Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Leopold...I just dont get ity.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 933564" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>Thanks Bruce. I was hoping you would take the time to respond, since I know you're in the scope business, and more up to date and knowledgeable on current scope offerings than I. I'll provide some information to allow you to evaluate my testing. I know that exit pupil is a by product of objective lens diameter divided by power magnification. I didn't adjust power magnification to create equal size exit pupil diameter during my light transmission testing. I realize that the larger diameter objective scopes have the advantage for light transmission under low light conditions, given equal power mag settings. I wanted to compare the actual scopes I owned against one another at equal power settings as the light dimmed, because that's how these scopes would actually perform for me during field/hunting use. Not trying to upset Leupold loyalists, but the light transmission tests on the VX-3 2.5-8x Leupold I owned was disappointingly poor. The difference between the VX-3 and the Zeiss and Sightron SIII was huge. This was the newer VX-3, not the older VariX III. The difference wasn't subtle. There was a lot of difference. No comparison. My buddy came to the same conclusions on light transmission, so we had two sets of eyes reaching the same conclusion.</p><p></p><p>All resolution testing was also performed at equal power settings across the scopes being compared for resolution. If the lowest powered variable scope maxed out at 8x, then all the other variable power scopes were set to 8x. </p><p></p><p>I searched the Forum for the comparison testing information I posted following two scope comparison tests. Looks like the first comparison testing was completed in 2007, before I owned any Sightron SIIIs. This Post is dated June 17, 2007. <a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-scopes-22912/index3.html#post157764" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-scopes-22912/index3.html#post157764</a> </p><p>So my initial test was completed prior to June 17, 2007. I provid this to give information on the versions of the various scopes being tested. Some of the manufacturers' scopes today may not be built the same as they were back then.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I later purchased a Sightron SIII, 6-24x50mm Mil-Dot reticle scope and completed another field comparison test. Same thing. Set up at a private gun range and zero each of the scopes on the 300 yd targets and trees at the end of the gun range an hour before dark, and continue to rotate from scope to scope to compare resolution and light transmission. Set all scopes to the same power, which would have been the highest power setting of the scope with the least power magnification. This post is dated March 3, 2009, so the vintage of the scopes were those manufactured prior to 2009. <a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/leupold-sightron-39643/index2.html#post266097" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/leupold-sightron-39643/index2.html#post266097</a></p><p>I believe I had sold the Leupold LPS scope by now. This test was completed to compare the better performing scopes from the prior testing, against my newly purchased Sightron SIII.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I then purchased a second Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm scope. So I posted this on April 24, 2010. <a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/nikon-monarch-zeiss-conquest-sightron-siii-55908/index2.html#post384772" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/nikon-monarch-zeiss-conquest-sightron-siii-55908/index2.html#post384772</a></p><p>I don't know if this is common amongst mid-priced scopes or not. I have read of similar experiences from other scope owners. Scopes of the same brand/model can perform a littler better or worse than other identical models. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've since purchased a 3rd Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm LRMOA scope. I have a strong bias towards lighter weight scopes, and these Sightron's weigh considerably less than the IORs, Nightforce, and Leupold Hubble. My hunting is almost entirely backpack hunting in the mountains, and I wrote off scopes weighing more than about 24 oz after having owned and packed two of the 28 oz IORs. Leupold's mid-prices scopes are on the lightweight side, which I appreciate. What I've observed is that as Leupold has attempted to provide higher quality glass (since 2010), the costs of those scopes with the higher quality glass has gone up substantially. As you've mentioned, it's tough competing with the foreign labor markets.</p><p></p><p>My head to head scope comparisons are now 4 to 7 years old. And all manufacturers' scopes continue to evolve over the years in order to maintain competitiveness. Some of the very same Leupold models I owned and tested back in 2007 and through 2009 may very well have better glass today. My testing of 4 to 7 yr old models may not be comparable to those same brands and model scopes today. I settled into Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SIIIs in mid-priced scopes, based on the scopes that were available at the time I needed some additional scopes for LRH. Scopes that I could afford and that were light enough for me not to cuss them out while packing them for miles in, up, and down, the mountains of Alaska. </p><p></p><p>For the Leupold loyalists, I used them for 25 years and still own a couple 2.5-8x variables. I've migrated to the brand and model scopes that best suite my current LRH needs, within the constraints of my income and budget. Lighter weight is a large consideration, and Leupolds provided that. So the primary reason I'm not currently using them is the price premium to obtain similar quality resolution and light transmission. I should also mention I hunt sheep every year and sometimes rely on my rifle scope to judge horn length and count growth rings on the horns. I place a high priority on a resolution of the glass at high magnification power settings. In decent light conditions, my SIIIs provide equally good resolution as IOR scopes that cost much more money.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 933564, member: 4191"] Thanks Bruce. I was hoping you would take the time to respond, since I know you're in the scope business, and more up to date and knowledgeable on current scope offerings than I. I'll provide some information to allow you to evaluate my testing. I know that exit pupil is a by product of objective lens diameter divided by power magnification. I didn't adjust power magnification to create equal size exit pupil diameter during my light transmission testing. I realize that the larger diameter objective scopes have the advantage for light transmission under low light conditions, given equal power mag settings. I wanted to compare the actual scopes I owned against one another at equal power settings as the light dimmed, because that's how these scopes would actually perform for me during field/hunting use. Not trying to upset Leupold loyalists, but the light transmission tests on the VX-3 2.5-8x Leupold I owned was disappointingly poor. The difference between the VX-3 and the Zeiss and Sightron SIII was huge. This was the newer VX-3, not the older VariX III. The difference wasn't subtle. There was a lot of difference. No comparison. My buddy came to the same conclusions on light transmission, so we had two sets of eyes reaching the same conclusion. All resolution testing was also performed at equal power settings across the scopes being compared for resolution. If the lowest powered variable scope maxed out at 8x, then all the other variable power scopes were set to 8x. I searched the Forum for the comparison testing information I posted following two scope comparison tests. Looks like the first comparison testing was completed in 2007, before I owned any Sightron SIIIs. This Post is dated June 17, 2007. [url]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-scopes-22912/index3.html#post157764[/url] So my initial test was completed prior to June 17, 2007. I provid this to give information on the versions of the various scopes being tested. Some of the manufacturers' scopes today may not be built the same as they were back then. I later purchased a Sightron SIII, 6-24x50mm Mil-Dot reticle scope and completed another field comparison test. Same thing. Set up at a private gun range and zero each of the scopes on the 300 yd targets and trees at the end of the gun range an hour before dark, and continue to rotate from scope to scope to compare resolution and light transmission. Set all scopes to the same power, which would have been the highest power setting of the scope with the least power magnification. This post is dated March 3, 2009, so the vintage of the scopes were those manufactured prior to 2009. [url]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/leupold-sightron-39643/index2.html#post266097[/url] I believe I had sold the Leupold LPS scope by now. This test was completed to compare the better performing scopes from the prior testing, against my newly purchased Sightron SIII. I then purchased a second Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm scope. So I posted this on April 24, 2010. [url]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/nikon-monarch-zeiss-conquest-sightron-siii-55908/index2.html#post384772[/url] I don't know if this is common amongst mid-priced scopes or not. I have read of similar experiences from other scope owners. Scopes of the same brand/model can perform a littler better or worse than other identical models. I've since purchased a 3rd Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm LRMOA scope. I have a strong bias towards lighter weight scopes, and these Sightron's weigh considerably less than the IORs, Nightforce, and Leupold Hubble. My hunting is almost entirely backpack hunting in the mountains, and I wrote off scopes weighing more than about 24 oz after having owned and packed two of the 28 oz IORs. Leupold's mid-prices scopes are on the lightweight side, which I appreciate. What I've observed is that as Leupold has attempted to provide higher quality glass (since 2010), the costs of those scopes with the higher quality glass has gone up substantially. As you've mentioned, it's tough competing with the foreign labor markets. My head to head scope comparisons are now 4 to 7 years old. And all manufacturers' scopes continue to evolve over the years in order to maintain competitiveness. Some of the very same Leupold models I owned and tested back in 2007 and through 2009 may very well have better glass today. My testing of 4 to 7 yr old models may not be comparable to those same brands and model scopes today. I settled into Zeiss Conquest and Sightron SIIIs in mid-priced scopes, based on the scopes that were available at the time I needed some additional scopes for LRH. Scopes that I could afford and that were light enough for me not to cuss them out while packing them for miles in, up, and down, the mountains of Alaska. For the Leupold loyalists, I used them for 25 years and still own a couple 2.5-8x variables. I've migrated to the brand and model scopes that best suite my current LRH needs, within the constraints of my income and budget. Lighter weight is a large consideration, and Leupolds provided that. So the primary reason I'm not currently using them is the price premium to obtain similar quality resolution and light transmission. I should also mention I hunt sheep every year and sometimes rely on my rifle scope to judge horn length and count growth rings on the horns. I place a high priority on a resolution of the glass at high magnification power settings. In decent light conditions, my SIIIs provide equally good resolution as IOR scopes that cost much more money. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Leopold...I just dont get ity.
Top