• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes clarity and light gathering comparisons.

jephs422

jephs422

Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
May 18, 2009
173
19
48
Mission Viejo, California
www.srglobalsecurity.com
I have a lot of glass on a lot of different rifles, but you'll be hard pressed to find anything over the $500.00 mark. It's not that I don't appreciate fine glass, nor do can I not afford it (well to a point). Typically after spending a few k on a rifle, I don't have much left over so I end up with a VX-II of some sorts, or a Bushnell 3200 or 4200. I only tell you this so you can get a sense of my priorities, and typically, it's not glass.

You'll probably find it odd the lack of importance I put on glass being that 99% of my hunting is done at night. I know, crazy right? well, all these years I have just managed to get by, and do well for myself; but I always know I could do better with better glass, and that brings me to my question.

I recently took a gentleman hunting with me to do a little predator control and his rifle was sporting a Burris Euro Diamond with the illuminated German reticle, and doing a side by side comparison, it absolutely spanked my VX-II 3x9 in both clarity and light gathering. I am going to buy one to put on one of my dedicated night rigs and was hoping someone could compare it for me to other glass in a similar price range. and I'll be honest, I've never looked through glass that clear at night; even compared to a NF I owned a long time ago, and higher end Luepolds. So, good buy, or upgrade? cheapest I have found the 3-12x5- 30mm illuminated was 600 even. for night work I have to have an illuminated reticle.

thanks in advance for your help, smart ass remarks, general bashing/shit talking, and actual words of wisdom. All are welcome.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

I think you need to do a bit of homework before you launch into what may turn out to be a futile research.

Turk is correct in that optics do not gather light; they transmit whatever light gets into them. And this is very key to the whole subject.

In you OP you talk about the Burris Euro Diamond and call it an 3-12X5 30mm scope. You need to be more precise as there is no 3-12X5. They have a 3-12X50 and a 3-12X56. The last number is the diameter of the objective lens, the big lens in front. The size of that lens is important in the grand scheme of things, especially in relation to the magnification used.

If you take the size of the objective lens and divide it by the magnification, the result will be something called the exit pupil size. This is the image that your eye sees. The larger the size of the exit pupil, the brighter the image will be. The maximum that can be used by someone is about 5-7mm, anything much beyond that is wasted. Let's take the 56mm version and divide it by 12 power, the answer is 4.67 and that is a very good exit pupil size; the image would appear quite bright.

Your VX-II 3-9 has a 40mm objective, and that means that at full magnification the exit pupil size is 4.4. That is not very different from the Burris at full power. However if they are both set to 9X, the Burris will have an exit pupil of 6.2.

Also, at night time, exit pupil size makes much more of a difference than during day time because your pupil is dilated. I have a scope that is a 36X40, which gives an exit pupil size of 1.16. The thing is useless when it gets a little dark, but in bright sunshine, it's very nice.

For your needs, hunting at night, you need to find the biggest objective lens that you can mount on your rifle and stay at magnifications that will yield a good size exit pupil.

I would definitely look for 56mm objectives if you want magnification greater than say 9X.

The percentage of light transmission will be anywhere between 85% to 95% depending on quality of coating and number of lenses. Cheaper optics with 85% transmission can appear as bright as 92 or 95% optics simply by using larger lenses. It does not mean that resolution will be the same, but you are looking for exit pupil size.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

If all you'd ever used was BSA, Tasco would look fantastic: all is frame of reference.

NF will be much better glass than the Burris - or at least that is my experience with the NF I've owned and the Burris I've seen.


If you can afford it, and you are putting the scope on nice, custom rifle; I'd recommend you consider the error of your past ways and put a scope on the rig that doesn't reduce its over-all effectiveness.

And don't go cheap on the mounts and rings either.

 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

Thanks for the info guys. Yes, I did mean the 3-12x50 with 30mm tubes. I am well versed on scopes and the technical aspects, and I appreciate the info, but I was hoping for more of a real world comparison i.e, someone who has owned a Euro Diamond and could give me some feedback.

Yes it's going to go on a nice custom rifle as that's all that I own and I try to never skimp on them, but I have always stuck with mid-priced scopes. Typically for rings and bases I use Talley's cause I've always had good luck with them.

As far as the 56mm goes, you may be right. However in all my years of night hunting I have never noticed a difference in light gathering (that my eye could distinguish) between a 40mm and a 50mm, so I plan on sticking with the 50mm. to keep the center line lower.

On my night rigs I can guarantee a shot will never be taken over 200 yards, so the most important function of this scope in particular is clarity rather than long range function.

I hope that made sense, and go easy.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

I just had a burris xtr 3-12x50 in my hands for a few days. I thought it rivaled
my swaro for brightness. I own several USO's and lupys. Can't fault the burris for
anything but size and weight against the swaro or the lupys. But at 900 dollars it's
not really midrange anymore. You can jump into a used USO 10x for that kind of
money.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

Honestly, the best bang for your buck on clarity is the Zeiss Conquest models. I have 1, and they are awesome. My Burris XTR 3-12 was very clear as well. The Zeiss models can be had for $500-$600.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> NF will be much better glass than the Burris - or at least that is my experience with the NF I've owned and the Burris I've seen.</div></div>

I have a Burris XTR 3-12x with glass that beats any NF I ever owned. Now, I won't say that it is a better all around scope, 'cause it isn't. But glass quality is top notch.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

I'll look in to the Zeiss but I don't think I can find a 3-12x50 or anything comparable that has an illuminated reticle for the same price as the Burris Euro.

And as a side note, I wasn't too overly impressed with a conquest I owned for light transmission, but I'll give them another look
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jephs422</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip)

As far as the 56mm goes, you may be right. However in all my years of night hunting I have never noticed a difference in light gathering (that my eye could distinguish) between a 40mm and a 50mm, so I plan on sticking with the 50mm. to keep the center line lower.

On my night rigs I can guarantee a shot will never be taken over 200 yards, so the most important function of this scope in particular is clarity rather than long range function.

I hope that made sense, and go easy. </div></div>

As was stated before, optics do not gather light, they simply transmit what they receive. The bigger the window, the more light that comes into the system.

A 40mm objective lens has a surface area of 1,256 square millimeters. A 50mm objective lens as a surface of 1963 square millimeters. Just for grins, consider that a 56mm objective lens has a surface area of 2,463 square millimeters, that is twice as large as the 40mm lens. You may not have seen much difference between a 40 and a 50, but I would bet that you would see a difference between a 40 and a 56.


Zeiss and others make a 72mm objective lens, and that could be of interest. The surface would be 4071 square millimeters.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> NF will be much better glass than the Burris - or at least that is my experience with the NF I've owned and the Burris I've seen.</div></div>

I have a Burris XTR 3-12x with glass that beats any NF I ever owned. Now, I won't say that it is a better all around scope, 'cause it isn't. But glass quality is top notch. </div></div>


Mileage varies.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

sorry, I have a tendency to say light gathering, I mean light transmission.

Yes Sig685 you are right, I am sure I will notice a difference between the 40 and the 56, but I doubt I will notice the difference between the 50 and 56.

Mostly what I am trying to convey is that although I have been mostly happy with my Bushnells and Lupy's I was hoping someone has had some real hands on with the higher end Burris's like the XTR or Euro diamonds. Since I absolutely do not need any tactical features for night work the Euro makes the most sense. And for a $600 price point, is there another better option?


Keep in mind I don't want to spend 1k or more for a scope for this rifle. I have one or two of those for other purpose built rigs, but specifically this one I don't see a need. I guess really I was just looking to bounce ideas.
 
Re: clarity and light gathering comparisons.

Well, if you won't notice a 25% increase in objective lens size, i seriously doubt you will notice a couple percent difference in light transmission between brands.

Nikon (I am a Nikon biggot,) makes a nice 2.5-10 and 4-16 Monarch, both with a 50mm lens and Nikon has reputedly the highest light transmission due to their coating. Just presenting some alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

QPM
New glass for my old Rem 700 .243
Replies
6
Views
388
FuhQ
FuhQ
P
Rifle Scopes Zeiss S3 6-36 vs Tract 4.5-30
Replies
6
Views
759
penguinofsleep
P
C
D-760 Vrs newer thermal scopes or clip ons
Replies
0
Views
217
captdan
C
W
Rifle Scopes $700 scope comparison
Replies
207
Views
6K
FuhQ
FuhQ
G
Rifle Scopes Bighorn hunt: Z6i 2-12 vs LHT 4.5-22 vs March 1.5-15 vs…?
Replies
35
Views
1K
bogey
B
Top Bottom
Back