New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - meopro 3.5-10x44 RD. question
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

meopro 3.5-10x44 RD. question

 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: November/21/2013 at 11:51
Robster80 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/02/2012
Location: MS
Status: Offline
Points: 423
picked up this scope recently. ive always used bigger scopes such as 50mm. topped out at 12x or so ,etc.   what do u guys think about this size scope? will the 44mm gather plenty of light? and im shooting out to maybe 250 yds at the most.   i bought the 56mm meostar for my new 308 but picked this one up for my 270
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2013 at 12:39
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10974
It is a nice scope and you should be happy with it.

Meostar is a little better, but for the money Meopro is hard to beat.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2013 at 13:38
Robster80 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/02/2012
Location: MS
Status: Offline
Points: 423
i got the meostar 56mm. wanted another meostar but the only one i considered was the 3-10x50 but the plex reticle was way too thin and the 4 wasnt illuminated
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/21/2013 at 14:10
ccoker View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/13/2008
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2032
only one way to know for sure..
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/25/2013 at 16:03
oyster View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/07/2013
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Points: 53
koshkin,
I'm still trying to pick which meopta scope to go for too, this scope was also on the list, I read that the meostar is always better than the meopro but I'm just trying to figure out why?
If you took the meopro 4-12x50 and the meostar 3-10x50 both have the meosheild coatings and meobright, same glass and dialled them down to x7, wouldn't they be equal in low light?
I know the meostars have bigger tubes but that shouldn't make a difference. Is there just more or thicker layers of their coatings which make them better?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/25/2013 at 16:29
ccoker View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/13/2008
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2032
I have had the Meopro 4-12x50 and the Meostar 3-12x56 side by side past dark watching deer and looking at tree branches at 200 yards and if there's a difference between the two my eyes couldn't see it.  The Meostar would give me maybe a few more minutes but that was it.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/25/2013 at 19:28
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10974
Originally posted by oyster oyster wrote:

koshkin,
I'm still trying to pick which meopta scope to go for too, this scope was also on the list, I read that the meostar is always better than the meopro but I'm just trying to figure out why?
If you took the meopro 4-12x50 and the meostar 3-10x50 both have the meosheild coatings and meobright, same glass and dialled them down to x7, wouldn't they be equal in low light?
I know the meostars have bigger tubes but that shouldn't make a difference. Is there just more or thicker layers of their coatings which make them better?

Image quality is not all about coatings.  The two scopes have different optical systems and the Meostars I have seen were better optimized with more sophsticated optics.  Both are good though.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/26/2013 at 16:17
oyster View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/07/2013
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Thanks ccoker n koshkin,
I know very little about the internal workings of scopes and have not handled or tried very many different scopes to compare them.Most I have learnt is from reading. The local shop has burris leupolds or redfields not a great range. The last rifle a brought had a khales on it so I think I got a little lucky there.
 
ccoker, how does the meostar 56mm feel? Does it feel to big or unbalance the rifle? is it illum?Do you walk with it or more sit and wait?
I think a illum 56mm might be stretching my budget.
 
So the 50mm meostar is better than the 50mm meopro.
That leaves me with two , the 3-10x50mm meostar #4 OR 3.5-10x44mm meopro. I want it for low light and some night hunting.
Which one you you go ?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/26/2013 at 16:20
oyster View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/07/2013
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Originally posted by oyster oyster wrote:

Thanks ccoker n koshkin,
I know very little about the internal workings of scopes and have not handled or tried very many different scopes to compare them.Most I have learnt is from reading. The local shop has burris leupolds or redfields not a great range. The last rifle a brought had a khales on it so I think I got a little lucky there.
 
ccoker, how does the meostar 56mm feel? Does it feel to big or unbalance the rifle? is it illum?Do you walk with it or more sit and wait?
I think a illum 56mm might be stretching my budget.
 
So the 50mm meostar is better than the 50mm meopro.
That leaves me with two , the 3-10x50mm meostar #4 OR 3.5-10x44mm meopro. I want it for low light and some night hunting.
Which one you you go ?
Sorry I forgot to put that the 3.5-10x44mm meopro has the illum ret.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 06:28
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
curious if the meopro advertizes 99.8% light transmission per element? The Meostar advertizes this 99.8 % claim.  If you have an 8 element rifle scope your total available light transmission would be 98.4 percent if its honest advertizing.  Compare to a much more expensive Zeiss HT which only advertizes 95% ambient light transmission!

Meopta claims a proprietary coating as many others do as well, but do not discuss the glass they used which is also critical.

Too bad the meopta plex reticle is so thin, the conquest Z plex in my opinion is about perfect not to thin, not to fat.  The Meopta #4 seems to over power the image to my eyes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 08:39
Son of Ed View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar

Joined: June/18/2011
Location: TEXAS
Status: Offline
Points: 53912
Doesn't Meopta actually supply glass to Zeiss?  They supply glass to somebody.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 08:41
Robster80 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/02/2012
Location: MS
Status: Offline
Points: 423
supposedly they supplied the conquest glass.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 10:38
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Same glass does not mean anything since they both use different coatings.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 10:40
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Originally posted by Mike52 Mike52 wrote:

curious if the meopro advertizes 99.8% light transmission per element? The Meostar advertizes this 99.8 % claim.  If you have an 8 element rifle scope your total available light transmission would be 98.4 percent if its honest advertizing.  Compare to a much more expensive Zeiss HT which only advertizes 95% ambient light transmission!



There is no set standards for "light transmission" so you can not compare these specs to another brand's specs.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 10:58
Robster80 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/02/2012
Location: MS
Status: Offline
Points: 423
i just mounted a 3.5-10x44 RD meopro on my 270 .ill compare it at lowlight to my 3-12x56 meostar and report back
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 16:48
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Hey Sparky where do you find there is no standard for light transmission?  Seems kind of odd to me.  You shine 1 watt in the objective and get .95 watts out of the occular as measured with a power meter!  Viola! % light tranmission measurement!  It does not need a standard only some equipment.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 17:42
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
http://irtel.uni-mannheim.de/lehre/seminar-psychophysik/artikel/Alex_Ryer_Light_Measurement_Handbook.pdf

here is some information.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 19:52
oyster View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/07/2013
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Meopta say 99.8% light transmission per element. They also state there meostar scopes get between 92-95% daylight transmission and a few meopro achieve 92% also. They don't give a figure on other meopro's , so I assume it could be a lttle less than 92% 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 19:54
oyster View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/07/2013
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Robster80, will be very keen to hear how your comparison goes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/30/2013 at 20:11
M48scout View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/01/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 30
How about eye relief? Don't Meoptas have short (3") eye relief?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2013 at 00:06
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10974
Originally posted by Mike52 Mike52 wrote:

Hey Sparky where do you find there is no standard for light transmission?  Seems kind of odd to me.  You shine 1 watt in the objective and get .95 watts out of the occular as measured with a power meter!  Viola! % light tranmission measurement!  It does not need a standard only some equipment.

Overall light transmission is indeed fairly simple to measure, but it is a pretty meaningless measurement.

There are a few reasons for that.  One is that what you really want to know is transmission as a function of wavelength (i.e. spectral transmission).  The other is that it tells you very little about a scopes performance.

For example, consider two scopes from the same manufacturer that use the same raw glass quality and the same coatings.

However, the have somewhat different optical design with one of the scopes having  somewhat more sophisticated lens system that incorporate an extra optical element in the objective and another in the eyepiece.

You end up with one of the scopes having four more air-to-glass surfaces.  When you measure the overall transmission of the two scopes, you will get a higher number for the less sophsticated scope.  In this case the scope with a lower overall light transmission delivers better image quality and better optical performance.

Since we do not have any information on the specific design of any of the scopes out there and since reverse engineering every scope out there is a bit involved, making a bunch of transission measurements will tell you little to nothing.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2013 at 12:22
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Ilya as you know a company that makes optics is probably measuring transmittance with a monochromator and tungsten-halogen light source starting at 390 going to 700 measuring transmission every 5 nms or so against a calibration curve of the monochromator not going thru the scope!

Reflectance and transmission measurements are pretty straight stick stuff, but you know this.

http://biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/tech/spectmethods.pdf

here is a cool article on spotting scopes interesting that the Swarovski at 82% had the highest light transmission.

http://www.ksp80.com/testreport%20on%206%20top%20scopes.pdf

You have to assume that any reputable optics manufacturer could if they wanted to include simple statements regards light transmission in their specifications. 

I like the Zeiss HT statement "over 95% transmittance through the scope", the Meopta statment 98.2% transmittance per surface is a bit weaker, but assuming they have at worst 16 surfaces the math is simple.  

Marketing is some strange stuff and exaggerations are common place, men are influenced by emotion and their own prejudice.  The most despicable of the lot regards venders are those that cherry pick a sample with the best properties and then base their claim around this one example. 

I don't have a monochrormator, TH light source, integrating sphere or one of these in my possession.

OL 750 Automated Spectroradiometric Measurement System


 and as the police say an EYE witness is the least reliable and my eyes are the most-least reliable.

So I found the Meopta #4 in the 3-12x56 to be somewhat overpowering, the IR dot was a tad large for me, the glass itself is very very bright but then I was a bit put off by the battery compartment but then the darn thing was at dark capable of enough light transmission to pick up that huge honking reticle and at close range like 20 yards on 3-4X I was making out some stuff with a little light left.  The 1.5-6x42 Victory HT was a lot more refined device, the #60 closer to what I wanted, the dot finer, and the battery compartment better and it was a lot more money!  At 6X or so it was close but I give the edge in resolution as the light went away to the more expensive optics.  I would not hesitate to buy a meopta however with $1000 in my pocket, the glass and coatings are very good. 

  




Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2013 at 16:25
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
should have said meopta meostar at the end, don't know anything about the meopro.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2013 at 17:38
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10974
Originally posted by Mike52 Mike52 wrote:

Ilya as you know a company that makes optics is probably measuring transmittance with a monochromator and tungsten-halogen light source starting at 390 going to 700 measuring transmission every 5 nms or so against a calibration curve of the monochromator not going thru the scope!

Reflectance and transmission measurements are pretty straight stick stuff, but you know this.

http://biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/tech/spectmethods.pdf

here is a cool article on spotting scopes interesting that the Swarovski at 82% had the highest light transmission.

http://www.ksp80.com/testreport%20on%206%20top%20scopes.pdf

You have to assume that any reputable optics manufacturer could if they wanted to include simple statements regards light transmission in their specifications. 

I like the Zeiss HT statement "over 95% transmittance through the scope", the Meopta statment 98.2% transmittance per surface is a bit weaker, but assuming they have at worst 16 surfaces the math is simple.  

Marketing is some strange stuff and exaggerations are common place, men are influenced by emotion and their own prejudice.  The most despicable of the lot regards venders are those that cherry pick a sample with the best properties and then base their claim around this one example. 

I don't have a monochrormator, TH light source, integrating sphere or one of these in my possession.

OL 750 Automated Spectroradiometric Measurement System


 and as the police say an EYE witness is the least reliable and my eyes are the most-least reliable.

So I found the Meopta #4 in the 3-12x56 to be somewhat overpowering, the IR dot was a tad large for me, the glass itself is very very bright but then I was a bit put off by the battery compartment but then the darn thing was at dark capable of enough light transmission to pick up that huge honking reticle and at close range like 20 yards on 3-4X I was making out some stuff with a little light left.  The 1.5-6x42 Victory HT was a lot more refined device, the #60 closer to what I wanted, the dot finer, and the battery compartment better and it was a lot more money!  At 6X or so it was close but I give the edge in resolution as the light went away to the more expensive optics.  I would not hesitate to buy a meopta however with $1000 in my pocket, the glass and coatings are very good. 

  





Well, I do not have the G&H stuff, since they are a competitor of ours, but I do have the rest of it.

The point I was trying to make is that even if light transmission data was published by the manufacturers, it would give you very little, if any, actionable information on selecting a rifle scope.

I do agree with you on the quality of Meopta scopes.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2013 at 06:42
Mike52 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/21/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 19
do you use any of the Oriel instrumentation?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "meopro 3.5-10x44 RD. question"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
meopro 3.5-10x44 with illum reticle Robster80 Rifle Scopes 0
Meopta Meopro 3.5-10x44 brownchristian Rifle Scopes 3
Meopta Meostar vs. Meopro Loanwolf Rifle Scopes 6
Nikon Monarch or Meopta meopro?? Dano1890 Rifle Scopes 13
Artemis or Meopro? Dano1890 Rifle Scopes 1
Meopta Meopro vs Zeiss Conquest dezmick Rifle Scopes 1
Meopta Meopro 6.5x32 binos Cat Power Binoculars 10
Minox ZA-3, Meopta MeoPro and Zeiss Conquest koshkin Member's Tests and Reviews 16
Meopta Meopro 3-9x42 m1bandit Rifle Scopes 6
MEOPTA ARTEMIS 3000 vs. MEOPRO DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 1


This page was generated in 0.688 seconds.