Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold VX-II?
- Thread starter linderhof
- Start date
plainSight Solutions
Regular
This is not entirely correct. The average pupil diameter in a middle-aged person is 5mm. At 9x the exit pupil for a 40mm scope is 4.44mm while for a 50mm scope it is 5.56mm. In normal conditions, that is a .56mm gain (5mm - 4.44mm) in exit pupil or roughly a 13% improvement (not marginal).
The rub is, that the older we get, the smaller our pupil diameter becomes (down to 3mm or so), so the advantage of a larger objective tapers off more quickly than it would for a younger individual.
Where a 50mm gains substantially over a 40mm (regardless of magnification level) is in low-light conditions. The improvement in that instance has been rigorously tested is generally accepted.
I put a Conquest 3-9x40 on my Rem custom shop 300 WM. Super scope. Crystal clear and the duplex is better than the leups in my opinion. Don't get me wrong the Leups are good as I have two VX III's. One for my 30.06 (1-4) and one for my slug gun for deer hunting. I just think the Conquest edges the Leups out a bit. Especially for moose in Northern Ontario where they are black and the crosshairs need to be distinct to show up on an animal.
So your saying that the only advantage the 50mm has over the 40mm is when the scope is cranked to 9x. Not worth it to me for the price difference. Not many hunters that I know keep their scopes maxed out at 9x when hunting. Personally I like to keep it on the lowest setting until the point where more magnification is needed
I have a new VX-3 and I'm eager to check out my buddys Conquest...
I understand they are very clear optics, but I cant see it being any clearer then the VX-3....Its Unbelievable IMO!
VX-3 compares favourably with the conquest.
plainSight Solutions
Regular
If you read the last part of what I said, a larger objective will provide improved brightness throughout the mag range. Compared to a scope with a smaller objective, this improvement is most dramatic at the higher end of the mag range. And yes, it's wise not to carry with your scope at max power, but that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of larger objective scopes over lower objective scopes under certain situations/conditions.
The gain is not immaterial, otherwise professionals (law enforcement/military) wouldn't be lugging around those 50mm, 56mm, 72mm, and 80mm super-salami-scopes.
I honestly don't use the LR dots. I have it on a target rifle and my club is only 100 yards, so I've never had a need for it. Having said that, for a few extra bucks, it's nice to know it's there if I do shoot longer ranges in the future.
Well, the original question compared the Conquest to the VX2. The Conquest vs the VX3 is at least a fair fight.
When I was looking for my hunting scope about 5 years ago, I googled extensively, and found probably a hundred or so threads in various message boards comparing the Conquest to the VX3 and most people who had both said the Conquest was better. It was also cheaper, so that's what I went with. A lot could have changed in five years though.
When I was looking for my hunting scope about 5 years ago, I googled extensively, and found probably a hundred or so threads in various message boards comparing the Conquest to the VX3 and most people who had both said the Conquest was better. It was also cheaper, so that's what I went with. A lot could have changed in five years though.
plainSight Solutions
Regular
That is correct: if exit pupil > pupil size the excess is wasted in terms of "brightness".
However, you have to consider that in low-light situations, the pupil will dilate. During normal daylight conditions, a middle-aged, healthy pupil will be constricted to a diameter of 3mm to 5mm. In low-light, the same pupil can dilate to a maximum of 7mm.
Compare the exit pupil numbers for two 3-9 power scopes, one being 40mm the other being 50mm.
40mm - the exit pupil will range from 13.33mm at 3x down to 4.44mm at 9x.
50mm - the exit pupil will range from 16.67mm at 3x down to 5.56mm at 9x.
While these exit pupil numbers are less relevant during the daylight hours (with a human pupil running from 3mm to 5mm), in low-light they become very relevant. Being conservative and assuming that the human pupil dilated to 6mm (as opposed to the 7mm maximum), from about 7x on, the 50mm objective will become increasingly brighter in comparison to the 40mm.
At 7x:
40mm exit pupil = 5.71mm < 6mm therefore could be brighter
50mm exit pupil = 7.14mm > 6mm therefore maximum reached with exit pupil lost
Performance gain at 7x = 6 - 5.71 = .29/5.71 = 5% more exit pupil
At 8x:
40mm exit pupil = 5mm < 6mm therefore could be brighter
50mm exit pupil = 6.25mm > 6mm therefore maximum reached with exit pupil lost
Performance gain at 8x = 6.00 - 5.00 = 1.00/5.00 = 20% more exit pupil
At 9x:
40mm exit pupil = 4.44mm < 6mm therefore could be brighter
50mm exit pupil = 5.56mm < 6mm therefore could be brighter
Performance gain at 9x = 5.56 - 4.44 = 1.11/4.44 = 25% more exit pupil
The above is a crude attempt to quantify the increase in useable exit pupil that the 50mm will provide over the 40mm, in a situation where the actual pupil dilates to 6mm. It should be obvious that the effectiveness of the greater objective and the corresponding gain in exit pupil is dependent upon the size of the actual pupil engaging the exit pupil/disc of light.
The other significant benefit, that has been glossed over in all this talk of improved "brightness" is the reduced incidence of "vignetting". In other words, if you have a bigger disc of light to look through, you have a bit more lattitude as to where you can position your eye without encountering the dreaded black ring.
If you are too lazy to read the above or it makes no sense then I'll put it bluntly: if you hunt during lower-light conditions and/or have huge pupils, you will benefit from a larger objective, all other things being equal.
I bolded the part where I believe you are mistaken. A middle aged person will have a maximum pupil size of 5mm, a young person will have a maximum pupil size of 7mm. Elderly is about 4mm. During the day, everyone's pupil is about 2-3mm.
Everything else you've said is true for a young person. But you've presented a larger objective as an across-the-board benefit for anyone in low light, which I don't agree with.
The only gain for a middle aged person is during low light when the scope is between 8x and 9x, and even then it's only about a 10% increase. (as you mentioned vignetting, when you're in a position to take advantage of the edges of the exit pupil, you aren't adding a light improvement that's linear to the added size because the edges are dimmer.)
I disagree with and/or.
If you have large pupil, AND hunt during low-light conditions, AND you're using your scope between 8x and 9x, you'll get a small improvement in brightness.
And are all these 3-9 scopes?
If they have near-unlimited budget, and you're already lugging around a Barrett, "hunt" in total darkness, are generally younger than middle age, and always have great eyesight, and have a night vision system, I'm sure they can occasionally find some benefit in the extra size.
As far as I know, the Mil/LE long-range scopes most commonly used that have max-mag exit pupils similar or smaller than 4.5mm. So, for the most part, they frequently don't think the small improvement is worth the extra size and weight and mounting difficulties either.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Ok, for starters, you want bigger pupils, eat some mushrooms!!!!
Just take out the scopes and try them in all light conditions.
I have done this, and there IS a difference between 40,44,50 mm of the same scope during the same conditions, but do it with the same model/line/ of scope.not brand A to brand B
Even in broad day light I can see a difference between 44mm and 50mm no matter what the magnification.
You can math equation and wikipedia all day long but nothing substitutes for hands on testing.
Just take out the scopes and try them in all light conditions.
I have done this, and there IS a difference between 40,44,50 mm of the same scope during the same conditions, but do it with the same model/line/ of scope.not brand A to brand B
Even in broad day light I can see a difference between 44mm and 50mm no matter what the magnification.
You can math equation and wikipedia all day long but nothing substitutes for hands on testing.
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Five years ago the VX3 didn't exist. You must be thinking of the VXIII. There IS a difference. As an owner of FX3, VX3, and Conquest scopes, I would say there isn't enough difference between them to really say one is better than the others. The Conquest has better resolution, but the FX3/VX3 is brighter.
plainSight Solutions
Regular
I don't mind a discussion, but you're on the verge of degenerating this into a nit-pick. Like it or not, it is canon in the optics community that larger objectives provide the benefit of larger exit pupils, which can result in improved low-light performance and ease of viewing.
Your numbers on pupil dilation are a bit off. Maximum measured pupil dilation up to age 25 is around 9mm. Average at age 30 is 7mm. Average at age 50 is 5mm. People vary and the gradual constriction of the pupil is not a constant, but those are generally accepted numbers from my sources.
With respect to an "across the board benefit", I was quite specific actually and attention to the example clearly demonstrates that there is a cross-over point in the magnification spectrum where a large objective does or does not offer any benefit.
Read: I stated from 7x on with a 3-9 scope and the numerics were pretty specific in terms of pupil size in relation to exit pupil size. Apologies, I should have spelled it out.
The cross-over point or sweet spot (in terms of brightness gain) is the area where the exit pupil of the larger objective is greater than that of the exit pupil of the smaller objective, and the exit pupil of the smaller objective is less than the actual pupil diameter.
The benefit is not "only for young people", but rather for those with pupils that can benefit from the increase in exit pupil that a larger objective will provide. Likewise, you cannot marginalize the gain for "middle-aged" people.
You are also muddling my mentioning of the benefit of a decrease in vignetting with the benefit of a gain in brightness. They are separate benefits and at higher magnifications can be mutually exclusive.
With respect to your rehash of my statement:
"If you have large pupil, AND hunt during low-light conditions, AND you're using your scope between 8x and 9x, you'll get a small improvement in brightness."
You are not entirely correct in assessing a "small improvement". It may be a small improvement, depending upon the respective pupil. For some the gain will be very significant, for others not so much. If you are trying to establish that only "younger" people can benefit from larger objectives, there is some truth to that...but unfortunately that applies to most things that are fun to play with including pogo-sticks, cell-phones, sports cars and condoms.
The discussion involved 3-9 scopes, so I presented some numbers based on that. Regardless of the mag range, there will be a cross-over point where the larger objective will provide a larger exit pupil that can be of benefit, and also a point of diminishing returns.
"As far as I know, the Mil/LE long-range scopes most commonly used that have max-mag exit pupils similar or smaller than 4.5mm. So, for the most part, they frequently don't think the small improvement is worth the extra size and weight and mounting difficulties either."
The trend is definitely on larger objectives. Most "sniper" rigs have at least a 50mm objective scope, and very often a 56mm. The Hensoldt and Zeiss 72mm are not uncommon and US Optics has an 80mm that sees professional use. Why aren't they sporting 40mm?
You have an opinion that the benefit of larger objectives is not meaningful. There are configurations where your opinion is valid. Likewise, there are configurations where it is not. I'm not ashamed to say that the assertions I've laid out for you are not my own, but feel free to disagree with them all the same.
It's because they're not sporting 3-9s.
Would the Ziess be the 6-24x72? 3mm objective at 24x.
The US Optic 10-42x80. 3.3mm at 24x and 1.9mm at 42x.
Pupil sizes in total darkness aren't all that useful from our perspective as we can only hunt to the end of legal hunting time anyway. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether we're going to miss a shot at a buck during legal hunting time due to a 40mm objective when we would have got it with a 50mm. Something that I doubt will ever happen during the lifetime of the vast majority of us.
Sales numbers (which I certainly don't have) would show what the majority of consumers feel about the tradeoff, and my bet is that 3-9x40s outsell 3-9x50s in the same model.
And you're right, we can go around in circles discussing how good is "good" but there's not much point. The last word is yours should you wish it.
I have 2 Zeiss 3-9x 40 and like them. Yesterday I tried to fit a Leupold 4.5-14 x 50 on a Sako 85 varmint short action and there was no room to adjust backwards or forward for eye relief. There was probably 1/8" front and back where the scope widens. I settled on a Vari lll 4.5-14 x 40, it is longer and has room to move around without buying ring adapters. Cheers Roscoe
