At-Home Scope Testing

[ALBERTA BOY]

I decided to compare a few scopes here since the weather is too frigid to do much if anything outside.

These scopes are NOT mounted on firearms.

They are set in a clamp and aimed at the same subject. All are set to 7x as this is a common power between them all.

It's difficult to get a clean picture with the tiny exit pupil on most scopes. These pictures CANNOT be used to judge clarity of the image. most of these scopes produce an image that is clear edge to edge with the naked eye but the camera cannot capture that. (mine can't anyway). However, the camera does show some other things.

First is the Vortex Diamondback. This scope suffers from many issues. The turrets seem clicky enough inside but once outside below freezing, they're absolute mush for some reason. You cannot tell how they're moving. This scope is not achromatic. It has an extremely narrow point which has little chromatic aberration but any movement, even half a millimeter will result in horrible chromatic aberration all over the image. See the trees on the left for a common example. This means the rectifier is not recombining the light correctly. This either an extremely poor optical design or poor quality control. Because of refraction, of course, this image is not the crispest. The retail price on this is $279 which is absurd given its performance. The indicator for the adjustment of the diopter is a sticker... Mild tunnel vision with screws visible on the inside, if you look for them.




Next we have the Vortex Crossfire II. This is set at 7x like all the other scopes. As you can see, the field of view is incredibly tight. What a terrible optical design. This scope suffers from horrible tunnel vision meaning the rectifier is not producing an image that is large enough for the ocular glass. It says a lot about a company which lets a design like this out the door. Chromatic aberration on this one is just as bad if not worse than the Vortex diamondback. It is truly terrible. This means that the scope is not recombining the light into an aligned image for the eye. Sharpness is affected. EXTREME tunnel vision. This is a scope not worth owning. I have checked with a second sample of this scope and it was similar.



Here we have an Elite 3500. I have 5 samples of this scope on hand, all very consistent. The image is a bit blurred because of movement of the camera but in person it is quite sharp edge to edge. As you can see, there is only slight vertical chromatic aberration and only in the green spectrum. This is a very respectable performance. Eye movement does not cause any further aberration. Clarity is quite good. The turrets click VERY reassuringly even in very cold temperatures. This a superior optical and mechanical design to their of the vortex scopes. These are currently retailing for about $199



This is an older Elite 3200 scope. In person, it is quite clear edge to edge which the picture will not show. There was some camera movement, apparently. What the picture does show is that it has virtually no aberration . This is an outstanding optical design. There is no tunnel vision. Although the Elite 3500 was lauded as having superior coatings, in fact, the Elite 3200 outperforms it here. Perhaps the glass in the 3200 is better. That's marketing for you. The turrets are similarly superior.



Next up is a Leupold Vari-x II from 1983. In person, the image is as clear as the Elite 3500 but not quite as clear as the Elite 3200. It has about the same level and type of aberration as the Elite 3500. Given that this scope is now 38 years old, that's an outstanding performance. I have submerged and frozen this scope and found that its seals are just as good today as when new. What a great design! The friction turrets are a minus, and of course it doesn't handle off axis bright light as well (glare).



Next up is a Leupold VX-Freedom. Terrible name aside, this is a very solid scope. The aberration is so minimal that it can safely be discounted. It's very sharp in person. The image seems to pop off the ocular lens and the eye relief and eyebox are superior to all other scopes tested here, except the next one. This is an excellent optical design and the quality control appears to be excellent as well.



Lastly, here is a vx-3i. This is a superior scope. There is no aberration at all. It is the clearest scope to the eye in person, in a noticeable way. The image pops off the ocular lens. It is the best optic preset here.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

Here are the night tests. This was performed 25 minutes after sunset and the scopes were swapped out as quickly as possible to avoid large differences in the light. The camera was set to a consistent ISO, aperture, and shutter speed so that each picture should accurately represent the relative efficiency of each scope.

These mostly speak for themselves. In short, it seems that the Elite 3200 is slightly better than the Elite 3500 which should not be according to Bushnell but there it is. There is some vignette creeping in on the Elite 3500 picture because of poor alignment of the camera. That's a result of rushing but the image was fairly bright.

The Vortex diamondback performed extremely poorly, in fact worse than the Crossfire-II. However, the crossfire-II has the wrong field of view and tunnel vision so I guess they're tied in terms of terribleness. While the crossfire-ii seems bright at a glance, you have to remember that you're only looking at the center of the image. The rest is cropped away by the rect.

The 38 year old Vari-x II does quite well, comparing with the Elite 3500.

The VX-Freedom is very bright. It is much brighter than all of the above scopes.

The VX-3i leaves them all for dead, however. This scope is by far the most efficient scope of the lot. Truly an excellent optic.

Diamondback


crossfire-ii


Elite 3500


Elite 3200


Vari-X II


VX-Freedom


Vx-3i

 

[Magellann]

Thats a good review, Its too bad that you can't always compare them like that in the store. And many times the better scope just doesn't fit the budget as well as a lesser scope.

 

[1-trident-1]

thank you for cutting through the marketing hype, we appreciate your efforts.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

That's true! However, with the Elite 3500 being blown out everywhere at $199, it's highly recommended. Its optical design is quite good, it's mechanical adjustments are superior, and above all, it's extremely consistent from sample to sample. I would not hesitate to trust a hunt to this optic. The quality control and mechanical quality are apparent, even if the glass can't compare with more expensive optics.

At $360, the vx-freedom is a cut above the Elite 3500 at a still reasonable price.

The Vx3i is absolutely super in every way, but you pay about double for it.

The two vortex models tested make for a pretty uneven rolling pin, and are far overpriced for their worth as a baking implement.

 

[adamg]

Is it fair to say that the Crossfire's zoom dial is inaccurately indicated, given that its image is observed as larger objects than the others? If this is the case, would it be more fair to zoom each scope until equal object size was achieved?

 

[Suther]

Can you make the pictures bigger? Would make comparing them easier. I can clearly see the difference between the Vx3i and the others, but its kinda hard to tell with the rest.

Otherwise very nice test.

Is it fair to say that the Crossfire's zoom dial is inaccurately indicated, given that its image is observed as larger objects than the others? If this is the case, would it be more fair to zoom each scope until equal object size was achieved?

I did notice the Crossfire looks brighter than the Diamondback, but its also zoomed in more so its hard to really say which looks better?

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

Is it fair to say that the Crossfire's zoom dial is inaccurately indicated, given that its image is observed as larger objects than the others? If this is the case, would it be more fair to zoom each scope until equal object size was achieved?

No, what I believe is happening here, is that the ocular lens is too large for the image the rectifier is projecting onto it. In effect, the objective lens probably has the correct field of view but the terrible optical design prevents it from reaching your eye. It only appears brighter because the edges which are the darkest parts of the image are literally cropped away. Ad in the horrible chromatic aberration, eye box issues (both distance and on the axis, amazingly!), poor clarity and I'm not sure why anyone would bother with this. There are far better optics for the money. This scope is somehow designed with a larger ocular lens (44.5mm OD) than the objective lens. It's mind boggling. That can be corrected for internally but, well, it isn't.

And no, turning it to 5x just to have the same image wouldn't be a fair comparison, the other optics all have the correct field of view at 7x. ;-) Also, doing this would actually make the objects in the image appear smaller! See below. The crossfire would be rewarded for its failings by having the same field of view while only using the center of its optical axis which generally has the brightest and clearest part of the image.

The object size (the vent) is actually the same between the crossfire-ii and all the other scopes. It may look larger here because I've cropped the pictures to the output of the scopes. Remember, this scope has HORRIBLE tunnel vision, so it's cropped in on only, roughly, 2/3 of the glass' surface. In person, the vent is the same size as the other scopes, it's just missing a whole bunch of the image.

Also, Suther, click the thumbnail for larger image.

As a reminder, the tiny pupillary output size of the scope makes photography REALLY difficult. These ALL appear much shaper in person than in the pictures. The pictures are ONLY good for showing aberration and brightness. They don't indicate sharpness/clarity.

I did notice the Crossfire looks brighter than the Diamondback, but its also zoomed in more so its hard to really say which looks better?

The answer is they're both terrible in their own way. All of the other scopes look better

 

[Suther]

No, What's happening here, is that the ocular lens is too large for the image the rectifier is projecting onto it. In effect, the objective lens probably has the correct field of view but the terrible optical design prevents it from reaching your eye. It only appears brighter because the edges which are the darkest parts of the image are literally cropped away. Ad in the horrible chromatic aberration, eye box issues (both distance and on the axis, amazingly!), poor clarity and I'm not sure why anyone would bother with this. There are far better optics for the money. This scope is somehow designed with a larger ocular lens than the objective lens. It's mind boggling. That can be corrected for internally but, well, it isn't.

And no, turning it to 5x just to have the same image wouldn't be a fair comparison, the other optics all have the correct field of view at 7x. ;-)

Also, Suther, click the thumbnail for larger image.

As a reminder, the tiny pupillary output size of the scope makes photography REALLY difficult. These ALL appear much shaper in person than in the pictures. The pictures are ONLY good for showing aberration and brightness. They don't indicate sharpness/clarity.

Perfect thanks! Didn't realize they were clickable.

 

[Suther]

So I'm noticing some "interesting" colors along the roof edge and between the snow and the chimney cap or whatever it is you're pointed at. Specifically, in a bunch of examples the roof edge looks green or blue, while the top of the cap looks red. Are these examples of chromatic aberation or something else caused by the scope, or is it just an issue with the camera trying to take pictures through the scope?

 

[silverfoxdj]

Here are the night tests. This was performed 25 minutes after sunset and the scopes were swapped out as quickly as possible to avoid large differences in the light. The camera was set to a consistent ISO, aperture, and shutter speed so that each picture should accurately represent the relative efficiency of each scope.

These mostly speak for themselves. In short, it seems that the Elite 3200 is slightly better than the Elite 3500 which should not be according to Bushnell but there it is. There is some vignette creeping in on the Elite 3500 picture because of poor alignment of the camera. That's a result of rushing but the image was fairly bright.

The Vortex diamondback performed extremely poorly, in fact worse than the Crossfire-II. However, the crossfire-II has the wrong field of view and tunnel vision so I guess they're tied in terms of terribleness. While the crossfire-ii seems bright at a glance, you have to remember that you're only looking at the center of the image. The rest is cropped away by the rect.

The 38 year old Vari-x II does quite well, comparing with the Elite 3500.

The VX-Freedom is very bright. It is much brighter than all of the above scopes.

The VX-3i leaves them all for dead, however. This scope is by far the most efficient scope of the lot. Truly an excellent optic.

Diamondback


crossfire-ii


Elite 3500


Elite 3200


Vari-X II


VX-Freedom


Vx-3i

Nicely done... that should help others decide what they feel is adequate

 

[medvedqc]

the reticle is as important as the glass. i have an old vari x III 2.5-8x36 with a german 1that is better than a vx3i with regular duplex one.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

So I'm noticing some "interesting" colors along the roof edge and between the snow and the chimney cap or whatever it is you're pointed at. Specifically, in a bunch of examples the roof edge looks green or blue, while the top of the cap looks red. Are these examples of chromatic aberration or something else caused by the scope, or is it just an issue with the camera trying to take pictures through the scope?

You're exactly right. That's chromatic aberration. When light enters an optic, it's split up into various elements, Chroma being three. (red, green, and blue) Then it is re-assembled before it reaches your eye. Chromatic aberration is a pretty good indicator of how good a job a scope does of putting the light back together correctly. It's a pretty fair indicator of overall optical quality in my experience.

Take a look at the full size diamondback. You'll notice the shadow on the trees on the left side are a smear of blue. The right side? Green. This is a terrible optic.

An extremely bright scene with high contrast was chosen to bring this out of the bad optics.

Edit: a practical hunting scenario where this is important: antlers against a sky.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

the reticle is as important as the glass. i have an old vari x III 2.5-8x36 with a german 1that is better than a vx3i with regular duplex one.

Yes!

I'm very impressed with this old Vari-x II. It's a fine optic!

 

[stickhunter]

Thanks very much for taking the time to do this test! It's really quite informative for those, like me, who are interested in learning more about optical qualities.

Would you mind explaining your setup with respect to the camera and scope? Do you have a frame that holds the camera lens in alignment with the scope, or do you old it freehand or use a tripod?

You've piqued my interest in doing something similar with some of my scopes.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

Thanks very much for taking the time to do this test! It's really quite informative for those, like me, who are interested in learning more about optical qualities.

Would you mind explaining your setup with respect to the camera and scope? Do you have a frame that holds the camera lens in alignment with the scope, or do you old it freehand or use a tripod?

You've piqued my interest in doing something similar with some of my scopes.

It was hand held. That's why there's vignetting on the elite 3500 night picture. I was hurrying to not lose light and didn't quite have the alignment right.

I'm using a full frame Canon 6D with L series lens which "kind of' has a macro function but it's not a true macro lens. Distance from the scope varied with the eye relief of the scope, of course.

The issue, is that the exit pupil is small coming out a scope. Just a few millimeter on a 35mm sensor. It lands on a very tiny area of that huge lens, and then an even smaller area of the giant full frame sensor so detail is hard to come by. I have found that looking at the scope with the naked eye, you can shift your attention to the edges and they'll come into sharp focus. However, the camera focuses on the image generally and just can't do that, at least I coudln't force it to do that.

These pictures really only show brightness and aberration. You would need some kind of specialty lens and very tiny sensor to get anywhere near the detail you can see with the naked eye.

Something of note: look at that diamondback at night! You can see chromatic aberration in that image! That's usually only visible in very high contrast and bright images. To see it half an hour past sunset: well, that's a crap-tier optic. Honestly, I'd expect more from a 'yukon gear" spotting scope from Canadian Tire.

 

[Korth Group Ltd]

Great work on this! We are not surprised by your findings

The low light images are the most telling. Most all optic purchases are made under fluorescent lighting, where most all scopes appear 'bright'. A couple of manufacturers even design their lens coatings to be brightest under this lighting - the trade off is these scopes are very dark in low light. The sad reality is that a consumer will not experience low light usage until after the scope is purchased.

KGL

 

[JPenner]

Thanks for the reviews. Appreciate the work you went to. Low mid range scopes are what a lot of us use. Definitely makes me want a VX3i. I have a Diamondback that I don't mind the feel of but looking through it in low light is awful, I agree. My bushnell 4200 is bright and clear although I have not tried it in low light. I also have Leupold Rifleman which is similar to the VX Freedom series I think? Nice and clear but just friction turrets.

 

[ALBERTA BOY]

Thanks for the reviews. Appreciate the work you went to. Low mid range scopes are what a lot of us use. Definitely makes me want a VX3i. I have a Diamondback that I don't mind the feel of but looking through it in low light is awful, I agree. My bushnell 4200 is bright and clear although I have not tried it in low light. I also have Leupold Rifleman which is similar to the VX Freedom series I think? Nice and clear but just friction turrets.

I believe the glass in the VX-Freedom series is a cut above the rifleman and the coatings are certainly different. VX-Freedom doesn't have friction turrets, they are click adjustments. Rumor has it the VX-Freedom is somewhere in between a VX-1 and a VX-2. Who knows for sure without testing, though! One thing's for sure, it has a dumb name!

I would love to get my hands on a Rifleman or even a VX-1 to test out and compare. Something tells me they'll both perform better than expected. There's a gentleman on the EE who is selling a VX-1 in Edmonton and I've exchanged an email with him. Hopefully I can buy that one to test out and compare.

I'd also love to do a comparison in the future where I point the scopes in the direction of a setting sun.

 

[Korth Group Ltd]

For those interested - the Freedom line amalgamated the Rifleman, VX-1 and VX-2 into one family. The maintube is from the VX-1. All glass and internals are from the VX-2, but with improved coatings.

KGL