Re: Nikon Monarch X
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hunter223</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Easy fella
I did'nt see Vortex on your list
and there's ALOT freakin more to rifle scopes and optics than just brightness. And, if I might ask, how many tenths, or hundredths of a percent brighter was the Nikon
</div></div>
Vortex was not on the list because the extensive tests were performed on top of the line scopes only. I think they just picked a Nikon Monarch to laugh at it, which probably explains why they were so suprised at the results. The Nikon performed extremely well and held its own, despite costing a fraction of what the other scopes tested did.
Let me just point out that your question about how much brighter the Nikon was shows that you did not really understand what I wrote. Let me try to explain it to you again.
I said the "Monarch had the best light transmission of all the scopes tested." I did not say it was brighter than the other ones. So, what does light transmission mean and what is the importance here?
The amount of light a scope receives is dictated by its objective element size, its big front lens. The larger the front lens the more light enters the the scope. From that point on, the light will only be reduced (lost). This occurs every time light goes through a lens and this is where lens coating comes in. It the lens is not coated, every air to glass surface robs about 5% of the light that goes through it. Advanced coating methods reduce this loss and this is why you want your lenses to be fully coated. Multiple coating layers reduce the loss of light for different wave lenghts so you get the term "fully multi-coated." Only sophisticated companies are able to properly coat their lenses to the point where they are able to reduce transmission loss.
As others have said, Nikon makes top of the line photo equipment and has been doing that for decades. They make their own lenses, Nikkor, and their riflescopes benefit from their expertise in optics.
As for the percentage, let me tell you that the range was 86.0% (Docter) and 88.2% (Nightforce) to 93.3% (Nikon). The closest was S&B at 93.1%. The Nikon scope tested had an MSRP of $600 and was available for $400. I think the S&B was about $2,500.
So the bottom line is that optically speaking, the technology used by the $400 Nikon was superior to all others, including those who make scopes costing thousands of dollars.
So, how could scopes that have inferior light transmission appear brighter? By having larger objective lenses, that's how.
So when one wants to compare the optics of one scope to another, one must use the same objective size and the same power setting under the same conditions. This is why personal impressions are totally useless as a measure, but that's how people remember the scopes.
