Looking at moving from lower end to higher end scopes. Currently have a sig tango 4 6-24x50 which I absolutely hate. It has a field of view of 3.7ft at 100 yards (high mag). When compared to my brothers xtr ii or my friends razor gen 2 at the same magnification, the image percieved by my eye seems much "larger" than the tango 4. Even the target can seem larger to me on the same magnification. Is this due to the field of view being larger or is this just because the other scopes are optically superior? Im in the process of getting a kahles 525i but I'm reading many reviews that belittle it for having a small field of view (4.4ft. @ 100yds). Should I be worried?
Help me understand field of view
- Thread starter tmoxley
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
nmbarta
Well-Known Member
it's both, better glass doesn't make the image bigger, just makes it clearer. combine bigger with clearer, and you have a lot nicer picture to look at. It just costs money to have it all. I've been behind a couple tango 4's, and for the money, I like them. If you hate your's your going to want to step up to really good glass. The tango 4 looks a bit like the nsx to me, not awesome, but certainly good and usable. I keep my magnification low until I need more, so field of view on max isn't really something I put too much stock into. If you like to be on max power all the time, it probably matters more to you. Some guys struggle with target acquisition, and some can just throw their rifle up and see what they're looking for. It all comes down to what matters to you, you can read for days, but you have to get behind them to know what you like, and to know what matters to you.
As far as understanding goes, it's pretty simple. It's how much area you can see at any given distance. 3.7 @ 100 or 4.4 @ 100, or whatever it is at any given power. Fov, shrinks as magnification goes up for the most part, Some scopes will tunnel at lower power where they don't offer any more fov as the power goes down below a certain point, ( defeating the purpose, but looks good on paper) so obviously, the fov doesn't go up until you get past that point on that scope, so on and so forth.
Lots of good options.
Just keep in mind when your dealing with high zoom ration scopes in ffp, you'll have to deal with your reticle going into borderline useless zone on it's lower magnifications. I think the 525i is about right on in this department . 8x zoom ratio scopes in ffp just don't work for me, they take the reticle outside of it's purpose, and defeat the point of low power, quick target acquisition on low power. All opinions here of course. Everyone likes what they like. It's good to research on forums, just know that a lot of the opinions you'll get come from guys that have never looked through a scope, let alone a good one.
I'll probably make a few guys mad, but in my opinion, ffp scopes with over 5x zoom ratios are a waste for the most part. It's just too tough to keep the subtentions useful. Who knows, they'll probably come up with a scope that keeps the subtentions useful across 10x zooms in ffp? Has to go somewhere from here.
As far as understanding goes, it's pretty simple. It's how much area you can see at any given distance. 3.7 @ 100 or 4.4 @ 100, or whatever it is at any given power. Fov, shrinks as magnification goes up for the most part, Some scopes will tunnel at lower power where they don't offer any more fov as the power goes down below a certain point, ( defeating the purpose, but looks good on paper) so obviously, the fov doesn't go up until you get past that point on that scope, so on and so forth.
Lots of good options.
Just keep in mind when your dealing with high zoom ration scopes in ffp, you'll have to deal with your reticle going into borderline useless zone on it's lower magnifications. I think the 525i is about right on in this department . 8x zoom ratio scopes in ffp just don't work for me, they take the reticle outside of it's purpose, and defeat the point of low power, quick target acquisition on low power. All opinions here of course. Everyone likes what they like. It's good to research on forums, just know that a lot of the opinions you'll get come from guys that have never looked through a scope, let alone a good one.
I'll probably make a few guys mad, but in my opinion, ffp scopes with over 5x zoom ratios are a waste for the most part. It's just too tough to keep the subtentions useful. Who knows, they'll probably come up with a scope that keeps the subtentions useful across 10x zooms in ffp? Has to go somewhere from here.
Last edited:
"If" you can effectively acquire your intended target, no (marksmanship is another story). At higher magnification, the target acquisition is much harder because your FOV is much smaller. It is much easier to aim at the game's vitals at the best FOV at the lowest magnification than at max magnification, just as you provided in #2. Adjust your magnification/FOV to best suit your situation/personal preference. Good luck.
Great, thanks for the helpful replies! After reading some other articles I think some of the issue I had with understanding is that magnification power isnt always as marked so I may have been attributing different fov's plus a magnification that was higher or lower as the same issue. As far as my tango 4, it could be a lemon. I already have to send it back for repair because the windage knob is actually falling off and there is heavy shadow on just the top of the image when looking thru
epags
Well-Known Member
Using your photos, notice the fact that while a wider field of view it is less bright....a problem in early morning and sunset.
Ok that's very interesting. I often shoot as the sun is setting so that's definitely something to consider if that rule generally applies as fov increases
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
After almost 40 yrs of experience I can honestly say that I've owned every quality/cost level of optics.
First scope was a Tasco 3-9x40.....and no offense to Tasco owners, but 38yrs ago Tasco was rough on the peepers.
Over time my budget increased and I went through so many I've lost count. I've had decent glass at $199 and garbage at $599.
At this point I will sacrifice any other component before optics. I can't hit what I can't see.
My advice is to buy the best glass u can afford....but really really try to afford something good.
For me, the reticle choice is the first item on my checklist. Decide the primary purpose for the scope and go from there. I never thought I liked an illuminated reticle, until I tried one that suited my purpose. I don't care for the busy reticles in general, and the entire reticles that are illuminated are not my cup of tea.
I like a single center dot on a simple duplex reticle, and I dial my distance. Once I figured that out, it narrowed down the choices big time.
Turret function, build durability, overall weight and, of course, quality of the actual sight picture (brightness, clarity, edge to edge distortion, depth of focus)....these are all considered.
I have 3 main hunting rigs and they all wear different scopes. With all 3 the optical qualities are so similar I can't say that one is better. One is a light weight rifle and I opted for a lighter weight scope. Interestingly, one is my Smokless Muzz., and most hunting/shots have been late season near sundown. I think I found the best scope, for my eyes, when dealing with sun glare. It's a Leica and I'm sure it will be functioning fine long after I'm toes up.
If u can not be in a hurry you can find the perfect scope and get it at a good price.
I found all 3 of mine either as a shot show Demo, or an open box price reduction. Total $s saved on the 3 compared to full retail is roughly $1900.
Lastly, there are certain models that u can feel comfortable knowing the glass will be mind blowing.....at that point decide on the features and buy the one that has the most on your list. Good luck.
First scope was a Tasco 3-9x40.....and no offense to Tasco owners, but 38yrs ago Tasco was rough on the peepers.
Over time my budget increased and I went through so many I've lost count. I've had decent glass at $199 and garbage at $599.
At this point I will sacrifice any other component before optics. I can't hit what I can't see.
My advice is to buy the best glass u can afford....but really really try to afford something good.
For me, the reticle choice is the first item on my checklist. Decide the primary purpose for the scope and go from there. I never thought I liked an illuminated reticle, until I tried one that suited my purpose. I don't care for the busy reticles in general, and the entire reticles that are illuminated are not my cup of tea.
I like a single center dot on a simple duplex reticle, and I dial my distance. Once I figured that out, it narrowed down the choices big time.
Turret function, build durability, overall weight and, of course, quality of the actual sight picture (brightness, clarity, edge to edge distortion, depth of focus)....these are all considered.
I have 3 main hunting rigs and they all wear different scopes. With all 3 the optical qualities are so similar I can't say that one is better. One is a light weight rifle and I opted for a lighter weight scope. Interestingly, one is my Smokless Muzz., and most hunting/shots have been late season near sundown. I think I found the best scope, for my eyes, when dealing with sun glare. It's a Leica and I'm sure it will be functioning fine long after I'm toes up.
If u can not be in a hurry you can find the perfect scope and get it at a good price.
I found all 3 of mine either as a shot show Demo, or an open box price reduction. Total $s saved on the 3 compared to full retail is roughly $1900.
Lastly, there are certain models that u can feel comfortable knowing the glass will be mind blowing.....at that point decide on the features and buy the one that has the most on your list. Good luck.
