Rifle Scopes Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

[Swan]

... glass. Have noticed some issues with some FFP scopes and gaining maximum clarity/resolution at ranges within 400-500yds compared to other high end SFP scopes. Part of this can possibly be attributed to difficulties dialing in parallax occasionally. But are there any aspects inherent in the design of FFP scopes that can be correlated to this difference in clarity when compared to SFP scopes at the same magnification and distance? Mirage is not the issue and should not be considered relevant in this post.

I am in NO WAY interested in starting a S&B vs USO vs Nightforce vs Premier vs Vortex thread and refuse to name any scopes I have looked through that made me reach this possible conclusion. They are all top of the line (expensive) glass and that is all that matters. I realize there is a tendency on this website to backup your $1000-$3000 purchase and claim it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. What I am looking for are <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">objective</span></span> opinions that either confirm or deny either side of the question posted. So?

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

Swan,

Perhaps I'm not fully understanding your question concerning clarity in SFP v FFP scopes. But the object of a rifle scope is to place a bullet on a target. Maximum clarity and resolution are nice things to have, but reading a newspaper at 400-500 yds is not one of the requirements necessary in a good rifle scope.

Putting it another way, ruggedness, accurate and consistent adjustments, FFP reticles (in variables), along with good clarity and resolution; are elements most useful in a scope to be used in tactical environments or tactical competitions.

However, if your endeavors are shooting stationary targets at known distances with small aiming points, then an FFP scope is not required, and it's virtues are not only unused, but unnecessary in such an activity.

What all this means is that any comparison between FFP and SFP is academic unless the uses of these scopes are defined. Both have a purpose and activities which complement their particular design choices. Clarity and resolution of the target are but one function of a scope, and there are other functions that are equal, if not more important.

Bob

 

[Swan]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

All of our endeavors may include tactical competitions and shooting tiny lil' stationary dots as well. That is not the point though. My question was quite simple and can be construed as a "academic" one as well. I understand different shooters will have different requirements depending on the style of shooting they partake in. They also may be willing to sacrifice clarity for trick options on their scope.

More simply put, is there a noticeable (or slight) degradation of clarity/resolution in FFP scopes compared to SFP scopes at any magnification or range? Or specifically, closer ranges (less than 500yds)?

 

[JFComfort]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

Dave and I were talking about that a little bit yesterday and I don't have a good answer. My knowledge of rifle scopes if very limited out side of utilizing them in long range precision shooting and tactical style competitions.

I need to mess with your guys FFP scopes some. Were you getting something similar to what Dave has noticed?

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of our endeavors may include tactical competitions and shooting tiny lil' stationary dots as well. That is not the point though. My question was quite simple and can be construed as a "academic" one as well. I understand different shooters will have different requirements depending on the style of shooting they partake in. They also may be willing to sacrifice clarity for trick options on their scope.

More simply put, is there a noticeable (or slight) degradation of clarity/resolution in FFP scopes compared to SFP scopes at any magnification or range? Or specifically, closer ranges (less than 500yds)?

</div></div>

Sacrifice Clarity for Trick Options? What trick options? Are you talking about options like: AO, Side parallax adjustment, Variable zoom, and Internal adjustments (as opposed to external adjustments).

Yes, all those "trick" options will all reduce Clarity and Resolution. Because a scope without them will have fewer lenses.

So a fixed scope like S&B PMII 10x42, will have greater clarity and resolution, than say a S&B PM II 3-12x42mm set @ 10X simply; because the fixed scope has fewer lens. That's an apples to apples comparison beacause the glass and coatings of those two scopes are near identical.

If again, you are only talking about clarity and resolution comparisons in SFP vs FFP variables, then only Nightforce (of the brands you listed) makes two scopes 3.5-15x50mm SFP and the 3.5-15x50MM F1 that share similar components and construction. And those two scopes are so very close in clarity and resolution that only specific tests under controlled conditions could revel any differences. Your MK 1 eye ball is insufficient as a measuring tool.

Since you won't revel what scopes you are comparing, and are only willing to speak in broad general terms; then generally speaking, high end (North of 2k$) FFP variable scopes exhibit "EQUAL OR Better" clarity and resolution, compared too "HIGH END" SFP variable scopes of similar zoom power, lens sizes, and including all trick options.

If however, say you are comparing a NF 3.5-15x50mm F1 FFP vs a NF 3.5-15x56MM SFP, for example. Then in terms of clarity and resolution only, I would expect the 56MM SFP to be superior to it's smaller FFP brother, for obvious reasons.

Bob

 

[dcjs]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

"Fewer lenses equals better resolution and clarity" is a gross misconception that is being perpetuated again and again here. It only seems logical on the surface when there is a thorough lack of understanding of what the "glass" in an optical system does.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, a more helpful explanation is goint to take more time than I have right now, I hope to go into more detail sometime in the future.

On topic: In theory it should make a difference whether you place the flat piece of glass (with the etched reticle on it) in the first or second focal plane of a scope, but I can't even come up with a theory that states which one should be superior. Anyway, the differences should be theoretical at best and will be outweighed by far by differences between different scopes and even sample variation between different copies of the very same model.

 

[enkry]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

david, is this not true?

<span style="font-style: italic">"As light enters the objective end of the scope, before it reaches your eye it passes through several lenses. Each lens absorbs a small quantity of light. Residual reflection from the individual lenses will also prevent a certain amount of light from passing through the scope."

"Simple multiplication is not accurate, however, as each succeeding lens progressively reduces the total amount of transmitted light."</span>


http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml

 

[Aries64]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...If again, you are only talking about clarity and resolution comparisons in SFP vs FFP variables, then only Nightforce (of the brands you listed) makes two scopes 3.5-15x50mm SFP and the 3.5-15x50MM F1 that share similar components and construction...</div></div>
Bob, I'm not <span style="font-style: italic">"picking"</span> on you - rather, my post is for everyone's edification as I don't believe that it is widely known that <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">S & B offers Second Focal Plane as an option</span></span>. In the past most American-made scopes have been SFP, while within the same timeline European-made scopes have been FFP. As such S & B refers to SFP as "the American design".

I paraphrased some text from the "<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Construction</span></span>" page (located under <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"facts"</span></span> on the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Schmidt & Bender</span></span> web site.

<span style="font-style: italic">"<span style="font-weight: bold">We now offer two systems of reticle placement</span>, each equally precise. The decision upon which system is "best" depends upon the scope and its intended application.

The two possible locations for placement of the reticle are within the objective image plane or the eyepiece image plane.

A typically European design positions the reticle at the first (objective) image plane. In this configuration, the reticle and the image of the target are enlarged or reduced simultaneously as the magnification is changed. The relationship between target and reticle remain unchanged, regardless of the chosen magnification. The advantage to this design is that point of impact will not change at different magnification levels, as can happen with a lower-quality scope.

Positioning the reticle in the second (eyepiece) image plane is referred to as the "American" design. The reticle is independent from the magnification system, which means as magnification of the target is enlarged or reduced, the apparent size of the reticle remains the same. To use this system in a riflescope while preventing any possible shift of point of impact is extremely demanding, requiring the utmost precision of mechanical components."</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...Since you won't revel what scopes you are comparing, and are only willing to speak in broad general terms; then generally speaking, high end (North of 2k$) FFP variable scopes exhibit "EQUAL OR Better" clarity and resolution, compared too "HIGH END" SFP variable scopes of similar zoom power, lens sizes, and including all trick options...
</div></div>
Agreed. I doubt that most users, if any - could accurately differentiate between FFP and SFP PMIIs' (or Nightforce) of the same model in a "blind test", even though the actual mechanics between the FFP and SFP scopes are different. It might even be feasible that the trained eye of an optics professional who knows what to look for may be have difficulty telling which is which.

Keith

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

Keith,

Thank you, I did not know that about S&B PMII line being available in both FFP and SFP.

Learn something new everyday....

Thanks again,

Bob

 

[Swan]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Since you won't revel what scopes you are comparing, and are only willing to speak in broad general terms; then generally speaking, high end (North of 2k$) FFP variable scopes exhibit "EQUAL OR Better" clarity and resolution, compared too "HIGH END" SFP variable scopes of similar zoom power, lens sizes, and including all trick options.
</div></div>

I did not name any scope manufacturer solely due to not wanting this post to descend into a pissing match between what company makes the best optic. From what I have looked through in the past I am fairly confident which two producers produce the best clarity glass. They also happen to be the most expensive. With the exception of those 2 producers at the top of the food chain was my OP directed towards, with respect to differences in FFP vs SFP clarity. Unbiased opinions are what I am seeking, and thankfully receiving.

 

[sharac]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

I don't think there is a difference in top of the line manuf. as you used an example of S&B. Technically yes the percentages data etc.. would favor fixed mag scopes however always look at optical device for what its made up to be. Internet wars waged on resolution charts and similar "test" are just that inet mumbo jumbo the fact is using a rifle for hunting (man or animal) no more than 10x (PLENTY!!!!) is necessary and accuracy of 1 MOA (for weapon) is an OVERKILL. So my point being the question asked is rather awkward one as answer to it while technically valid is practically irrelevant...

Same as spin/Coriolis etc... what you do on your end is (potentially) more that enough error or failure to read wind properly that will set you several wind/Cor errors away....

Serbs have an excellent proverb "rough translation" "Rusty dick is bothered by sole hair on a pussy..."

 

[SONIC SAAMI]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

I have 2 scopes identical in every way with just one difference between the 2.
One scope is FFP M5 and the other is SFP M1.
On the same day,at the same time of day,,looking at the same target,,,FFP resolution is not as clear as the SFP.
This has been noticed by 5 shooters other than myself.

 

[matchking]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

You can also take 2 identical scopes and have major differences in clarity, etc. from one to the other. I don't think the OPs question is answered by comparing one SFP and one FFP Leupold.

I don't know much about scope engineering, but I doubt there is a loss of clarity in FFP optics when compared to SFP ones.

 

[TrapperSGD]

Re: Clarity differences with FFP and SFP "high end"

I would suspect that when comparing a SFP and FFP scope with wire reticles that there would be no difference in clarity or resolution. If there ever is a differnce I would think that it would only be with glass etched reticles as that would add one more lens before the image is magnified.