New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Chris -TELL ME about SCHMIDT&BENDER
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Chris -TELL ME about SCHMIDT&BENDER

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/08/2004 at 12:57
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

Chris and anyone else

I am interested in S&B scopes. I know they are a smaller company and advertise less than zeiss and swarovski, but they are still around for a reason, even though their prices are sky high which means they must have great optics? How do they compare with zeiss v and swaro scopes. I know accuracy international uses S&B scopes on their rifles as does john lazzeroni.

They have more eye relief than swaro ph scopes 3.7 vs. 3.1 and zeiss has 3.5"

 

Tell me everything you know about them

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 12:32
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

They had a 40% across the board price increase last year and the product remained unchanged.  Was your comment, "their prices are sky high which means they must have great optics" tongue and cheek or are you serious?  Technology has passed them by, they can not keep up with monster companies like Swarovski and Zeiss.  The sports optics portion of Zeiss and Swarovski only account for about 2% of each company.  They are able to share technologies learned throughout their diversified product offerings and companies.  To me S&B are antiquated, heavy, old world technology, over priced scopes.  Yes they are bright durable scopes but they are not in the same league as VMV or Professional Hunters.  I think their recent price increase will be the death of them.

 

Let's compare the most popular models.

 

S&B Precision Hunter 3-12x50.....$1578.99

22.2 ounces

Field of view 11-33 feet at 100 yards

eye relief 3.7"

16" adjustment range at 100 yards

 

Swarovski Professional Hunter 3-12x50.....$1508.99

16.9 ounces

Field of view 11-33 feet at 100 yards

eye relief  3.2"

40" adjustment range at 100 yards

 

Zeiss VMV 2.5-10x50.....$1349.95

1 5.9  ounces

Field of view 12-43.5 feet at 100 yards

eye relief 3.5" 

44" adjustment range at 100 yards

 

The S&B has the highest price of the three being $150. higher than the average price of the PH and VMV.

The S&B is the heaviest of the three being 5.8 ounces heavier than the average weight of the PH and VMV

Zeiss clobbers both of them on field of view by quite a bit.

The S&B has the longest eye relief of the three being .35" longer than the average of the PH and VMV.

The S&B is an absolute joke when it comes to max adjustment range and the reason they made a 35mm tube scope.

 

I think the fact that they are a small company is why they can't compete any longer.  They just don't have the money to make a modern day state of the art scope.  Their glass and old world craftsmanship are excellent but modern VMV and PH scopes are killing them on the rest of the scope.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 16:31
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

Chris-

I have to reply to this.

Technology has passed them by? I would say the adjustment turrets, either the old or new "posicon", are way ahead of everyone else. no other company makes a design that tells you how much space you used up and how much you have left to go.

You state they are bright, durable and make great glass. Apparently alot of people agree with that as the PM II's are getting alot of use around the world. Alot more than zeiss and swarovski tactical scopes get. Not bad for a small company. I think S&B's are gaining popularity, but thats just me. It is true that they dont advertise like leupold and swarovski and zeiss and they dont take gun writers out to dinner either, at least not in the USA,(probably not anyway unlike swarovski, leupold, and zeiss).

 

The "precision hunter" series is not their most popular series, I have never talked to anyone that has owned one. I would say the PM II's(which are 34mm not 35mm) and the standard variables, are their most popular hunting line.

 

I noticed in your comparison with S&B @ 16 inches you only put from zero in 1 direction, not the total range which would be 32", yes still less but you werent accurate.

Maybe you should have compared the new zenith 3-12x50

weight: 22 ounces

FOV:33.3/11.4

eye relief: 3.7

adjustment range @ 100 yards: 43"

 

6 ounces in weight wouldnt scare me off but then again I am not a runt.

adjustment range sure changed didnt it.

 

why are they not in the same league as the vmv or swaro PH scopes? their weight? they use a triplet objective for starters which is alot of glass but quality design.Triplet objective lenses perform better as a rule than cemented doublets, only because the work necessary to correct all aberrations is divided among the larger number of optical components. Astigmatism is one of several errors in image formation that must be corrected with finite lenses of useful diameter. Color, distortion, coma, and field (Petzval) curvature are also to be minimized. they use a die cast alumnium instead of aircraft alloy as well, why, i dont know that.

 

what do they think of S&B in europe, the people that actually use alot of swaro and zeiss's and hunt at night for 10 months a year.check below for a recent article in the european press

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.djz.de/artikelbeitrag/artikelbeitrag_20485.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dschmidt%2Bbender%2Bmeopta%2Blicht%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

 

the above is a german article on the meopta 3-12x50

here is a quote;  "With a jagdlichen sight, which is used predominantly with the today's hunt conditions with bad light, the transmission is important. The maximum transmission of the test glass was measured with 87 per cent. The top models of this class lie all with over 90 per cent, in addition, could be lived with some per cent under it still well. Older hunters, particularly eyeglass wearers also hardly are able to notice differences of three or four per cent.

With the transmission must be differentiated however between the transmission at day and at night - and here the Meopta weaknesses shows. The maximum transmission with daylight lies with 87 per cent, at night remains of it however only 80.3 per cent. In addition, point makes of Zeiss, Swarowski or Schmidt&Bender drop at night also somewhat, here still lie around the 90 per cent: A Schmidt& Bender 3-12x50, thus with exactly the same optical data, measured to the comparison, brought it on 91 per cent. A difference of ten per cent is already clearly visible and limits the use with bad light. "

 

sounds to me like they think S&B is right there with zeiss and swarovski doesnt it?

 

 

"I think the fact that they are a small company is why they can't compete any longer.  They just don't have the money to make a modern day state of the art scope. Their glass and old world craftsmanship are excellent but modern VMV and PH scopes are killing them on the rest of the scope."

WOW what a statement. everyone is entitled ot their opinion but  the only difference i can find is weight, adjustment range is no longer a big deal.



Edited by SAKO75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 16:46
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

I could tell by your initial post, your instant message after posting requesting that I hurry up and respond and the fact that 3 out of 4 of your post here are S&B related that you were baiting me.  So I figured I would bait back.  The specs are straight out of catalogs and or their web site.  No where did it state from center down.

 

I think it is obvious who has an agenda.  Is S&B's name on your pay checks?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 17:22
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

no agenda here, nor is s&b on my checks! maybe it should be!

just wondered your opinion and when you gave it, i gave you mine

 

good fun!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 17:43
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

I don't want to get into an arguement with Chris nor do I claim to know as much about optics as Chris or Sako75 but, I do own a  Schmidt & Bender and 2 Zeiss VM/Vs.  I have compared them and will try to give an honest and fair opinion of Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski if anyone would like my opinion.  I agree and disagree with Chris' assement of Schmidt & Bender but I do have a problem with one thing, the price comparison.

 

Chris, I understand why you have a problem with price increases with no upgrade in performance, that is a good reason to dislike a particular line.  I just don't know why you chose Schmidt & Bender to pick on as far as prices go.  I am not saying that S&B is the best, they have their pros and cons just like Swarovski and Zeiss.  But Swarovski just had a major price increase on their whole line making them by far the most expensive. 

 

Why would you compare the S&B  Precision Hunter to the other 2, it has some basic tacticle features.  I agree with Sako75 on this point.  A fair price comparison would be between the variable S&B 3-12x50.  These are the prices pulled directly off this website.

 

Swarovski PH 3-12x50          $1508.99

 

Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50    $1378.99 

 

Zeiss V/VM  2.5-10x50          $1348.99

 

 

The Swarovski 2.5-10x42 went from  $1299.00 a few months ago to $1429.00.  Their binos and spotting scopes increased as well.  Talk about being overpriced.  I bought my Zeiss VM/V 3-12x56 off the samplelist last year for $1199.00.  Although expensive, I consider that reasonable for a top of the line scope.  But $1500+ is too expensive to pay for any of these scopes.  I don't think any of them are that good.

 

I don't have anything against Swarovski, Zeiss, or Schmidt & Bender.  I am willing to give them all a fair comparison when I consider a scope but, if anyone is pricing themselves out it is Swarovski.  Sako75, if you would like to what I think of the three brands.  Let me know and I will be glad to give my opinion for whatever it is worth. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2004 at 19:56
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
lets hear it
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2004 at 12:30
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

Sorry for the typo. in regards to the 34mm tube.  The weight and limited adjustments are the main reasons our customers go with Zeiss or Swarovski.  Today light weight rifles are the craze and people take it to extremes from the scope and mounts to even which sling they use.  We had a whole sniper team trade in their S&B scopes because they did not have enough adjustment travel, so to some it is a big deal.

 

I chose to compare the Precision Hunter series because it was the closest to the VMV and PH all being 30mm.  Plus the prices would really be lop sided had I went the PMII route (the 3-12x50 PMII are $2,200.00 - $2,700.00).  I agree a better comparison would be the Zenith but then I would not have been able to bait you back. 

 

Good point about the triplet objective.  I assume they use cast tubes because its a lot cheaper and easier to produce than a cnc'ed alloy tube.

 

I don't dispute the fact that they are bright and clear and in the top three of the world's best scopes.  All three top Euros will rank different from scenario to scenario.  For instance a long range shooter will prefer a Swarovski 6-24, light weight mountain hunter would prefer a Zeiss 3-9 VMV.  Low light stand hunter would like a S&B.

 

Yes all Euro optic companies had price increases because the Euro is killing the dollar but S&B had a considerably larger price increase.  They were the least expensive of the three and now they are the most expensive.

 

I too would like to hear your take tbone1.



Edited by Chris
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2004 at 13:50
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2004 at 18:56
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

chris

 

to clarify the "precision hunter" series is also there "long range" series I believe. these have the side focus. the standard variables do not. S&B has the PM line, the zenith line, the (what they now call) "classic" line and I dont even know if they uare making the long range series anymore....correct me if i am wrong. I just got the S&B 2004 catalog. they are not even going to make the 1.5-6x42 classic anymore only in zenith aeries both with and without flashdot.

they also have a 24mm scope coming out with the reticle in the 2nd plane!!! unusual for them

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2004 at 20:26
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

meopta isnt up to par but they are close

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.djz.de/artikelbeitrag/artikelbeitrag_20485.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dschmidt%2Bbender%2Bmeopta%2Blicht%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

 

the above is a german article on the meopta 3-12x50

here is a quote;  "With a jagdlichen sight, which is used predominantly with the today's hunt conditions with bad light, the transmission is important. The maximum transmission of the test glass was measured with 87 per cent. The top models of this class lie all with over 90 per cent, in addition, could be lived with some per cent under it still well. Older hunters, particularly eyeglass wearers also hardly are able to notice differences of three or four per cent.

With the transmission must be differentiated however between the transmission at day and at night - and here the Meopta weaknesses shows. The maximum transmission with daylight lies with 87 per cent, at night remains of it however only 80.3 per cent. In addition, point makes of Zeiss, Swarowski or Schmidt&Bender drop at night also somewhat, here still lie around the 90 per cent: A Schmidt& Bender 3-12x50, thus with exactly the same optical data, measured to the comparison, brought it on 91 per cent. A difference of ten per cent is already clearly visible and limits the use with bad light. "

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2004 at 21:57
ranburr View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: May/16/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1082

No offense, but who cares what an article says?  You can buy a good review in most any publication.  There are a few exceptions, such as Gun Test.  Articles are often as favorable as your advertising dollar goes or your sponsorship of whoever is doing the review. 

 

ranburr

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2004 at 18:42
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

first of all the article was about hte meopta and overall talked very favorable about the meopta.

i posted it because it gave actual light transmission figures....something outdoor life, rifle and whoever else do not post in their articles.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2004 at 20:20
ranburr View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: May/16/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1082

Yes, and?

 

ranburr

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2004 at 20:38
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Chris,  I posted my reply stating my opinion  to SAKO 75 and it was forwarded and posted in the topic "top end rifle scopes".  I broke them down by their objective sizes.  I am sure you probably have already read it.  After I posted it I went outside and compared the VM/V with the S&B and I really couldn't tell much difference between them optically other than much better field of view of the VM/V.  After collecting my thoughts over the weekend and trying to think about which brand offered the best value, I thought I would add this post.

 

As I said before, we all have a little bias toward one brand or another and I have mine as well.  I will try to acknowledge it in my post.  I believe that if you had to settle down on one line that offered the best value when looking at performance, versatility, and cost,  I would probably choose the Zeiss.  Not that Zeiss is my favorite, I just think it offers more advantages than the others.

 

You know that I love the feel of the S&B.  I like the construction, fit and the cosmetic appearance of S&B better than the Zeiss or Swarovski.  I think that it is optically as good as it gets.  But the weight and poor adjustment range make it the least versital.  It is too heavy on certain rifles which does need to be a consideration.  This is the reason that I am considering buying a Conquest instead of putting my 3-12x42 S&B on my Kimber.  I want to keep the Kimber under 8lbs total. 

 

To me the Zeiss with AOS glass seems to be the best value.  It also is optically as good as it gets.  It provides better field of view than the S&B or Swarovski.  It comes in the smallest package.  And it is the least expensive considering these advantages.  The only things I don't like are personal and aren't really important to most people.  Such as the construction and the fit.  For example the 2.5-10x50.  Really an awesome scope because it has the performance of a 50mm yet in a package smaller than most 42mms.  To me it is too short and looks stubby.  Like I said, not important and just my personal bias. 

 

As far as Swarovski goes, I really like the cosmetic appearance of the scopes, almost as much as the S&B.  Construction though is more like the Zeiss.  Optically I think they are slightly behind Zeiss and S&B but, not enough to really make a big difference.  This maybe my own bias, I don't know.  It's just that every time that I have looked through a Swarovski scopes I have never seen the "fog lift and the sun come out" as mwyates did.  I'm sure you disagree but I have looked through them more times than I can count (although never in a hunting situation).  For arguement sake, lets say they are equal optically.  Since they shortened the 50mm and the 56mm scopes (I may be wrong on this) they compete closer with Zeiss on size.  But other than the 2.5-10x42 (I really like this scope and Zeiss only has a 1.5-6) and the 1.5-4x24, I can't see buying a Swarovski over the Zeiss.  I will agree that they are close in performance and size, but what advantage do they have over Zeiss?  Keep in mind they are more expensive.

 

I do still want to buy a Swarovski scope.  I have to admit that hearing everyone talk about how great they are makes me really want one.  Peer pressure I guess.  I really prefer 30mm tubes to the 1 inch.  Mainly because I like a 1st plane recticle.  The Swarovski 2.5-10x42 is the perfect size and weight.  I could put it on my Kimber and keep gun and scope under 8lbs.  I just don't want to spend that much money again.  That is why I am considering the conquest.  I guess if the Swarovski 30mm or 1in ever really impressed enough I probably would spend the extra money.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2004 at 21:37
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

swarovski's coil spring probably have a slight edge on heavy kickers over the other 2, maybe not...thats just what some people say

 

S&B zentih's are shorter than swarovski or zeiss now. that was one of the features of the zenith, more range of adjustment and a smaller scope length-wise, still weighs more for reasons we have discussed previously

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2004 at 23:20
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Well it's 9:05 pm in Mississippi and finally too dark too see anymore.  For about the last hour and a half to 2 hours, I have been outside comparing the 3-12x42 S&B against my 3-12x56 Zeiss VM/V.  All these messages got me curious to see how they compared in low light.  It actually was pretty amazing.  I compared them at the same powers throughout the test (3x-12x spending the most time at 6,8 and 12x) starting when I had plenty of light until I couldn't see anymore.  I live on the edge of town and have a huge field in front of our house.  I tested the clarity and resolution at each power looking at birds and other objects at various distances trying to see which one provided better detail.  I also tried reading letters on a car tag about 350 yards away at various powers as the light faded.  I adjusted the eyepieces back and forth to see which one focused easier.  As the light faded I tested them each at 6,8, and 12 power to see how much brighter the 56mm would be and if I would have to turn down the 42mm (equaling the exit pupil) to see if the brightness equaled out.

 

Comparisons:

As far as clarity and reslution go, I simply could not tell any difference between them in any light.  They were optically so close, you would think they had to have been made by the same company.  The Zeiss did have a better field of view which seemed very apparent at I first glance through each, but when I put the crosshairs on a specific object and checked how far to each side I could see there wasn't that much difference.  The Zeiss did have a slightly better field of view and it didn't seem to change regardless of the power or distance that I was viewing.

 

They both have German #8 recticles and the S&B was slightly heavier than the Zeiss at the same power.  It was thicker giving the appearance that it may show up a little bit better in low light but, the Zeiss seemed to be more precise since it wasn't quite as thick.  At 12x the thickest parts of the #8 didn't cover as much of the view in the Zeiss as it did in the S&B (really wasn't enough difference to matter).  Kind of a mute point anyway since you can change how thick you want the recticle by the power ( that is the beauty of the first plane recticle).

 

I much prefered the eyepiece on the S&B.  It turned easier, wasn't as hard to grip, and was slightly easier to focus.  Also one thing that I really liked better on the S&B and is something that you would only really realize in a hunting situation or real world comparison. The power numbers on the S&B were written in silver and reflected enough light to see them at dark.  The Zeiss are more embossed black and I couldn't read even when I had a little light.  When I was changing power, I would easily change the S&B back to 6x and then have to walk back to the house and hold the Zeiss by the window to change its power.  I passed up a shot at a coyote at close to dark one time because I couldn't see to get the power turned down to find it in the scope.

 

The one thing that amazed me the most was how long I could see with the 42mm S&B.  I thought that the Zeiss would be alot brighter at the same magnification given the 56mm objective but only until the last 3 or 4 minutes could I tell any difference.  Even then it wasn't enough to matter (makes me wonder if a 50mm would even be noticable at all).   The Zeiss was slightly brighter.  It finally was nearly pitch black dark looking into some dark shadows at about 50 yards with the Zeiss at 6x.  I cut the S&B back to 4x and it was as bright.  This was way after dark, about 9:00 central time.  Both of these scopes were really amazing in low light and both would last way past legal shooting hours.

 

I owned a 42mm Zeiss VM/V prior to this one I always found it to be quite a bit brighter than any other scope that I compared it to including  50mm scopes.  In fact,  in nearly every low light test that I have performed whether it be leupold, zeiss, or other brand, one thing seemed to be true although it surprises me every time.  There is very little increase if any in low light performance when comparing an objective a 40mm to a 50mm (this was the first time I have compared a 56mm).  I know that alot of people will argue with that and I would to if I hadn't see it with my own eyes on more than one occasion.  That is why I don't think I will buy another 50mm scope.  Larger increase in size with very little if any increase in performance.

 

I hope I am not boring everyone and, I hope someone finds it useful.  I got torn up by mosquitos for you guys.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 00:24
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Sako, if you would like to know the test results for light transmission that was performed by DEVA on the S&B, Swarovski and Zeiss scopes that seemly intrigue you so much, I would be more than happy to pontificate on the subject. Further, your statement about triplet and doublet lens manufacturing is incorrect.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 05:28
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246

roy by all means enlighten me on triplet's. i am no expert. i have seen the deva tests of 1993 a trillion times. is that what you were referring to? I referred ot that article because it was recent(2003) and i hadnt seen any recent data on light transmission in scopes. i thought some viewers here might find benefit in it. apparently there are a couple of you who do not.

 

some more info on triplet's that i found:

 

Meet the Aberrators II: Astigmatism (part 1) by John C Deitz

http://bmaa.freeyellow.com/Constellation/Apr2001.html

"Astigmatism can not be controlled in a doublet (refractor with two lens elements making up the objective). Only with the triplet and catadioptric designs are there enough degrees of freedom to fully address the problem."

 

TBONE1

your post is one of the reasons i read these boards, real 1st hand experience

thank you



Edited by SAKO75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 08:47
Rusty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/12/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 147
Outdoor Life does an decent annual product (firearms, optics, etc.) review/evaluation in their June/July issue.  This year they happened to evaluate the S&B Zenith 1.5-6X 42.  The evaluators gave it poor marks for low light performance.   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 12:23
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Rusty, good point.  I have to admit that suprised me as well.  I have read these reviews for several years now and always liked the way they tested their optics.  I am one of those guys prefers side by side tests and real world experience to product specs.  I used to think their reviews were fair for the most part.  Their observation of a certain product for the most part would be similar to my observation (the ones I had first hand experience with), so I took them at their word on the products that I didn't have experience with.  But I have to say in the last two years, after really reading them in depth and going back to the previous issues (which I still have), I have found some very serious discrepencies.  In fact after looking back at them, they have lost their credibility with me.

 

In the last two years I have found some major discrepencies between my experience with certain products and their observation of them.  Also they used to actually measure and score things like resolution and print how many minutes something would last in a low light test.  Now they just say Excellent, Very Good, or Good (meaning OK).  They also used to explain why they felt a particular way for each product, now they barely even comment on each.  To me it has become vague at best.

 

For example, this year they gave editors choice to the Pentax DCF over the Leica Ultravid.  I have had extensive experience with both the Leica and Pentax and will say that they are not even in the same league.  Not even close in glass quality or construction.  Two years ago they rated the Leica duovid as "astonishing" and "Wow what a glass".   This year they gave both the Leica and Swarovski EL (both $1300+)  Very Good scores for Low Light and Resolution but, also gave the Nikon Action Ex ($179.00) the same scores of Very Good.  I also have experience with the Nikon and although good optics for the money, I think that is a joke.  You don't have to have experience with either to tell that this is vague at best.  In fact of the 10 binos they tested 8 got VG scores in resolution.  Same thing in riflescopes.  They rated a Zeiss VM/V, Schmidt & Bender Zenith  (both $1300+), and Nikon Pro Staff ($150) all having excellent resolution.  Does anyone really believe that a bottom of the line Nikon (not a high end Nikon) is just as good optically as a Zeiss,Schmidt & Bender or Leupold VX-III for that matter.  They also gave the BSA very good scores in Resolution and low light actually beating the S&B but then later say the BSA optics are fuzzy.

 

Last year they rated a Leupold Vari-XIII long range M1 6.5-20x50 and gave it excellent scores for both resolution and low light which beat the Zeiss Varipoint 2.5-10x50mm that they only gave a score of Very Good on resolution and just good in low light (they actually claim it performed poorly in low light too).  I happen to own a Leupold Vari-XIII long range M1 4.5-14x50mm and I will tell you that the optics are good but, not even close to the Zeiss.  I could go on and on and on.

 

They have lost all credibility with me.

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 14:17
ranburr View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: May/16/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1082

It is called advertising and sponsorship $$$$$$$$$$$.

 

ranburr

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 14:32
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Hey tbone, sorry to hear about the bug bites, but I, for one, was pleased to read your post on your observations. Also, I am not one of the folks that would disagree with you at all with your observations of riflescopes sporting 40 and 50mm objectives. A top quality scope with a 40-42mm objective will allow us to remain in our treestands well past legal shooting times. A question, if I may, have you ever had the opportunity to compare the Swaro AV 3-10x42 to their 30mm tube equivalent with regards to brightness? Thanks again for your post. Hope all is well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 14:38
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

 Oh no they're still after ya.



Edited by Chris
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2004 at 14:45
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856

DEET ANYONE. I hope it's a clear night this evening. For some reason I have a hankering to star gaze through one of my Elite 4200's!!! 

Roy

AKA- "Elite Predator"



Edited by Roy Finn
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Chris -TELL ME about SCHMIDT&BENDER"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Any Way To Tell How Old A Schmidt And Bender Scope jeffs toys Rifle Scopes 2
Schmidt & Bender 12.5-50x56 andrews1958 Samplelist.com 0
Schmidt Bender 12.5-50x56 FT Sport Scope andrews1958 Rifle Scopes 0
Schmidt & Bender collapsible spotter pat99709 Spotting Scopes 3
HENSOLDT vs SCHMIDT & BENDER PM II Tranan Tactical Scopes 6
swarovski z5 vs schmidt and bender summit rolltide39 Rifle Scopes 7
Schmidt Bender Scope Question gnprts Rifle Scopes 3
Schmidt & Bender Astro8 Tactical Scopes 9
schmidt and bender jgm1981 Rifle Scopes 8
Schmidt Bender scopes????? shoot4fun Rifle Scopes 40 9/20/2007 9:39:13 AM


This page was generated in 0.344 seconds.