50mm or 56mm is it bright enough to make it worth it???

[superlite17]

Hi everyone, and thanks!

I have just ebayed my old Vari X III 40mm tube, it simply was not bright enough. I had an Elite 4200 50mm tube and it let A LOT more light in, but in my opinion it was not as crisp and contrasty as the Leupold VX3.
I really want the brightness for dusk and dawn and assume that the reason i lost it was due to the 40mm tube. So I am now considering either Leupold 4.5-14x50 VX-III or BURRIS BLACK DIAMOND 4-16x50. Any help there would be great also as I am really on the fence! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

But here is part of my delima... With light being a HUGE factor for me is the 56mm objective that much brighter???
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If it is then Nikon makes one within my price range and the Zeis Conquest 56mm is kinda close to my range. But...

People do not seem that impressed with Nikon rugedness and features

And I could go an extra $150 for the Conquest but it doesnt even have fully multi-coated optics

Any way I was wondering if any of you had used the 56mm and what you thought. Or of the makers of the 56mm!

Like I said brightness is super important to me.

 

[LB]

Exactly how do we view the results?

If you want to evaluate a scope, forget about "low" light conditions and use it in the dark of night. I do a lot of hunting at night and am satisfied that the 56mm euro scopes are the way to go. I have two. They are both brighter than my 4.5X14X50Leupold. Sorry about the term, but the fact is, you can discern more detail under poor light conditions with the larger objective; all things being equal.

Good hunting. LB

 

[Mysticplayer]

size of objective is not as important as the size of the internal lenses and coatings. I have used my Elite 4200 6X24 to view and get my deer in light so dim I could not see 50yds in front of me (still legal light). This is a small 44mm lense on a 1" tubel. With the Nikon Monarch binos and Elite scope, I was able to locate, identify and take the deer at 335yds.

You might want to consider the Nikon Tactical line if you need hard knocks type durability. I have used the new Buckmaster and it is bright, as are the Monarchs.

All else being equal a 30mm tube will be brighter then a 1" tube IF the internals are sized to match and coatings are equivalent.

The only way to know what works for you is to view the scopes under the lighting conditions you will hunt in. Most quality fully multicoated scopes should deliver around 95% of available light. That is more then enough to hunt in legal light.

Jerry

 

[superlite17]

How do you know IF the internals are sized to match??? I had heard some manufacturers did not use properly sized lenses in 30mm so how do you know who does and who does not because they ALL tout their products as being the "best"

 

[superlite17]

Check this out on Zeis site:
Carl Zeiss MC multi-coating on all glass-to-air surfaces for maximum transmission (markedly above 90 %), color fidelity and brilliance.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
http://www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/E34E4125AA548D6685256BCF0061320D

Key is GLASS TO AIR which means all the glass is not multi-coated, only outer glass.

 

[Chrismadrid]

[ QUOTE ]
Key is GLASS TO AIR which means all the glass is not multi-coated, only outer glass.

[/ QUOTE ]Glass to Air normally refers to internal GLASS TO AIR surfaces too ( A scope is full of air - the Nitrogen purging thing is pretty temporary - eventually there is gas exchange and your scope contains other gasses). It basically means all non GLASS/GLASS sandwiwich surfaces. If it says ALL GLASS/AIR - then it probably means it. If it says SOME Glass to Air surfaces that's another story.

 

[LB]

We all have various interpretations on features. Some are more important than others.

This guy wants to know about 56mm objectives, and how that contributes to so called "brightness", not lens coatings or internal dimensions, or even assurances of what is good enough, under "legal light" conditions.

The straight answer is that 56mm is an advantage for shooting in extremely low light conditions....all things being equal. Meaning: same internal construction, same multi coatings.

The only caviat, aside from the premium price, is the height of the mounting to clear the barrel. If you are okay with that, you will see more detail during low light, with the larger objective. period.

Good luck with your choice, LB

 

[Blueboat]

I know what you are talking about!!!!. I did about 2-month's research on scopes, brightness etc, etc. Purchased 2 black diamond scopes from Midway sent one back defective, the second I sent to Burris because it was not clear on high power at 100 yards they repaired it and sent it back, I couldn't believe it when I got it back now it was not clear past 300 yards. I sent the second scope back to midway got my money back and bought a 5.5 x 22 x 56 Nightforce scope. This scope is for hunting. There have been many times in the morning I have had to wait to shoot at animals because I couldn't see them in my scope (Vari X III 40mm). The Nightforce is great.

 

[superlite17]

Thank you all, I am concerned about mounting high... easier to knock out of alignment. Also, pardon my ignorance, but i understand that the higher the scope the greater the variance at the intersection of the crosshairs, correct????

But i do want light!

Also Blueboat, after reading your post, one of my main two 50mm considerations (Black Diamond) is out!!!

 

[Chrismadrid]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, pardon my ignorance, but i understand that the higher the scope the greater the variance at the intersection of the crosshairs, correct????

[/ QUOTE ]YES- BUT! If you shoot predominantly a LONGER distances the line of sight will better align with the flight curve if sighted in at that distance. Dificult to explain with a graph paper and pencil (for me anyway)- it's all to do with Tangents.

 

[Jeff In TX]

It's been awhile since I've read and researched a subject such as this one, but I'll chime in and pull from my fading hard drive in the top of my head (or my *** as my wife would say).

Brightness in scopes can be achieved in a variety of ways. High dollar scopes from top of the line scope manufactures use the best optical grade glass, top of the line coatings on all their lenses (internal and external). They also use multiple internal lenses systems, meaning many internal lenses.

A S&B, Savorski, Zeiss as well as many of the other top manufactures have scopes that transmit more light with a smaller objective (40 to 44mm) than other scope lines using 50 and 50mm objectives. These scopes also provide resolution and clarity other scope lines could only wish to achieve.

They achieve this by using multiple lenses systems with the best glass available.

Cheaper scope lines state their scopes are just as bright as the top of line scopes and that may vary well be. However, what you make up for in brightness, you lose in clarity and resolution.

Cheaper scope lines don't use as many internal lenses which allows more light to pass through the tube. But in doing so, they lose the clarity and resolution.

So brightness and light transmission is only part of the equation.

Hope it helps.

 

[LB]

When I was twenty, I had the eyes of an eagle. Literally, 10/10. I could see very well from marginal scopes, like Weaver and Redfield and Bushnell.

If you have never looked through a quality scope, a 3X12X56mm German, (for instance) under very poor light conditions, you really don't know what is going on. These scopes were developed for hunting wild boar on dark nights, from towers. Consider what the performance might be under "low light" conditions.

Things change. The aging process includes your vision, and suddenly, you begin to appreciate the difference between what's out there; and what is available, if money were no object.


At some point, those (clear as spring water) Weavers don't cut it any more.

This is not a slam, by any means, but the youngsters have not arrived, yet. I don't know how else to put it?

Good hunting. LB

 

[Chrismadrid]

Some simple maths

50mm lens - Area in square mm 1963,5
56mm lens - Area in Square mm 2463,0

Divide 2463/1963.5 = 1,254 OR put another way the 56mm has 25% more light gathering area than a 50.

 

[superlite17]

Well, that sure put things in perspective... 25% more lght would seem to justify the 25% increase in price.

Let me ask you this... would a 30mm tube then transfer an additional 25% more light than the 1"???