OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Nightforce glass vs. Zeiss & Swarovski
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Nightforce glass vs. Zeiss & Swarovski

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/25/2008 at 16:46
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

How many is a whole bunch?

I don't remember exactly, 1/2 dozen, a dozen, somewhere in there.  Enough it's pretty hard to spin it into being a coincidence.
Back to Top
rifle looney View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2553
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rifle looney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/25/2008 at 16:54
Argue  OK already! (opinions)
Back to Top
optik View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/02/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote optik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/02/2009 at 00:51
It never ceases to amaze me how many people get on message boards and speak with authority, but really dont have a clue as to the most basic of specifications.
 
Nightforce scopes are made in Japan and have decent glass with this being considered. Nightforce claims excelent resolution and I suppose this is true for the black and white resolution chart that they test with. Unfortunately we do not live in a black and white world. NF glass is the leaded compound and I believe is corrected for one or two of the main spectrums of light; there are three. As a result, these optics suffer from chromatic and slight spherical abberation.
 
The highest grade of european optics use fluorite lenses, not glass, or at the least apochromatic glass. They are corrected  for chromatic abberation in all three spectrums, spherical abberation, and can achieve light transmission rates as great as 99.8% per air to glass surface. NF has nothing to compare with this.
 
The NF FFP uses the same glass as the other models so tell me why the image is better.... It isn't. This model is more expensive because it is a profit horse and it is more difficult to make FFP scopes. The tiniest of trash on the reticle is amplified with the zoom ring so cleaner building techniques must be applied.
 
Optical evaluation is not "subjective" it just requires a little research.
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/02/2009 at 01:54
Jus tto point out that some Japanese scopes (not Nightforce, to the ebst of my knowledge) now also use ED glass.  THe two I can think of off the top of my head are SIghtron S2 8-32x56 and Nikon Monarch 8-32x50ED.

On Nightforce: I have not yet seen the new FFP Nightforce scopes, so I can not comment on those.  The other Nightforce scopes I have spent some time with (mostly NXS ones) and their glass is quite good, but not in any danger of beating the better Euro scopes (IOR, Zeiss, Swaro, Khales, etc).  It does deliver good resolution and good depth of focus.  THe resolution, however, was notably worse closer to the edges (probably not especially important on riflescopes though).  Contrast is not quite up to par in my opinion.  Flare is typically well controlled, but chromatic aberrations are quite visible.  On the plus side, Nightforce scopes are superb mechanically with a good combination of precision and durability.

Nightforce scopes I have looked at were clearly tactical scopes.  There are not all that many similarly specced scopes coming out of Europe and the ones that do exist are typically a lot more expensive (S&B and Henslodt).  Nightforce's most direct European competitor is IOR.  I think IOR has a definite edge in glass quality.  As for weaker internals, a few of IOR scopes with 35mm tubes had teething problems, but that had gotten a lot better.  Core 30mm scopes (2.5-10x42 and 4-14x50) have been pretty rock solid, to the best of my knowledge.

Up and coming Ellis scopes will also compete directly against Nightfore, but it is too early to say where they fit.

On the lower price end, Sightron's redesigned S3 scopes, I think, optically have an edge over the Nightforce scopes I have seen.

ILya
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/05/2009 at 16:57
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people get on message boards and speak with authority, but really dont have a clue as to the most basic of specifications.
What prompted this rather condescending comment?Loco 
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

NF glass is the leaded compound and I believe is corrected for one or two of the main spectrums of light; there are three.  As a result, these optics suffer from chromatic and slight spherical abberation.
Spherical aberration isn't related to the glass formulation used; it's related to lens design.  Many manufacturers' HD glass contains (or until recently, used to contain) heavy metals like lead -- on purpose -- because like fluorite, these elements imparted refractory characteristics on the lens that improves image quality.  The newest trend toward "lead and arsenic-free" glass is geared toward being eco-friendly, not due to any optical improvements as a result of removing these elements.  Since NF scopes are made by L.O.W., one of the major Japanese manufacturers, I have a hard time believing they too haven't gone entirely to eco glass.
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

The highest grade of european optics use fluorite lenses, not glass, or at the least apochromatic glass.
Very rarely are fluorite or apo lenses used in riflescopes, though. 
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

...and can achieve light transmission rates as great as 99.8% per air to glass surface. NF has nothing to compare with this.
How do you know this?  Also, I don't place much stock in manufacturers claims of transmission % per air to glass surface, because those claims don't specify which light spectrum the transmission values are valid for or how this was measured.
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

The NF FFP uses the same glass as the other models so tell me why the image is better.... It isn't.
How do you know this?  Do you own one of each?  I haven't seen the new NF scope, but superb image quality is the result of the combination of good glass, coatings, precision of the lens grind, alignment of lens elements, and optimized optical design, not just the quality of the lenses themselves.  The new Swarovski Z6 uses the same glass and coatings as all the previous Swaro scopes, yet reportedly it is optically superior to the PH and AV. 
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

This model is more expensive because it is a profit horse and it is more difficult to make FFP scopes. The tiniest of trash on the reticle is amplified with the zoom ring so cleaner building techniques must be applied.
Actually, the reverse is true -- SFP scopes are more difficult to manufacture, because a higher level of precision is required to prevent the reticle from shifting during power change, since the reticle cell sits in the zoom tube and the reticle focal plane is independent of the target image focal plane.  They even explain this in the "Facts" section of the Schmidt & Bender site.
Originally posted by optik optik wrote:

Optical evaluation is not "subjective" it just requires a little research.
Please cite the source of yours for the claims you make in your post.
While I agree somewhat, a great deal of subjectivity will always play a part in optics evaluation, because different people's eyes perceive images differently.
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/06/2009 at 04:40
I agree with much of what you said.  However, this part:
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

SFP scopes are more difficult to manufacture, because a higher level of precision is required to prevent the reticle from shifting during power change, since the reticle cell sits in the zoom tube and the reticle focal plane is independent of the target image focal plane.  They even explain this in the "Facts" section of the Schmidt & Bender site.

On the site they do reiterate the well known fact FFP scopes don't suffer from POI change throughout the power range, but I don't see where they say that means the entire FFP scope is cheaper to make.  Did I miss it?

Nightforce themselves, says FFP is more expensive and difficult to make:
Originally posted by NightforceKen NightforceKen wrote:

The reason for the price diferance,
 
First Focal Plane scopes require much more time in the building process.
 
For example, A very small piece of debris partical floating in the air lands on the reticle during the build process. You might not see this on a second focal plane scope, but a first focal plane scope, it would like like a boulder embeded on your reticle.
 
Thank for the input guys,
Ken

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/nightforce-first-focal-plane-information-34964/index2.html 

I don't know for a fact either way, but had always assumed FFP was more expensive to make.  Just the reticles themselves would have to be more expensive since they're relatively minuturized and any flaw will be magnified (though I suppose modern technology has closed the gap on this somewhat).
Back to Top
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
EVIL OPPRESSOR

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 16337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RifleDude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/06/2009 at 18:50
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

On the site they do reiterate the well known fact FFP scopes don't suffer from POI change throughout the power range, but I don't see where they say that means the entire FFP scope is cheaper to make.  Did I miss it?

 
Here is the excerpt I was referring to (emphasis added):
 
"Positioning the reticle in the second (eyepiece) image plane is referred to as the "American" design. The reticle is independent from the magnification system, which means as magnification of the target is enlarged or reduced, the apparent size of the reticle remains the same. To use this system in a riflescope while preventing any possible shift of point of impact is extremely demanding, requiring the utmost precision of mechanical components."
 
I think it is noteworthy that they emphasize the "utmost precision" required of SFP when discussing pros and cons of both systems, while not mentioning same about the FFP scopes, even though FFP scopes are the majority of what they make, and they do provide both reticle options.
 
In reality, probably neither is really any more demanding to manufacture than the other given modern manufacturing processes.  I was speaking in an absolute sense, since FFP cannot shift POI during power change and SFP can if the scope isn't well designed.  Additionally, if a FFP reticle is a tad non-concentric from the i.d. of the erector assy, it really doesn't matter much as long as the reticle doesn't move since the reticle is on the same focal plane as the target image and the reticle will be adjusted for W & E anyway.  The same cannot be said about a SFP reticle, since it is on a separate focal plane from the target image and the amount of error from non-concentric placement with the erector c/l increases proportionally with increase in magnification.
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.154 seconds.