Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Best options for lowlight |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Bboy623
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/21/2008 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 370 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: August/15/2009 at 20:01 |
I'm trying to refresh my memory as it's been awhile since I've been on here. As I remember from my research there's not much difference between 42 and 50mm objective for low light conditions. I've been told that a 30mm tube is what I need to gather all the possible light. Is it true that if I'm concerned with low light capability and optic quality that I need a 30 mm tube?? I though I'd narrowed down my scope choice to a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10X42 BDC for my Browning .270. Now I'm second guessing my choice. Help! The Monarch Golds are about twice as much to get the 30mm tube. Is it worth it?--Bboy623
|
|
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
|
|
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
What a 30mm tube gives you is more internal adjustment. The larger 50 mm objective makes the scope brighter on 7x where the 42mm maxed out brightness at 6x so 7X would not be as bright on the 42mm.
|
|
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|
Obi Wan Kenobi
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/21/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 188 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If brightness is what you are after & you are serious I'd look at a bigger lens. 50, 52 or 56mm glass.
I'd also opt for a Conquest scope if you are going to spend 400-600 on a Nikon. Nikon is a good scope but the Conquest glass is clearer & brighter in my book. Meoptas are another good choice.
|
|
Bboy623
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/21/2008 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 370 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
yea...I looked through a Meopta today and it was WOW!!! To be honest though, I can't tell the difference between a Monarch and a Conquest. Both are really impressive...I just don't know i can tell the $200+ dollar difference for the Conquest. I was looking on SWFA and saw a Meopta 3-12X50 Artemis 2100 that has a illuminated reticle.....pricey...but I feel if its a lot better scope than Monarchs, Leupolds, etc at that price. Would the Illuminated reticle help in low light or hurt?
|
|
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
|
|
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11200 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In my humble opinion I'd rely on a Trijicon Accu-point for low light use (rather than a battery powered illuminated reticle).
|
|
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am a fan of Conquest and Meopta (Nikon, not so much - and Meopta needs a bit more eye relief before I put it on a kicker), but I am very, very impressed with the Trjicon Accupoint scopes for low light. I shoot illuminated reticles, I hunt at night, I have very good low light scopes, and Accupoint deserves a place at this discussion. For my purposes (hog hunting, shots as close as 50 yards, as far as 300 yards) I went with Accupoint for my last setup. The prior setup was a Conquest and it was great, but having an illuminated reticle that draws your eye to the point of aim is all but priceless for a good low light rig. Jut my opinion. And the 3-9x40 has worked in the dark for me - literally. Edited for terrible spelling Edited by Rancid Coolaid - August/17/2009 at 09:43 |
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
tjtjwdad
Optics Journeyman Joined: December/11/2007 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
To truly test the Nikon and Conquest (or any scopes for that matter) side by side you have to be outdoors with the opportunity to spend some time with each one. My eyes have found the Conquest (6.5-20x50/4.5-14x50) far superior to the Nikon Monarch (6.5-20x44/6-24x50) in clarity/sharpness and light gathering capability in low light. In broad daylight they brightness id pretty much the same. The Zeiss reticles are very "black" and contrast very well in low light situations.
For the money though, Nikons are a good buy. I'm not familiar with the Meopta brand but they get high reviews here.
HTH
|
|
Obi Wan Kenobi
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/21/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 188 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Here is what I suggest. Go to your scope dealer at the latest time possible and ask them to let you look at these scopes outside. I'm not knocking the Nikons, I'm just saying that in that critical low light in the last 15 minutes of your hunt thats where you will see the difference.
I also forgot to thow Kahles in there also. They make one heck of a scope.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |