• 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 Mirage Vs lenses quality

overlookh

Private
Minuteman
Dec 30, 2017
3
0
I'am old but rockie in shooting with low experience;
I try to grow up my experience appling the ancient old methodology of a telecom engineer and photograph as I am.
Not a infallible way becouse I find that shooting frequently it's seems to me like the art.
:cool:

Apologize me if I'm using orthodox way.


Now the premise.

At the same time and same conditions I suppose than in a 1000 yards range the target's image is going across the same fluid (air) with probably not different density.
In such way I suppose that the signal (the image) is reaching the front lenses of two parallel scopes with the same noise.

My old books are telling that the target's image is permanently compromised and nothing is able to improve reconstructing the sharpness.
The "information entropy" is difficoult to decrease whithout inserting power. Says an old theorem of transmission science or a photograpy magazine.

When we are using a top tier optics (identical level) we have to hope that all the lenses will not further compromise the image.
If it happens, for shure orders of magnitude less than the 1000 yards of fluctuant air.


Now the question.

How it's come than many comparison are telling that the TopXXXX scope is acting better than the TopYYY scope?


I hope not to bore you.

Bye.
 
I took a photography class in college. I would rent really expensive telescopic lenses that cost 3-4x what even the most expensive scopes cost & they could not stop it or see through it better. I asked my professor is there a filter or special lens with a coating designed to deal with mirage & he said no. He said the only thing you can do is try a lower magnification or try shooting when it’s cooler. Mirage is is a physical obstacle so there’s no lens that will be better or defeat it. I get why some people think the better optics handle it better because you see the mirage & target better but not enough to say it’s made a big difference. With my pmii & mk5hd 56mm I still have to turn the mag down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forward543
If I understand the question correctly, I think you answered it in the last section. The best lenses will compromise the image the least. You can't undo the effects of mirage, but lower quality lenses will further degrade image quality.
 
If I understand the question correctly, I think you answered it in the last section. The best lenses will compromise the image the least. You can't undo the effects of mirage, but lower quality lenses will further degrade image quality.
Exactly. Even with the best optics you can not see through the mirage. There is no anti mirage coating or technology. With cheaper optics the mirage will be the same but with lesser image quality overall. Having better scopes will just show the mirage effects but with a better image. So you will still have to turn the mag down or shoot when it’s cooler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denys
When you spend $3-4k on a scope your mind wallet connection is heightened therefore enhancing the perception of the image coming through the scope.
5BB908C7-B263-41C3-AAE6-494CCC14CAD2.jpeg
 
Exactly. Even with the best optics you can not see through the mirage. There is no anti mirage coating or technology. With cheaper optics the mirage will be the same but with lesser image quality overall. Having better scopes will just show the mirage effects but with a better image. So you will still have to turn the mag down or shoot when it’s cooler.
You and the SSSamuray guy are on the right track.

Over at accurateshooter.com I have opined over the last few years that ED glass diminishes the effect that mirage has on IQ. A few months back I posted more complete thoughts on my hypothesis and my bottom line was, and is, that no glass can eliminate the effects of mirage, but ED and Super ED glass is less affected than regular glass. Several other people jumped in and added some empirical data that seem to indicated my conclusion was not misdirected.

I postulate that reducing or eliminating CA from your image removes the the multiplying effect it has on the mirage. I further stated that the closer you are to optical center on the target, the less distorted by mirage the IQ is. To that effect, I have mounted my Super-ED glassed March-X scope with a 30 MOA ramp so that the scope is right near optical 0 at 1000 yards, where I spend most of my time in competition. Mirage is present in south Texas, but the 1000 yard target is rendered with high IQ in my scope.

I compare the effect on IQ to the BC of a bullet. The higher BC bullets are still affected by conditions, just less so than lower BC bullets. I'm sold on ED and Super-ED glass in riflescopes to minimize the effects of mirage. It does not eliminate it, it just doesn't suffer as much.
 
Having ED glass helps but not enough to say I can leave my magnification up high because it’s high end glass. I’m sure the ca can make it worse that makes sense. I still have to turn down my pmii which has glass that is near what scope companies call super ED. The top euro scopes probably use Schott fk58 which has a 91 abbe rating & super ED usually means around 95 abbe like fluorite crystal, fpl53, or fcd100 glass then standard entry level Ed usually means fpl51 or something close with an abbe 82-87. In the the telescope world they list exactly what glass is in your scope so I have seen the difference between ED & super ED & the difference isn’t as big as one would think in well designed scopes. At rifle scope mag levels the glass difference would be even less & very difficult to see a difference between glass with 90-95 abbe given equal optical design. It’s even hard to see big differences at telescope mags of 100x or more in quality Ed & super Ed scopes. I asked koshkin about why there are not many scopes are not using fluorite or equivalent glass like super ed. He said it wouldn’t make much difference in rifle scopes as much as telescopes due to mag range & that optical design & coatings would be more important in rifle scopes. That makes sense to me now because you can have the same Ed glass in one optic & produce different results in another. Like the mk5hd 56mm handles ca close to my pmii & much better than it’s smaller 44mm counterpart. In higher end scopes the optical quality makes mirage not look as bad I agree. The glass quality will make a difference between low end & high end but how much is hard to say because I turn my high end & cheap scopes to similar powers to deal with mirage. One thing for sure is my high end have a lot better image when shooting longer ranges at lower mag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
With low end scopes, the image is blurry but you can make out the target until the mirage gets heavy. Then all you see is blurry blobs. With high end scopes, the blurry blobs are less blurry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and LAW-DOG
With low end scopes, the image is blurry but you can make out the target until the mirage gets heavy. Then all you see is blurry blobs. With high end scopes, the blurry blobs are less blurry.
Couldn’t have said it better
 
I’m wondering if depth of field isn’t also a part of the equation. There’s already a pretty substantial difference between what you “see” and what your eye is telling your brain; better depth of field probably provides a better “average” image for your brain to interpret.
 
I’m wondering if depth of field isn’t also a part of the equation. There’s already a pretty substantial difference between what you “see” and what your eye is telling your brain; better depth of field probably provides a better “average” image for your brain to interpret.
If you ever compared low power to high power binoculars you can see the lower power gives you more depth of field that 3D like effect. Using my 15x56 meoptas or my friends 20x56 Nikon binoculars it’s seems like I can spot better when dealing with mirage vs my spotting scope even at similar powers. Binoculars give you better depth of field so I would guess high mag & depth of field play a big part in dealing with mirage.
 
Having ED glass helps but not enough to say I can leave my magnification up high because it’s high end glass. I’m sure the ca can make it worse that makes sense. I still have to turn down my pmii which has glass that is near what scope companies call super ED.
I have been shooting at the same range with the same target face, year-round for about 16 years now. I have gone through a series of riflescopes. I realize this is F-class, but the precision needed for these targets require magnification and lots of it.

As I said from the onset, ED and Super ED glass does not eliminate or remedy the mirage; this type of glass in not as affected by the mirage as other glass. I have not tested every scope on the planet, but let me tell you what I have observed.

The first riflescope I used for this was a Nikon Monarch-X 2.5-10X44. I was not affected much at all by the mirage, but I could not get the precision needed, especially when the FC target faces were sanctioned by the NRA. I was transitioning from Service Rifle to F-TR and I happened to have that scope handy. It's a great scope, but not for this discipline. I swapped it for a Nikon Monarch 6.5-20X44 and that was better for magnification, and the mirage was not much of an issue. For a little while I used a Weaver T-36 36X40 scope. That got me the magnification I was hoping for and the tracking was great. But the glass was pretty bad and the mirage affected it horribly; to the point I couldn't even see the rings and the aiming black was like a crazed amoeba. I moved on to an Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. An excellent scope with I ran at 40X, but had to drop down to 30X or less when the mirage showed up, which it did all the time in South Texas.

Six years ago, I bought a March-X 5-50X56 and after a few matches, I noticed that I did not have to back down from the 40X at which I was running all the time. I sometimes pushed to 50X, but it was better at 40X in very heavy mirage. I shot with that riflescope, stuck at 40X, year round and all over North America for 6 years. About 100 local matches, a dozen 3-day state matches, a few regionals, a half dozen Nationals (at various places) and one World. Always at 40X, everywhere I went, all the time. There was never any need to back down.

At the start of the year, I acquired a March-X 10-60X56 HM, with Super ED lens. I ran it for a couple of months at 40X, then in the last few months, I cranked it up to 50X and it stays there. The mirage hasn't gone away, and I see it in the riflescope but the rings as highly visible and the target face is not a crazed amoeba, it's the regular face with some shimmering. This past Sunday, I caught myself getting fixated on the image because it was so nice. I could see details I had not ever observed before and I was like a kid in a candy store. March-X 10-60X56 HM: 50X, 1000 yards, elevation 100feet ASL, dead of summer in South Texas.


The top euro scopes probably use Schott fk58 which has a 91 abbe rating & super ED usually means around 95 abbe like fluorite crystal, fpl53, or fcd100 glass then standard entry level Ed usually means fpl51 or something close with an abbe 82-87. In the the telescope world they list exactly what glass is in your scope so I have seen the difference between ED & super ED & the difference isn’t as big as one would think in well designed scopes. At rifle scope mag levels the glass difference would be even less & very difficult to see a difference between glass with 90-95 abbe given equal optical design. It’s even hard to see big differences at telescope mags of 100x or more in quality Ed & super Ed scopes. I asked koshkin about why there are not many scopes are not using fluorite or equivalent glass like super ed. He said it wouldn’t make much difference in rifle scopes as much as telescopes due to mag range & that optical design & coatings would be more important in rifle scopes.
Optical designs and coatings are critical, I totally agree. But I do not believe those have any effect on reducing or controlling the damage done to the IQ by the mirage, whereas I believe ED and Super ED glass does.

Also, Nikon, (which invented ED and Super-ED glass) uses ED, Super ED and even Fluorite crystal glass elements in their camera lenses and the mag ranges are similar to the focal length of the objective part of the riflescopes.

There are several reason why fluorite crystals glass elements are not used in riflescopes: they are expensive, difficult to make, subject to temperature changes, and fragile to boot. I am only aware of one riflescope that had some fluorite crystal element and that was (IIRC) an Hensoldt and the price was north of $7000. It was a 20-some X variable.

March was the first riflescope maker to use ED glass elements and at the moment, they are the only ones using Super ED glass elements. Their ED models have 1 ED element, the High Master Lens System uses 2 Super ED elements, the objective lens doublet.


That makes sense to me now because you can have the same Ed glass in one optic & produce different results in another. Like the mk5hd 56mm handles ca close to my pmii & much better than it’s smaller 44mm counterpart. In higher end scopes the optical quality makes mirage not look as bad I agree. The glass quality will make a difference between low end & high end but how much is hard to say because I turn my high end & cheap scopes to similar powers to deal with mirage. One thing for sure is my high end have a lot better image when shooting longer ranges at lower mag.

March-X 10-60X56 HM: 50X, 1000 yards, elevation 100feet ASL, dead of summer in South Texas.
 
I’m wondering if depth of field isn’t also a part of the equation. There’s already a pretty substantial difference between what you “see” and what your eye is telling your brain; better depth of field probably provides a better “average” image for your brain to interpret.

DOF is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. However, for the distances at which I am shooting and dealing with the mirage, the DOF coverage is so vast it really makes little difference. Also, the target line is what shows up in my scope, with the number board above or below the target but well within the highly focused area of focus. The only range that I have shot at recently where the number board was hundreds of feet behind the target is the Tubb Range at Whittington center, and even then the number was very crisp in the riflescope focused on the target.
 
I've noticed that despite the great resolution of some scopes Sightron SIII for example, they tend to "pick up" mirage more so that some other scopes with lesser image quality. I don't know if it's just a lense difference or mainly the coatings applied and specific prescription. My SIII 6-24x had amazing resolution, but depending on the day mirage was amplified much more than I would have expected, even on 12x. I think that scopes with more "contrast" such as a Vortex Razor HD LH or SWFA HD 3-9, seem to do better than my 3.5-10x44 Sightron S3's in heavy heat, despite the fact that in cooler conditions the Sightron has every bit as good of "resolution" as the others........just not the same depth of field/contrast.
 
I have been shooting at the same range with the same target face, year-round for about 16 years now. I have gone through a series of riflescopes. I realize this is F-class, but the precision needed for these targets require magnification and lots of it.

As I said from the onset, ED and Super ED glass does not eliminate or remedy the mirage; this type of glass in not as affected by the mirage as other glass. I have not tested every scope on the planet, but let me tell you what I have observed.

The first riflescope I used for this was a Nikon Monarch-X 2.5-10X44. I was not affected much at all by the mirage, but I could not get the precision needed, especially when the FC target faces were sanctioned by the NRA. I was transitioning from Service Rifle to F-TR and I happened to have that scope handy. It's a great scope, but not for this discipline. I swapped it for a Nikon Monarch 6.5-20X44 and that was better for magnification, and the mirage was not much of an issue. For a little while I used a Weaver T-36 36X40 scope. That got me the magnification I was hoping for and the tracking was great. But the glass was pretty bad and the mirage affected it horribly; to the point I couldn't even see the rings and the aiming black was like a crazed amoeba. I moved on to an Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. An excellent scope with I ran at 40X, but had to drop down to 30X or less when the mirage showed up, which it did all the time in South Texas.

Six years ago, I bought a March-X 5-50X56 and after a few matches, I noticed that I did not have to back down from the 40X at which I was running all the time. I sometimes pushed to 50X, but it was better at 40X in very heavy mirage. I shot with that riflescope, stuck at 40X, year round and all over North America for 6 years. About 100 local matches, a dozen 3-day state matches, a few regionals, a half dozen Nationals (at various places) and one World. Always at 40X, everywhere I went, all the time. There was never any need to back down.

At the start of the year, I acquired a March-X 10-60X56 HM, with Super ED lens. I ran it for a couple of months at 40X, then in the last few months, I cranked it up to 50X and it stays there. The mirage hasn't gone away, and I see it in the riflescope but the rings as highly visible and the target face is not a crazed amoeba, it's the regular face with some shimmering. This past Sunday, I caught myself getting fixated on the image because it was so nice. I could see details I had not ever observed before and I was like a kid in a candy store. March-X 10-60X56 HM: 50X, 1000 yards, elevation 100feet ASL, dead of summer in South Texas.



Optical designs and coatings are critical, I totally agree. But I do not believe those have any effect on reducing or controlling the damage done to the IQ by the mirage, whereas I believe ED and Super ED glass does.

Also, Nikon, (which invented ED and Super-ED glass) uses ED, Super ED and even Fluorite crystal glass elements in their camera lenses and the mag ranges are similar to the focal length of the objective part of the riflescopes.

There are several reason why fluorite crystals glass elements are not used in riflescopes: they are expensive, difficult to make, subject to temperature changes, and fragile to boot. I am only aware of one riflescope that had some fluorite crystal element and that was (IIRC) an Hensoldt and the price was north of $7000. It was a 20-some X variable.

March was the first riflescope maker to use ED glass elements and at the moment, they are the only ones using Super ED glass elements. Their ED models have 1 ED element, the High Master Lens System uses 2 Super ED elements, the objective lens doublet.




March-X 10-60X56 HM: 50X, 1000 yards, elevation 100feet ASL, dead of summer in South Texas.
I use my uncles kowa fluorite crystal spotting scope that I think probably has better optical qualities than a march super Ed & it doesn’t see through mirage much better than my bushnell ffp spotter. I turn the kowa & bushnell to 15-20x depending on how much mirage is bothering my view. I doubt the March handles mirage better than an 88mm kowa so how much mirage distortion you want to deal with comes down to personal preference & I think most people use 15-20x when shooting or spotting in mirage. I’ve used cannon & Nikon telephoto lenses that have the best optical qualities $$$ can buy & they could not see through bad mirage. Super Ed is a marketing tool used by telescope companies so there’s no clear cut definition & march doesn’t say what Ed or super Ed they are using. Talking to some of my friends astronomy club people they all agree super Ed refers to glass that’s close to fluorite in performance like FPL53 or FCD100. Fluorite could be used in riflescopes but it is more expensive but not so much that a scope company couldn’t use it at a reasonable price. Kowa sells an 88mm fluorite scope for $3000 & 66mm $1500, but Ed glass is supposed to be tougher & more resistant to tougher environments. Kowa also sells binoculars with fluorite so I think they could do ok in some shooting but probably not the best choice for military or hunting. Every alpha scope has Ed glass that’s very close to super Ed & most people using them still turn that power down. March are not the only ones using high quality Ed glass all the top scopes like pmii, minox, tangent theta, or Swarovski use the best Schott Ed glass that rivals Japanese super Ed. I haven’t seen the march super Ed but I doubt it’s better than pmii, minox or tangent theta in optical qualityy. I would put the tangent theta & pmii against a March super Ed & expect them to match or best the march in optical quality & most will power down to see the target better so again it’s personal preference. I could leave the power higher & still hit the targets sure but turning the mag down gives a better view of the target to me. You might be different & are ok using high mag in heavy mirage but most I think are turning the mag down. So it might be more a preference thing & not a glass thing. I doubt you could see much difference at all between a pmii, tangent, minox, or March super Ed. That also goes for the best Schott Ed glass vs Japanese super Ed like fpl53 & fcd100, seeing much difference between these at rifle scope magnifications would be very difficult when optical design is equal or close. What is super Ed, fpl53, fcd100 with abbe of 95. Ok4 Lzos, Nikon h2, & the best Schott have abbe around 92 so it’s very close to fluorite & some companies call that glass super ed. Super Ed or Ed glass close to it have been used in scopes for a while now & still don’t do much better in mirage because it’s a physical obstacle so there’s no Ed glass that will see through very well. Most people will turn the mag down even when using better optics than march has like kowa fluorite spotters or cannon & Nikon telephoto lenses
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllAheadFull
I think there is something to the contrast argument. A low contrast image turns to grey milk while a high contrast image still allows you to make out the target. As you turn up the magnification you lose light and contrast. Turning down the magnification increases light and contrast, therefore you are able to make out targets better.
 
@LAW-DOG I would never compare a spotting scope to a riflescope. A spotting scope has a much longer base focal length compared to the vast majority of riflescopes and they will pickup a lot more mirage. End of comparison.
 
@LAW-DOG I would never compare a spotting scope to a riflescope. A spotting scope has a much longer base focal length compared to the vast majority of riflescopes and they will pickup a lot more mirage. End of comparison.
I was not just comparing spotting scopes I was comparing most optics that use ed or super Ed. I also compared my pmii & my friends tangent theta which uses very high end Ed glass. The fact is high end glass or not most of us won’t be able to run high mag we will have to power down. The March scope maybe it’s ok for you at high mag but I bet most others with that super Ed will still have to turn it down because it’s not going to be much better than a pmii or a tangent theta. I’ve also used telephoto lenses with super Ed that have comparable focal lengths to riflescopes & mirage is still in an obstacle to deal with. I do think having Ed or super Ed helps but not to the extent that you think. It might work for you at 50x but most of us on the hide are turning even the highest end scopes with premium Ed glass down to 15-20x. Again I’m saying it’s a personal preference thing when it comes to mirage & the power used to deal with it. If super Ed was that much better with mirage don’t you think scope makers like tangent theta, sb pmii, vortex, & leupold would be using fpl53 or or fcd100 super ed glass.
 
Last edited:
1597098161275.jpeg

This article was written by a professional wildlife photographer who uses $20,000 super Ed lenses that can’t see through mirage. It says more expensive cameras & sharper lenses will not help. I’ve been checking some photography forums like dpreview to see if they had something or a technique that helps with mirage. They don’t, they said pretty much said the same thing my old professor told me which was try a different spot or try a time when it’s cooler. I thought Ed glass might help some but I have yet to see a rifle scope I can leave on high mag & I have looked through some very good ones like minox, pmii, tangent theta, or mk5hd. Those scopes are not much better than my $300 vortex diamondback when it comes to mirage I’m turning the power down on both high & low end scopes. Mirage is a physical obstacle that is there like leaves on a tree so no Ed glass or special scope will see through it. You will have to pick a magnification that’s comfortable for you to shoot. Some people may be comfortable shooting with the mag high mag & distortion. Most will probably be like me & power down so you can get better detail on target
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtackmann
This is a nice long thread, I saw it earlier, but was elsewhere pre-occupied. It has grown quite a bit since I glanced at it last and given how long some of the posts are I did not read through everything in any sort of a significant detail. If I missed anything specific, my apologies.

Generally, I should do a Youtube video on this. The subject does come up with reasonable regularity, so I should put something together that I can refer to alter. Once I am able to edit videos again, I will do so.

From what I have seen so far, most of you are a little bit wrong and a little bit right, but almost all of you are thinking about it the wrong way and focusing on the wrong things. How is that for pissing everyone off? I aim to please...

ED glass or Super ED glass or Ultra Super ED glass or even ED medication will not have any impact on the mirage. It is there whether you are looking at it or not. The phenomenon is entirely external to the observation optic.

Focal length of the device you are using to look at stuff is by itself irrelevant for the conversation. It was brought up as a difference between riflescopes and spotters and I do not understand why.

Using a wildlife photography illustration as a comparison for looking through a riflescope is not hugely relevant either. There are some obvious similarities, given there is an optic involved in both cases, but there are also key differences that make this a bad comparison.

The biggest difference is that with a riflescope, your brain is interpreting the entirety of the three-dimensional image, while with a camera a two dimensional scene is recorded using an image sensor. That makes a huge difference.

One of the things that keeps on coming back is that we fall onto thinking about individual glass types from Ohara or Schott and trying to make conclusions about the optical performance of the riflescope. The discussion of specific glass and mirror types is relevant for astronomical telescopes. It is absolutely NOT a relevant discussion topic for riflescopes. This comes up every once in a while like a bad dream. I do not know how many times I ended up addressing this stuff in the 20 or so years I have been talking about riflescopes, but it has been a few.

What matters to how well you see is how good of an image the scope delivers to your eye. "Good" image simply means something that your brain can easily interpret. A better designed riflescope will make you see everything better: both the target and the mirage. You are not seeing "through" the mirage. You are simply seeing better.

You are not diminishing the effects of mirage. They are still there. Which is not a bad thing since this is how you can read wind.

One of the things mirage does to an image is an overall partial suppression of color information and color fidelity, so when a scope has better contrast and, most importantly, better micro-contrast, your brain gets more information to work with. That way you will see BOTH the target and the mirage better.

Greater depth of field also has the effect of delivering more information to your brain which helps it interpret the three dimensional image more accurately.

March's use of Super ED glass, while noteworthy, is only important of these being the latest of March scopes and the best of March scopes. They have better contrast and overall image compared to early March scopes and they will indeed help you see better both with and without mirage.

ILya
 
Just buy one of those astronomy lasers for burning through the atmospheric Mirage and you'll see your target clearly... maybe team it up with Trijicon wind reader and people will pay you to miss... we'll add a thrid laser for ranging and call it Trinity... it'll be like nothing short of a spiritual experience.
 
This is a nice long thread, I saw it earlier, but was elsewhere pre-occupied. It has grown quite a bit since I glanced at it last and given how long some of the posts are I did not read through everything in any sort of a significant detail. If I missed anything specific, my apologies.

Generally, I should do a Youtube video on this. The subject does come up with reasonable regularity, so I should put something together that I can refer to alter. Once I am able to edit videos again, I will do so.

From what I have seen so far, most of you are a little bit wrong and a little bit right, but almost all of you are thinking about it the wrong way and focusing on the wrong things. How is that for pissing everyone off? I aim to please...

ED glass or Super ED glass or Ultra Super ED glass or even ED medication will not have any impact on the mirage. It is there whether you are looking at it or not. The phenomenon is entirely external to the observation optic.

Focal length of the device you are using to look at stuff is by itself irrelevant for the conversation. It was brought up as a difference between riflescopes and spotters and I do not understand why.

Using a wildlife photography illustration as a comparison for looking through a riflescope is not hugely relevant either. There are some obvious similarities, given there is an optic involved in both cases, but there are also key differences that make this a bad comparison.

The biggest difference is that with a riflescope, your brain is interpreting the entirety of the three-dimensional image, while with a camera a two dimensional scene is recorded using an image sensor. That makes a huge difference.

One of the things that keeps on coming back is that we fall onto thinking about individual glass types from Ohara or Schott and trying to make conclusions about the optical performance of the riflescope. The discussion of specific glass and mirror types is relevant for astronomical telescopes. It is absolutely NOT a relevant discussion topic for riflescopes. This comes up every once in a while like a bad dream. I do not know how many times I ended up addressing this stuff in the 20 or so years I have been talking about riflescopes, but it has been a few.

What matters to how well you see is how good of an image the scope delivers to your eye. "Good" image simply means something that your brain can easily interpret. A better designed riflescope will make you see everything better: both the target and the mirage. You are not seeing "through" the mirage. You are simply seeing better.

You are not diminishing the effects of mirage. They are still there. Which is not a bad thing since this is how you can read wind.

One of the things mirage does to an image is an overall partial suppression of color information and color fidelity, so when a scope has better contrast and, most importantly, better micro-contrast, your brain gets more information to work with. That way you will see BOTH the target and the mirage better.

Greater depth of field also has the effect of delivering more information to your brain which helps it interpret the three dimensional image more accurately.

March's use of Super ED glass, while noteworthy, is only important of these being the latest of March scopes and the best of March scopes. They have better contrast and overall image compared to early March scopes and they will indeed help you see better both with and without mirage.

ILya
I was talking about this with my old photography professor. Short of the nasa laser there is no optic that will see through the mirage very well. I also asked him about a spotting scope picking up more mirage than a riflescope. He said it would be similar to a larger vs smaller aperture & of course different focal ratios would have an impact too making it harder to compare. The larger objective will show the mirage more clearly because a larger objective gives you more brightness, contrast, & resolution. Sometimes depending on the situation a smaller objective will show the mirage but with less detail, brightness & contrast making it look like it’s not so bad but it renders a softer, dimmer, less detailed picture. While photography is a not perfect comparison you could apply what we have learned about how magnification, objective size, & optical quality play a role in mirage. He said that when it comes down to it it’s just a smaller objective vs a large one with more or less magnification. So basically there is no optic that can see through mirage very well & in the end it’s a personal preference on what magnification you use to deal with
 
I was talking about this with my old photography professor. Short of the nasa laser there is no optic that will see through the mirage very well. I also asked him about a spotting scope picking up more mirage than a riflescope. He said it would be similar to a larger vs smaller aperture & of course different focal ratios would have an impact too making it harder to compare. The larger objective will show the mirage more clearly because a larger objective gives you more brightness, contrast, & resolution. Sometimes depending on the situation a smaller objective will show the mirage but with less detail, brightness & contrast making it look like it’s not so bad but it renders a softer, dimmer, less detailed picture. While photography is a not perfect comparison you could apply what we have learned about how magnification, objective size, & optical quality play a role in mirage. He said that when it comes down to it it’s just a smaller objective vs a large one with more or less magnification. So basically there is no optic that can see through mirage very well & in the end it’s a personal preference on what magnification you use to deal with

There’s a difference between the instantaneous light delivered to your eye, and the over-time information that your brain invents to explain the scene your eye sees. (And experiment after experiment shows your brain is literally inventing information based loosely on what it sees.)

So no, lenses don’t directly matter in seeing through mirage - you can’t see through mirage with a single image, full stop. However, your brain can *interpret* the scene and the mirage more easily with a better contrast/color/resolution/depth of field image over time.

@koshkin is that an adequate summary?
 
There’s a difference between the instantaneous light delivered to your eye, and the over-time information that your brain invents to explain the scene your eye sees. (And experiment after experiment shows your brain is literally inventing information based loosely on what it sees.)

So no, lenses don’t directly matter in seeing through mirage - you can’t see through mirage with a single image, full stop. However, your brain can *interpret* the scene and the mirage more easily with a better contrast/color/resolution/depth of field image over time.

@koshkin is that an adequate summary?
Yeah that’s basically it. No lens will see through the mirage but a better optic will see the mirage & target better but how much is debatable. When I look at a target with heavy mirage with my pmii 5-25x56 or my leupold mk5hd 7-35x56 I’m turning the mag down to around 15x to get the best image of the target & the same with my $300 vortex. I’m sure it will be different for everyone, some people may be ok at higher mag & some not. My friend who has a tangent theta does the same, we both think 15x does ok in mirage. My uncle just said he was comparing his kowa 88mm 25-60x to his friends leupold golden ring hd 12-40x60mm & he liked the golden ring hd better with the mirage because he could use 12-20x to deal with the mirage
 
Once you start looking at various scopes, side x side in the same conditions...................a lot can be learned. Even if you don't learn anything other than..........wow, to my eye, that is definitely the "winner".
 
With that being said............I just ordered yesterday, my 2nd Athlon Cronus BTR from CameralandNY...........thanks Doug!!
 
I had 3 scopes side by side in heavy mirage at 1000y. Razor HD AMG, Kahles 525i, and S&B Exos 3-21. We had a piece of steel with a orange horizontal truing line through it. It was really blurry in the other scopes, but super clear in the S&B. The Kahles made the line pop out more, but wasn't as sharp as the S&B. But we could definitely tell that the Kahles & S&B were above the Athlon, Razor HD AMG, Tract Toric 4.5-30x56, etc.

Now if it's just that better clarity glass means my brain interprets the image better and can form a sharper image, then cool. All I know is my brain works better using those higher end scopes.
 
I had 3 scopes side by side in heavy mirage at 1000y. Razor HD AMG, Kahles 525i, and S&B Exos 3-21. We had a piece of steel with a orange horizontal truing line through it. It was really blurry in the other scopes, but super clear in the S&B. The Kahles made the line pop out more, but wasn't as sharp as the S&B. But we could definitely tell that the Kahles & S&B were above the Athlon, Razor HD AMG, Tract Toric 4.5-30x56, etc.

Now if it's just that better clarity glass means my brain interprets the image better and can form a sharper image, then cool. All I know is my brain works better using those higher end scopes.
What magnification were you using the pmii at & the others. When mirage is really bad I like the pmii at 15x it starts become a lot more usable to me & when it’s not too bad I can use it 20x.
 
The Cronus Btr is a really good scope for the $$. I got one for one of my nephews & he loves it.

Big difference in glass in the Cronus BTR vs Ares ETR out past 600 yards. The Cronus really pulls away at distance. It's better in all regards, even closer range. However, the Ares ETR I have is EXCEPTIONAL in resolution out to 500 yards, even in heavy mirage. Athlon is making some nice glass on the cheap. I've heard nothing but good about their customer service as well, I hope I never have to use it. I'm a new to Athlon customer and I couldn't be happier thus far. Time will tell with longevity, but so far so good and tracking is PERFECT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAW-DOG
I've been using the Steiner P4xi 4-16x56 scopes for a few years now............the Athlons are both optically "better" during good lighting conditions. I'm thoroughly impressed with Athlons top end offerings.
 
What magnification were you using the pmii at & the others. When mirage is really bad I like the pmii at 15x it starts become a lot more usable to me & when it’s not too bad I can use it 20x.

I really wish I paid more attn to this when I had ran these scopes a month ago. This was in Alaska during one of the Precision Rifle courses and I was just getting behind the scope as-is.. I had assumed most of them were around 20x. But maybe not. Now that I know how magnification can affect this I will have to try to test again when I access to those scopes.
 
This is a nice long thread, I saw it earlier, but was elsewhere pre-occupied. It has grown quite a bit since I glanced at it last and given how long some of the posts are I did not read through everything in any sort of a significant detail. If I missed anything specific, my apologies.

Generally, I should do a Youtube video on this. The subject does come up with reasonable regularity, so I should put something together that I can refer to alter. Once I am able to edit videos again, I will do so.

From what I have seen so far, most of you are a little bit wrong and a little bit right, but almost all of you are thinking about it the wrong way and focusing on the wrong things. How is that for pissing everyone off? I aim to please...

ED glass or Super ED glass or Ultra Super ED glass or even ED medication will not have any impact on the mirage. It is there whether you are looking at it or not. The phenomenon is entirely external to the observation optic.

Focal length of the device you are using to look at stuff is by itself irrelevant for the conversation. It was brought up as a difference between riflescopes and spotters and I do not understand why.

Using a wildlife photography illustration as a comparison for looking through a riflescope is not hugely relevant either. There are some obvious similarities, given there is an optic involved in both cases, but there are also key differences that make this a bad comparison.

The biggest difference is that with a riflescope, your brain is interpreting the entirety of the three-dimensional image, while with a camera a two dimensional scene is recorded using an image sensor. That makes a huge difference.

One of the things that keeps on coming back is that we fall onto thinking about individual glass types from Ohara or Schott and trying to make conclusions about the optical performance of the riflescope. The discussion of specific glass and mirror types is relevant for astronomical telescopes. It is absolutely NOT a relevant discussion topic for riflescopes. This comes up every once in a while like a bad dream. I do not know how many times I ended up addressing this stuff in the 20 or so years I have been talking about riflescopes, but it has been a few.

What matters to how well you see is how good of an image the scope delivers to your eye. "Good" image simply means something that your brain can easily interpret. A better designed riflescope will make you see everything better: both the target and the mirage. You are not seeing "through" the mirage. You are simply seeing better.

You are not diminishing the effects of mirage. They are still there. Which is not a bad thing since this is how you can read wind.

One of the things mirage does to an image is an overall partial suppression of color information and color fidelity, so when a scope has better contrast and, most importantly, better micro-contrast, your brain gets more information to work with. That way you will see BOTH the target and the mirage better.

Greater depth of field also has the effect of delivering more information to your brain which helps it interpret the three dimensional image more accurately.

March's use of Super ED glass, while noteworthy, is only important of these being the latest of March scopes and the best of March scopes. They have better contrast and overall image compared to early March scopes and they will indeed help you see better both with and without mirage.

ILya
When I re read this thread your answer is pretty much what I said. That with better optics you will see the target & image better but even with the best lens quality you can’t see through the mirage. Then someone said they thought their super Ed lens was good enough to use 50x in heavy mirage & that the super Ed made the difference. So since we don’t know what kind of lens is used in riflescopes I used telephoto lenses as an example because we know the exact lens quality & overall quality between telephoto lenses. So if the best telephoto lens can’t see through a mirage vs other cheaper telephoto lenses then how could a riflescope lens be better than another riflescope lens. So I wasn’t comparing telephoto to riflescopes as much as I was lens to lens in each one. Comparing telescope, riflescope, & telephoto is not a very good comparison on how they handle mirage because they are different tools designed to do different jobs. The thread was about top scopes & lens quality vs mirage. So you can compare telephoto lenses to other telephoto lenses very well to see if one does better than another. So that’s why I said if the best telephoto lens can’t see through the mirage then the best lens in a riflescope wouldn’t either. I also said that build quality & coatings would play a bigger part at riflescope magnification levels. I asked you in another thread one time why don’t more scopes use fluorite or fpl53 or fcd100 super Ed & you said that the build quality & coatings were more important. The more optics I’ve seen with really good design & build do make the bigger difference. Anyone who likes big binoculars for long range observation or astronomy knows fk61 Chinese glass is in a lot them & some are bad but the APM ED 100mm binoculars are awesome & beats other cheaper builds by a lot even though they use the same Ed glass. Now APM also has a super ED fcd100 glass in their big 100mm binoculars with a few design tweaks, so that will be interesting to see the difference between the 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
Sorry for the delay in coming back here; I am totally swamped at work.

Before we continue to foolishness of comparing riflescopes to spotting scopes, camera lenses or worse yet, telescopes. Let’s remember how a riflescope works.

There are essentially three areas that make up a riflescope and they each have a bearing on the magnification of the image. These areas are the objective lens group, the erector tube and the eyepiece. The magnification range of a riflescope is a combination of these three sections. For a 5-50X56 like my long-used and superb March-X scope, the base magnification (5X) is the objective group focal length divided by the eyepiece focal length. The 5 to 50 is, you guessed it, the 10X zoom ratio afforded by the erector tube assembly.

A riflescope essentially forms an image at the first focal plane that is somewhat magnified and from that point on, the erector assembly zooms in on that image to project a magnified portion of that image on the second focal plane which is in turn, inspected by the eyepiece, an afocal optics that then transmits the light to the eye. If you compare my 5-50X56 to a spotting scope, you would have to compare it to a very weak spotting scope. My Kowa is a 27X with the LER eyepiece. I also have a zoom eyepiece, but the zoom is done in the eyepiece not in the scope body. The base 22x of my zoom eyepiece is what you would compare to the base 5X of my March.

The zoom assemblies, whether in the eyepiece or erector tube only magnify the image presented at the first focal plane in front of the erector tube in my riflescope or at the prism in my Kowa.

We have seen in this thread that people turn down the magnification when the mirage gets bad. Camera buffs like me know not to use long lenses when shooting through mirage. The longer the focal length to the first focal plane (or camera sensor), the more the image will be distorted by the mirage because it’s compressing more distortion in the atmosphere. In a riflescope, after the first focal plane, the image will not be catching any more mirage, there are no atmospheric conditions in the scope further distorting the light rays. What is happening however, is that zooming in on the first focal plane is bringing out the distortion the image may have from the mirage. So it is important to get as clear and crisp an image in the first focal plane as possible so as not to detect the distortion.

Think of it as the photographer taking a picture (the first focal plane) and then zooming in on the image the camera sensor captured. Further this image is static, frozen in time, which highlights any moving distortion, unlike a riflescope in which everything is in motion, fluidic. Let’s say you take a picture with a 200mm lens onto a 35mm sensor. Right off the bat, you have 4X, as a normal lens is about 50mm. If you make an 8X10 of that picture, you zoomed 8X, so the 8X10 picture is a 32X representation of the subject. Now, let’s say you take the same picture and you want to keep at 32X overall. If you use a light telephoto like a 100mm, you would need to blow it up to a 16X20 to get the same results. Of course, we could only look at the picture through a hole about an inch and some in diameter, (the eyepiece of the riflescope). Now if the resolution is low (think number of pixels), blowing up an image that much will create some issues. This is where glass quality comes in. Great glass will provide a higher resolution image and you will be able to distinguish objects properly even at large magnification. Now if mirage gets into the action and you started with oh-hum quality glass, the image that looked fine when the air was still gets jumbled up more quickly when the mirage comes in to distort the image. If the pixel count is merely adequate to blow up to 32X, adding the mirage distortion is going to mess up that image faster than if I started with a higher pixel count image and blew it up to 32X.

With the higher pixel count image be immune to the mirage? Not on your life, but it won’t be as bad as for the lower pixel count image. Now adding the chromatic aberration effect of lower quality glass resulting in lower contrast and you can really mess up an image with mirage.

The goal is to provide the very best image to the first focal plane, with the best contrast and highest resolution possible. When people turn down the magnification of their scope, they are just reducing the magnification after the first focal plane. They are not reducing the focal length of a telephoto or telescope. A spotting scope inherently has a long primary focal length, but it also has a larger objective, which I think helps the image quality (resolution), but only up to a point which I believe is less than in a riflescope.

The image at the first focal plane of my March-X 10-60X56 HM happens to have incredibly high resolution, excellent contrast, and very low aberration. I see the mirage, I detect the effect of the mirage but it doesn’t mess up the picture to the point I can’t see the rings on the target distinctly.

I have been shooting at the exact same target face, at 1000 yards, at every match, year round with a riflescope for the last 16+ years. I know a great deal about mirage and I have seen more mirage than most people. Lesser riflescopes presented an unusable image even at 36X or less. When I got my March-X 5-50X56, I set it at 40X and kept it there all the time. I never lowered the magnification because of mirage. It has an excellent lens system with one ED element. I would sometimes turn down my Nightforce NXS 12-42X56 to about 30X when the mirage was bad. It had no ED lenses.

When I got my March-X 10-60X56, I discovered than I can run it at 50X all the time. I have not had it a year yet, but I have been shooting with it this summer in South Texas. I can see the mirage, I can see the distortion it causes, but the effect is very mild compared to other riflescope and I can see the rings distinctly, even at 50X. Seeing the rings is extremely important in F-class, especially when we shoot team as that’s how we communicate between wind coach and the shooters. I have a world championship medal and several National medals, regional and state awards I collected as wind coach in team matches that say I know a little about mirage. I also have a Texas state LR championship and other awards that says I can shoot in mirage also.

I related my observations accumulated over 16 years of the exact same type of shooting. It’s all empirical data. I never said that ED or Super ED lenses cure the mirage or are immune to mirage, I said that they seem to suffer from the mirage less than lesser quality glass. I still stand by that statement because that’s what my experience and observations have shown me.
 
Sorry for the delay in coming back here; I am totally swamped at work.

Before we continue to foolishness of comparing riflescopes to spotting scopes, camera lenses or worse yet, telescopes. Let’s remember how a riflescope works.

There are essentially three areas that make up a riflescope and they each have a bearing on the magnification of the image. These areas are the objective lens group, the erector tube and the eyepiece. The magnification range of a riflescope is a combination of these three sections. For a 5-50X56 like my long-used and superb March-X scope, the base magnification (5X) is the objective group focal length divided by the eyepiece focal length. The 5 to 50 is, you guessed it, the 10X zoom ratio afforded by the erector tube assembly.

A riflescope essentially forms an image at the first focal plane that is somewhat magnified and from that point on, the erector assembly zooms in on that image to project a magnified portion of that image on the second focal plane which is in turn, inspected by the eyepiece, an afocal optics that then transmits the light to the eye. If you compare my 5-50X56 to a spotting scope, you would have to compare it to a very weak spotting scope. My Kowa is a 27X with the LER eyepiece. I also have a zoom eyepiece, but the zoom is done in the eyepiece not in the scope body. The base 22x of my zoom eyepiece is what you would compare to the base 5X of my March.

The zoom assemblies, whether in the eyepiece or erector tube only magnify the image presented at the first focal plane in front of the erector tube in my riflescope or at the prism in my Kowa.

We have seen in this thread that people turn down the magnification when the mirage gets bad. Camera buffs like me know not to use long lenses when shooting through mirage. The longer the focal length to the first focal plane (or camera sensor), the more the image will be distorted by the mirage because it’s compressing more distortion in the atmosphere. In a riflescope, after the first focal plane, the image will not be catching any more mirage, there are no atmospheric conditions in the scope further distorting the light rays. What is happening however, is that zooming in on the first focal plane is bringing out the distortion the image may have from the mirage. So it is important to get as clear and crisp an image in the first focal plane as possible so as not to detect the distortion.

Think of it as the photographer taking a picture (the first focal plane) and then zooming in on the image the camera sensor captured. Further this image is static, frozen in time, which highlights any moving distortion, unlike a riflescope in which everything is in motion, fluidic. Let’s say you take a picture with a 200mm lens onto a 35mm sensor. Right off the bat, you have 4X, as a normal lens is about 50mm. If you make an 8X10 of that picture, you zoomed 8X, so the 8X10 picture is a 32X representation of the subject. Now, let’s say you take the same picture and you want to keep at 32X overall. If you use a light telephoto like a 100mm, you would need to blow it up to a 16X20 to get the same results. Of course, we could only look at the picture through a hole about an inch and some in diameter, (the eyepiece of the riflescope). Now if the resolution is low (think number of pixels), blowing up an image that much will create some issues. This is where glass quality comes in. Great glass will provide a higher resolution image and you will be able to distinguish objects properly even at large magnification. Now if mirage gets into the action and you started with oh-hum quality glass, the image that looked fine when the air was still gets jumbled up more quickly when the mirage comes in to distort the image. If the pixel count is merely adequate to blow up to 32X, adding the mirage distortion is going to mess up that image faster than if I started with a higher pixel count image and blew it up to 32X.

With the higher pixel count image be immune to the mirage? Not on your life, but it won’t be as bad as for the lower pixel count image. Now adding the chromatic aberration effect of lower quality glass resulting in lower contrast and you can really mess up an image with mirage.

The goal is to provide the very best image to the first focal plane, with the best contrast and highest resolution possible. When people turn down the magnification of their scope, they are just reducing the magnification after the first focal plane. They are not reducing the focal length of a telephoto or telescope. A spotting scope inherently has a long primary focal length, but it also has a larger objective, which I think helps the image quality (resolution), but only up to a point which I believe is less than in a riflescope.

The image at the first focal plane of my March-X 10-60X56 HM happens to have incredibly high resolution, excellent contrast, and very low aberration. I see the mirage, I detect the effect of the mirage but it doesn’t mess up the picture to the point I can’t see the rings on the target distinctly.

I have been shooting at the exact same target face, at 1000 yards, at every match, year round with a riflescope for the last 16+ years. I know a great deal about mirage and I have seen more mirage than most people. Lesser riflescopes presented an unusable image even at 36X or less. When I got my March-X 5-50X56, I set it at 40X and kept it there all the time. I never lowered the magnification because of mirage. It has an excellent lens system with one ED element. I would sometimes turn down my Nightforce NXS 12-42X56 to about 30X when the mirage was bad. It had no ED lenses.

When I got my March-X 10-60X56, I discovered than I can run it at 50X all the time. I have not had it a year yet, but I have been shooting with it this summer in South Texas. I can see the mirage, I can see the distortion it causes, but the effect is very mild compared to other riflescope and I can see the rings distinctly, even at 50X. Seeing the rings is extremely important in F-class, especially when we shoot team as that’s how we communicate between wind coach and the shooters. I have a world championship medal and several National medals, regional and state awards I collected as wind coach in team matches that say I know a little about mirage. I also have a Texas state LR championship and other awards that says I can shoot in mirage also.

I related my observations accumulated over 16 years of the exact same type of shooting. It’s all empirical data. I never said that ED or Super ED lenses cure the mirage or are immune to mirage, I said that they seem to suffer from the mirage less than lesser quality glass. I still stand by that statement because that’s what my experience and observations have shown me.
Like I said before I wasn’t so much comparing a telephoto lens to a riflescope as I was comparing the different lenses between other telephoto lenses ability to handle mirage. These professionals have tried every aperture size, focal length, as well as focal ratios & super ed or even pure crystal fluorite lenses to defeat mirage but are unsuccessful. If the best telephoto lens is not going help much then how could a super Ed riflescope lens make much difference vs tangent theta or pmii quality Ed glass or other high end scopes. Again in telescopes I was saying it was hard in a well built telescope to see a big difference in entry level Ed glass to super Ed even at high mag above 100x where the cheaper scopes show their weakness. Most of us here are saying with high end scopes you will see the mirage & target better but how much is different for everyone. To me they don’t make a huge improvement & I’m powering down. I’m not disputing that you cant use 50x you are very experienced with doing that. It sounded like you were saying the quality of your super Ed lens is what makes it possible for you to use 50x in heavy mirage but I’m guessing it’s more your skill & experience that allows you to be comfortable at high mag in heavy mirage. Most of us are disputing that the lens quality doesn’t make a big difference in high end scopes vs other high end scopes & most people I know with high end optics don’t use really high magnification in heavy mirage.
 
Last edited: