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
Long range hunting scope.
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="lightwind" data-source="post: 569624" data-attributes="member: 30140"><p>Loner: I am not going to chop up my Swaro or Zeiss to look at the size of the erector lenses, but I believe you when you say pea size for a 1" tube and a dime for a 35mm. i might buy one of those $69 "sniper scopes" to tear open. <G> The pea size is a very reasonable estimate. </p><p> </p><p>However, les's talk about transmission. For transmission the size of the optic has very little to do with light in and light out. Let me give you an example. Take a look at the optics for a transmission microscope. The high magnification lenses are tiny. However, if you look at light transmission they can be as high as 90+%. The reason is the combination of glass and coatings. Good glass and good coatings give a good fraction of light transmitted. I don't see that changing in any meaningful way for a lens going from the size of a pea to the size of a dime when optics the size of a pin-head (microscopes) can have high transmission. </p><p> </p><p>That does not mean that a vendor offering a 30 mm tube does not use those better lenses and coatings. It just means you can also buy a scope with a 30 mm tube that has lousy optics. As an example, I can buy a 30mm tube Barska "6-24x44 tactical rifle scope" for about $130. I can buy a 30 mm tube Zeiss Victory 6-24x 56 for about $2500. Both have the same tube diameter. Is there anyone out there who thinks the optical brightness and image quality would be similar? The difference is the quality of the glass and the precision of the lenses and coatings (as well as all of the mechanical issues). At the same time we could compare a 1" Zeiss conquest with the 30 mm Barska and still get a much better image out of the Zeiss. Again, glass, coatings, precision. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>By the way, 1" = 25.4 mm. So, the size of the lenses in the 30 mm housing can't be that much larger. Go to 35 and it is more of an advantage, but you also have to count in the extra travel they give to get a handle on the lens size change.</p><p> </p><p>What we consistantly get with a larger tube is increased travel of the erector (more elevation and windage). There can be a lot more transmission but it depends on glass, coatings, and lens precision.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lightwind, post: 569624, member: 30140"] Loner: I am not going to chop up my Swaro or Zeiss to look at the size of the erector lenses, but I believe you when you say pea size for a 1" tube and a dime for a 35mm. i might buy one of those $69 "sniper scopes" to tear open. <G> The pea size is a very reasonable estimate. However, les's talk about transmission. For transmission the size of the optic has very little to do with light in and light out. Let me give you an example. Take a look at the optics for a transmission microscope. The high magnification lenses are tiny. However, if you look at light transmission they can be as high as 90+%. The reason is the combination of glass and coatings. Good glass and good coatings give a good fraction of light transmitted. I don't see that changing in any meaningful way for a lens going from the size of a pea to the size of a dime when optics the size of a pin-head (microscopes) can have high transmission. That does not mean that a vendor offering a 30 mm tube does not use those better lenses and coatings. It just means you can also buy a scope with a 30 mm tube that has lousy optics. As an example, I can buy a 30mm tube Barska "6-24x44 tactical rifle scope" for about $130. I can buy a 30 mm tube Zeiss Victory 6-24x 56 for about $2500. Both have the same tube diameter. Is there anyone out there who thinks the optical brightness and image quality would be similar? The difference is the quality of the glass and the precision of the lenses and coatings (as well as all of the mechanical issues). At the same time we could compare a 1" Zeiss conquest with the 30 mm Barska and still get a much better image out of the Zeiss. Again, glass, coatings, precision. By the way, 1" = 25.4 mm. So, the size of the lenses in the 30 mm housing can't be that much larger. Go to 35 and it is more of an advantage, but you also have to count in the extra travel they give to get a handle on the lens size change. What we consistantly get with a larger tube is increased travel of the erector (more elevation and windage). There can be a lot more transmission but it depends on glass, coatings, and lens precision. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Long range hunting scope.
Top