Is optics quality different for everyone?

[popcan]

The other thread on Bushnell scopes got me thinking (always dangerous ).

My theory, (which I have no scientific basis for ) is that each individual's eyes work differently with different scopes, so, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

I have bought and tried many brands of scopes, and I can tell you that some seem brighter and clearer at higher magnification than others to me, but the next guy insists the opposite scopes are brighter and clearer for him.

Even with the higher end scopes, I hear people saying that their (brand x) is better or just as good as a Leupold Zeiss or Nightforce...

Some of that is due perhaps to;
the wrong application for a certain type of scope,
the inability to accurately assess brightness and clarity, or
judging different scopes in different conditions.

There could be lots of other reasons too.

Comments?

 

[Mount Sweetness]

I believe that a scope has to "fit" the shooter, just as a gun has to "fit".

Higher quality glass and coatings will always be clearer and allow more light. Superior construction will always be more durable, dependable with precise adjustments.

I appreciate these qualities, but for me personally, I am always after long eye relief as my top priority. The way I mount the gun I like a good 4in relief, some super high end scopes only offer 3.5in relief....exceptional optics but I pass them up as there are better choices for me.

Most Leupold scopes give over 4in relief, even the Rifleman and VX-1.

 

[big boar]

Funny you should mention that, I've read a lot of forums, mostly on binoculars and what you've said seems to be "SORT OF" true. At the top end a lot of people with experience disagree on what is the best of the best, ie. Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica etc. You can read till your eyes fall out and all you'll get is people disagree over the upper end products. However most everyone (well, almost) can see the difference in "sharpness/brightness" when you compare a top end Zeiss to a Tasco. I think the differences are less apparent with something like Leupold VX111 vs Bush Elite 4200 and that is where personal opinion comes in. In a scope, I would rather have a shorter, lighter, tougher(?) scope with long eye relief and sacrifice a SMALL amount of optical clarity as I think it's for aiming, not viewing (that's what a bino is for at least in hunting). (I'll probably get a kick in the pants for this so lets just say these are my opinions and leave it at that). Overall I still want optics at the upper end though not the absolute top. As I'm getting older I think my eyes need all the help they can get.

 

[Cummins4x4]

Contrast and color definition also play a large role in how "clear and bright" optics seem to the user. These can be subjective but also depends on how well ones eye can define these, ie someone with a color blindness issue likely will have issues with different lens coatings

 

[gorky]

This scope debate is the same as the TV debate at future shop. Yeah, the Sonys and the Samsungs will always look better than no-name sh*t, put ask 5 different people which is best and you will get 5 different answers. Some people like the color on this one, the contrast on that one, the options here, the price there. Sound similar ?

Also, if you believe my wife, I can't tell colors for sh*t so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Me, well, I think she is blind as a bat. The debate lives on...

PS - cheap Tascos always suck

 

[Pyd]

This has the potential to be a good thread.
I think the only way to compare a scope is to do it when they are side by side, same light same day.
Being people, there are other things that can affect how we see things, moods, the amount of time we have to spend looking at them, the ambient sounds of the store in the background.. Heck, if a pretty gal smiles at you on the way in the door pretty much everything you touch after that is going to seem better..
I say yes, that different people see quality in different ways, different eyes will have different ideas of "clarity". I also think that those different eyes change on a daily basis.

 

[nate18]

this story is not of a scope but of binos. at Christmas i was in buying binos at wallyworld, and finally when i i got to look at them i couldn't see s4it through the Bushnell's and could see EVERYTHING with the "junkier, crappier" tascos. i bought the tascos and saved some cash, to me i ended up with a much better deal.

nate

 

[Donnie]

This scope debate is the same as the TV debate at future shop. Yeah, the Sonys and the Samsungs will always look better than no-name sh*t, put ask 5 different people which is best and you will get 5 different answers. Some people like the color on this one, the contrast on that one, the options here, the price there. Sound similar ?

Also, if you believe my wife, I can't tell colors for sh*t so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Me, well, I think she is blind as a bat. The debate lives on...

PS - cheap Tascos always suck

That's a good analogy. I like to categorize those people as non-scientific people, they use their perception to influence what is 'good'. I wish more consumers would do a *little* bit of scientific researh to be able to discern good quality from junk.

Optic quality simply isn't subjective, its got absolute characteristics to it that can be easily measured. So I don't think optic quality should be different for anyone, however, the reality is some people can judge quality and some just buy cheap TV's.

 

[stubblejumper]

Most Leupold scopes give over 4in relief, even the Rifleman and VX-1.

Only at the lower magnifications.At the maximum magnifications,the Leupold variables have less than 4" of eye relief,usually in the 3.0" to 3.7" range.
The VX-3 3.5-10x40 has 3.6" at maximum magnification.
The VX I 3-9x40 has 3.7" at maximum magnification.
The VX II 3-9x33 ultralight only has 3" at maximum magnification.

 

[ruger22]

Ever see the TV show about wine?
The guy and girl go on about the smallest differences of each grape, soil conditions of each little area within each district of each country.
Of course they have done all the research ahead of time.
Much of it provided by the producer.

These people in a blind taste test knew a lot less about the differences from one to another.

A outdoor fading lite test with the scope body wrapped in paper towel would be interesting.

 

[AP]

I love blind taste tests ... about 10 years ago was "the definitive article on Chocolate" in National Geographic... the history, agronomy, processing etc etc. Expert panels and opinions .... In a blind taste test of the most exotic and exclusive hand made (read VERY expensive) chocolates and truffles from France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland etc ... time after time the "expert panel" picked the lowly Hershey milk chocolate bar as number 2 or 3 .... in the blind taste test.

Was on a recent wine vineyard tour with my kids .. after lunch we joined the fairly international group for the tour ending in a tasting.... our tour leader offered up several plonks and then offered their Piece de Resistance... she swirled sniffed and extolled the virtues of the "slight fresh hay bouquet" and the "hint of fresh strawberry" etc etc. The group swilled it down and completely agreed with the delicious flavour. My kids (9 and 11) demanded a taste - and I obliged - they both declared that it smelled and tasted like slightly bitter Greek olives. The couple next to us tried their sample again and agreed ... as did others in the group one by one .... within 10 minutes we were all standing around saying the wine tasted like olives ... with the poor tour guide trying to declare that we were wrong, wrong and it was "strawberries!!"... folks left chuckling!!

The tour guide was still staring speechless at her glass of wine while we filed out.


On optics ... folks often declare that this or that scope transmits X% of light etc... probably they do ... but be very suspicious of demo's involving photographic light meters to prove the point. Very few photographic light meters read the same light your eyes are sensitive too and vice versa. This approach can be very misleading. Leitz (eg the Leica camera and bino/instrument etc ) folks used to be very particular in their advertising and made honest claims for their products - not sure how this has been effected by the over hype about all products in the marketplace today. One particularly helpful commentary they made about their optics was the fact that they could construct extremely high resolution optics or extremely high contrast producing optics ... but that there was a trade off and the appropriate decisions were made based on the optics intended use.


A key element for field optics is contrast ... which Leitz used to illustrate very nicely in their old brochures!! In many cases it takes precedence over brightness and resolution. Since contrast can also be adversely affected by bright light sources in the FOV which can cause flare ... appropriate measures must also be taken to control that ... through proper coating AND through the simple use of hoods or recessed objectives to minimize extraneous light striking the lens surface...and lots more...

 

[SandRoad]

The other thing to take into consideration is how the scope is being used. If it is for short to moderate range hunting, say a walking hunt, then the only thing that makes a difference is if you can see what you are shooting at, even it is is fuzzy. All you need is to make that one shot. The differences between good and superb scopes are completely forgotten. (This is unless you are shooting under extreme conditions, say very long distances from a rest, or low light, etc)

An example, when you are at the airport looking at the monitors listing the flight/departure times, have you ever noticed how sharp the displays are or aren't? No, all you want is the information they give you. Same in a hunting situation. If you can see it, you can shoot it, even if the contrast is poor or image not to sharp.

However, if you are shooting long range competitions and are looking through the scope all day, then the differences become much more significant. Same goes for extreme hunting conditions, the little bit of an edge can make a difference.

 

[popcan]

BUT

for a real-world example, I bought a Falcon scope from Allen Gun Works, and just couldn't get edge clarity at the higher magnifications no matter the lighting conditions... Now, these scopes come very well recommended by many users, but they didn't do it for me. At the time, my inexpensive Nikon scope worked better for me.

That's why I think our individual eyes might work differently with different scopes. Don't know if that makes sense or not.....


(Allen Gun Works graciously took the scope back with a full refund, can't be fairer than that!)