Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
So this evening I was a little bored and I decided to grab a few riflescopes out of the safe for a little comparison as twilight approached. I was looking at a neighbors rooftop 92 yards away. This roof has shingles and a chimney coming out the top, with a vented grill on the top of the chimney.
I tested 4 scopes - Vortex Viper, Zeiss Conquest, Burris FFII Tactical, and Leupold FX3. All scopes are 3-9x40 models, except the Leup which is a 6x42. All scopes were set on 6x for this comparison (and were properly focused for the distance of the object being viewed).
I rated the scopes based on brightness, resolution, color, and contrast. At 22 minutes after sunset I could still clearly make out the vent slots on the grill of the chimney cover with all scopes.
The scopes are so close to each other, it's difficult to make any clear judgements, but I did discern enough to rate them in order of best to worst.
My ratings are as follows (from best to worst):
Brightness - FFII, Conquest, FX3, Viper
Colour (natural vs yellow hue) - FX3, Viper, Conquest, FFII
Contrast - FX3, Conquest, Viper, FFII
Resolution - Conquest, FX3, Viper, FFII
Again, the differences were slight, but discernible.
If I talley up the numbers (1-4), with a lower number being better and a higher number being worse, the Zeiss gets 8, the FFII - 13, FX3 - 7, and the Viper - 12. Of course this is assuming that all characteristics rated are weighted evenly, and that the numbers are simply based subjectively on how each scope compares to the others, rather than an objective rating (such as a 1-10 scale). Even though the FFII totals 13 and the FX3 totals 7, I would say that the FFII is equally good in low light as the FX3, for different reasons.
As you can tell, I was very bored tonight. Hopefully my boredom entertains some of you
BTW, just for interest's sake, the FX3 has the most critical eye box of the bunch...
I tested 4 scopes - Vortex Viper, Zeiss Conquest, Burris FFII Tactical, and Leupold FX3. All scopes are 3-9x40 models, except the Leup which is a 6x42. All scopes were set on 6x for this comparison (and were properly focused for the distance of the object being viewed).
I rated the scopes based on brightness, resolution, color, and contrast. At 22 minutes after sunset I could still clearly make out the vent slots on the grill of the chimney cover with all scopes.
The scopes are so close to each other, it's difficult to make any clear judgements, but I did discern enough to rate them in order of best to worst.
My ratings are as follows (from best to worst):
Brightness - FFII, Conquest, FX3, Viper
Colour (natural vs yellow hue) - FX3, Viper, Conquest, FFII
Contrast - FX3, Conquest, Viper, FFII
Resolution - Conquest, FX3, Viper, FFII
Again, the differences were slight, but discernible.
If I talley up the numbers (1-4), with a lower number being better and a higher number being worse, the Zeiss gets 8, the FFII - 13, FX3 - 7, and the Viper - 12. Of course this is assuming that all characteristics rated are weighted evenly, and that the numbers are simply based subjectively on how each scope compares to the others, rather than an objective rating (such as a 1-10 scale). Even though the FFII totals 13 and the FX3 totals 7, I would say that the FFII is equally good in low light as the FX3, for different reasons.
As you can tell, I was very bored tonight. Hopefully my boredom entertains some of you
BTW, just for interest's sake, the FX3 has the most critical eye box of the bunch...
