Very high end scope that costs a couple of thousand dollars or high end binoculars?? I'm always curious how much better they are and would I be shocked....just wondering .
- The AGN App is ready! To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
How many of you guys have looked through a...
- Thread starter rwsmike
- Start date
My Delta stryker has glass that puts all of my other scopes (sightron-siii level) to bed and I'd say yes, high end glass would probably blow you away at the difference.
Funny thing though, my dad swears he sees no difference
So who knows for sure?
Funny thing though, my dad swears he sees no difference
So who knows for sure?Upvote 0
Depends on what have experienced so far and where you are when you compare. The best I've looked through were Zeiss Victory, Swarovfski, Leica, and Vortex Razor binos. I had an unusual pair of cheapy Nikon 10 x 50s that were extremely clear and in daylight and certain scenes, I really could not see any advantage. When looking at fine details in lower light, the difference was quite dramatic. A friend and I spent about 2 hours inside a large Sportsmans store looking at spotting scopes for him. The Swarovfski 80 mm just blew EVERYTHING else away, looking at some small print on some boxes stored up on their shelves in dim light around 80 yds away. Spent more than an hour comparing Razors and Swarovfski's at a store in Prescott looking at trees and grass and pavement and building textures. Couldn't have told you which was better.
Same for scopes. My wife and I use Bushnell Elite 4200s and no scope I've looked through was more clear. We just struggle a little with the depth of field not being small enough for easy precise ranging and since the lenses are smaller, really dim targeting means cranking the power down. We are still looking, though. I recently bought a KonusPro after checking one out at a match. Very precise ranging but when I got it, very disappointed. Heavy, temp sensitive and bleary. Useable... yes, nice.... no. A friend has a March and it is VERY nice. Is it worth the price of admission? That's a personal call. For us, his is not. He also has a Schmidt and Bender. Again, VERY nice. Still not for us. Been really considering a Sightron. A bit more attractive in the cost area but still heavy and some have complained of temp sensitivity.
Sooo.... I guess you will have to get out there and check some out and see what is worth it for you.
Bob
Same for scopes. My wife and I use Bushnell Elite 4200s and no scope I've looked through was more clear. We just struggle a little with the depth of field not being small enough for easy precise ranging and since the lenses are smaller, really dim targeting means cranking the power down. We are still looking, though. I recently bought a KonusPro after checking one out at a match. Very precise ranging but when I got it, very disappointed. Heavy, temp sensitive and bleary. Useable... yes, nice.... no. A friend has a March and it is VERY nice. Is it worth the price of admission? That's a personal call. For us, his is not. He also has a Schmidt and Bender. Again, VERY nice. Still not for us. Been really considering a Sightron. A bit more attractive in the cost area but still heavy and some have complained of temp sensitivity.
Sooo.... I guess you will have to get out there and check some out and see what is worth it for you.
Bob
Upvote 0
High end glass in cameras, binocs, scopes, etc. is typically dramatically better to view through than economy glass. And still can be noticeably clearer and more “3D” than mid grade glass. Generally speaking, with cameras as well as with scopes zoom lenses and zoom scopes will be a compromise in image quality as compared to single focal length lenses (fixed magnification scopes). So, a fixed magnification scope, made with premium glass is quite a nice sighting experience as compared to variable magnification scopes, especially when compared to those of economy grade. Go check ‘em out!
Upvote 0
In my other hobby life, amateur astronomer, yes I have and yes it does.
Lord have mercy it surely does, in fact you can practically measure it in light years...
Upvote 0
I’ve looked through some high end scopes and then the 300.00 to 600.00 dollar scopes and I don’t get no thrill running up my leg or anything like that with the high dollar scopes, I like my Vortex, Aztec, Nikon scopes just as much but this is what I use for skywatching, would like to upgrade to a Orion Skyquest or Atlas, something like that, anyway back to the OP’s topic on scopes.
Upvote 0
Pretty interesting views....I just picked up a sidewinder and thought this is super clear so how much better can things be
guess it's almost like TVs these days .
guess it's almost like TVs these days . Upvote 0
Just a few points since it is easiest to judge if you know what to look for. No offense meant if you already know this. Glass is often evaluated in cameras by:
Chromatic aberrations:
https://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration
Amount of light they allow in. Best tested in low light. Generally the larger the front lens the better light reception in many instances (over simplification). Be careful on this one because brighter does not always mean better sharpness, and if you aren't careful it can bite you with instore viewing compared to in the field.
The quality of the focus around the edges. I come from a camera background, but where you are moving the internals around in a scope it becomes even more critical. On a scope definitely turn the turrets close to the extremes without breaking it.
Lastly investigate ruggedness. It doesn't matter the quality of any glass if the environment you are going to use it in is going to break it. I am pretty tough on stuff myself
I'm sure others can add to this list, but those are off the top of my head.
Hope that helps.
Chromatic aberrations:
https://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration
Amount of light they allow in. Best tested in low light. Generally the larger the front lens the better light reception in many instances (over simplification). Be careful on this one because brighter does not always mean better sharpness, and if you aren't careful it can bite you with instore viewing compared to in the field.
The quality of the focus around the edges. I come from a camera background, but where you are moving the internals around in a scope it becomes even more critical. On a scope definitely turn the turrets close to the extremes without breaking it.
Lastly investigate ruggedness. It doesn't matter the quality of any glass if the environment you are going to use it in is going to break it. I am pretty tough on stuff myself
I'm sure others can add to this list, but those are off the top of my head.
Hope that helps.
Upvote 0
Pretty interesting views....I just picked up a sidewinder and thought this is super clear so how much better can things be
Hawk scopes are pretty good for what we use them for. I have the Sidewinder Tac and just love it. Now my high end scope is a Nightforce Army Spec F1. When compared side by side, it's like looking at the same image at 720p vs 1080p. Switch your tv resolution between the two, and you will notice a difference.
Now, 720p resolution still looks really good. Very good definition and clarity. When maxed out, the image starts to degrade but still looks pretty good. For most air gunners, this resolution will serve them well. And the price point allows the mass majority access to really good resolution.
Slide over to the other scope, you will immediately notice the 1080p just pops a little more. Definition and clarity is great. When maxed out, the image still maintains that great definition and clarity. The problem with this resolution is that the price point puts it out of the reach of most air gunners.
I hope I simplified the image quality for you. I love my Sidewinder just as much as my Army Spec F1. They both fit my needs for air gunning.
Happy Shooting
Upvote 0
I don't think it is worth it for lower magnification scopes (1-12x). I find I can hardly tell a difference between a good $300 scope and a $2000 scope at the lower magnification range. I really notice a difference at higher magnifications, though. The image is much brighter and sharper with tier 1 glass at high magnifications.
Upvote 0
I will never buy cheap glass again.
My accuracy increased exponentially now that I can actually see, not to mention accurately range if I dont have my laser range finder handy.
My accuracy increased exponentially now that I can actually see, not to mention accurately range if I dont have my laser range finder handy.
Upvote 0
I have my sig Sauer scope 5-30x56
https://www.sigsauer.com/store/tango6-5-30x56-mm.html
that retails for 2000$(when on sale) and I have to say the Athlon Argos looks very similar to it. Then again I haven't compared the two scopes for a long time or side by side.
My ownership of scope quality have been like this:
Sig Sauer 5-30x56 FFP> Sig Sauer 3-18x44 FFP> Athlon Argos BTR FFP> Hawke Sidewinder 8.5-25x 42 SFP> UTG Potato scope
However, if you look through my Hawke Sidewinder 44 objective lens scope, it is a night and day difference from the Sig Sauer scope.
Its almost like there is a milky white/grey glaze over the hawke sidewinders that makes it not clear. I thus do not recommend getting a low end hawke scope for the bang for the buck ratio(new prices). There is a benefit to having a Hawke scope though. Two things I love about hawke scopes is the tactile clicks on the turret adjustment and the reticle design. Hawke scopes are therefore not a bad deal if you can get one for a cheap price.
I guess it's because there is a huge difference between
A. The Objective Lens
B. The Coating
C. The Glass
I also want to point out some Huge cons with high dollar scopes.
1. The massive weight. Most high end scopes exceeding 1400$ are 34mm which sounds like a good thing but in reality this makes them very heavy. Also that Cyclops video man said that 34mm tube size is just a standardization change. It does not necessarily serve to improve light transmission ratio.
2. The FX No limit rings for 34mm do not exist. There are these mounts called "Warne 34mm adjustable" scope mounts that do the same things as the FX No limit rings but are extremely heavy and expensive(300$). Combine these heavy scope mount with a 34mm scope and you have an extremely heavy scope. You should come feel the heft of my sig sauer lol.
3. The straight up lack of a 34mm FX No limit scope Mount
4. The High Prices of 34mm scope mounts(especially Warne).
Therefore, I wouldn't get a 34mm scope for an airgun(athlon chronus, Matt's 34mm Nightforce scope). I instead would suggest a high end 30mm scope such as Nightforce SHV SFP. The SFP turns me off a little but the tactile clicks for dialing in the scope+FX 30mm no limit mounts should keep you from using holdover on the reticle. Only buy the 34mm high dollar scopes (1500+) when they are on sale or used in my opinion.
https://www.sigsauer.com/store/tango6-5-30x56-mm.html
that retails for 2000$(when on sale) and I have to say the Athlon Argos looks very similar to it. Then again I haven't compared the two scopes for a long time or side by side.
My ownership of scope quality have been like this:
Sig Sauer 5-30x56 FFP> Sig Sauer 3-18x44 FFP> Athlon Argos BTR FFP> Hawke Sidewinder 8.5-25x 42 SFP> UTG Potato scope
However, if you look through my Hawke Sidewinder 44 objective lens scope, it is a night and day difference from the Sig Sauer scope.
Its almost like there is a milky white/grey glaze over the hawke sidewinders that makes it not clear. I thus do not recommend getting a low end hawke scope for the bang for the buck ratio(new prices). There is a benefit to having a Hawke scope though. Two things I love about hawke scopes is the tactile clicks on the turret adjustment and the reticle design. Hawke scopes are therefore not a bad deal if you can get one for a cheap price.
I guess it's because there is a huge difference between
A. The Objective Lens
B. The Coating
C. The Glass
I also want to point out some Huge cons with high dollar scopes.
1. The massive weight. Most high end scopes exceeding 1400$ are 34mm which sounds like a good thing but in reality this makes them very heavy. Also that Cyclops video man said that 34mm tube size is just a standardization change. It does not necessarily serve to improve light transmission ratio.
2. The FX No limit rings for 34mm do not exist. There are these mounts called "Warne 34mm adjustable" scope mounts that do the same things as the FX No limit rings but are extremely heavy and expensive(300$). Combine these heavy scope mount with a 34mm scope and you have an extremely heavy scope. You should come feel the heft of my sig sauer lol.
3. The straight up lack of a 34mm FX No limit scope Mount
4. The High Prices of 34mm scope mounts(especially Warne).
Therefore, I wouldn't get a 34mm scope for an airgun(athlon chronus, Matt's 34mm Nightforce scope). I instead would suggest a high end 30mm scope such as Nightforce SHV SFP. The SFP turns me off a little but the tactile clicks for dialing in the scope+FX 30mm no limit mounts should keep you from using holdover on the reticle. Only buy the 34mm high dollar scopes (1500+) when they are on sale or used in my opinion.
Upvote 0
I disagree, however it would probably be easier to feel the difference than see it though the lenses (not that it can't be seen when comparing side by side). There's a lot more to a scope than just the image quality.
Upvote 0
Last weekend I was out coyote hunting with my pb that wears a Swarovski
i called three yotes in to within 400 yds and when I paused my fox pro to see if they would continue heading in they suprisingly made a right turn and headed up the hill around 600 yds out
I watched all of them run up the hill thru my Swarovski at 15 minutes before dark
my hunting partner was 30 yds west of me and said he could not see them thru his bushnell banner
I saw them crystal clear
I was not a believer in high dollar scopes until I actually tried one So in my humble opinion yes they are that much better
and even more so at dusk and first light
only my opinion
pcpfan37
i called three yotes in to within 400 yds and when I paused my fox pro to see if they would continue heading in they suprisingly made a right turn and headed up the hill around 600 yds out
I watched all of them run up the hill thru my Swarovski at 15 minutes before dark
my hunting partner was 30 yds west of me and said he could not see them thru his bushnell banner
I saw them crystal clear
I was not a believer in high dollar scopes until I actually tried one So in my humble opinion yes they are that much better
and even more so at dusk and first light
only my opinion
pcpfan37
Upvote 0
Having started with lower end scopes and making my way up to Schmidt Bender 12-50, I can agree that the higher end scopes make a difference. Image quality is one piece and the difference shows at higher mags and when you are trying to see a target when the environment/lighting/heat makes it difficult. A very important factor often overlooked becomes how well the scope tracks when you are turning turrets and how accurate the scope returns to zero. This cannot be overlooked when shooting various distances.
Upvote 0
Just a few points since it is easiest to judge if you know what to look for. No offense meant if you already know this. Glass is often evaluated in cameras by:
Chromatic aberrations:
https://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration
Amount of light they allow in. Best tested in low light. Generally the larger the front lens the better light reception in many instances (over simplification). Be careful on this one because brighter does not always mean better sharpness, and if you aren't careful it can bite you with instore viewing compared to in the field.
The quality of the focus around the edges. I come from a camera background, but where you are moving the internals around in a scope it becomes even more critical. On a scope definitely turn the turrets close to the extremes without breaking it.
Lastly investigate ruggedness. It doesn't matter the quality of any glass if the environment you are going to use it in is going to break it. I am pretty tough on stuff myself
I'm sure others can add to this list, but those are off the top of my head.
Hope that helps.
CA is one criteria, but there is also MTF. Modulation Transfer Function determines how fine of a detail the lens can resolve. In video, res charts are usually measured in line pairs.
Good glass is expensive because it’s difficult to make.
regards,
Greg
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
I've owned center point, hawke, aeon(still have one) and a sightron SIII. I've looked through March, S&B, Khales(Swarovski), the newish Hawke ED, and Luepold on firearms and airguns. Even at 10x my sightron beats the aeon for clarity and crispness of picture. The March beats the Sightron in the same way. I've looked through a Delta and while the glass is clean and clear the focus is soft, it doesn't snap in and out like the other high end scopes it tries to emulate.
Upvote 0