918v... You need agree with them or get banned.
Rifle Scopes Schmidt & Bender "implosion"?
- Thread starter dms416
- Start date
918v... You need agree with them or get banned.
No, its a telescopic sight, which is different from a spotting scope used to stare at birds, and even the birders are smart enough to understand there is more too it than looking out the window with it. If you never put them on a chart to read the actual results you accomplished nothing but satisfy your own desire.
All you did was decide you like the color white over the blue or red car in the parking lot. You picked a color that satisfies your eye and absolutely nothing else. You have no facts , no data, you don't know a single thing more than you did before you went shopping except, you eye likes the Henny and the blue of the S&B felt too cool, the ATACR was too warm, which is all meaningless to anyone but you. My girl did the same thing last month, she picked the Black Turbo Beetle over the White Convertible one, which she liked better than the shade of blue one they had. She wanted a standard shift and a color that didn't offend her end. Beyond that, not much else mattered.
Hell as a photographer you should know there is more to a lens than the eye can resolve. If all it took was a simple look why do they waste their time with testing, color charts, etc. even more so when you can the color and look both inside the camera and in post. Can you tell which lens is better if you shoot in Log mode.... What about if you add a FLAAT color space, does just looking tell you the story ? Of course not.
Your eye is not calibrated, and your brain includes prejudices that act subconsciously.
I'm not going to agree. I know what my eyes are telling me. One is sharper. One is warmer. One is colder. Another is less contrasty, and by a wide margin.
Picking out the best examples, i.e. an ATACR, to exemplify the rest of the line isn't valid. The NXS line as a whole aren't as nice optically as the ATACR. And you don't need any instruments to show that.
Did I say the NXS is a POS? Because I'm being treated like I did. All I said is that the NXS has low contrast. And the Lowlight jumped all over me first implying it did not matter, then that I'm in no position to evaluate, then that it won't make me a better shot. I never said it would.
What I am trying to say is that superior image helps to identify targets in the dark and makes your shooting experience pleasant. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on something that does not deliver the best image quality?
Picking out the best examples, i.e. an ATACR, to exemplify the rest of the line isn't valid. The NXS line as a whole aren't as nice optically as the ATACR. And you don't need any instruments to show that.
Did I say the NXS is a POS? Because I'm being treated like I did. All I said is that the NXS has low contrast. And the Lowlight jumped all over me first implying it did not matter, then that I'm in no position to evaluate, then that it won't make me a better shot. I never said it would.
What I am trying to say is that superior image helps to identify targets in the dark and makes your shooting experience pleasant. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on something that does not deliver the best image quality?
I agree. But we got away from the main point which was contrast. That's not subjective.
Clearly too stupid to understand what anyone is saying. You can lead a horse to water, but....
His calibrated Mk1 eyeball trumps all.
Funny hardly anyone shots the Zeiss / Hensoldts wonder why when according to all the above it is so superior. I feel like a fool shooting all the scopes I do when I have 3 Hennys on the floor wasting away. Perfect takeaway from this, forget features, picture quality above all else, and make sure the color contrast is perfect before purchasing.
Done... I am off to email Tom Berenger for my sniper certificate, and book my room at the Holiday Inn Express as I am missing key elements by using, learning and engaging when an hour at the gun store is enough.
His calibrated Mk1 eyeball trumps all.
Funny hardly anyone shots the Zeiss / Hensoldts wonder why when according to all the above it is so superior. I feel like a fool shooting all the scopes I do when I have 3 Hennys on the floor wasting away. Perfect takeaway from this, forget features, picture quality above all else, and make sure the color contrast is perfect before purchasing.
Done... I am off to email Tom Berenger for my sniper certificate, and book my room at the Holiday Inn Express as I am missing key elements by using, learning and engaging when an hour at the gun store is enough.
There is the subjective test
And
The objective test.
One is opinion
One is fact.
It's important to know the difference.
It's funny how the brain plays tricks interpreting the visual data to get it to conform to what the brain expects.
And
The objective test.
One is opinion
One is fact.
It's important to know the difference.
It's funny how the brain plays tricks interpreting the visual data to get it to conform to what the brain expects.
Last edited:
PM me for the charts that Finn Accuracy created. They are awesome.
I guess Koshkin's stupid too.
NF are indeed on the right track, but they're made in Japan... I really wish we could claim them ALL for ourselves!
My F1 says made in the USA
918, Frank clearly has used all the scope your arguing about, why dont you post a pic just to make sure we are all talking about the same scopes.
like this
like this
I know SB is top notch, but why is everyone in this thread dogging the IOR?
Are you guys dogging the older generations or the current generation? I understand that even SBs, USO, NF, Etc. break occasionally just like the IOR. I've read the couple examples of the IORs having problems, but I'm just trying to see what others see here.
The clicks are very precise and it returns to zero with no issues. I haven't done the "box" test yet, but it seems like a fairly solid scope. Not SB or even NF durability, but it seems okay, except for the goofy zero stop and that POI indicator.
Are you guys dogging the older generations or the current generation? I understand that even SBs, USO, NF, Etc. break occasionally just like the IOR. I've read the couple examples of the IORs having problems, but I'm just trying to see what others see here.
The clicks are very precise and it returns to zero with no issues. I haven't done the "box" test yet, but it seems like a fairly solid scope. Not SB or even NF durability, but it seems okay, except for the goofy zero stop and that POI indicator.
because even the new ones dont track very well. Price wise they are the same as NF/Mark6/Low end USO and all of those are far superior to IOR. Last IOR i tried was a 2012 build. The glass is fantastic, as it has always been.
IOR are goofy everything about them is goofy!! You don't know what generation your getting, its like buying a Hand grenade 2nd hand.
I've owned about 7 various IOR scopes all pre 2009 all brand new and had 6 problems all different some happened straight away some after 200-300 rounds. problems from, parallax shit its self, Mag ring froze, wouldn't hold zero track etc, erector locked up, main tube unscrewed from erector housing, undoing a sunshade the objective lens came loose.
I can't comment on newer versions but i have no confidence in them at all
I've owned about 7 various IOR scopes all pre 2009 all brand new and had 6 problems all different some happened straight away some after 200-300 rounds. problems from, parallax shit its self, Mag ring froze, wouldn't hold zero track etc, erector locked up, main tube unscrewed from erector housing, undoing a sunshade the objective lens came loose.
I can't comment on newer versions but i have no confidence in them at all
Perhaps if you actually read the thread that you decide to post in, you would not have posted a question that has been literlly answered 20+ times already.
You are just adding to the ignorance.
There is a central theme here: "I haven't really shot or tested this optic much, but Its just as good as ones that have proven track records." "The scope was great for the 40 rounds I shot it at 70*/70hum/0ele and it hit all the zombie targets so it must be what the SF Recon SEALS use". " My savage has never failed in the same 40 rounds that have been down the tube. It is just as good as your AI with 100% reliability"
[MENTION=7]Lowlight[/MENTION] and to all of you who was able to use in the field such an impressive number of scopes from so many brands
Can you please make a personal top 10 or top 3 ? not the brand but the specific model .
Thank you
Can you please make a personal top 10 or top 3 ? not the brand but the specific model .
Thank you
A little earlier in this thread Frank mentioned he runs 1 NF beast which he "Loves" and 3 Kahles which he "likes a lot" he also noted that he ran alot of S&B in the past.
I only wish I could get my dirty southpaw on the beast so that I could also join that club.
And if you want to troll you might get banned. You obviously don't understand why the other member was banned so how about you just keep quiet and learn about this forum before making wise ass comments about how we run it?
Wow, I thought I'd check this thread out before work and now my head hurts. I can't believe how some folks get wrapped up in color and pop of a particular scope. Are you going to use it for photography or shooting? Who cares as long as you can resolve your target and reticles sufficiently to properly execute the target ID, range determination (if using the scope for that) and firing tasks? I use my scope in my profession often and in adverse conditions, mostly between 300 and 600 yards. Yes, it is a NF NXS, but I also use SWFA. Are these high end, no, but if they do those things mentioned above in the conditions I find myself they don't need to be?
I get it, if you going to spend the money, you want what you want. If you care more about the look than how it shoots, then knock yourselves out. I don't see the point, but each to his own. Lowlight knows what he is talking about. Why argue with experience that you don't have?
FWIW,
RB
I get it, if you going to spend the money, you want what you want. If you care more about the look than how it shoots, then knock yourselves out. I don't see the point, but each to his own. Lowlight knows what he is talking about. Why argue with experience that you don't have?
FWIW,
RB
There are a lot of really good scopes out there, we have more choices than ever before and companies are really doing well to step up. The bar is raised.
You have to remember, it's a Telescopic "Sight"... the key word here is SIGHT. It's not a spotter, it's not a camera lens, it's a sighting system designed to move the crosshair to a target at a given distance. Glass is not your primary consideration.
People get wrapped around the axle about glass, what they see, how it looks, where it comes from. All that is important only to you the owner, as no two people see the same thing the same way we all have different reasons for buying a scope. And we all come into it with a prejudice ahead of time. Either the name, the cost, the place it was spec'd from, all plant seeds in people's mind which then sways their judgement. It's how we operate, and you can't do anything about it unless you use a test like the Finn Accuracy one to help turn a subjective process into something more objective. All you need to read it once that "X" brand has better glass or is a better scope and the moment you touch it, your mind is already made up. Especially when people get into the $3k range, it instantly becomes an emotional investment that also speaks to your decision making process.
How you plan to use it, the features important to you, first focal plane, second focal plane, hunting, target, competition, zero stops, locking turrets, reticle, all matter when picking a scope. Very little of that has to do with Glass... sure some of it does, but different coatings and different objective, as well as different overall designs can also determine your choice. Longer, shorter, Wider field of View, higher magnification range, also has meaning. If you are gonna hunt at dusk, you might want to stick to a bigger objective and lower power range, if you are gonna shoot F Class you might want MOA turrets and reticles with a bigger range up to 50x or more. That same scope is not gonna work well on a hunt.
I use and employ a lot of scopes, I am fan of scopes, I have scopes from many different manufacturers and have toured several different factories over the years, to include assembling scopes. When people ask me what scope to get, the first thing I need to know is your budget... the next is what you plan on doing with it, and then I can point you in the right direction. There is no sense pushing them towards a $3600 scope if they can only afford $1600. At the same time how stupid would it be to compare a $1600 scope to a $3600 scope, or $6600 scope. It's apples and oranges, of course one will "look" better, but that doesn't mean there is not good choices in the $1600 price range. Hell I was one who pushed USO into making the first MOA scope from them, I sketched the reticle used on a napkin at SHOT with John W Sr, and a few months later, their first MOA / MOA scope was born. There are several examples like this out there swirling in the ether.
What pisses me off is people who throw their personal opinion out as if they solved the optics puzzle. Strolling into a gun shop, and comparing them out of the box is no different than going to you local car dealer and picking a car based on the color. You might get a bullet pointed break down from the salesman, but you are no more educated on the subject of cars than you were before you walked in the dealership. Saying, well I get better gas mileage, I have A/C, heated seats, etc, as if you know exactly what you are talking about is false. Yes that car fits your needs, but what about the guy looking to haul a trailer, he has a completely different mindset than you. You can't help him and in fact are not helping him at all. You bought a Camry, not a Tundra, so why do you keep trying to sell the Camry to everyone. Stupid. It's your personal opinion, and just because your opinion of the Camry matches someone else's doesn't change the fact, not everyone is looking for a Camry.
This thread was started because of an off the cuff, (insider) comment I made last year at SHOT. It was in defense of what was universally seen as a unprofessional (and personal) move by S&B towards someone highly respected in this industry. it had very little to do with the optics themselves. It was about people or a person... that also carried over towards a trend people saw with the product. If you weren't there in the know, it has very little bearing on your life or the product we all use. Since that time, everyone has moved on... it's water under the bridge, the dust has settled, however you want to say it. The subject is old news... hence the problem with digging up year old posts.
I use a lot of different rifles, scopes, mounts, in my daily travels. I am happy to show people the difference between a Vortex PST and an SWFA Super Sniper and let you make the decision. If you want to see an S&B, I will bring them too... But like I said, 1. Budget, 2. Use to include, a) rifle, b) distance c) context 3. Features important to you, and finally future proofing ... does it make sense for you to spend a bit more now vs buying a second optic down the road because you went cheap this time. It's better to mount an S&B on a Factory 700 5R than it is to buy 3 different scopes as you move up the optics ladder. At least that is how I see it.
Here is a clue... if you want to express your personal opinion and not take flak... tell people up front it's just your personal opinion, you looked at it out the shop window and in your mind, scope A was better than scope B... but don't act like you know anything more than that... just cause you have some google fu. Ownership does not equal competence, there a tons of owners who never shot their stuff, never went beyond 200 yards with it, never had it out in the rain, never tested the adjustments, never shot from an alternate position, never let it put it behind NV, don't have more than 100 rounds under it, etc... the list is endless. Hell many don't even mount their own scopes. If you think money to buy means your opinion is valid, think again. Sound harsh... if it does, you might just fit into that box. We're glad you like your scope... next.
You have to remember, it's a Telescopic "Sight"... the key word here is SIGHT. It's not a spotter, it's not a camera lens, it's a sighting system designed to move the crosshair to a target at a given distance. Glass is not your primary consideration.
People get wrapped around the axle about glass, what they see, how it looks, where it comes from. All that is important only to you the owner, as no two people see the same thing the same way we all have different reasons for buying a scope. And we all come into it with a prejudice ahead of time. Either the name, the cost, the place it was spec'd from, all plant seeds in people's mind which then sways their judgement. It's how we operate, and you can't do anything about it unless you use a test like the Finn Accuracy one to help turn a subjective process into something more objective. All you need to read it once that "X" brand has better glass or is a better scope and the moment you touch it, your mind is already made up. Especially when people get into the $3k range, it instantly becomes an emotional investment that also speaks to your decision making process.
How you plan to use it, the features important to you, first focal plane, second focal plane, hunting, target, competition, zero stops, locking turrets, reticle, all matter when picking a scope. Very little of that has to do with Glass... sure some of it does, but different coatings and different objective, as well as different overall designs can also determine your choice. Longer, shorter, Wider field of View, higher magnification range, also has meaning. If you are gonna hunt at dusk, you might want to stick to a bigger objective and lower power range, if you are gonna shoot F Class you might want MOA turrets and reticles with a bigger range up to 50x or more. That same scope is not gonna work well on a hunt.
I use and employ a lot of scopes, I am fan of scopes, I have scopes from many different manufacturers and have toured several different factories over the years, to include assembling scopes. When people ask me what scope to get, the first thing I need to know is your budget... the next is what you plan on doing with it, and then I can point you in the right direction. There is no sense pushing them towards a $3600 scope if they can only afford $1600. At the same time how stupid would it be to compare a $1600 scope to a $3600 scope, or $6600 scope. It's apples and oranges, of course one will "look" better, but that doesn't mean there is not good choices in the $1600 price range. Hell I was one who pushed USO into making the first MOA scope from them, I sketched the reticle used on a napkin at SHOT with John W Sr, and a few months later, their first MOA / MOA scope was born. There are several examples like this out there swirling in the ether.
What pisses me off is people who throw their personal opinion out as if they solved the optics puzzle. Strolling into a gun shop, and comparing them out of the box is no different than going to you local car dealer and picking a car based on the color. You might get a bullet pointed break down from the salesman, but you are no more educated on the subject of cars than you were before you walked in the dealership. Saying, well I get better gas mileage, I have A/C, heated seats, etc, as if you know exactly what you are talking about is false. Yes that car fits your needs, but what about the guy looking to haul a trailer, he has a completely different mindset than you. You can't help him and in fact are not helping him at all. You bought a Camry, not a Tundra, so why do you keep trying to sell the Camry to everyone. Stupid. It's your personal opinion, and just because your opinion of the Camry matches someone else's doesn't change the fact, not everyone is looking for a Camry.
This thread was started because of an off the cuff, (insider) comment I made last year at SHOT. It was in defense of what was universally seen as a unprofessional (and personal) move by S&B towards someone highly respected in this industry. it had very little to do with the optics themselves. It was about people or a person... that also carried over towards a trend people saw with the product. If you weren't there in the know, it has very little bearing on your life or the product we all use. Since that time, everyone has moved on... it's water under the bridge, the dust has settled, however you want to say it. The subject is old news... hence the problem with digging up year old posts.
I use a lot of different rifles, scopes, mounts, in my daily travels. I am happy to show people the difference between a Vortex PST and an SWFA Super Sniper and let you make the decision. If you want to see an S&B, I will bring them too... But like I said, 1. Budget, 2. Use to include, a) rifle, b) distance c) context 3. Features important to you, and finally future proofing ... does it make sense for you to spend a bit more now vs buying a second optic down the road because you went cheap this time. It's better to mount an S&B on a Factory 700 5R than it is to buy 3 different scopes as you move up the optics ladder. At least that is how I see it.
Here is a clue... if you want to express your personal opinion and not take flak... tell people up front it's just your personal opinion, you looked at it out the shop window and in your mind, scope A was better than scope B... but don't act like you know anything more than that... just cause you have some google fu. Ownership does not equal competence, there a tons of owners who never shot their stuff, never went beyond 200 yards with it, never had it out in the rain, never tested the adjustments, never shot from an alternate position, never let it put it behind NV, don't have more than 100 rounds under it, etc... the list is endless. Hell many don't even mount their own scopes. If you think money to buy means your opinion is valid, think again. Sound harsh... if it does, you might just fit into that box. We're glad you like your scope... next.
Except when some one like you a few others runs from post after post shouting how much they love their decision even after point out the negatives of the product you are crowing about.
That is the issue, it's not that your choice is "wrong" for you, your choice has some obvious issues, and more than one person told you that, so why would you continue to go post after post and state the same things over and over ?
If you can't see the problem with that, then there is no helping you.
It's not that we, "disagree" it's that you're wrong in your constant defense. So shut up about it, if it works for you, keep it to yourself instead of running from post to post defending your decision.
You can't change history, and the fact you like what you have doesn't mean you should go from post to post trying to sell it to the masses.
That is the issue, it's not that your choice is "wrong" for you, your choice has some obvious issues, and more than one person told you that, so why would you continue to go post after post and state the same things over and over ?
If you can't see the problem with that, then there is no helping you.
It's not that we, "disagree" it's that you're wrong in your constant defense. So shut up about it, if it works for you, keep it to yourself instead of running from post to post defending your decision.
You can't change history, and the fact you like what you have doesn't mean you should go from post to post trying to sell it to the masses.
I see what you are saying, but when someone post on this site in the scope section "I'm thinking about buying an IOR 3.5-18X50, what do you guys think?" What should I tell them? Should I say "Frank and others around here don't like them and I would stay away from them if I was you" or should I say "I have one and it has give me no problems"? I guess I just don't understand why I should say something negative if I don't have anything negative to say?
Opinions are what they are. What I (and I think most others) look for is what went into forming said opinion. If one is honest and upfront about their scope of experience (or lack there of) and under what conditions said product was used, it helps to qualify things. We all know that there are lemons as well as diamonds in the rough, but in the grand scheme, the numbers pretty much are what one would expect. And on top of that, there are lines between sharing opinions, articulating experience, and just being a plain 'ol cheerleading fanboy trying to pour kool-aid at every turn.
Please just stop. You are like the kid (Noel Fisher) from Battle LA who just keeps going and going and going despite bassicaly being told to shut up (and proven wrong in the process)
You are playing bullshit fuck fuck games with this site, using semantics to try and weave some sort of twisted logic that you think makes you right. The evidence, data and history has been laid out MULTIPLE times, by many highly respected people on this site and your still playing this innocent arguement shit.
There are only two plausable conslcusions I can come up with after reading all this......................Troll or Low IQ, you pick.
918, Frank clearly has used all the scope your arguing about, why dont you post a pic just to make sure we are all talking about the same scopes.
like this
It's like a bunch of dead bodies piled up, lol. Notice the Premier is mounted.
Awesome collection dude.
Incredibly well said!
Here's what you say...
I have a IOR 3.5-18x50 that hasn't given me any problems but anyone wanting to spend their hard earned money would be well advised to do a search on IOR scope problems because others have not had the best luck.
DEFINITELY DO NOT SAY "it's the best damn scope period".
Absolutely, Frank says all his busted at around 200-300rds. If he only shoots 50rds a day his busted in about a week. I have no reason to doubt him. But I've had my scope for well over a year and have 1000s of rounds fired with it. Is that not enough time to come to a solid conclusion about the scope?
phillip61,
put some BC caps to protect the lenses and wrap some ductape around the tube to protect the finish and toss your IOR from say 3 stories up onto some gravel. If yours keeps its zero i will do the same with my S&B/NF maybe even USO.
put some BC caps to protect the lenses and wrap some ductape around the tube to protect the finish and toss your IOR from say 3 stories up onto some gravel. If yours keeps its zero i will do the same with my S&B/NF maybe even USO.
Thus far, you strike me as someone who wouldn't realize his scope was broken until someone else pointed it out...so I'm going to go with "no".
My 3.5-18 had beautiful glass but once zeroed only gave me 6 to 8mils of travel. Internal erector issue. It should have been replaced immediately, but thats not what transpired. Not a fan of the customer service. Thats just my opinion.
I've got this one scope, been using it for some time. Calibrated its mechanical tracking and seems to run true. It has these knobs on it and they turn, it is black. I can dial first round hits quite often with it. I have gained confidence with it as well as the rifle it is mounted on. On sunny days colors just pop into my eye while looking through it, cloudy days things turn kind of gray but I can hold point of aim either way. For the life of me I can't remember what manufacturer it came from, I think it is German but do not quote me on that. I want to tell everyone that this scope is the best one ever made, all of yours are sub standard, just look at all of those Frank threw into a heap on his floor he still must be looking for "the one". Damn folks chill out and go send some rounds down range with what you have and build confidence in yourself.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well said.
Hmmm...looking at your logo, I'd make a guess that it just might be a Steiner you're sportin'.
Well said.
Hmmm...looking at your logo, I'd make a guess that it just might be a Steiner you're sportin'.
model will depend on application. i am happy as a clam with sb pm2 4-16 or even uso 3-17 on a 308, but for longer guns like the 5-25.
roughing it
1) S&B 5-25 or 3-20 No MTC
2) NF Beast (i have shot one a few times but i need at least 2000 rounds with one to form a conclusion)
3) Then you have all the ATACR, henny, USO (Ergo models), kahles
I would not put Premier anywhere in top 10. The only premier i really like is the LT for lighter rigs. For $1200-$1700 you cant do any better than nightforce NXS, i must have owned 20 of them and have had 0 issues. I have broken multiple Vortex, Leupolds, IORs, Steiner. Never cared for henny, march or zeiss on tactical rifles. USO is a good proven scope also if you get one thats been made in the past 5 years or so, they might not be top but they also work and dont have any crazy flaws.
You say your opinion clearly stated as such, as suggested.
The follow up secret is to not act like a total wiener with other people with more experience and data come into the conversation and make you feel bad about your lovely scope choice.
And in one of the S&B threads, we can see pictures of scopes where the turrets don't line up. Seems to me its a QC problem no matter how many $ you spend on the scope.
"single examples"? Like posting pictures taken through an unobtanium scope, while seeming to imply the pictured performance is typical of the entire product line?
Are people really that offended that a picture was posted showing CA in a NF?
Is it truly impossible to believe that there Zeiss scopes that do not show CA? Or PR scopes that don't have the parallax issue? Or IORs that last more then a couple hundred rounds?
That none of the companies make any running changes on their production lines? Or that they don't try to improve anything with new models?
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how the manufacturer treats you if you have a dud.
I don't even know what you just said.
I've heard you can't change history. I'm not trying to change history, but I know that past performance in no way shape or form guarantees future performance.
I've heard you can't change the facts, I'm not trying to. But facts can be viewed many different ways depending on which side of the fence you are on. Is the glass half full? Or is the glass half empty? Both are indisputable facts, but are very different depending how you view it. One guy can have 20 years looking at the glass and 425 notebooks of data claiming the glass is half full. The other guy may have looked at the glass for 5 minutes and decided the glass was half empty. Who is right and who is wrong.
The answer is what I've been saying all along. Neither is wrong. They're both right. But some people just refuse to see it any other way.
It makes no sense? I don't get it?
I'm going to the "Bolt Action" section. Those guys don't argue about anything!!
Frank trying to explain his point is like trying to lead a blind man to something he will never see.
End this thread already. I'm starting to feel bad for the Commandant, sticking his neck out to make a point while trying to lead this site is shameful to those trying to prove him wrong.
End this thread already. I'm starting to feel bad for the Commandant, sticking his neck out to make a point while trying to lead this site is shameful to those trying to prove him wrong.
Last edited:
If the worthiness of any scope requires a three story drop on concrete to prove it's net worth I would bet most of the optics in use would fail. I have owned a mix of Leopold, IOR, Hensoldt, Kahles and Zeiss and all were application specific and worked well. Buy what you want & can afford and don't drop your gear.
That's what separates good from great, for most good will do just fine
For my own edification - what is CA?
In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point. It occurs because lenses have a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light (the dispersion of the lens). The refractive index decreases with increasing wavelength.
Chromatic aberration manifests itself as "fringes" of color along boundaries that separate dark and bright parts of the image, because each color in the optical spectrum cannot be focused at a single common point. Since the focal length f of a lens is dependent on the refractive index n, different wavelengths of light will be focused on different positions.
before someone says anything I got this off Wikipedia.....I didn't know either.
I thought it had something to do with baldness
