Difference between SCHOTT HD glass and other HD glass??

[middleofnowhere]

you sure about that...

Quoted from Vortex site: http://www.vortexoptics.com/category/razor_hd_amg_riflescope

"Nearly every component in the AMG, from the index-matched lenses to smallest screw, is engineered, machined, and assembled in the USA. The only component from outside the USA is the German manufactured reticle. If you're looking for a top-tier long-range precision riflescope, look no further than the Razor HD AMG."

 

[Africa P]

I enjoy these debates as it seems more like people trying to justify their purchases than actually giving good advice. Yes how the scope companies work the glass is important, but the beginning product is equally if not more important. Zeiss owns Schott fyi, and yes their glass is a lot better. All your American companies buy almost all their glass in japan or China. Leupold buys almost all their glass in China same as Vortex. Leica, Zeiss, Swaro are by far superior in low light, etc. Also someone mention the Swaro z5, that is not Schoot glass if I remember, hence the cheap price point. Your March scope is not even close to a Swaro z8 or Zeiss Victory sorry.

 

[KyCarl]

I'm sure the make up of Schott glass is a Propitiatory Trade Secret and years of practice
are bound to help.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I enjoy these debates as it seems more like people trying to justify their purchases than actually giving good advice. Yes how the scope companies work the glass is important, but the beginning product is equally if not more important. Zeiss owns Schott fyi, and yes their glass is a lot better. All your American companies buy almost all their glass in japan or China. Leupold buys almost all their glass in China same as Vortex. Leica, Zeiss, Swaro are by far superior in low light, etc. Also someone mention the Swaro z5, that is not Schoot glass if I remember, hence the cheap price point. Your March scope is not even close to a Swaro z8 or Zeiss Victory sorry.

How many Swarovski z8 did you compare side by side with a March? I am thinking about getting a March 2 1/2-25X52.

No insult intended, but no matter what your credentials are, I see you lack experience comparing some scopes side by side. I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52. Not one matched my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 on my optics chart at 127 yards away during normal daylight. Two were abysmal. Two were not bad and one came very close to matching the Bushnell. A friend brought his z6 5-30X50. Both of us agree it was not near as good as my Bushnell. He sold it right away. I also had a Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 at the same time. It was barely behind the Bushnell on the optics chart. The grass between the porch and the optics chart was more vibrant in the Leupold than either the 6500 or the z5. When I compared the best of the four z5s, the VX-6 and the Bushnell on the deer antlers at 131 yards in the woods in low light all went down in the same minute. The other z5s were not in the running. The Nightforce 5.5-22X56 matched the 6500 on the optics chart. I don't remember how it did on the antlers, 'except I do remember it was better than the z5.

Other scopes that were not as good as the Swarovski z5 were Leica ER 6.5-26X56 LRS, Minox ZA 5HD 5-25x56 SF PLEX, Nikon Monarch 3 5-20X44, Sightron 6-24X40, Sight-Mark Ezekiel 3-30X56, and others I don't remember. Low light is determined by how long they last after the sun goes behind the distant hill.

The guy who brought the z6 also brought a z8i 2.3-18X56. What a difference! It lasted twenty minutes longer than the above scopes on the antlers in low light!

I have no idea how good all the scopes were at adjustments except the z5 I finally mounted on a rifle, the VX-6, the Sightron, and the 6500. The Sightron, Leupold and the 6500 reticle moved the amount I dialed. The z5 didn't.

 

[coyotezapper]

I enjoy these debates as it seems more like people trying to justify their purchases than actually giving good advice. Yes how the scope companies work the glass is important, but the beginning product is equally if not more important. Zeiss owns Schott fyi, and yes their glass is a lot better. All your American companies buy almost all their glass in japan or China. Leupold buys almost all their glass in China same as Vortex. Leica, Zeiss, Swaro are by far superior in low light, etc. Also someone mention the Swaro z5, that is not Schoot glass if I remember, hence the cheap price point. Your March scope is not even close to a Swaro z8 or Zeiss Victory sorry.

Leupold HD glass is german.

I have a Z6 2.5-15x44 and a vari-xiii 2.5-8x36 on two of my coyote hunting rifles and there is absolutely no difference in low light conditions. Explain that one.

 

[dfanonymous]

Leupold HD glass is german.

I have a Z6 2.5-15x44 and a vari-xiii 2.5-8x36 on two of my coyote hunting rifles and there is absolutely no difference in low light conditions. Explain that one.

Leupold is Asian glass. Its cut and coated in house.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Leupold HD glass is german.

I have a Z6 2.5-15x44 and a vari-xiii 2.5-8x36 on two of my coyote hunting rifles and there is absolutely no difference in low light conditions. Explain that one.

Did you compare them side by side as dusk sets in on the same setting while looking at something like news print or deer antlers?

By the way I can tell you without equivocation the Z6 will last a lot longer than the Vari-xiii if you put the one on 15X and the other on 8X. I've done it many times.

 

[kiwikid]

Did you compare them side by side as dusk sets in on the same setting while looking at something like news print or deer antlers?

By the way I can tell you without equivocation the Z6 will last a lot longer than the Vari-xiii if you put the one on 15X and the other on 8X. I've done it many times.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I can't see how a Z6 2.5-15x44 set at 15 power can be compared to a Vari XIII 2.5-8×36 set on 8 power. The Vari XIII would have an exit pupil diameter of 4.5mm whereas the Z6 would be 2.9mm so the Vari XIII should appear brighter. I would have thought that the exit pupil diameter of both scopes needs to be the same for a fair comparison? In this instance the Z6 would need to be set at 9.8 power to equal the 4.5mm exit pupil diameter.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I can't see how a Z6 2.5-15x44 set at 15 power can be compared to a Vari XIII 2.5-8×36 set on 8 power. The Vari XIII would have an exit pupil diameter of 4.5mm whereas the Z6 would be 2.9mm so the Vari XIII should appear brighter. I would have thought that the exit pupil diameter of both scopes needs to be the same for a fair comparison? In this instance the Z6 would need to be set at 9.8 power to equal the 4.5mm exit pupil diameter.

It may seem like that would be the case, but I would be willing to bet $50 if you compare them side by side on their maximum power the one with the highest magnification will last significantly longer than the other in low light.

The reason I am so confident is I have done it many times. Not only that but everyone who has tried it made the same discovery. It's just like walking closer to you object.

 

[coyotezapper]

Did you compare them side by side as dusk sets in on the same setting while looking at something like news print or deer antlers?

By the way I can tell you without equivocation the Z6 will last a lot longer than the Vari-xiii if you put the one on 15X and the other on 8X. I've done it many times.

Yes, side by side at 2.5X. Exit pupil at 8x for the leupy is 4.5 and for the swaro at 15x its 2.33. With both being equal it comes down to lens coatings.

 

[coyotezapper]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I can't see how a Z6 2.5-15x44 set at 15 power can be compared to a Vari XIII 2.5-8×36 set on 8 power. The Vari XIII would have an exit pupil diameter of 4.5mm whereas the Z6 would be 2.9mm so the Vari XIII should appear brighter. I would have thought that the exit pupil diameter of both scopes needs to be the same for a fair comparison? In this instance the Z6 would need to be set at 9.8 power to equal the 4.5mm exit pupil diameter.

Yes

 

[coyotezapper]

I am sure these next comments will rub some the wrong way but I have actually talked to optical engineers about this subject at Shot.

A large objective lens only advantage is in low light at higher magnifications meaning the exit pupil is larger and will allow the available amount of light to be used at a higher magnification. A smaller objective with the same lens coatings can still be used but it must be used at a lower magnification so the exit pupil size will allow the eye to pick up the available light. The human eye is the limiting factor here when it comes to exit pupil size. Light transmission is about lens coatings and not objective lens size. Objective lens are not funnels and do not gather light. There are a bunch of crappy scopes out there with big objectives that suck in low light. Its about lens coatings first. So if you want more magnification in low light get a scope with a larger objective.

LRO did a low light test a few months back on scopes they called tier one quality and it was interesting that the reviewer stated that one of the 50mm objective scopes was brighter than a 56mm and he was not sure why. Simple, the 50mm objective scope had better lens coatings. FWIW their comparison showed the swaro x5 to be the best low light scope but there were quite a few other scopes I would like to have seen in the competition.

 

[Litehiker]

"coyote zapper" you are correct. It was an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Eric B.

 

[coyotezapper]

Leupold is Asian glass. Its cut and coated in house.

That's not what I was told.