• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

Rifle Scopes Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

#51
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HuDisCo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have been in business as the importer for the Hensoldt line of Zeiss military optics for a little over a year. During this time we have never had a scope fail in the field or on the range or returned for mechanical failure. It just doesn't happen. </div></div>

And this is the reason I decided to give Hensoldt a try. I was tired at reading all the great reviews of XYZ's customer service, how great they were at fixing issues that shouldn't have been there in the first place. I'm excited to get my Hensoldt and will enjoy shooting with it, not sending it in for outstanding repairs.
 
#52
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

I do NOT say that this little test is anyway something definte, I don't say that Lowligth is wrong in everything either.
But I say that he is wrong when it comes to that charts are pointless.

My only point with this is to prove that two scope of the same model, of the same brand are different.
We was abouth 30 people testing those scopes that day, and mostly of us completely agreed that one S&B was far below the others, and one Zeiss 6-24 was far above that other.

I am extremely aware that different users need different optics, some people see in low light better through swarovski, and some better through Zeiss.
So its also about to find what fits your eyes best.

Then this little test shows nothing about the mechanical strength of the scope, nothing about the ability to handle strong sun etc.
There is a lot of different things missing in the test, but that doesent matter, it still shows that there is differances betwen two scopes of the same model.......

Håkan
 
#53
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a lot of different things missing in the test, but that doesent matter, it still shows that there is differances betwen two scopes of the same model.......

Håkan </div></div>

Håkan,

After reading your latest post, I took the time to read this evaluation.

"If we look for example at dissolution tests as grades sometimes varies between 4-10 points for a single telescope, and it can really only be explained by that we all have different views and possibly also to some forgotten or not had the ability to adjust his sights on his own sight." (Telescopic sights for long-quarters shooting, a comparison, Using Google Translation)

By it's own admittance, users did not or were not able to set the scope for their own eyes. Without properly adjusting diopter for the individual how can you possibly reach any solid results?

This minor attention to detail is the very minimum for establishing any type of standard performance.
 
#54
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

Scopes are not eye glasses, and when your doctor is changing the prescription, from "Better or Worse" he doing so in a specific manner. Looking through one scope at an eye chart and moving to another is not a "Better or Worse" situation that same as being at an eye doctors.

Uncorrected I can't read the entire line first line of an eye chart, so If I look through a scope and read the resolution bars, and someone with 20/20 vision looks through the same scope at the same bars, he will clearly "see more bars".. because I am friggin blind in my right eye... so saying they are not subjective is false... they are a reference point, nothing more.

Further more, no scope tested is calibrated to the power settings, so you have no way of knowing if one is viewing at 10X and the other 11X, or worse, 9.5X which will also cause a difference in what you see... because the number of bars you see are also a product of magnification. None of them are calibrated, I don't care if you put everyone on 10X, the truth of the matter is, you have no way of knowing that they are all seeing the test chart the same...

These reasons are why the test charts are not industry standard and not being used in the manner which people think they need to be used.
 
#55
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Carter Mayfield</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The trick here is that the diopter must be properly focused to the shooter's eye or you will get false resolution readings. This is the real problem that you have with a lot of these tests.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HuDisCo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
By it's own admittance, users did not or were not able to set the scope for their own eyes. Without properly adjusting diopter for the individual how can you possibly reach any solid results?

This minor attention to detail is the very minimum for establishing any type of standard performance. </div></div>

I've known Hakan for a while and thank him very much for posting the test and his comments as I found it very interesting. Hakan knows his stuff and is exposed to many optics old and new. He is a connoisseur and expert and I respect what he has to say. Thank you for sharing this informal test.

I can not tell you how many times we've heard from customers that they think their scope is bad because it is not as clear as they had expected it to be. Every single one of the scopes in question had a fast focus ocular and a parallax adjustment and almost every single one of them had been improperly using the ocular focus as an image focus. Once properly instructed on how to set up and use the ocular focus and parallax adjustment their problems went away.

We've done countless side by side comparisons and you can seldom get a group of people to all agree that A is optically better than B when comparing similar optics. One person in the mix will always have to back the ocular focus all the way out in order to use it which is bad news for the next person to look at it.

We have to routinely reset all of our display scopes and binocular back to their default settings in order for them to properly be compared.

All Hensoldt optics have a spec range and I can assure you that Hensoldt's tolerance are much tighter than most due to their primarily users being major militaries. I would be willing to bet that if anyone was seeing a difference is scopes of the same model it was due to either the ocular focus or parallax focus not being set the same on both.
 
#56
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWFA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
All Hensoldt optics have a spec range and I can assure you that Hensoldt's tolerance are much tighter than most due to their primarily users being major militaries. I would be willing to bet that if anyone was seeing a difference is scopes of the same model it was due to either the ocular focus or parallax focus not being set the same on both.
</div></div>

It looks like the statement on focusing was a caveat... that most shooters were adjusting the diopters, but some weren't. Because this was not a test done by a single shooter, but an average over 30 shooters (and I am assuming the N = 30 is no accident?), the shooters who were not properly focusing would be seen as "noise" in the analysis... basically, these shooters would increase the Standard Deviation and that is about it. I am thinking that if they were all properly focusing, the standard deviations would shrink, and we might actually start to see statistically significant differences. For those test, clearly, we aren't for S&B, Zeiss, and Premier.

As to why the variation from scope to scope for the same model... because it was across many shooters and not just one shooter, I don't think that improper focusing was the reason for the variation... Take for example the Zeiss with the letter test. The lowest performing Zeiss has exactly the same SD as the highest performing Zeiss. If focusing were the issue, we would see a larger SD for the underperforming scope than the over-performer.

That said, it is important to note that, [bold]based on this data, the scores for the scoped of the same manufacturer are not statistically different[/bold]... not by a long shot. So the point is somewhat moot. Again, you have to focus not only on the scores, but the standard deviation. The standard deviation tells the story here.

As a matter of a fact, the only thing that I can see in this data is that the Premier Heritage scope performed significantly better than both the Tasco and the Bushnell Elite in the letter resolution test. I can't really say from the data that the Zeiss performed significantly better in the letter resolution test than the Bushnell Elite, but that's OK, because I also can't really say from the data that the Premier performed significantly better in the letter resolution test than the Zeiss.

Now here is a fun one... the bar test gave much higher standard deviation than the letter test. Why? The answer is that with the bar test, there are only two options, horizontal and vertical, so even if you don't know whether you are looking at horizontal or vertical, when you guess, you have a 50% chance of being right. With the letter test, when you guess, you have less than a 4% chance of being right, so there is less "noise" from people "guessing" correctly. The problem with the letter test is that calling an "F" a "P" is just as much of a fail as, say, calling an "F" a "G." This is why I like the tumbling "E" test better than the 1951 USAF chart. You only have a 25% chance of getting it right when you guess.
 
#57
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scopes are not eye glasses, and when your doctor is changing the prescription, from "Better or Worse" he doing so in a specific manner. Looking through one scope at an eye chart and moving to another is not a "Better or Worse" situation that same as being at an eye doctors.

Uncorrected I can't read the entire line first line of an eye chart, so If I look through a scope and read the resolution bars, and someone with 20/20 vision looks through the same scope at the same bars, he will clearly "see more bars".. because I am friggin blind in my right eye... so saying they are not subjective is false... they are a reference point, nothing more.
</div></div>

You are right, scopes are not eyeglasses, they correct focus rather than providing magnification... this is basically the function of the diopter adjustment on the scope.

But you are doing the same thing that the eye doctor is doing when you are looking through two scopes at an eye chart at a distance. You are comparing image A to image B.

You are 100% correct that a person who is legally blind would not be able to differentiate between Scope A and Scope B, even with a properly focused diopter. Now kick it up to just poor vision... let's say someone can read 50% of the characters from line 2 with Scope A and 75% with Scope B... there is still a difference. The improvement will be different for people with different vision, but that is not to say that there is not a difference between Scope A and Scope B.

Now take not just your judgment, but the judgments of a large group of people. 30 is always a good number statistically because you don't have to make adjustments due to sample size. What you will get is an average resolution for Scope A and an average resolution for Scope B. Then you need to ask yourself not only which is better, but also, what is the difference between observers looking through the same scope. This is the standard deviation... it indicates how much "spread" there is around the average from people who see poor resolution to those who see great resolution.

It is more complicated than this, but this is a good rule of thumb... if the difference between Scope A and Scope B is less than 2 standard deviations, then you say that the difference is not statistically significant. This gives a 95% confidence interval that the average for one scope is greater than the average for another scope. In this case, you have two averages with two different standard deviations, so the math is trickier, but this is a good rule of thumb. So looking at the data, I can say that the difference between, say, Zeiss, and say, S&B is not statistically significant.

Which gets me back to what you have been saying which is that is all subjective. Well, I disagree. What you are saying is that the difference is so small that you ask two different people and you are likely to get two different answers. Now, do the same test with the Tasco and you find that the Premier Heritage is better. Does that surprise you at all?

Now if we were getting crazy answers like the Tasco showed significantly more resolution than the S&B, then I would think, "Yeah, there is something fishy about this test." The fact that the test shows us what we already knew is somewhat self-validating. Clearly, companies like PR, Zeiss/Hensoldt, and S&B spend lots of money on glass to get some sort of result... and it has to be objective enough (ha!) and measurable enough that customers are willing to pay extra for it. Just because a resolution test is easy to administer does not invalidate it. I think that the results indicated are pretty reasonable and not counter-intuitive at all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Further more, no scope tested is calibrated to the power settings, so you have no way of knowing if one is viewing at 10X and the other 11X, or worse, 9.5X which will also cause a difference in what you see... because the number of bars you see are also a product of magnification. None of them are calibrated, I don't care if you put everyone on 10X, the truth of the matter is, you have no way of knowing that they are all seeing the test chart the same...
</div></div>

This is true. I don't know how big of a difference it makes. At the higher magnification range, this is less of a factor, but still an issue. One might correct for it by creating an object just large enough to fill the entire sight picture at X magnification... and then resize that for different scopes based on the exit pupil diameter. There are ways around that. Personally, what I would like to see is to have the tests run at different magnifications and as pointed above, under different light conditions.

Also, you missed another source of error... the resolution will be better at the center of the image than off to the sides. If you think about it, if a PH 5-25X is used, the reticle is fairly bulky, so I could see people having more of a tendency to read things farther towards the edge than with the other scopes... just food for thought.

But the fact that I would like to see more data and the fact that there are limitations doesn't invalidate this study. All this study does is provide another data point. That is why they bother to outline the methodology... it just provides us with more data to make a decision on. I enjoy reading your reviews. I also like to see others conducting reviews. I see nothing inherently wrong with that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These reasons are why the test charts are not industry standard and not being used in the manner which people think they need to be used. </div></div>

You're a photography geek... have you not seen these tests used to evaluate different lenses? I know I have seen it before for this purpose. The USAF developed the 1951 standard because it had to evaluate cameras for reconnaissance. These lenses are doing precisely the same thing as a fine rifle scope... magnifying to help differentiate shapes and colors at a distance. If you mean industry standard like Guns and Ammo is not using them... well, they have to keep their sponsors happy, so as long as they aren't measuring anything, are cutting out a single group in a dozen, and say that everything is puppy dogs and ice cream, they are keeping everyone happy.
 
#58
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

Please, its simple, just like SWFA stated with people who come into their store... No two people see the same piece of glass the same way... that is fact of life you cannot reason away with. We see it all the time, nobody, I mean nobody looks at the same scope and sees the same thing, that's life.

As a Photo geek I have contacted this man, years ago about this: Norman Koren and asked about using his software... and understand they do use software to do this, essentially taking the human element out of the equations because of all the reasons I have stated. Photo geeks photograph the test target and run it through this software to reach their conclusions.

I made an effort to explore this, and can tell you it's not happening way you think. Sure 30 people can give you a good cross sections of "opinions' but that doesn't make them right, or educated opinions, it just makes them their particular opinions at the time. As been written, there was more wrong with these kinds of test than there is right, that I can promise anyone reading this.

The human eye can only resolve so much, the glass in the scopes are designed, almost all of them to resolve beyond our limits, (especially at the higher end) so anything past what we can resolve is a plus. The real test of optics like rifle scopes are not in the number of bars it can see, but how it resolves things like color, because that is where the money is, in the coatings. The glass is meaningless, the coatings make it so we can see, very few understand this, which is why they test black & white bars, and don't focus on the colors of the USAF Chart... which you have to ask why its barely used and hasn't been upgraded... instead we have turned to computers and software.

You want to use the USAF chart, you better be using the colored bars, especially the red and yellow because that is where the differences between scopes are... look at old reviews I posted, I specifically use the colors, not the black & white...

Magnification also matters, the focus on the rear is 99% for the reticle, not the image downrange that is what the parallax is for... you can fine tune some of it, but essentially the diopter is not focusing the target its focusing the reticle. So your vision absolutely matters, everyone's better be 20/20 or else you're skewing the results between people and scope that says 10X and is actually 11X is going to see more bars than a scope that says 10X and is actually 9X, there is not way around that, you're only so close to the test target.

You can try to argue semantics o f what you think, but i have time, numbers, and research on my side, that I promise you. This isn't my first scope rodeo there hoss.

here is the image test page:
http://www.imatest.com/home
 
#59
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

wow - tons of info to sift through there.

I wonder what will be discovered when we get to the scopes actually being used at different ranges, tracking, parallax etc....

BTW - am I missing something or has there not been a review for the Premier on SH yet?
 
#60
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> there is no way to remove the human element.</div></div>
Very true, as humans, we are biased. Let's say we set out to rate 5 different scopes on optical properties of our choosing. We would have to utilize human raters. Even if your raters were not scope owners (ideally, they should not be scope owners), you introduce bias into the assessment by using human raters. However, there is no way to assess the scopes in a vacuum. In other words, meaningful assessment of the scopes' optical qualities absent of human beings in the assessment is not possible. In fact, as the end-users in such subjective exercise, one must use humans to rate the various optics. The impossible goal is to have a series of raters score the optical qualities that interest you, and in the end to have the raters’ scores be statistically identical. I’m just guessing, but I don’t believe statistically identical scores could ever be achieved. However, there are statistical techniques available to mathematically lessen the bias introduced by human raters


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can line ten shooters up and have them look at the same thing and score the scope and you will get 10 different scores -- so what does it all mean.</div></div>
It means, for whatever reason(s), and there are reasons, you failed to control your interrater reliability.


 
#61
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wow - tons of info to sift through there.

I wonder what will be discovered when we get to the scopes actually being used at different ranges, tracking, parallax etc....

BTW - am I missing something or has there not been a review for the Premier on SH yet?

</div></div>

We did a lot of T&E of the 3-15X and the 5-25X passed me in mail, so I don't have it -- but I have one to review, however it is in TX and I am in CO. Jacob at RO said he would do it for me as I won't be near it until January 3rd.
 
#62
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 858</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does the Hensoldt work in the cold? </div></div>

Environmental Standard: DIN ISO 9022

I tried to dig up some photos I have, but I can't seem to locate them. I had one of a scope coming out of the freezer with a thick layer of frost on it... Oh well.

Suffice it to say that this company has been producing standard issue scopes for use in mountain/arctic warfare for well over 100 years.

It's like the song says. Nobody does it better.
wink.gif
 
#63
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scopes are not eye glasses, and when your doctor is changing the prescription, from "Better or Worse" he doing so in a specific manner. Looking through one scope at an eye chart and moving to another is not a "Better or Worse" situation that same as being at an eye doctors.

Uncorrected I can't read the entire line first line of an eye chart, so If I look through a scope and read the resolution bars, and someone with 20/20 vision looks through the same scope at the same bars, he will clearly "see more bars".. because I am friggin blind in my right eye... so saying they are not subjective is false... they are a reference point, nothing more.

Further more, no scope tested is calibrated to the power settings, so you have no way of knowing if one is viewing at 10X and the other 11X, or worse, 9.5X which will also cause a difference in what you see... because the number of bars you see are also a product of magnification. None of them are calibrated, I don't care if you put everyone on 10X, the truth of the matter is, you have no way of knowing that they are all seeing the test chart the same...

These reasons are why the test charts are not industry standard and not being used in the manner which people think they need to be used. </div></div>

You know what Lowlight?...

After being on the Hide a few years now I'm starting appreciate your common sense "WISDOM" in the "anything tactical arena".

Thanks for good advice!

Steve
 
#66
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really should bring your rifles in at night and keep them warm. </div></div>
Looking real close you can see that the barrel is still a bit warmer than the rest.
grin.gif
 
#68
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

Getting back to the actual scopes in question here - is the Premier a DT scope? Lowlight, when you did the T&E on the Premier was it also a DT or single turn?
 
#69
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

EH,

In the very beginning there was a single turn 3-15X but now all I see are double turns.

I dunno much about the Hensoldt, only have looked through a few and they are clear. The big turn off for me is lack of reticle choices and cost.

I now have 3 Premier 5-25X for my 3 comp rifles and they work fine. I shoot the shit out of them, turn the knobs like a mad man and they track. Glass is awesome.

I was at Mike Cecil's with CSTactical's shop yesterday when 12 more 5-25s came in. Our club members picked up 11 of the 12 that came in. Out of the 15 to 18 we have online only 1 had an issue...mine. It was corrected and I have yet to run into a problem since. None of these scopes are safe queens.

Now for the debate of what is better, like Frank pointed out it is all subjective to the user/buyer.

Some think if you spend more it HAS to be better. For me if it does the job I need it to do for the price I can afford then it's a good piece of kit.

FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.

YMMV,

Vu
 
#70
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.
</div></div>

I promise to show you a well used one in May.
wink.gif
 
#71
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the very beginning there was a single turn 3-15X but now all I see are double turns.</div></div>

I have a 15 Mil Single Turn 3-15X they're out there
wink.gif


It's my understanding all the 5-25 are 27 Mil Double Turn.
 
#72
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.
</div></div>

I promise to show you a well used one in May.
wink.gif
</div></div>

You gonna keep it that long?
 
#73
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.
</div></div>

I promise to show you a well used one in May.
wink.gif
</div></div>

You gonna keep it that long? </div></div>

Hahahahaha! Hilariously true.
 
#74
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.
</div></div>

I promise to show you a well used one in May.
wink.gif
</div></div>

You gonna keep it that long? </div></div>

LOL...Jason is running out of any better scopes to buy.I don't blame him though.I'd do the same if I could afford it.

Steve
 
#75
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

There was a reticle question which deserves a response.

Comparing the Premier to the Hensoldt, my Hensoldt reticle is an outline reticle, similar if not exactly like Nightforce's mil dot: lines and dots are not solid but are outlines.

In very low light, the Hensoldt reticle is all but invisible, Premier's thicker posts and hashes are still visible long after the Hensoldt reticle is gone.

The Hensoldt reticle seems, to me, to offer a finer aiming point - which I like, but you'd better have an extra battery around if you plan to do much low light shooting. It is possible to bump the illumination on in the Hensoldt, it will eventually happen at the worst possible time. premier's illumination system is almost idiot proof (almost) and is very unlikely to be accidentally engaged.

I like the turrets, well-spaced clicks, clearly marked, it ain't as good as the USO EREK< but (again, opinion)nothing else is.

The Hensoldt is much easier to get a good sight picture on, that is the real value of this scope. The glass is great (but so is my premier's, maybe not as crisp edge-to-edge, and not as sharp, but pretty close) but the ease of good sight picture is the best I've seen in a tactical scope.

I did get a good deal on it and am exceedingly pleased with the service at SWFA and the optic, it'll see much use over the years to come.

I am hearing quiet rumblings about Premier and I gotta say, my tracking is dead nuts, my glass is fantastic, my scope doesn't have mushy clicks, it'd be tough for me to be happier with the scope as-is. I don't give a rat's ass who recommend I go with something other than Premier, I like what I have and it works for me.

Don't be a hater!
 
#77
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As a Photo geek I have contacted this man, years ago about this: Norman Koren and asked about using his software... and understand they do use software to do this, essentially taking the human element out of the equations because of all the reasons I have stated. Photo geeks photograph the test target and run it through this software to reach their conclusions.

I made an effort to explore this, and can tell you it's not happening way you think. Sure 30 people can give you a good cross sections of "opinions' but that doesn't make them right, or educated opinions, it just makes them their particular opinions at the time. As been written, there was more wrong with these kinds of test than there is right, that I can promise anyone reading this.
</div></div>

Cool website. It would be great if you could make it work. I understand your hesitation with using humans... but I wasn't talking opinions here. I was talking about using an eye test. That is why I don't like the USAF standard... it can be driven by opinion. You are asking someone if they can resolve something yes or no rather than saying, "Which way is the "E" facing" as in the Tumbling E test, taking the opinion out of the equation. (I think the overall opinion questions is useless, BTW, and notice how it does not jibe with the rest of the data)

The issue with the test as it was performed is that it was not able it differentiate between the top 3, which are the ones everyone cares about. From that standpoint, yes, this test is insufficient. Perhaps with computers, you can narrow the standard deviations and therefore come up with more meaningful results.

My point was not so much that computers can't do a better job, it is just that these tests were used before computers... I would say that they are not as useless as they say. Would a computer-generated test be more useful? Absolutely. I would love to see that. Do we have access to that right now? No. We just have to deal with what we got... so that maybe we can say something beyond "sharp as a tack" and "clear as crystal" although the test proved that we can't get much beyond that.

As to color... absolutely, I think that is important. And you can separate color from resolution. I agree that everyone sees "good glass" as something different and I think that the trouble stems from having to classify that. What is important? Edge-to-edge clarity? Resolution? Spectral transmission / Color depiction? You can break these elements down and quantify each of them. What is important to one person may be less important to another... and that is where the subjectivity comes into play... but qualities of the lens such as resolution are not subjective. Those qualities are objective and quantifiable. It is the relative weights of the different qualities of the glass that are subjective.
 
#79
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

You can't draw strong conclusions from small differences in the chart's numbers. You can say that NF was rated optically as well as the S&Bs by this group, but some of the Zeiss scopes and the Premier were rated higher.

I've owned a couple NF scopes and sold them quickly because I didn't like the turret adjustments, the SFP reticle, and the size of the scope -- not because of the optical performance. It was the scopes' design features and not NF's implementation that fell short, but now they are adding capabilities we all want. I have a half dozen S&Bs and wouldn't disagree with the chart's ratings of the S&B and NF scopes. I like S&Bs for a number of reasons, but not because I can see the canals on Mars with them.

I've read many posts and PM'd a number of Europeans on the subject of scopes and have sometimes detected an element of pride about their optical products and, consequentially, a slight disdain for the US competition. When I saw Premier rated so well by Europeans, I realized this was an important admission about the Premier's optical performance. And, yes, I know the glass probably comes from Europe.

I don't have a Premier scope, but it's on my short list if I need another one.
 
#80
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">top 3... the NF beat the S&B both the 3-12X and 4-16X, look at the charts... </div></div>

I guess it depends on how you classify the NF. I was comparing it to scopes of higher magnification, around 20 - 25. But it might be more correct to compare it to the scopes with 50mm objectives.

Again, almost everything is within the same range from a statistical standpoint (and I am talking about resolution in the letter test only). EXCEPT the Tasco and the Bushnell Elite, which appear inferior to the PH, the Zeiss, and the S&B 5-25 in resolution based on the letter test. The large standard deviation for the Nightforce prevents statistical inferences about it... I can't say for sure that it is better than the Tasco for the resolution, but I also can't say that it is not better than the PH in resolution.

Looking at the "colorbleeding" test, the small standard deviation for the S&B 5-25 allows me to say with more confidence that the S&B is superior to the Leupold in that category whereas I can't say that for the PH or the Zeiss, which have larger standard deviations, even though it scored higher on average. The standard deviation on the Nightforce is huge for this test, which again means that we can't say much about NF based on the test. I don't really know what the methodology for this test is, so I can't speak for its validity, but that is what the results tell me.

It is really interesting and I am glad that Hakan posted it... even if it doesn't "prove" much. But that is the way that I think about things... through data. My flight instructor told me that there are two kinds of pilots... the ones who are outside of the plane... looking around and doing everything by feel. And there are the ones who are in the cockpit... flying with the instruments. I fly by the instrument. I trust measurements before my own instinct. There are drawbacks to both styles. My instructor told me it is easier to get an "instrument flyer" out of the cockpit than it is to pull an "instinct flyer" back in, but I will just have to take his word for it.

So that is one of the reasons why I like Hakan's charts, but yes, they must be taken with a grain of salt.
 
#81
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

What totally contradicts everything you posted... for two pages now.

That was the only point about the NF, and frankly I think many of you only read what you want... example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was comparing it to scopes of higher magnification, around 20 - 25</div></div>

The NF tested was a 5-22X50 not a 56 or more like the others... reading.

Just like your claims the resolution test was absolutely spot on and there was no objectivity too it...

You guys need to read yourself more, because it's all over the planet.

Europeaners have bias towards US glass but rated the NF higher than the S&B in several areas... sure only a little but enough, taken with a grain of salt of course because it doesn't match your experience... otherwise you wouldn't have sold your NF, right, but since you did, throw that out.

Yadda, yadda, yadda,

Mayfield clearly never looked objectively through glass, especially at any test chart, and Jack, well I've already been down that road.

A lot of you guys crack me up with this stuff... chasing glass and shooting less should be your signature lines.
 
#82
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: One-Eyed Jack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I've read many posts and PM'd a number of Europeans on the subject of scopes and have sometimes detected an element of pride about their optical products and, consequentially, a slight disdain for the US competition. When I saw Premier rated so well by Europeans, I realized this was an important admission about the Premier's optical performance. And, yes, I know the glass probably comes from Europe.

I don't have a Premier scope, but it's on my short list if I need another one.

</div></div>

It might be that the Premier's glass is German and the Nightforce's is Japanese.

Also, you are right about small differences in the charts, but for the wrong reason. The trick is in the standard deviations.

I don't know if you follow politics, but if you do, you will always see poll numbers with a margin of error. If the difference between the two candidates is within the margin of error, then you say that the race is a statistical dead heat.

For almost all of the tests, the S&B, Zeiss, Premier, Nightforce, and even the Sightron are in a statistical dead heat. In some categories, the IOR, Leupold, Bushnell, and Tasco flat get beat. I neglect the "Overall Opinion" entirely because as LL pointed out, there are brand effects in there. And for an "Overall Rating," I would definitely take LL's review over a panel, though I think that panels/surveys have good limited use.
 
#83
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What totally contradicts everything you posted... for two pages now.

That was the only point about the NF, and frankly I think many of you only read what you want... example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was comparing it to scopes of higher magnification, around 20 - 25</div></div>

The NF tested was a 5-22X50 not a 56 or more like the others... reading.

Just like your claims the resolution test was absolutely spot on and there was no objectivity too it...

You guys need to read yourself more, because it's all over the planet.

Europeaners have bias towards US glass but rated the NF higher than the S&B in several areas... sure only a little but enough, taken with a grain of salt of course because it doesn't match your experience... otherwise you wouldn't have sold your NF, right, but since you did, throw that out.

Yadda, yadda, yadda,

Mayfield clearly never looked objectively through glass, especially at any test chart, and Jack, well I've already been down that road.

A lot of you guys crack me up with this stuff... chasing glass and shooting less should be your signature lines. </div></div>

Sorry. I didn't mean to leave NF out. I have one and love it. It just seemed like the conversation was focusing on S&B/Zeiss/PH, so I was pointing out that there was no statistical difference between them.

Anyway, you are right. I should spend more time shooting and less time posting... but I am too busy dry firing :)
 
#85
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fbomb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish that Hudisco would talk Zeiss into making a new reticle simalar to a P4. I would buy one.</div></div>

How do you know he hasn't ?
 
#87
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Carter Mayfield</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, you are right about small differences in the charts, but for the wrong reason. The trick is in the standard deviations.</div></div>
Hmmmm, I thought that was my reasoning?
 
#88
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Carter Mayfield</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For the statistically disinclined, Håkan also posted the standard deviations for the tests (thanks for that)... that is the purple bar. What the SD shows is that while the Premier outperformed most of the S&B's in the tests, eyeballing it, it was short of two standard deviations, which means the better performance of the Premier is not statistically significant... which goes back to a point that LL has been making for a while... the glass is subjective and at the high end, not substantially different from manufacturer to manufacturer.
</div></div>
What are you talking about? The Standard Deviation (<span style="font-style: italic">S</span>) indicates one thing; the dispersion of the data points about the line of best fit. They can affect statistical significance, but if the data are distributed normally, then you can still draw inferences from it. For that matter, if you were really dedicated, you could clean your data and exclude data you felt was something akin to someone so emotionally invested in their scope they lied. BUT, you essentially perform a dozen or so calculations on ALL the data, then make a subjective decision on which data is excluded from the analysis. Even after cleaning the data, if you don’t have normally distributed data, you can perform non-parametric tests on your data to obtain a mean you can use for inferential purposes. You do all of this to obtain a mean that you can statistically compare to the other means. Then you determine which means are significantly different than the other means. If you want to make it a tight test, set your level of significance at .01.

You’ll find more statistically different means than if you used the default .05 level of significance. <span style="font-style: italic">S</span> helps you determine what your data looks like, but it doesn’t directly infer anything about other data sets, and it doesn’t determine if you can calculate that data set’s mean and calculate it's level of significance.

In the case of these 30(?) scopes, the external validity is non-existant. You can't generalize the findings of this "experiment" to any other scopes because this is NOT an experiment. It's a convenience sample and as such the findings are generalizable only to the scopes used in the quasi-experiment.
 
#89
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

The very basic facts are that firstly 30 scopes/people is not enough of a meaningful sample no matter the test methodology, there was no 'control' group and the tests weren't blind (ha) with respect to the scope brands.

I think the pony is truly dead and whipped on the subjective element of the glass.

'onward ho!' for the mechanical comparison perhaps?
 
#90
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

I think i should chime in hear as there is so much going around and around.

The best scope is the one that you can afford and place on your rifle. if you can only afford a tasco that is the best scope you have I have just purchased a Premier 5-25 and find it awsome i have NF and i have seen some that were awsome and others not as good.
I think spend your coin on the best you can affored and also to realy sit down and look at what will happen if you have a cheep ass scope in regards to a top level scope. My dad has a 40 year old Tasco on a 243 and it is a 6X40 he hits nearly everything the rifle is aimed at and he thinks it is great and it fits the rifle usage.

I think a lot of people have to have the most expensive and best to show others i know lots of people like that just to say i own a X or Y or Z.

Make your choice and live with it.
 
#91
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

Features to consider:

1)mechanical reliability (does the scope track repeatably and reliably?)

2)Features (does it have what you need for your application adjustment, illum, zerostop, how many clicks per rev, etc, what reticle design suits your shooting?)

3)Optics (eye relief and sight picture, and does the parallax control and diopter adjustment work?)

4)Customer service (will the manufaturer make it right when it breaks and will the company be there down the road?)

5)Cost (if you can't afford it it doesn't matter how good it is-and likewise just because you spend $2500 on a scope doesn't mean you will not have issues, and no matter how much it cost it won't shoot the rifle for you)

5)Tacticool factor (will it make you look like a HSLD operator when you post pictures of it on your safe queen?)

6)Resale value (will you be able to recoup your money when you realize a $7000 LR safe queen didn't actually get you laid?)



I like <span style="text-decoration: line-through">filet, then ribeyes, then new york</span> USO, Premier, then NF. Never tried <span style="text-decoration: line-through">brains</span> Hensoldt. I should try <span style="text-decoration: line-through">something healthy that tastes as good as filet</span> a Vortex Razor. Sometimes the <span style="text-decoration: line-through">$.99 burger on the value meal</span> SS16X gets the job done. I just wish the <span style="text-decoration: line-through">Big Mac were a little bigger</span> SS 3-9 FFP had more power, but then there's that new <span style="text-decoration: line-through">Big Carl</span> Vortex Viper FFP.






 
#92
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

Wow, did this thread ever go to hell!

I really like my Hensoldt.

I really like my Premier.

Both are fantastic optics, the little things are purely preference. Both scopes get the intended job done and do so nicely.
 
#93
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, did this thread ever go to hell!

I really like my Hensoldt.

I really like my Premier.

Both are fantastic optics, the little things are purely preference. Both scopes get the intended job done and do so nicely. </div></div>

Blasphemy, how can anyone like 2 different brands of scopes? I really do think people go way over the top on trying to justify their purchase. I have both a Premier and NF and love them both.
 
#94
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW all the Hensoldt I have seen were safe queens. The owners liked to say they have these bad ass pieces of glass but I never seen them in use besides at the 100yard line on a bench....to me that is a fucken waste.
</div></div>

I promise to show you a well used one in May.
wink.gif
</div></div>

Let me know when you wanna sell that bad boy bro....in LNIB condition. =X
 
#95
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

It would be interesting to see how much optical resolution variance there is in scopes from copy to copy of the same scope. I bet it's more than anyone would expect.

I don't buy that there is no way to scientifically test rifle scopes. It might not be worth the effort/cost but it has to be possible. They can do it with camera lenses where pure color and resolution is 10x more important that a rifle scope to the end user. Those tests are not perfect either, but they have useful information.

If magnification is an issue, find a way to make sure the scopes are on the same "actual" power instead of what's indicated on the power ring. We do that all the time with testing the true mil reading power as opposed to what it's "supposed" to be.

What about something simple for a test. There has to be a way to hook up a digital camera to a scope at the proper point of eye relief. It wouldn't be that hard to make a sliding sleeve that attached to the eyepiece so the camera could adjust back from it. Similar setups are used on digiscope kits all the time. Force the settings of the camera to manual and let the camera adjust it's focus through the scope. If the shutter/aperture are kept consistent that's an easy way to test light transfer and color rendition. If you can measure the actual magnification you can shoot test targets (color and B&W) this way. The camera doing the focusing removes the human eye from the problem. When done images can be evaluated at the pixel level for sharpness and color.

Is it the perfect test.....no it's not, but there's no such thing either and it takes the human eye mostly out of it, and using the same camera and shutter/aperture through the scope is pretty consistent as a light transfer test. It would require a serious mount for the scope though to remove vibration and such. Anyone who has tested camera lenses can tell you that even on lenses who's effective magnification is much less than a rifle scope need good tripod support to get the best resolution in the images to remove the vibrations even at fast shutter speeds.

Besides if we really want to play the "all optical tests are invalid" card that's easy. Solar down-welling radiance varies enough even on a clear sunny day that over the course of even a couple minutes light conditions on a whole change significantly. Even a 1% change in cloud cover on the horizon changes measurements at the surface significantly, enough that we have to recalibrate our instruments in the field.

There has to be a better option than the conclusion being "Hey they all have good glass, and you just can't really compare any of them from $300 scopes to $3000 scopes optically because there are X variables" All that does is encourage pissing matches between guys trying to defend their big $ purchases. If you like conspiracy hypotheses it also pretty well eliminates competition and stifles optical advancement across the product range. After all, why bother to improve your products optics when no one can measure the improvement or compare them to other products.
 
#96
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ToddM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would be interesting to see how much optical resolution variance there is in scopes from copy to copy of the same scope. I bet it's more than anyone would expect.
</div></div>

ding ding ding!!!


Plus, clarity is always going to be subjective as far as clarity-unless you can find two people that see the exact same image of say a target at 10yds to their naked eyes; not gonna happen through a scope either.
 
#97
Re: Hensoldt 3-12 vs Premier 3-15

I already posted how you can test it, a least a dozen times in the last 7 years... over and and over...

yes you can test it, get the Imagetest software and test it... try reading instead of repeating the same thing over and over... in fact there is a separate post about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
Replies
126
Views
9K
Charcoal Victorious Alp
C
W
Rifle Scopes My ad hoc LPVO Comparision: SE, PST Gen II, SMRS II Pro, Vudu
Replies
4
Views
711
wcoats
W
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
139
Views
22K
Denys
Denys
gr8fuldoug
Shot Show Day 3
Replies
1
Views
372
J Scott
J Scott
A
SOLD Premier Light Tactical 3-15 Gen2 XR
Replies
1
Views
780
AXMCdriver
A
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts