especially towards dusk.
It is just brighter and clearer to my eye. No arguement needed.

Both are on rifles that have specific purposes.

Use whatever works best for you.

I don't have a 50. Prolly never will. Never couldn't make a shot because of it yet.

I go bigger for gathering more light, this is the biggest aperture that XS offers.....

[Linked Image]

The lunker Z would be fairly useless in that jungle.

Fortunately the way I hunt the lunker Z is damn near always useless.

Unless Christ thought I should do it different, then I might change.......

Christ uses whatever works best for him, bless his soul.

And with the tall Optilocks and Dougs deal on the demo 44mm I figured what the hell's another 2mm around the objective.

No big deal and it should be handy for evening spot and stalk Breaks mulies or whitetails across hayfields right about dark.

2 or 3 ounces is nothing for a flatlander...grin
(and hopefully it never has to go in the scabbard)

I don't doubt that they work.

I just think they look like an unwieldy exaggeration on a sporting rifle.

Perfectly fine on a tactical sniper, kinda what you'd expect.

Must have read it on the internet but I heard that big optics and little sport cars are.......

Originally Posted by sir_springer

I just think they look like an unwieldy exaggeration on a sporting rifle.

I guess tastes differ. I think some little skinny tiny scopes look funny on some rifles.

On the right rifles I don't think 50mm scopes look all that bad:

[Linked Image]

(they would look better without scope-caps on though!)..................................DJ

Christ would bust a nut over those two DJ.

Of course he'd scratch the chit out of 'em too...grin

Originally Posted by SamOlson

Use whatever works best for you.

Welp, that's the end of internet gun forums...

I certainly can see a difference,though I only have one 50mm objective scope,compared to several dozen 32,36,40mm.I also have always had exceptional night vision,which might just be a clue.
The only rifle I have used with the 50mm is my walking around woodchuck rifle (22-250).
It just seems to work a bit better with changing light conditions as I move around.....often looking into the shadows on the edges of fields.

Dude... I'm seriously looking forward to popping a few off on Saturday.

Maybe we should meet across the street at Home Depot so you can remember the spraypaint.....grin

Awfully nice rigs there DJ, but for me I'd not stick a "Dolly" scope on them. But hey, you aint letting me use em so let er buck and use what you like...

Dober

More light gathering ability, but I have not noticed even 10% of everyone going ape. I see very few in the field and don't own any myself.

Advertising.

"Light Gathering Ability" - as if light can be "gathered".

More often than not, when I see someone oogling over a moster scope - he's young, and appears to have money.

But occasionally he's old - and has a specific narrow purpose in mind.

I've done both.

I guess it's just a matter of taste. Those look like gorgeous rifles with outsized scopes on them to me.

Here ya go ...

[Linked Image]

Love the chinweld.

my Barska 6-24 x 60IR Tactical Swat mildot reticle scope mounted on my new Ruger 16.5 inch barreled 325WSM Frontier Rifle in Krypton SuperRings is just about perfect for hunting fiddler crabs in the near dark. I keep a 6 Volt lantern lashed to the top with camoflaged tape and the whole outfit is a short and easy to carry 12 pounds full up! I love the Barska 60X scope it really gathers the light, so much so that I have to wear sunglasses at night to protect against flash blindness when I take a shot with my rifle. The absolute coolest thing is that the scope is almost exactly as long as the rifle barrel!

I don't have many 50mm objectives!

On the elk hunt this year my *50-year-old huntin' bud complained that his 4.5-14x 50mm Leupold was disappointing in its ability to help him see elk moving around in a meadow before dawn - in fact it was no better than my 3.5-10x 40mm Leupold, which is more than enough scope but not a night-vision device.

I tried to tell him that it wasn't really necessary to buy that more expensive top-heavy 50mm version in extra-high rings, but he is a true "if it is bigger - it must be better" kind of guy.
So I just had to laugh about the whole incident!

*The scope�s EP corresponds to our pupils, which dilate to a maximum of 7mm in a young person, decline to about 5mm by age 50 and another millimeter each decade after that. If a scope�s EP exceeds the diameter of ours, the rim of extra light spills out onto our irises, wasted.

Other points aside, I am greatly encouraged by the fact that nobody here has given the fallacious argument that they want the huge objective because it gives a wider field of view. I got so tired of hearing that when I sold scopes that it nearly made me weep. This is clearly a (ahem) brighter crowd.

RockyRaab
One of the overlooked facts is that if you tap the objective of a 50 mm scope. it moves the cross hairs less than it does on a scope with adjustable parallax...

That's kind of a peaches and pomegranates thing, isn't it? What about a 50AO?

Well, it will move the crosshairs on a 50mm AO, but not as much, proportionately, due to the larger field of view...

Sorry... LOL

The trend migrated to the US from Europe...but in Europe they typically can hunt at night without the use of a light.

Originally Posted by Frisco_Pete

*The scope�s EP corresponds to our pupils, which dilate to a maximum of 7mm in a young person, decline to about 5mm by age 50 and another millimeter each decade after that.

You haven't read the rest of this thread have you? Simply put this statement is false.

I actually had mine measured before surgury, I'm 47 and they were 7.2mm in low light..................................DJ

Well if you want to believe what Frisco states, by the time you reach 100 your pupils will disappear...............

We all just need to not take rough "rules of thumb" as the Gospel truth. Some people may never have pupils that dialate even all the way to 7mm -especially smokers, and others will of course defy the commonly held truth.

Best thing of course is to find out for yourself......................DJ

I hate it when I have been fed wrong information by some gun writer!
I stand corrected, I suppose.

I have many different objective sizes & magnifications depending on the rifle & application. A .308 Sako with a Mannlicher style stock with a 4X Weaver, a .376 Steyr, .35 Whelen, 50 cal. ML., & 30-06 all with 6X42's, a .280 with a 2 1/2-8X36, a .260 mountain rifle with a 2-7X33, .300 Win.Mag. & 7MMUM with a 50MM, & a host of others with 42/44MM. My DGR wears a 1 1/4-4X24. I have no problem with a 50MM especially for stand hunting or long shots. I prefer each type of scope for a particular application. I haven't even mentioned Ill. scopes I use for night hunting.

I'm in the same boat as dj. Prior to laser surgery my Doctor checked my pupil dilation, and found mine dilate to 8mm. I was 48 when I had the surgery done. I had to have prosthetic lenses implanted, replacing the natural ones, that are anti-glare before he would do the surgery. I can utilize an EP of 8mm.

Not everyones has. Unfortunately, you are correct to the extent that many have though - at least I would assume that is partially the reason why Burris no longer makes their fine Fullfield I 4X scope.

I am absolutely satisfied with a scope which hugs the rifle. Anything the sticks out farther has absolutely no advantage to me. Smaller, dimmer, but working beats bigger, clearer, and tweaked every time. It's right for me, though many people - most of who probably spend less time hunting than I do, seem to choose a different version of "right".

Yup, anything that sticks out all the time is liable to cause trouble.

As John Holmes could have told us ...

Rocky,that's funny!!!

I've done a research and a few things.

1.For most of us legal shooting hours are from 30 minutes before sunup to 30 minutes after sundown.
2.The average human eye pupil size at night is a little over 7mm.
3.To find the exit pupil size of a scope you divide the objective lens by the power setting on the scope.
4.No scope will transmit 100% of available light to the eye. The very best scopes will transmit 98% of available light to the eye. Most will transmit between 90-95%.

So the trick is to to match our pupil size at night, which for most is less than 8mm, to the exit pupil size of a scope, so we can make a shot in that first or last minute of the legal shooting hours.

With my 2-7x33's set at 4x the EP is 8.25mm, at 5x it is 6.6mm.
With my 3-9x40's set at 5x the EP is 8mm, at 6x it is 6.67mm.
With my 4-14x56 set at 7x the EP is 8mm, at 8x it is 7mm.

I guess these 50+mm lens are helpful to some hunters, particularly those that hunt over feeders and agi fields.

But I sure don't want one on my stalking rifles.

It is my understanding that the 50 PASSES more light through the scope than a 40 does. No scope can "gather" light.

Have I been mislead all these years?

Dew

Originally Posted by Jeff_O

I dunno nuthin' about the how's or why's, but the diff between a Loopy 3.5x10x50mm and a 3.5x10x40mm (or whatever it is) was easily apparant in low light to my eye.

Priceless...............

Originally Posted by Dew

It is my understanding that the 50 PASSES more light through the scope than a 40 does. No scope can "gather" light.

Have I been mislead all these years?

Dew

Actually "Gathering Light" is exactly what any telescope including riflescopes does. Read into a few serious references to Astronomical riflescopes and Birding binoculars and "Light Gathering" will be specifically mentioned.
Someone in the firearms business incorrectly put the word out that scopes don't "Gather Light", simply put they were wrong, the term is commonly used my several other optical disciplines.....................................DJ

....... Rifle scopes do "gather" light, just as telescopes do. The light photons entering the objective lens are transmitted through various lens, which magnify and ultimately condense them into the exit pupil diameter that is available to the users eye. This process of collecting light from a larger objective lens and magnifying the received image while concentrating it as a beam of light has long been referred to as "gathering" light, a better description of this optical process has yet to be found.

Rifle scopes, binoculars and spotters do not gather light in the technical sense of the term. They transmit whatever amount of incident light that falls onto their objective lenses. This term, "gathers light" has been misused in the sporting optics industry and advertising. Even night vision optics only magnify the amount of incident light available. Rifle scopes, binos and spotters are passive instruments.

Originally Posted by olhippie

....... Rifle scopes do "gather" light, just as telescopes do. The light photons entering the objective lens are transmitted through various lens, which magnify and ultimately condense them into the exit pupil diameter that is available to the users eye. This process of collecting light from a larger objective lens and magnifying the received image while concentrating it as a beam of light has long been referred to as "gathering" light, a better description of this optical process has yet to be found.

As RD, stated so eloquently scopes do not gather light and that is a fact..

Originally Posted by Dew

It is my understanding that the 50 PASSES more light through the scope than a 40 does. No scope can "gather" light.

Have I been mislead all these years?

Dew

You are correct... One can gather fruit, nuts, etc. but a scope only passes the light that enters into it's objective, the scope does not go out and gather more. The larger the objective the more light that is able to pass through the scope

You guys need to do a little more research. You are dead wrong.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Optical telescopes � Light gathering and resolution
The most important of all the powers of an optical telescope is its light-gathering power. This capacity is strictly a function of the diameter of the clear objective�that is, the aperture�of the telescope. Comparisons of different-sized apertures for their light-gathering power are calculated by the ratio of their diameters squared; for example, a 25-centimetre objective will collect four times the light of a 12.5-centimetre objective [(25 � 25) � (12.5 � 12.5)] = 4. The advantage of collecting more light with a larger-aperture telescope is that one can observe fainter stars, nebulas, and very distant galaxies

From: http://www.telescopes-astronomy.com.au/telescopes012.htm

The larger a telescopes aperture (size) the more light gathering power and better resolution it has.

From Cornell University's Ornithology Lab:

To a birder, binoculars' light-gathering capacity is nearly as important as image sharpness. Only a bright image reveals subtle field marks and the full beauty of bird colors.

etc. etc. etc.

It's simply RifleScopes are telescopes, they "gather light" just like any other telescope or binocular. If you claim they don't you are simply WRONG. The slightest bit of study in any optic field will prove this beyond any shadow of doubt, claiming otherwise is just being stubborn and ignorant.............................DJ

Then I guess ILya Koshkin is stubborn and ignorant on this topic

So you are saying that the scope gathers a bit of light, continues on down the trail to gather more? I think not.

Main Entry: 1gath�er
Pronunciation: \ˈga-thər also ˈge-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gath�ered; gath�er�ing \ˈgath-riŋ, ˈga-thə-\
Etymology: Middle English gaderen, from Old English gaderian; akin to Middle High German gadern to unite � more at good
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1: to bring together : collect <tried to gather a crowd> <gathered firewood>
2 a: pick , harvest <gather flowers> b: to pick up or amass as if by harvesting <gathering ideas for the project> c: to scoop up or take up from a resting place <gathered the child up in his arms>
3: to serve as an attraction for : accumulate <books gathering dust>
4: to effect the collection of <gather contributions>
5 a: to summon up <gathered his courage> b: to gain by gradual increase <gather speed> c: to prepare (as oneself) by mustering strength d: to gain or regain control of <gathered his wits>
6: to reach a conclusion often intuitively from hints or through inferences <I gather that you want to leave>
7 a: to pull (fabric) along a line of stitching so as to draw into puckers b: to draw about or close to something <gathering her cloak about her> c: to bring together the parts of <gathered her hair into a ponytail> d: to assemble (the signatures of a book) in sequence for binding e: to haul in <the sailors gathered the sails>
intransitive verb
1 a: to come together in a body b: to cluster around a focus of attraction
2 a: to swell and fill with pus b: grow , increase <the gathering crisis>
� gath�er�er \-thər-ər\ noun
synonyms gather , collect , assemble , congregate mean to come or bring together into a group, mass, or unit. gather is the most general term for bringing or coming together from a spread-out or scattered state <a crowd quickly gathered>. collect often implies careful selection or orderly arrangement <collected books on gardening>. assemble implies an ordered union or organization of persons or things often for a definite purpose <experts assembled for a conference>. congregate implies a spontaneous flocking together into a crowd or huddle <congregating under a shelter>.
synonyms see in addition infer

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gather

DJ is correct.

-Bob F.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Main Entry: 1gath�er
Pronunciation: \ˈga-thər also ˈge-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gath�ered; gath�er�ing \ˈgath-riŋ, ˈga-thə-\
Etymology: Middle English gaderen, from Old English gaderian; akin to Middle High German gadern to unite � more at good
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1: to bring together : collect FOR example taking a 50MM diameter shaft of light, magnifying 10times and gathering it into a 5mm exit pupil.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gather

Keep trying. Try reading articles about other types of optics and you'll see that the term is in quite common use. Just Google "light Gathering" and read the non-religious threads and you'll see it over and over again. It's a standard term and not hard to find if you'll just take a few seconds to look........................................DJ

One more time:

[Linked Image]

"The ability of a telescope to collect a lot more light than the human eye, its light-gathering power, is probably its most important feature. The telescope acts as a "light bucket", collecting all of the photons that come down on it from a far away object. Just as a bigger bucket catches more rain water, a bigger objective collects more light in a given time interval. This makes faint images brighter. This is why the pupils of your eyes enlarge at night so that more light reaches the retinas."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/telescop/s6.htm
http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/powers%20of%20a%20telescope.htm#Powers%20of%20a%20Telescope

-Bob F.

Just because you can "google" a term does not mean it is being used correctly. If a riflescope or binocular could gather light, could it then transmit more light than what is available?

Originally Posted by RDFinn

Just because you can "google" a term does not mean it is being used correctly. If a riflescope or binocular could gather light, could it then transmit more light than what is available?

It could if it could gather.. Many appear to support the misuse of the word..

Originally Posted by RDFinn

If a riflescope or binocular could gather light, could it then transmit more light than what is available?

A 10x50 scope transmits a 5mm shaft of light. Was there only a 5mm shaft of light available at the front of the scope?.................Dj

No, that is the function of the optic. If there were 100 lumens of light available in front of the objective lense, could the objective "gather" a 120 lumens of light to increase the percentage of incident light available?

Originally Posted by RDFinn

No, that is the function of the optic.

Exactly. It gathers the 50mm shaft of light into a 5mm shaft of light. It doesn't create something out of nothing, nor does any definition of gathering include something that isn't there!..........................................DJ

I think perhaps we are just confusing the terms "gather" and "transmit" then.

Originally Posted by RDFinn

I think perhaps we are just confusing the terms "gather" and "transmit" then.

IIRC the confusion started with Leupold in one of their "Scope Fact" sheets. They are the first ones that I recall claiming that scopes "transmit" rather than "gather" light. I guess it's really nothing more than a pedantic arguement but the term "Gathering Light" has been used for quite a while in describing the operation of Telescopes and other optics in General. I think that the "transmitting" arguement was pretty much an advertising ploy to emphasize the % of light transmission figures of a certain brand of scopes, whether or not it was against the normal usage of the term.
Again I realize it takes a while to sink in and it's hard to change something that you've been told for a while. But I really do think if you'll read some of the articles from extremely solid sources (Encylopedia Britannica, etc.) easily found by using Google, Yahoo, Ask or other search engine, you'll begin to see that "Light Gathering" is a standard term used in referring to Telescopes and binoculars.................................DJ

Kinda like the term "eyebox".......................grin

I guess it must be a regional thing because I have noticed the reverse even on here, more and more are shying away from the larger OBJ scopes.

Most of the shops won't even stock the 50mm scopes because they just can't sell them.

I would bet that in the classifieds if you had a 3-9X40 and 3-9X50 of the same make and model at the same price that the 40 would sell faster more often than not...

Since most of my hunting these days is from a fixed stand, I am beginning to like the 50mm lens'. I even have a swarovski 8x56 and there is nothing not to like about it!!! It is clear and bright but it only makes a real difference for about 20-30 minutes per day, the first and last 15 minutes. If I were hunting on foot, I would probably limit myself to a 40mm but my 3.5x10x50 leupy is not too cumbersome. It just seems to me that the scope needs to fit the use and rifle. I just dont see a big scope on a small stalking rifle but they do have merrit on larger platforms. We kept kill stats in a lease I was in a few years ago and most of our bucks were killed between 9-11 am so the big scopes would not help much then. I would put the money, if I had to choose, in a very good binocular.

i use mine to hunt pigs at night under a full moon you you'd be surprized how well you can see with the 50mm

257: Those are really good points. Most of my best bucks have been killed mid-day and under circumstances where the ultimate in brightness has not been necessary.OTOH I have hunted some places where it would be a very good idea to have some more brightness, resolution,etc; most notably for me, central Canada.Coastal Alaska is also very dark and dismal sometimes.

But I don't own any 50mm scopes because I don't want anything that bulky for most of the hunting I do;for much of that,the emphasis is more on light weight,portability,and most of these needs are served by something of smaller size and not a great deal of magnification.

As a matter of fact, I am noticing that I am seeing more big bucks(mule deer in particular,where I hunt them) by going to their "bedrooms" in heavy cover, than by waiting for them to stick their noses out.Unless they are rut-addled, I am noticing they don't emerge from cover until after dark.

From the S&B websight.

"It is impossible for any scope to "gather" light. It can only transmit existing light. And, regardless of advertising claims you may have heard, there is no riflescope made that can transmit 100% of available light.

As light enters the objective end of the scope, before it reaches your eye it passes through several lenses. Each lens absorbs a small quantity of light. Residual reflection from the individual lenses will also prevent a certain amount of light from passing through the scope. In addition, undesired reflections within the metal tube can hinder the quality of the viewed image and the transmission of light.

Each lens has two surfaces. Thus, the total number of lenses within a scope (a variable-power scope can have between seven and ten) is multiplied by two, then multiplied by 0.25% to determine the amount of light lost in the transmission. Simple multiplication is not accurate, however, as each succeeding lens progressively reduces the total amount of transmitted light. It is a favorite technique of some scope manufacturers to claim light transmission values of nearly 100%. Of course, they're measuring the first objective lens only, conveniently forgetting about the other eight or nine!

Any higher transmission levels are physically impossible to achieve with current technology, and claims to the contrary are to be discounted. What does light transmission mean in practical terms? An average scope may transmit 85% or so, and inferior scopes substantially less. The human eye can distinguish transmission differences of 3% or more. Consequently, there is a very real difference in what you can see through a superior scope versus run-of-the-mill optics.

The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye�under perfect conditions�a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light. There are but a handful of scope companies remaining that produce optics approaching these levels, Schmidt & Bender being one of them.

Under hunting conditions, when you might be trying to distinguish a target at absolute last light, these differences can be critical. It can determine whether you bag your game or whether you have long since called it a day"

I prefer transmit.But thats just me.
dave

Transmit and gather are two different things.

Transmit refers to how well (efficiency) the scope passes through the available light through the lenses. The more efficient lens coatings well lose a smaller percentage of light (photons) from the objective lens to the eyepiece lens.

The S&B site is wrong about light gathering.

from the Meade Instruments Corporation web site:

"Meade�s new, larger 80mm diameter ETX delivers more light-gathering for increased image brightness and greater detail. Moon craters by the hundreds, cloud belts on Jupiter, and Saturn�s rings are just the beginning of what can be seen with this telescope."
http://www.meade.com/etx/

Light-gathering power
Light-gathering power is proportional to the area of the telescope objective. A lens or mirror with a large area gathers a large amount of light. Because the area of a circular lens or mirror of diameter D is pi(D/2)�, we can compare the areas of two telescopes, and therefore their relative light-gathering powers, by comparing the square of their diameters. That is, the ratio of the light-gathering power (LGP) of the two telescopes A and B is equal to the ratio of their diameters squared:

LGPA / LGPB = (DA/DB)�

Example A: Suppose we compare a 4cm telescope with a 24cm telescope. How much more light will the large telescope gather?

Solution:

LGP24 / LGP4 = (24/4)� = 6� = 36 times more light

Example B: Our eye acts like a telescope with a diameter of about 0.8cm, the diameter of the pupil. How much more light can we gather if we use a 24cm telescope?

Solution:

LGP24 / LGPeye = (24/0.8)� = (30)� = 900 times more light.

http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/lightgathering_power.htm

-Bob F.

5 a: to summon up <gathered his courage> b: to gain by gradual increase <gather speed> c: to prepare (as oneself) by mustering strength d: to gain or regain control of <gathered his wits>

Trouble I have with it is the gain/increase part.
dave

"gather" also means "collect" which also means "accumulate". And the objective of a telescope does indeed gather/collect/accumulate light (photons).

The larger the diameter of a telescope's objective, the fainter the objects it allows an astronomer to see because the larger objective accumulates more light (photons), in the same or a given time interval, than a smaller objective.

-Bob F.

Correct Dave, which is why I stated that sport optics are "passive" instruments. A larger lense has more light casting on it, but it does not actively gather light.

Originally Posted by RDFinn

A larger lense has more light casting on it, ....

Well, exactly..... that means it is gathering more light!

I think you guys are just getting hung up on the word "gather".

-Bob F.

Well, is there really no gain? Think of this: A 50mm objective lens transmits a certain amount of light proportional to it's area. The light that exits the ocular lens is focused to a much smaller area called "exit pupil." So, if the scope transmits 50% of available light overall, but focuses the light on an area that is 10% the size of the objective lens, is not the light intensified?

No, I really don't have a clue. I'm just curious. In reading the previous posts, my mind went to the parabolic dish antenna, which does indeed have "gain" based on it's size (diameter) and the wavelength of the energy being measured.

-

A scope with a larger exit pupil (50mm scope) will provide the shooter with a larger beam of light than a scope with a smaller exit pupil (40mm scope) if both scopes are set at the same power. If both scopes are identical in quality, say two Leupold VXIII's, the intensity of the beam or light concentration, will be the same in the two beams. The larger objective scope will provide a larger beam or exit pupil of light. The intensity or concentration is determined by the quality of the glass, it's coatings and stray light management.

I have 50mm, 40mm and 36mm Leupolds on 3 remington rifles. The 50mm on my .280 mountain rifle is probably the brightest but not by much and not enough to make it worthwhile. It is ugly, awkward and makes the rifle look funny. When I get around to it I will sell it and by another 2.5 x 8 x36mm.

Originally Posted by BFaucett

Originally Posted by RDFinn

A larger lense has more light casting on it, ....

Well, exactly..... that means it is gathering more light!

I think you guys are just getting hung up on the word "gather".

-Bob F.

Yes, I believe that the use of the word gather is incorrect.

Again from the Schmidt & Bender web site, "The Truth About Light"

Quote

It is impossible for any scope to "gather" light. It can only transmit existing light.

http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml

I'll take Schmidt & Bender's definition over Meads anyday

.....Think of light as "PHOTONS", which indeed is exactly what light is composed of, "particles" called photons. Now think of each of these photons as twigs, or small pieces of kindling wood. The larger objective diameter receives MORE of the 'twigs' which are then, by way of the lens configuration they are passed through, "gathered" together into a bundle (a smaller diameter shaft of concentrated photons). Binocs, telescopes, rifle scopes ALL gather light together into concentrated shafts of light images, the larger the objective lens, the greater the gathering power of that optical instrument....The gathering of light is of course improved by having a larger objective lens which thus receives proportionately greater numbers of photons of light, the curvature of the lens surfaces then bends the path of the photons travel, "Gathering" the received light into a precisely focused shaft of light.It is this same principal of optical performance that allows a magnifying glass to "gather" light into a precisely focused shaft of concentrated light, thus giving it the capacity to start a fire! All optical lens gather light, larger lens gather more light.

....Some folks get hung up on the semantics being used, but the term "gather" was settled on long ago as most descriptive of this optical process. S&B may not like the terms use, but they then need to find a better more accurate word to describe the process of receiving X quantity of light and 'bundling' the photons (?) into shafts of light images.If they disagree with the most descriptive term found by the optical industry through the many decades of it's existence, they need to come up with BETTER terminology. They haven't done that, rather they just seem to disagree with semantics that have served well for a long time!

Transmit is exactly what happens and that is the term that S&B uses. Taking the available ambient light and as you call it bundling it together is not gathering, one gathers nuts, not light.

Originally Posted by jwp475

that is the term that S&B uses.

Have you maybe wondered that a German company might not be the best at English word use?

........................DJ

The [bleep] we argue about cracks me up sometimes. Minus a cErtain postEr I can laugh and Enjoy it.

I checked with Meade Optical this morning about the term gather or transmit and they said..............

建设中

您想要查看的站点当前没有默认页。可能正在对它进行升级和配置操作。

请稍后再访问此站点。如果您仍然遇到问题，请与网站的管理员联系。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果您是网站的管理员，并且认为您是由于错误才收到此消息，请参阅 IIS 帮助中的"启用和禁用动态内容"。

要访问 IIS 帮助
单击开始，然后单击运行。
在打开文本框中，键入 inetmgr。将出现 IIS 管理器。
从帮助菜单，单击帮助主题。
单击Internet 信息服务。

I wish they hadn't misspelled a word in the second sentence.

-Bob F.

Maybe some run in their Taiwan division can better explain all this stuff..................grin

Originally Posted by BFaucett

I think you guys are just getting hung up on the word "gather".

-Bob F.

I think your right.
I prefer the word transmitter.A scope is a device for transmitting protons.A scope with a bigger transmitter, transmits more of them.
dave

Originally Posted by djpaintless

Originally Posted by jwp475

that is the term that S&B uses.

Have you maybe wondered that a German company might not be the best at English word use?

........................DJ

From Webster's on line dictionary

Quote

2 entries found.

1gather (verb)

2gather (noun)

Main Entry: 1gath�er
Pronunciation: \ˈga-thər also ˈge-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gath�ered; gath�er�ing \ˈgath-riŋ, ˈga-thə-\
Etymology: Middle English gaderen, from Old English gaderian; akin to Middle High German gadern to unite � more at good
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1: to bring together : collect <tried to gather a crowd> <gathered firewood>
2 a: pick , harvest <gather flowers> b: to pick up or amass as if by harvesting <gathering ideas for the project> c: to scoop up or take up from a resting place <gathered the child up in his arms>
3: to serve as an attraction for : accumulate <books gathering dust>
4: to effect the collection of <gather contributions>
5 a: to summon up <gathered his courage> b: to gain by gradual increase <gather speed> c: to prepare (as oneself) by mustering strength d: to gain or regain control of <gathered his wits>
6: to reach a conclusion often intuitively from hints or through inferences <I gather that you want to leave>
7 a: to pull (fabric) along a line of stitching so as to draw into puckers b: to draw about or close to something <gathering her cloak about her> c: to bring together the parts of <gathered her hair into a ponytail> d: to assemble (the signatures of a book) in sequence for binding e: to haul in <the sailors gathered the sails>
intransitive verb
1 a: to come together in a body b: to cluster around a focus of attraction
2 a: to swell and fill with pus b: grow , increase <the gathering crisis>
� gath�er�er \-thər-ər\ noun
synonyms gather , collect , assemble , congregate mean to come or bring together into a group, mass, or unit. gather is the most general term for bringing or coming together from a spread-out or scattered state <a crowd quickly gathered>. collect often implies careful selection or orderly arrangement <collected books on gardening>. assemble implies an ordered union or organization of persons or things often for a definite purpose <experts assembled for a conference>. congregate implies a spontaneous flocking together into a crowd or huddle <congregating under a shelter>.

Also from Webster's online dictionary

Quote

Main Entry: trans�mit
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-ˈmit, tranz-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): trans�mit�ted; trans�mit�ting
Etymology: Middle English transmitten, from Latin transmittere, from trans- + mittere to send
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 a: to send or convey from one person or place to another : forward b: to cause or allow to spread: as (1): to convey by or as if by inheritance or heredity : hand down (2): to convey (infection) abroad or to another
2 a (1): to cause (as light or force) to pass or be conveyed through space or a medium (2): to admit the passage of : conduct <glass transmits light> b: to send out (a signal) either by radio waves or over a wire
intransitive verb

It certainly appears that S&B is using English more correctly IMHO

Originally Posted by BFaucett

Originally Posted by RDFinn

A larger lense has more light casting on it, ....

Well, exactly..... that means it is gathering more light!

I think you guys are just getting hung up on the word "gather".

-Bob F.

Light is transmitted through a lens, not gathered through a lens.
Turn the light on in your house go to the other end of the room and "gather some light and bring it back to the other end of the room. One can direct the light to the other end of the room, one can also reflect the light to the other end of the room, one can concentrate the light to the other end of the room, but one can not gather the light and take it to the other end of the room. Walk along a trail and pick berries, that is something that one can gather.

Obviously , hunting must be slow.Leaves a lot of time to argue .There is a lot more to the light that gets thru than just the objective size.The best glass and coatings have more to do with it than just objective size.The difference between a 44 and 50 is a whole 6mm.I would take an expensive 36mm over a cheap 50 anyday.I have had 60mm swaro and used a 80mm swaro spotting scope. Your are talking 51% difference is objective lense area and yet you have to use both in some extremely demanding situations to see a difference.
Also I am curious of those who had there exit pupils measured. Was that before or after the doctor dilated their pupils.?Just as eyesight diminishes and pupils harden with age so generally does the abilbity of the pupil to dilate.
A bigger rake will gather more leaves.

foogle, As mentioned before my 7.2mm pupil were measured BEFORE the dialation fluid. They were over 11mm afterwards.

From a German Optiks source:

Res�mee: das Astronomische Fernrohr kann gedeutet werden:

als Kombination zweier Sammellinsen,
als fotografisches Teleobjektiv mit hinten angebrachter Lupe,
als umgekehrtes Mikroskop,
als Basiskonstruktion f�r etwa 10 weitere Fernrohrtypen.

You might look up the definition of "sammeln" and "sammellinsen".

In the end a couple references from Leupold and S&B say that scopes don't "Gather" light. Most other references including those in German by the way say that's exactly what they do. People are going to believe what they want to believe. I think that S&B and Leupold are wrong here because there are 50 times as many references that say just the opposite, look them up for yourself if you don't believe me.................................DJ

It all boils down to this. I think they help "ME" and I will continue to use them. If you like a smaller scope that is what you should use. miles

Originally Posted by RDFinn

I checked with Meade Optical this morning about the term gather or transmit and they said..............

建设中

您想要查看的站点当前没有默认页。可能正在对它进行升级和配置操作。

请稍后再访问此站点。如果您仍然遇到问题，请与网站的管理员联系。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果您是网站的管理员，并且认为您是由于错误才收到此消息，请参阅 IIS 帮助中的"启用和禁用动态内容"。

要访问 IIS 帮助
单击开始，然后单击运行。
在打开文本框中，键入 inetmgr。将出现 IIS 管理器。
从帮助菜单，单击帮助主题。
单击Internet 信息服务。

That's pretty funny!!

+1

Best thing I saw in this whole thread.

Just keepin it real, Brad.............I thought it was funny as well

Gosh guys, it looks like I stirred up a hornets nest with this thread.

I think Miles said it best.

Originally Posted by milespatton

It all boils down to this. I think they help "ME" and I will continue to use them. If you like a smaller scope that is what you should use. miles

I like the smaller scopes. I do have a Leupold VX-III with a 50mm lens and it does gather/transmit a little more light than my VX-II 2-7x33's and my smaller VX-III's. But, I don't think it gives me enough of a gain to justify messing up the balance or handling qualities of my light rifles. So my big VX-III sits on my heavy beanfield rifle.

I think a lot of it is perceived value. Guys see a big scope and think it must be better. It's the same with the price of the scope. I think most guys don't have a clue about light transmission, exit pupil, and other such technical details. They only know what they think and what they learn from experience. As in most things, when guys get older and gain experience, they tend to moderate toward the middle-of-the-road in such matters. Big scopes do some jobs better, small scopes do some jobs better, and middling scopes do a little bit of everything. There are good reasons why middle-of-the-road 3-9x40 scopes are so popular. My flattest-shooting big game rifle wears a Leupy Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 that I bought second-hand. When I crank it up to 10x, a small deer at 300 yards looks like he is a stone's throw away. Can't say I need more than that for deer hunting.

-

Originally Posted by RDFinn

I checked with Meade Optical this morning about the term gather or transmit and they said..............

建设中

您想要查看的站点当前没有默认页。可能正在对它进行升级和配置操作。

请稍后再访问此站点。如果您仍然遇到问题，请与网站的管理员联系。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果您是网站的管理员，并且认为您是由于错误才收到此消息，请参阅 IIS 帮助中的"启用和禁用动态内容"。

要访问 IIS 帮助
单击开始，然后单击运行。
在打开文本框中，键入 inetmgr。将出现 IIS 管理器。
从帮助菜单，单击帮助主题。
单击Internet 信息服务。

Yea, I gotta admit that was pretty funny. I'm sure that one of those is Chinese for "Gathering"

...............................DJ

While we may be getting hung up on the word "gather", if we do agree that gather means to bring together, to concentrate - much as one might collect berries into a container, then it might be difficult to argue that a lense isn't also "gathering" light if you consider what a simple hand lens does with the sun's rays when held over piece of paper. Obviously one isn't creating anything that wasn't already there however. Perhaps there are better terms one might use purely for the sake of communication. Since "gathering" is usually associated with "light" in the promotion of optical instruments however, all bets are off on being true to perfectly sincere literary text. One doesn't have to be especially sharp to understand the bias in a promotional setting.

Good glass is easily discerned when you see more detail with lower power - high quality glass than you can with higher power- lower quality glass. It is pretty rare though, when I need any more than the fingers on one hand to count the amount of seconds I look through a rifle scope at a single moment while hunting. I already know whether I will shoot when I raise my rifle.

I am going to "gather" some light today and use it tonight when I'll need it more

Quote

Main Entry: trans�mit
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-ˈmit, tranz-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): trans�mit�ted; trans�mit�ting
Etymology: Middle English transmitten, from Latin transmittere, from trans- + mittere to send
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 a: to send or convey from one person or place to another : forward b: to cause or allow to spread: as (1): to convey by or as if by inheritance or heredity : hand down (2): to convey (infection) abroad or to another
2 a (1): to cause (as light or force) to pass or be conveyed through space or a medium (2): to admit the passage of : conduct <glass transmits light> b: to send out (a signal) either by radio waves or over a wire
intransitive verb

I'm thinking you disperse light when you can - many lights use not only diffusers, but also reflectors to soften glare, and also make more effective use of what light is available. None of them make something that isn't already there. But some things prevent light from being absorbed right away so it appears that there is more. Gathering light isn't a bad term when it refers to focusing it - something a lense can do quite easily and obviously. It's a poor term when it is used to suggest that a certain lense or group of them is creating more somehow; when it's used deceptively - which I'll admit is probably true in some cases for advertising.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Transmit is exactly what happens and that is the term that S&B uses. Taking the available ambient light and as you call it bundling it together is not gathering, one gathers nuts, not light.

....Of course this is "Gathering" .Just as when leaves found spread over a larger area are raked into a smaller concentrated pile. The leaves are "Gathered" according to one of the definitions in Websters dictionary for our English word "Gather".This is exactly what a good lens, by way of it's surface configurations does with light photons.They are gathered into focused beams of light images varying in apparent size to the eye by way of the gathering process through chosen lens. Were lens ONLY to "Transmit" light, no magnification, or diminishment, of image size would occur. Lens do, of course, transmit light, but thankfully, since we seek magnification,through optics, they also gather the received light photons together.Your window panes "transmit" light, but optically cut and shaped lens do far more with light photons than solely transmit them, they both gather, and disperse, light according to how they have been cut and polished.

Which will have a brighter image in dim light? (all true 1x, all coatings, etc. being equal)

1. A 1 inch no-lens cardboard scope (like Ruger mounts on their Frontier rifles)

2. A 1 inch straight tube 1x scope (like old Weaver K-1)

3. A inch straight tube variable set on 1x (like Weaver V3)

4. A 36-40mm objective variable scope set on 1 power (like??)

Bruce

Quote

It all boils down to this. I think they help "ME" and I will continue to use them. If you like a smaller scope that is what you should use. miles

Well said Miles!

Just think, only 7 more months till hunting season! Fortunately in BC we have a spring bear season in April so the cabin fever relief will come sooner.

I think I'll "transmit" on down to the basement and "gather" my reloading gear together for coyote and wolf control bullets this weekend...

I need to ask a question.
Assumptions:
I have two rifle scopes and both have identical lenses in terms of quality.
Both telescopes transmit 90% of the light entering the objective, to the ocular.
One scope has a 44 mm objective.
The other scope has a 32 mm objective.
The larger objective scope is a 3-9 variable.
The smaller objective scope is a fixed 4x.
I set the variable scope to 4x to comapre to the fixed 4x scope.
The larger objective scope will deliver a pencil of light that is 11mm in diameter, out of its eyepiece.
The fixed scope deliveres a pencil of light that is 8mm out of its eyepiece.
My eyes on the day that I compare the two scopes have exit pupils that open to 4mm.
On the larger obelective scope, I place my right eye 4mm pupil inside a beam of light that is 11mm's in diameter.
On the fixed power scope, I place my right eye 4mm pupil inside an 8mm beam of light.
Please explain why the larger objective scope will deliver an image to my right eye retina that is more clear looking through the large objective scope than the smaller objective scope, given the assumptions above?

TIA,

Don

DMB, In your example the 2 scopes will probably look identical. Use a better example like say 2 3-9scopes one with a 32mm obj and one with a 44mm obj and set them both on 9x and let someone with more normal pupils and they will most certainly see a difference in low light.
But if you really do have pupils that will only dialate to 4mm you probably won't be able to take much advantage out of a larger objective. This might account for some of the reports from people who claim they don't make a difference - they don't for them!..................................DJ

Number one. That's because it has no lenses to rob light. Assuming that by "brightest," you mean the one that transmits the most light.

The larger scope has a larger exit pupil which allows the eye to resolve the image better.
It may also be better focused..... Just had to put that in there. Grin. E

Originally Posted by djpaintless

DMB, In your example the 2 scopes will probably look identical. Use a better example like say 2 3-9scopes one with a 32mm obj and one with a 44mm obj and set them both on 9x and let someone with more normal pupils and they will most certainly see a difference in low light.
But if you really do have pupils that will only dialate to 4mm you probably won't be able to take much advantage out of a larger objective. This might account for some of the reports from people who claim they don't make a difference - they don't for them!..................................DJ

dj,

No, no. no. I deliberately asked the question the way I did because I wasn't looking for your answer. The answer to your set of assumptions and your question is obvious.
I want MY question answered, not yours. If you want to ask your question, please do so.

Are you thinking of the theoretical maximum resolution of the optical system as limited by the size of the aperture in the front?

Originally Posted by Eremicus

The larger scope has a larger exit pupil which allows the eye to resolve the image better.
It may also be better focused..... Just had to put that in there. Grin. E

Read my assumptions. My eye pupil opens to 4mm for both scopes. My 4mm pupil fits inside of both scopes exit pupils equally well, only one has more (extra) exit pupil surrounding the pupil of my right eye. Why would the larger objective scope be better than the other, as far as the photons striking the retina of my eye?

DMB, No need to be rude. I answered your question with my first sentence.

There might be a theoretical difference in that the 3-9 might have more lenses and be slightly dimmer due to more lenses but that difference is likely below the detection threshold of the human eye. Also the scope with the larger exit pupil will be more forgiving of eye position. You'll see the full image in the entire 11mm shaft vs the 4mm shaft of the smaller objective with 7mm of tolerance..............................DJ

Originally Posted by mathman

Are you thinking of the theoretical maximum resolution of the optical system as limited by the size of the aperture in the front?

It's not a theoretical question at all. Guys on different forums are claiming that a larger objective scope allows you to see better than a smaller objetive scope. I'm trying to get to the bottom of the whole thing, with some clarity. If, on a given day, your eye pupil only opens up to 4mm, as an example, why does all the "extra" scope exit pupil of a large objective scope make for better viewing, than a smaller objective scope? (Given that the smaller obj scope has an exit pupil as large as 4mm, in my example)
That's exactly whay I worded my question as I did.

Originally Posted by djpaintless

DMB, No need to be rude. I answered your question with my first sentence.

There might be a theoretical difference in that the 3-9 might have more lenses and be slightly dimmer due to more lenses but that difference is likely below the detection threshold of the human eye. Also the scope with the larger exit pupil will be more forgiving of eye position. You'll see the full image in the entire 11mm shaft vs the 4mm shaft of the smaller objective with 7mm of tolerance..............................DJ

Wrong. You threw your stuff in the equation to muddy up the question I asked, and I didn't miss that.

I didn't mean your question was 'theoretical' in the pejorative way some use that word.

The fineness of the details a given optical system can resolve has a theoretical limit determined by the size of the aperture. Here is an explanation given to me when a resolution question came up a while back:

Quote

Dawes limit is what it is called, explained somewhat here, and even this is not the full story, but close enough for our purposes:
http://hardinoptical.com/dawes.html

So using this formula a 50mm objective I will round off to 2 inches. 4.56 arc-seconds/2 inches=2.28 arc-seconds or in other terms 1/26th of an MOA. If two objects are at 1/26th of an MOA apart, and human vision is 1 moa capable then you need to magnify the object 26x to see something that close together. More magnification will not result in increased resolution at your eye. The image will grow, but the resolution has been limited by objective size. At lower magnifications the objective will not limit the resolution in any way you can see.

A perfect binocular at 50mm might have resolution to 1/26th of an MOA, but if it is say a 10x binoc then the image size will limit you to seeing 1/10th of an MOA details assuming you have average 1 moa vision in your eyes.

Any rez difference in different size binocs is not due to objective size, but rather due to optical design, lens quality etc.

I was asking if you were considering that effect.

If you want me to take a stab at this I will have to say that the scope with the larger objective perhaps just has a better optical design. I know that you stated that you felt both were equal in quality (glass and coatings) but that doesn't mean that the design of the optical system is the same, especially given that we are talking about a fixed power vs. a variable. Just because a variable has more len's doesn't mean that it can't or won't resolve an image better. Some of the more expensive scope these days have more len's in them to sharpen image quality, be it brightness, resolution or contrast.

I have three Ziess V series scopes,a 2.5-10x42,a 2.5-10x50,and a 3-12x56.

It is reasonable to assume that the optical quality of all three is practically the same,the only difference when all are set at a given magnification( 8x for example) is the exit pupil which is a function of the objective diameter.

In very dim light,it is possible to see more detail in the 56mm variable,followed by the 50mm,and the 42mm shows the least detail.

I typically use the 56mm scope from stands over agricultural fields,the 50mm is for hunting food plots,and the the 42mm has mostly been used stalk hunting.

I use even smaller and lighter scopes when I am going to have to carry a rifle a lot,mostly small Leupold variables.

Big scopes excel at some things and stink at others,but when it comes to serious low light performance, there is really no contest,a big exit pupil with plenty of magnification and really good optics wins easily.

I'm not going to read the relms of posts on this thread but I'm betting their are some goodies!

EVERYONE is not into big objective scopes or big scopes in general..My largest scope is a 2x7 Leupold and its on my varmint rifle, and a 4x12 is a nice varmint scope..

For big game I want no objective larger than 20 mm and I don't want it to protrude much beyond the front ring..My all time favorite hunting scopes are the 1.5x5, 1x4, and the old 3X Leupolds..They stay sighted in with rough use and they can be depended on to hold a zero almost as well as iron sights but not quite. Big scopes are continually going off zero with hard use and we see this every year in out hunting camps. I have done a lot of tests along these lines and they have convienced me that I am correct on this subject.

Don, I suspect clarity difference you seeing has something to do with your first assumption.
Also I suspect that your pupil size may have changed when you changed scopes.

Originally Posted by Klikitarik

I'm thinking you disperse light when you can - many lights use not only diffusers, but also reflectors to soften glare, and also make more effective use of what light is available. None of them make something that isn't already there. But some things prevent light from being absorbed right away so it appears that there is more. Gathering light isn't a bad term when it refers to focusing it - something a lense can do quite easily and obviously. It's a poor term when it is used to suggest that a certain lense or group of them is creating more somehow; when it's used deceptively - which I'll admit is probably true in some cases for advertising.

Does a magnifing glass "gather" light? It certainly focuses it enough to start a fire.

A couple of you guys would make Bill Clinton proud trying to Parse an easily understood and commonly used term........................DJ

that depends on how commonly the word common is commonly used.........

I don't know about others, but I'd be splitting some pretty fine hairs to be able to distinguish these three examples of the two words' definitions, "focus" and "gather":

Quote

1. to bring together into one group, collection, or place

Quote

2. to bring together or assemble from various places, sources

Quote

8. to concentrate

(from dictionary.com)

But while I don't especially like the term, in part I suppose because it does get used in a deceptive manner sometimes, it isn't really inaccurate either when used appropriately.

That said, I don't especially care much for high light "focusing" or "gathering" scopes as much as I appreciate scopes which are compact and fit more closely to the rifle. IOW, I don't do 50mm stuff - but have no problem with those who choose to.

I guess one question I have is, "Would it be more or less confusing to say that one scope focuses light better, while another focuses the image better?" (Better definition)

Originally Posted By: Dew
It is my understanding that the 50 PASSES more light through the scope than a 40 does. No scope can "gather" light.

Wow! I've been off the site and I come back and find 14 pages. I think I will stick with my "PASSES" or transmits rather than "gather". I suspect the word gather has been used more lately to describe a change in the meaning that we we think. I offer the word Gay. It used to mean happy etc. Now we know that the meaning has been "changed" to replace homsexual or queer.
The photo of the tubes of two sizes show no gathering of light. just a "catching" of it as would a straignt tube only allow what is direct line with the opening. An example would be a rain guage which MUST be straight without a belled end. If it is belled it will pick up or gather more water than the tube will measure properly. I cannot see how you can "bend light" to go into the tube of a telescope if it is out of the alignment of the tube. It really is a slow day for this thread to have had this much time spent on it. Sorry about my spelling. I am using a laptop for the first time and my big fingers hit the wrong keys and on top of that I can't figure out how to use a spell check on this thing. Not to worry though, I have a new tower sitting in the box and the puter guy is coming tomorrow to fix me up. One last request.... The reply from Meade was nothing but square little boxes. Can someone tell me what it had to say? If you copy it and post to a thread I still just get the little boxes and that is all.
Dew

Originally Posted by Dew

Originally Posted By: Dew
An example would be a rain guage which MUST be straight without a belled end. If it is belled it will pick up or gather more water than the tube will measure properly. Dew

You answered your own question didn't you. Most scopes aren't Straight at the objective end are they? It's rather queer that you didn't notice that.

.........................DJ

DMB, first of all, during daylight, your eye's pupils won't be dialated to 4mm. That only occurs during twilight and the very brightest nights. During daylight, the eye's pupils are usually dialated to not more than 2mm's.
Second, the extra exit pupil size of the larger scope will allow the eye to "roam around" inside that larger exit pupil and that will allow the eye to see more detail. All of this is explained in Barsness's great book, "Optics for the Hunter."
I might add that as a practical matter, alot of other things come into play in this ability to see detail as well. So true comparisions with rifle scopes may be very difficult to find.
What Barsness points out in his book is that if you take two identical binoculars, differing only in magnification,, and compare them, the one with the lower magnification will resolve an image just a hair or so better than the one with more magnification. I presume that this applies to rifle scopes as well. E

djpaintless,
Your answer is noted and might be true.

Dew

I took my scope outside today at high noon to "gather" some light. I capped the scope off at each end after I had "gathered" the light to save it inside the scope. I'll take it outside after dark and use the light that I "gathered" today. Should work if a scope can "gather" light

jwp, That can't work, not unless you hang a butterfly net in front of the picture window. That way you'll be able to catch the light you've focused on it. Just be careful that you don't burn the house down.

BTW, whatever you do, don't look backwards through a scope or you'll ruin it. Your eye will pull all the light through it backwards and really mess up the lenses. I hear it can even suck the coatings right off from them.

Dick wagging!!!

Quote

The curious thing I discovered is that, to get the same image "size" from the Leup as the 4X Zeiss, I had to turn the Leup to 6X.......I checked this is thoroughly as I could many times, and the 4X Zeiss was the equal in image size of the Leup set at 6X. So, something is not quite 4X here....I checked this as best I could by comparing field of view with the 4X; it was about the same as the Leup set at 6X. ( What the hell have I been shooting big game with for the past 30+ years,out to 500 yards.....a 4X?...or something less? )

Good point, thanks

Originally Posted by jwp475

I took my scope outside today at high noon to "gather" some light. I capped the scope off at each end after I had "gathered" the light to save it inside the scope. I'll take it outside after dark and use the light that I "gathered" today. Should work if a scope can "gather" light

While you were at it you should have also taken time to gather your thoughts. They have obviously leaked out or weren't properly gathered together in the first place. Or maybe you could gather some opinions though I'm not sure what you would hold them in.

Complete nonesense yes but so is your ridiculous parsing and misinterpetation of the word "gather"..............................DJ

Originally Posted by djpaintless

Originally Posted by jwp475

I took my scope outside today at high noon to "gather" some light. I capped the scope off at each end after I had "gathered" the light to save it inside the scope. I'll take it outside after dark and use the light that I "gathered" today. Should work if a scope can "gather" light

Complete nonesense yes but so is your ridiculous parsing and misinterpetation of the word "gather"..............................DJ

Misinterpretation?

From Websters dictionary

Quote

1: to bring together : collect <tried to gather a crowd> <gathered firewood>
2 a: pick , harvest <gather flowers> b: to pick up or amass as if by harvesting <gathering ideas for the project> c: to scoop up or take up from a resting place <gathered the child up in his arms>

No misinterpretation here, only if I said that a scope "gathers" light would I be Misinterpreting the word

jwp, You are trying to take one definition from many and have it mean only physical things. The word is obviously in common use to mean several other things such as the expression "gather may thoughts" etc.. You are smarter than this and are just being stubborn. Take a little time and let the truth set it and you'll see where you are wrong..............................DJ

Originally Posted by Dew

I offer the word Gay. It used to mean happy etc. Now we know that the meaning has been "changed" to replace homsexual or queer.

I feel that I must correct you here Dew.It is now politically incorrect to use the word "gay" to describe people with homosexual tendencies.Homosexually is considered normal in all the larger metropolitan areas today and the use of the word "gay" is highly discouraged as being disparaging of ones sexuality.
So when your out in public and some strapping young man with a purple mohawk and a stud in his lower lip is staring at you azz with that certain gleam in his eye.Just remember,its ok for him to do so.And lets try to be alittle more sensitive to those who are homosexually inclined.
Fudgepackers have feeling too.
dave

dave7mm,

As old as I am at 66, I doubt that ANYONE male or female is interested in my azz.

Dew

look through a S&B and it is very apparent that S&B knows what they are doing. Look through one built by Meade and the difference is very apparent. I'll go with S&B here since they know what they are doing and Meade, well just compared them

Again just for you from the S&B web site

Quote

It is impossible for any scope to "gather" light. It can only transmit existing light.

Surely you can grasp this..

Originally Posted by djpaintless

jwp, You are trying to take one definition from many and have it mean only physical things. The word is obviously in common use to mean several other things such as the expression "gather may thoughts" etc.. You are smarter than this and are just being stubborn. Take a little time and let the truth set it and you'll see where you are wrong..............................DJ

Exactly to "gather" ones thoughts is to "collect" ones thoughts. To gather implies more. To gather light there would be more in the scope than "naturally available and that is not the case. To "gather" berries there are more in the basket and less in the wild and this is certainly not the case when using an optic. Optics can only transmit the light available not "gather" (collect it) it.