I was looking for specs on these scopes and couldn't find the one I am looking for. Does anyone know if the apparent field of view is the same on the 3-15 LHT and the 4.5-22 LHT?
Vortex Razor LHT
- Thread starter supercorndogs
- Start date
The Vortex Razor LHT 3-15x50 and the Vortex Razor LHT 4.5-22x50 have different field of view (FOV) ranges. Here are the specs:
shameless plug
- Razor LHT 3-15x50
- Field of View: 35.3 – 7.0 feet @ 100 yards
- Razor LHT 4.5-22x50
- Field of View: 23.5 – 4.7 feet @ 100 yards
shameless plug
Info is on Vortex site also. Listed under specifications for each scope. Has other info also if needed.
Apparent field of view isn't on there unless I am missing it.Info is on Vortex site also. Listed under specifications for each scope. Has other info also if needed.
It is listed under specifications. Scroll down on the link above to under where they show the scope with measurements and you will see specifications. Click on it and the drop down below will be shown.
That’s field of view, not apparent field of view.
Apparent is linear fov/magnification and is a function of the eye piece rather than the objective. The angle you are seeing vs the linear measurement at a prescribed distance.
So 35.3/3=11.767 and 7/15=0.467 degrees
Last edited:
What the fuck is apparent FOV? lol You have a FOV spec. That tells you what you see.
Also curious. I don't see how it could be anything else. It's an objective data point that you can even measure yourself.
Real FOV is what the scope sees. Apparent FOV is Real FOV in degrees multiplied by magnification.
Apparent FOV determines is how big the image looks to your eye.
ILya
I’ll file that under willful ignorance.
It’s something that is useless unless you want to play mathematician. When you are laying behind your scope are you figuring out the apparent FOV? No. You see what you see. Seeing as this is the first I heard of this super important specification and never needed it to hit what I was aiming at then that will be filed under useless info for me. You have fun with your calculations
That's what I wanted to know. Do both the LHT razors have a similarly smallish apparent field of view. Compared to the heavier scopes like the lrhs. Is it a function of the eye peice and ocular lens size also?
Useless unless I want to play mathematicians… or, you know, be able to actually compare a scopes specs as experienced by the shooter.It’s something that is useless unless you want to play mathematician. When you are laying behind your scope are you figuring out the apparent FOV? No. You see what you see. Seeing as this is the first I heard of this super important specification and never needed it to hit what I was aiming at then that will be filed under useless info for me. You have fun with your calculations
Maybe you should go back to laying behind your scope instead of trying to offer advice on them since you can’t be bothered to learn about them.
I will do that as it’s much more fun anyways. Never needed apparent FOV so I am sure I will be just fine. Sorry I tried to help him. I won’t again.
Apparent field of view let's you compare how big the image looks between scopes without having them in hand.It’s something that is useless unless you want to play mathematician. When you are laying behind your scope are you figuring out the apparent FOV? No. You see what you see. Seeing as this is the first I heard of this super important specification and never needed it to hit what I was aiming at then that will be filed under useless info for me. You have fun with your calculations
Your 8" phones screen has the same FOV as your 60" flat screen, and a 60ft Imax screen.
I have a few and it's really a poorly built optic for the price. Glass is great , reticle is good. Build quality is shit for a $1200. At the time there were not any lightweight ffp scopes with reticle and turret and good glass unless you spend 3k on a march. Now there are other options.
I would get a mk4hd instead.
I would get a mk4hd instead.
I can't say I am particularly impressed with the lht 3-15, but it is considerably lighter than my other options. I haven't messed with it much either at this point. All I did was mount it and sight it in. I traded a 3.3-18 xtr3 for it. In the 750-800 range I think it's OK but I don't like sfp, and I would have preferred to have the reticle be sized for 10x vs 15x. Everything about the LRHS is better to me exept the 6-7oz weight penalty.
I have only used the FFP 4.5-22x50 Razor LHT. Well I have two. They have worked well for two plus years of well use. Running one on AR10 and one on AR15. No complaints
It’s something that is useless unless you want to play mathematician. When you are laying behind your scope are you figuring out the apparent FOV? No. You see what you see. Seeing as this is the first I heard of this super important specification and never needed it to hit what I was aiming at then that will be filed under useless info for me. You have fun with your calculations
You don't need to know it, but knowing AFOV is a useful metric IMO and I wish more manufacturers would list it. If you really want to know it, you can back into it with a little math from the regular m/100m or ft/100y FOV specs. It is a spec that nearly all purchasers would be unfamiliar with which is probably why manufacturers don't list it.
Knowing AFOV at the min and max magnification makes it very easy to determine which scopes have tunneling, which ones have narrow vs wide angle eyepieces, and it makes it easier to compare the angular field of view across multiple scopes with different magnification ranges. The wider the AFOV, the wider the field of view and the more you'll see in your eye at a given magnification.
If you're comparing say a 5-25 and a 6-36 scope and the 5-25 has a 22 degree AFOV and the 6-36 has a 26 degree AFOV, the 6-36 will have a wider field of view than the 5-25 when both scopes are at the same magnification, even if the typically listed FOV specs (listed in m/100m or ft/100yd) show narrower for the 6-36 at maximum magnification. That's where I find knowing AFOV useful.
As far as trying to wrap your head around it... this might help.
18-19 degree AFOV would be considered a narrow field of view, sort of the "looking down a drinking straw" effect. You can see your target, but not too much around it. You may have to dial the mag down to see your misses or find the target after recoil, especially if the target is obscured or harder to find.
21-22 degree AFOV is sort of a middle of the road number at the moment (partly because Swarovski has a patent on a certain set of scope characteristics, including a >22 degree AFOV)-- this is why many high end scopes like the ZCO 527, TT 7-35, US market S&B 6-36, are all limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV... it's for US patent compliance.
Quite a few of the higher end LOW manufactured scopes offered right now (like the Razor G3 6-36) have a 24ish degree AFOV. Fairly wide angle, but not huge.
Some of the latest scopes have very large AFOV numbers... March has offered a 26 degree wide angle eyepiece for a while now, the S&B 6-36 Non-US version that isn't limited by the US patent compliance is 26.1 degrees, and the new Kahles k540 has 29.8 degrees-- it's the current AFOV king in the US market thanks to Kahles being owned by Swarovski and therefore they own the patent. Every person that's been behind a K540 is pretty shocked at how much you see and how large the field of view is at a given magnification because of that extra wide 29.8 degree AFOV.
I have a hunch if/when the Swarovski >22 degree AFOV patent expires in the middle of 2026 we're going to see more manufacturers touting viewing angles offered by their new "wide angle" scopes. Right now March and S&B are some of the only manufacturers I'm aware of that lists the angular FOV specs of their scopes, and they list it both at min and max mag. (However, one of my gripes is I wish manufacturers would list the FOV specs (both distance and angular) down to 2 digits past the decimal place, but the average purchaser probably dosen't care about rounding error affecting their pre-purchase comparisons, lol)
Back to the OP's question, the LHT's have a somewhat narrow AFOV at around 19.7 degrees for the 4.5-22 and 20 degrees for the 3-15 (this is off the Vortex spec sheets, and the slight difference could easily be rounding error from the single decimal place FOV numbers provided since Ilya said both LHT's share the same angular FOV)-- this is apparent when looking through them. Looking through the 20 degree AFOV LHT back to back with a 24.1 degree Razor 6-36 is a bit jarring; the rather narrow FOV of the LHT takes me back to many scopes from the early 2000s with narrow FOV's like the MK4 4.5-14 and Bushnell 4200 6-24, lol. Vortex did sacrifice some things in the design of the LHT to keep weight at a minimum; AFOV, turrets and turret feel, and illumination control being the 3 you immediately notice. I have 3 of the 4.5-22s on light builds and while the LHTs do have quite a few compromises for the light weight, I wanted them for the weight savings first and realized I'd have to live with a few compromises for that light weight at that price point. Still happy with the purchases but I accepted those compromises going in.
Last edited:
I hadn't looked at the leupolds but 21oz is not bad for a 2-10. I have my weaver 2-10x36 also it must be about 25oz.
Great post. Thank you. Answers my question 100% and much more. I kind of came to the same conclusions about the weight compromises. I wonder about the 2.5-10 mk4hd. I always thought the tmr was good reticle for that kind of scope.
My main no like is that the 3-15 isn't offered in FFP. I evennhave some of their 2-10lh with moa reticles. This thread wouldn't even exists if they would have put a freaking mild in that little 15oz gem.
Last edited:
I've never found the 20 degree AFOV of my LHTs to be a problem for how I use them as mine are on lightweight hunting rifles, but it's really shocking just how much more you can see around the target switching between an LHT with 19.7 degrees AFOV to a Razor G3 with 24.1 degrees AFOV. The LHT sort of gives you tunnel vision, the narrower FOV is kind of a throwback to many early 2000s scopes. The view through an LHT really reminds me of the Bausch & Lomb / Bushnell 4200s that had good image quality but somewhat narrow FOV.
Having recently spent some time behind a K540i you get that same sort of feeling switching between a K540i and pretty much anything else, lol. I'm looking forward to seeing what hits the market from other manufacturers once that Swarovski patent expires...
Do you happen to know the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 AFOV off the top of your head? I'm definitely curious now.
Believe it or not, Maven actually lists standard FOV, angular FOV, and apparent FOV in the specs... that's awesome, and I wish more manufacturers would do that! I believe this is the first time I've seen all 3 FOV specs on a scope manufacturer's website.
20 degrees AFOV is a bit on the narrower side for today's optics, but right in line with the LHT. Also, almost no tunneling (probably nearly if not totally imperceptible to the user) as the AFOV only changes 0.3 degrees between 2.5x and 15x.
Oh that is pretty cool. I imagine me sticking to lower powers will help, which their SHR-MIL reticle design makes pretty easy.
Yep, lower mag will give you a wider FOV if you need it.
When it comes to real world use, what wider AFOV really means for the shooter is that you can run more magnification and still have a decent field of view and don't have to dial the mag down to get some FOV back. With a wide AFOV scope you can have both a wide field of view for searching while staying on a higher magnification for better target ID.
The latest scopes with >26 degrees AFOV have taken this to a new level.
How does AFOV mesh with something like a NF ATACR 7-35? That still has some low power tunneling but I've heard people say its FOV in the medium power range is actually fine. Is that just cope or can both be true at the same time?
For sure. It's noticeable but nothing that would ever make me miss a shot on big game. With my 3-12 lrhs at 27oz it's a substantial weight savings. Mine is on a hunting rifle also were 2 oz here there makes a big diffrence. When hunting season comes around the bipod rail comes off and a sling swivel goes in.
7-35 ATACR afov from the spec sheet works out to be 21.5 degrees @ 7x and 22.7 at 35x, so it does tunnel a little on the low end.
22.7 degrees afov at 35x puts the ATACR a bit wider than the TT 7-35 and US spec S&B 6-36 which both run about 21.8 degrees for patent compliance, but it's narrower than the razor gen 3 at about 24.1 degrees.
To put things in perspective, when I use one of my TT 5-25s (22.5 degree afov) back to back with one of my razor g3s (24.1 degrees) while I notice the slight difference, it's not much of an issue during use. Things get more obvious going between my S&B 5-25 (21.5 degrees) to an RG3 (24.1 degrees), and things get really obvious to me when the afov difference is 3+ degrees, such as going between the 20 degree LHT and the 24.1 degree RG3.
"Normal" all depends what you're used to. 20 degrees seems a bit narrow to me, but usable. 22-24 degrees feels about normal to me. A 26 degree March looked pretty "big" when I used one, and the k540i at 29.8 degrees was pretty ridiculous.
There are other considerations too. A wide afov isn't helpful if it comes with drawbacks like heavy edge distortion, a strong fisheye effect, very difficult eye box, etc. It's just one feature amongst the entire package.
Last edited:
Great info. I am in the middle of deciding on a Razor LHT vs Athlon Helos BTR Gen 2 4-20. Athlon is 5 oz heavier, but lot cheaper. Says 31 mils of elevation travel, witch is huge on the Rimfire for 9 months a year.
I don't "see" the IQ in my LHT 5-22 as anything special, heck the IQ in my Athlon ETR 15-60 BR scope is noticeably better. Well to be fair this ETR actually does have nice glass for it's price.
The poorly done LHT turrets shouldn't be in a scope of this price range and 6 mils per turn is such a head scratcher. I didn't even notice that was a thing until after the scope arrived and yes I research things more critically now.
The illume is almost daylight bright but it really should be a notch or two brighter to make out the reticle on low power, speaking of which the mil reticle isn't an impressive design anyway.
The rest is of the controls are normal.
Except it's pretty much the lightest scope in it's class which is why I bought mine and to be honest it's my least favorite scope on my least favorite light weight rifle. Translation - nope they don't get used much.
At least I got it at a decent price new from Liberty Optics right before Scott flew the coop.
I hate losing money so I'm kinda stuck with them at this point. Let's put it this way, I'd sell the scope first before I sold the rifle and the rifle has had a rough time in it's short existence.
I could have bought the March 4.5-28 instead at double the cost, thought saving the $ was the best decision at the time, but really wish I had gotten the March.
The designation Razor wasn't the best label to put on the LHT, at least to me.
The poorly done LHT turrets shouldn't be in a scope of this price range and 6 mils per turn is such a head scratcher. I didn't even notice that was a thing until after the scope arrived and yes I research things more critically now.
The illume is almost daylight bright but it really should be a notch or two brighter to make out the reticle on low power, speaking of which the mil reticle isn't an impressive design anyway.
The rest is of the controls are normal.
Except it's pretty much the lightest scope in it's class which is why I bought mine and to be honest it's my least favorite scope on my least favorite light weight rifle. Translation - nope they don't get used much.
At least I got it at a decent price new from Liberty Optics right before Scott flew the coop.
I hate losing money so I'm kinda stuck with them at this point. Let's put it this way, I'd sell the scope first before I sold the rifle and the rifle has had a rough time in it's short existence.
I could have bought the March 4.5-28 instead at double the cost, thought saving the $ was the best decision at the time, but really wish I had gotten the March.
The designation Razor wasn't the best label to put on the LHT, at least to me.
