I’m looking for a scope that has the best low light transmission/performance for hunting. Requirements are 15-20x maximum power, 50mm objective minimum, illuminated reticle with holdover points, adjustable elevation turret all under 30-32 oz! I’ve got a Zeiss V6 3-18x50 that does pretty good, 92% light transmission but no illumination. I prefer either center illumination or open center crosshairs. So far I’m kicking around a few scopes that I can think of, Schmidt and Bender T96 Polar 4-16x56 P4 fine crosshairs, Khales 318i, Zeiss Conquest V6 3-18x50 and the new Steiner scopes. I’m sure there are a few others I’m missing, please feel free to add on some others and comment on the ones I’ve mentioned.
Rifle Scopes What rifle scope has the best low light performance?
- Thread starter Willie Miller V
- Start date
Tangent Theta 315M 3-15x50 is another great option as well 
I was thinking about both the Tangent Theta and the S&B Ulrabright until I realized they were almost $4k
The 315M MAP price is $3,286.00, give us a call at 916-670-1103 and I'll see what we can do for you
Never peeped through a TT but I will say my Minox is probably the best in low light from the scopes I own/ owned. They can be found new for $2k also. The 3-20x S&B does pretty great as well and I thought they faired better than the 4-16x Hensoldt I had for a brief moment and the 4-16x Atacr not far behind. The old NXS F1 is also pretty great in lowlight also.
72mm objective or go home.
https://www.eurooptic.com/carl-zeiss-optronics-hensoldt-zf-6-24x72-mildot-riflescope.aspx
https://www.eurooptic.com/carl-zeiss-optronics-hensoldt-zf-6-24x72-mildot-riflescope.aspx
There was no budget mentioned in the original post, just asking what the best is. Best would be the S&B ultra bright, any of the top tier Zeiss models, Swaro Z6 or Z8.
There’s a lot of scopes with great glass, but if you’ve got a budget it’s important to mention that.
Tangent Theta 315M 3-15x50 is another great option as well
I'd say this would be a tough one to beat. I have a 3-15 premier that is really tough to beat in low light.
Vortex AMG may have a little too high of magnification range, but great low light and price. ebr-7b reticle has floating center dot. It's illuminated. Weighs 28 ounces. Great turrets, that lock which is good for hunting.
I thought about posting that, guess I should have?
As far as my budget goes, I would like to keep it at or under $3k. I’ve had a Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x56 and a Zeiss Victory 4-16x50. I personally thought the Zeiss performed better than the Swarovski at the last few minutes of hunting light. But those were a few years ago and I figured that there might be something better by now with the technology. I’ve got a couple NXS 5.5-22x56 scopes and two SHV 5-20x56 , also two of the Enhanced ATACR 5-25x56, Zeiss V6 3-18x50, Khales 624i Gen 1 and Gen 3. Out of all the ones I currently own, they all are pretty dang close to each other Performance wise. Obviously the NF ATACR and Khales are not compact or lightweight. I forgot about the ATACR F1 4-16x42 , it’s up there as well. I guess what I’m saying is that to get much more low light performance than any of these and be lightweight/compact would be hard unless you go with a S&B Ultra Bright or TT . I’ve never seen either of these scopes in person. Maybe a Swarovski Z8i or another scope brand. The S&B Polar T96 has a 96% light transmission as do the Ultra Bright, is there any other scope that is close to that? I’m not in a rush to buy a scope so that’s why I’m taking so much time and asking a bunch of silly questions I guess. Since I know it’s going to cost a considerable amount of money, I’m going to make damn sure of the scope before I pull the trigger. Thank you all for your suggestions and input and keep it coming!
Call CSTactical. You will not pay anywhere near $4k for the Tangent Theta TT315M from them. They beat prices than other "Hide Sponsoring Vendors" for the TT315M.
You will NOT be disappointed with the scope either. They are awesome.
You will NOT be disappointed with the scope either. They are awesome.
Glad we were able to assist you Sir! Please let us know if we can help in the future
I am trying NOT to build another rifle for at least a year...….but you know that itch we get.....Glad we were able to assist you Sir! Please let us know if we can help in the future
I’ve been searching for the best also, picked up the S&B Polar T96 4-16 last year, and a Swarovski Z8i 2.3-18 this year...both are exceptional. S&B states the light transmission is 96% on the Polar, and Swaro states the z8i is 94%. I’ll tell you, my eyes can’t see a difference side by side.
I had a Zeiss Victory HT also, 95% transmission and it was very good too.
When I build a new rifle, it’ll get topped with a Leica Magnus 2.4-16 or the TT 3-15H unless something new brighter/better comes out before then.
I had a Zeiss Victory HT also, 95% transmission and it was very good too.
When I build a new rifle, it’ll get topped with a Leica Magnus 2.4-16 or the TT 3-15H unless something new brighter/better comes out before then.
I found a S&B Polar 4-16 with the P4 fine reticle and that’s what I’m leaning towards. It has the turret that’s somewhat adjustable and not capped. I really want at least 18x but not set on it. If Zeiss had a Victory or HT with a higher power than 12x I would consider that. I’m not familiar with the Leica scopes, I do have a pair of binoculars.
You won’t be disappointed in the Polar, that’s the same one I have and I love it.
I had the 3-12 Victory HT and sold it for the same reason, not enough magnification for what I wanted. Went with an AMG in its place...I like the AMG, but it’s not on the same level. I wouldn’t mind picking up another Zeiss to replace the Razor Hd LH I have on a different setup. The glass is excellent, especially at dusk and dawn.
If you have a chance, and don’t mind SFP, check out the z8i 2.3-18, it’s my current favorite scope. With the add-on ballistic turret, it’s super quick and easy to dial.
I had the 3-12 Victory HT and sold it for the same reason, not enough magnification for what I wanted. Went with an AMG in its place...I like the AMG, but it’s not on the same level. I wouldn’t mind picking up another Zeiss to replace the Razor Hd LH I have on a different setup. The glass is excellent, especially at dusk and dawn.
If you have a chance, and don’t mind SFP, check out the z8i 2.3-18, it’s my current favorite scope. With the add-on ballistic turret, it’s super quick and easy to dial.
The best low light performance, ultimately, is Hensoldt 6-24x72.
If you are looking for more conventional hunting scopes, my favourite overall is Leica Magnus and its low light performance is just stunning. If you can manage with a 56mm objective, the 2.4-16x56 is just excellent although the 1.8-12x50 is about as good as 50mm scopes get.
If you want FFP, I have a Tangent Theta TT315M 3-15x50 which you can usually find for around $3k. It is as good as any 50mm scope out there, so I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
ILya
If you are looking for more conventional hunting scopes, my favourite overall is Leica Magnus and its low light performance is just stunning. If you can manage with a 56mm objective, the 2.4-16x56 is just excellent although the 1.8-12x50 is about as good as 50mm scopes get.
If you want FFP, I have a Tangent Theta TT315M 3-15x50 which you can usually find for around $3k. It is as good as any 50mm scope out there, so I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
ILya
I would love to look through a hensoldt, may be the best, idk. TT may be right up there.
Loved the kahles gen 3 and was able to compare right next to a mark 4 and it was bit brighter at dusk.
Have you tried a Zeiss V8?
I about got a V6 but they don’t make MIL.
MHO I don’t think SHV or NSX is in the same class as the 624i,V6,V8.
I have a razor gen 2 which is good a dusk but it’s only a 1-6. My razor gen 1 5-20 is not in the class either as the above mentioned
Again JMHO from One hunter with different eyes than everyone’s else.
Loved the kahles gen 3 and was able to compare right next to a mark 4 and it was bit brighter at dusk.
Have you tried a Zeiss V8?
I about got a V6 but they don’t make MIL.
MHO I don’t think SHV or NSX is in the same class as the 624i,V6,V8.
I have a razor gen 2 which is good a dusk but it’s only a 1-6. My razor gen 1 5-20 is not in the class either as the above mentioned
Again JMHO from One hunter with different eyes than everyone’s else.
Great thread,,, I am also seeking such a scope. The Polar has my attention but so does the Swaro X5i, anyone have any insight on how the X5i does for low light situations in the field?
I’ve got the V6 3-18 and it does pretty good compared to the higher price scopes. I don’t really understand why but I’ve got a NXS 5.5-22x56 that gets great light, better than another NXS of mine. Sure there are some scopes that have a better color, display or resolution than one that has better low light transmission. I prefer more light transmission because I’m hunting big deer and not taking pictures. I don’t understand how a S&B PMII 5-25x56 only has a 90% transmission but it does. The V6 has 92% , V8 92-93%, Swarovski Z8i 92%, Khales 318i 95%, S&B Polar 96%, S&B PMII Ultra Bright 96% . I’m not sure about TT or some others but I would like to find a hunting/tactical long range scope with a 20x max, 52mm-56mm objective that was compact, around 13.5” max. Open center reticle with holdover points and lockable elevation turret. Now does anything fit this description? Oh and under $3000
No experience with it, but the March looks like it checks alot of those boxes on Paper anyways with the FML-T1 reticle:
http://marchoptics.com/shop/brand_march-optics/firstfocalplane/3-24x52mm-scope
The percentage of light transmission is one of many factors and it's easy to manipulate. Any scope can claim a high number as long as any part of the spectrum can be measured at that level. A scope's ability to pass as much of the spectrum as it can, along with resolution and contrast, will affect the overall image.
I finally managed to get myself a Leica Magnus (once again, thanks/no thanks to Eurooptic's crazy sales). It says 91% LT. I compared that to the S&B Polar T96 (96% claimed) and Zeiss Victory HT (95% claimed). To my eye it easily out classes the S&B in terms of overall performance. I put it on par with the Victory HT, with a slightly warmer palette. I should add it to the comparison review I did. Low light performance was stellar, and that's a combination of brightness, resolution, contrast and what I call "aliveness," which is probably just how I perceive the aggregate of resolution, contrast and spectrum.
The Magnus is one of very few scopes I've looked through that was just an instant "OMG" moment. The image is so huge in the eye piece. Spectacular.
-Stooxie
I finally managed to get myself a Leica Magnus (once again, thanks/no thanks to Eurooptic's crazy sales). It says 91% LT. I compared that to the S&B Polar T96 (96% claimed) and Zeiss Victory HT (95% claimed). To my eye it easily out classes the S&B in terms of overall performance. I put it on par with the Victory HT, with a slightly warmer palette. I should add it to the comparison review I did. Low light performance was stellar, and that's a combination of brightness, resolution, contrast and what I call "aliveness," which is probably just how I perceive the aggregate of resolution, contrast and spectrum.
The Magnus is one of very few scopes I've looked through that was just an instant "OMG" moment. The image is so huge in the eye piece. Spectacular.
-Stooxie
Last edited:
I’ve been entertaining the S&B Polars for a while.
Question tho, would the higher mag models loose light gathering ability over the lower mag power models? Or would the larger objective lens sizes offset that?
Question tho, would the higher mag models loose light gathering ability over the lower mag power models? Or would the larger objective lens sizes offset that?
All things being equal a larger objective lens will always mean more light. The next thing to look at is the exit pupil size, i.e. the ratio of the objective lens size to the magnification level. Divide the size of the lens by the mag power, so a 50mm lens at 10x yield a 5mm exit pupil. (The actual exit pupil might be a bit smaller for various reasons but we'll keep this simple.)
So 8X magnification from a 50mm lens will give 6.25mm and 8X mag from a 24mm lens will give a 3mm exit pupil. They say a human eye is about 7mm in the young and 6ish as we get older.
My personal preference is to size my objective lenses to give me 6mm of exit pupil at the very least for the ranges I work with. I'm only hunting under 300 yards so that's pretty easy to do with a 40 to 50mm objective lens, figuring a typical zoom range of 2-8X. If you shoot long distance and you need high magnification then a small exit pupil is unavoidable. But since we're talking low light performance here, I would optimize for making sure you have at least 6mm of exit pupil for your "sweet spot" zoom range.
Add to that excellent glass and you've got a winning combination.
BTW, many German scope manufacturers used to be fastidious about this with their hunting scopes. Competitive pressures forced them to abandon these ideal ratios and go for crazy high mag ranges instead. 18X through a 50mm lens yields a pin hole 2.7mm exit pupil. Totally fine if you're shooting in bright daylight. Not so much as the sun goes down.
-Stooxie
Thx bro!
+1 on what Stoox says here. Unfortunately, our market has been confused with this type of marketing. There are other reasons some scopes look "brighter" in lower light than others that actually have nothing to do with coatings or so-called "HT glass". In fact the human eye is a very poor comparative detector to brightness change. Furthermore the light transmission numbers being marketed as 96% and such are not entirely accurate. During a discussion with an optical engineer a while back I found that it's actually impossible for a scope with that many lens elements to achieve 96% light transmission... true light transmission, because light is absorbed by glass and these companies are simply not counting the "light absorption" through each lens. They are only accounting for the loss due to reflection at each surface. Absorption is actually a much greater contributor to light loss, this can easily be proved in a lab with a photo-spectrometer.
So what do I mean by "reflection", let's take one of Schmidt & Bender's Ultra Bright scopes with a claimed light transmission rating of 96%, how did they come to this number? In this case it is a math equation, they take each lens element in the scope and determine the reflectivity off each surface - the front of the element and the rear of the element. Now it's just simple math - let's just say the scope has 10 glass elements inside it, in a perfect world each glass element would pass 100% of the light but since we don't live in a perfect world as light passes through each element it looses some "brightness". So if a multi-coated surface is claimed to be 99.8% that means you loose .2% for every surface, in our example we have 10 glass elements with 2 surfaces each, so .2 x 20 = 4 or 4% light loss in this case and 100 - 4 = 96% which becomes the number the manufacturer uses, but as was mentioned above, what the manufacturer is not taking into account is the amount of absorption that occurs in each glass element.
That is not to say that the Ultra Brights and other scopes marketed with "high transmission" don't perform well. I have been on the hunt for light weight low light optics for years now and have been surprised to find that some I thought would perform well did not and others I did not think would actually did, this includes some scopes with smaller objectives vs. other scopes with larger objectives. While the laws of physics apply and generally a larger exit pupil means more light will reach your eye, other factors in the design of the scope may contribute to one scope "appearing" brighter to your eye than another.
EDIT: See ILya's comments below in response, apparently my math is a bit off above as well as some of the info on absorption vs. reflection
OP, from personal experience I can say the Premier LT (of which the TT315M inherited the design and then improved upon it in certain areas) is a phenomenal low light scope; however, you did not mention if you are looking for SFP or FFP. Almost all my rigs are designed to be field used (hunting) first and then long range second so my first priority is usually weight and while years ago I was a huge SFP advocate who thought BDC reticles were the end all be all, I've "come to the light" as it were and now all my rigs have FFP scopes on them (well except for some of my AR-15's, but they are the exception and not the rule). What I mean to say by that is that if you are convinced that SFP is the way to go for hunting then I understand, I've been there, but I would ask you to seriously consider the pros and cons.
Finally, I would highly recommend you look at ILya's (Koshkin) advice above, he knows his stuff and I don't think I've ever seen him give bad advice.
Last edited:
Manufacturers and the scope market seems to have universally agreed not to go with larger than 56-60mm objectives because of a wide variety of reasons, not least of which is cost for them (cost in materials, manufacturing, and added quality control issues). 56mm is what people can mount too, especially in the age of monolithic continuous rails on practically everything.
That said, the only way to get more light into a scope is to make the objective bigger, all else being equal. Everything else is largely marketing and splitting hairs.
Honestly, having spent some time behind the 72mm Henny, it's no substitute for NV. What you get is some extra resolution in dusk conditions for about an extra half an hour in those twilight conditions. That's about it, no magic.
Even though a 72mm lens is 40% larger by area compared to a 56mm, it only transmits 15-20% more light.
In bright sunlight, the 72mm can be a liability. March sells most of their scopes with something called MD disks, which are basically apertures designed to stop down the lens. They purposefully reduce light transmittance by 30%. I need one of these for the 72mm in very bright day conditions because the scope is burning a hole in my eye. Got to make one.
That said, the only way to get more light into a scope is to make the objective bigger, all else being equal. Everything else is largely marketing and splitting hairs.
Honestly, having spent some time behind the 72mm Henny, it's no substitute for NV. What you get is some extra resolution in dusk conditions for about an extra half an hour in those twilight conditions. That's about it, no magic.
Even though a 72mm lens is 40% larger by area compared to a 56mm, it only transmits 15-20% more light.
In bright sunlight, the 72mm can be a liability. March sells most of their scopes with something called MD disks, which are basically apertures designed to stop down the lens. They purposefully reduce light transmittance by 30%. I need one of these for the 72mm in very bright day conditions because the scope is burning a hole in my eye. Got to make one.
Swaro! Swaro! Swaro!
Have you ever tried a Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56? If there's a lighter weight (20.2oz), shorter (13.6") and brighter/better low light scope on the market I'd love to know about it. I would still consider that the world's best low light scope if we factor in the weight and length. I think the Leica Magnus i is right up there but, Lordy, they weigh a ton.
KILLS me that Zeiss doesn't sell the Victory HTs in the US any more. They are still available in Europe and, oddly enough, they can be purchased from optics-trade.eu for less than they ever were here.
ETA: I guess the above won't work if looking for more than 12X magnification.
-Stooxie
Last edited:
That might be a better question for ILya, SFP scopes do not have much interest for me.
I wouldn't say that, I see plenty of rigs that are traditional stock and picatinny above the action, most chassis systems have the continuous rails, but outside of those and AR's you still see a large majority using the standard pic rail above the action.
You can do something similar if you have a plastic scope cap and simply cutout a hole, start at 1" diameter and go bigger from there to suit your eyes during harsh daylight. 72mm Henny's are not the only ones that suffer from this, many 56mm scopes do as well and if shooters don't make a custom aperture device they are looking into ARD's which also reduce light entering into the objective.
I have an illuminated 3-12x56 Zeiss HT and I agree it’s a great hunting scope. The 4-16x56 Hensoldt is also great and pretty compact. The Hensoldt is FFP and about 10 oz heavier but if that doesn’t bother you it’s excellent. Here is a smoking deal: https://www.eurooptic.com/hensoldt-...ing-turret-h59-reticle-end-user-required.aspx
Bill. you are going in the right direction, but you'v got the math wrong and the absorption bit wrong. I guess this is another video topic for me, but here is the gist of it in a nutshell.
First, with modern scopes, light transmission is not indicative of low light performance. They are all quite good and your eye can not really tell the difference between 95% and 85%. Light transmission value kinda tells you how good the coatings are and is often a good predictor of stray flare suppression. Apparent brightness of the image in low light mostly depends on image fidelity and contrast (one of the reasons Leica Magnus does so well).
How much light gets through a piece of glass depends on reflection, absorption and scatter. With modern high quality optical glass, for thin lenses used in riflescopes, reflection is by far the worst offender. I am not sure who told you that absorption is more significant than reflection, but for modern day scopes, it is simply not true.
As far as the math goes, you have to count how much is transmitted, not how much is reflected. In your example, if there are 20 surfaces and 0.998 transmission through each surface. If you want to calculate that you have to take 0.998^20, which is equal to 0.9608.
Now, i do not know if Schmidt's coatings are that good across a wide wavelength range or if it is for a narrow band of some sort. Either way, 96% vs 92% makes for good marketing, but that's largely it.
ILya
Hensoldt, or if you don't mind SFP Zeiss. both of which belong to Zeiss as I was enlightened by a German officer when I was stationed in Germany.
They were sold by Zeiss in 2011 to Cassadian, then to Airbus in 2015, then to an America company called KRR in 2017. It's been integrated with about 6 other divisions of defense contractor (optics related) businesses that make everything from lasers for satellites to the target acquisition system on the latest Leopard tanks.
They are still in the same building at Zeiss Sport Optics in Wetzlar and nothing has changed other than a lot of corporate shuffling. I imagine they still make some of their glass at Zeiss, although the product lines have zero in common after the Victory Diavari was discontinued. The same people most likely.
Ah, the joys of corporate reshuffling and musical chairs of diversification. Sometimes the customer wins and sometimes there's no quality left when the music stops. At the time I received a long lecture on corporate structure, and who owns whom after I had remarked that I liked the scope on the PSG-1 after getting to shoot it at a German base in Calw close to Stuttgart.
Thank you ILya, always a benefit to learn more and grow in truth and knowledge with all things optics! The individual who shared the information will remain nameless to protect the innocent (or not so innocent maybe in this case) but I'll PM you to take that dialog off line. The information on absorption vs. reflection in thin lenses used in riflescopes makes sense so I appreciate the correction, as well as my "simple math" which apparently was not so simple
which is maybe why I struggled at college level courses (my dad was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed's Skunk Works so I guess his genius skipped a generation ) This is part of what I love about the Hide, we truly have some great people on here willing to share information.Willie, thanks for starting this thread. It has been very informative even thought I have to look up words before I can digest some of the posts. Beyond that, is there any reason one would not buy this optic, is a TT worth the $700.00 additional and why?
The H59 reticle may be why its heavily discounted? I have the mil hash, its clean I like it: https://www.eurooptic.com/hensoldt-zf-4-16x56-front-focal-locking-turret-riflescope.aspx
I wish Henny would give the same retrofit treatment to the 72mm that they did to the 4-16x56. Those turrets are awesome and with a zero stop and FFP the scope might become relevant again.
I saw that 4-16x56 on Eurooptic too, smoking deal for that price. Eurooptic sometimes cleans out their inventory on Hennys, years ago they had the 72mm for $2495. Of course I waited for the price to go back to normal to buy...
I saw that 4-16x56 on Eurooptic too, smoking deal for that price. Eurooptic sometimes cleans out their inventory on Hennys, years ago they had the 72mm for $2495. Of course I waited for the price to go back to normal to buy...
Similar threads
