As I move along in my shooting and riflescope journey I'm learning some things.
There are compromises with these high mag ratio scopes due to the physics that are present. Compromises because of length, etc, etc. I don't understand all the intricacies of the what's and why's but I guess it comes down to trade offs, it's a - "design this into the scope and that suffers" and that can mean a scope that is very enticing on paper can turn out to be disappointing in certain ways. Oh the scope will get the job done but in the end was it worth the compromises??!!
Maybe there's a reason we see spotting scopes with 65, 80, and 100mm objectives, rhetorical. Might be time for riflescope designers that bring about 35x and up magnification scopes and put larger objectives on them. I'm sure there are compromises here too like weight and mounting issues, etc, but.....
Like we see in PRS and ELR, weight isn't much of an issue and might even be desirable.
I don't like it when I put my two March scopes with 56mm objective on 40x, they get dim enough to annoy me, just sayin. I bought both these scopes to use at that magnification quite a bit.
I totally agree with LowLight, Honestly the only times I use the lowest magnification in my FFP 5-25's, 5-40's, etc is when i shoot through my old Oehler 35 chrono to make sure I'm not going to hit the sensors. Or to scan but even then I'm usually around 8x because 5x makes it harder to find locate the steel. I think using 4-5 mag ratio scopes would bring a more pleasing IQ in general than higher ratio scopes.
How about a FFP 9x45x70???
I'm still waiting for a super featherweight and reasonably short FFP mil/mil scope designed for hunting with thicker reticle. 2.5-12.5x38 or so, with a well thought out reticle lacking mil line numbers just off the vertical. Don't need to shoot super far out with it so don't need much elevation travel, I want great glass, wide FOV, low profile capped but finger adjustable turrets, ZS, and daylight bright illume.