New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - RIFLE SCOPES LIGHT GATHERING
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

RIFLE SCOPES LIGHT GATHERING

 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: December/10/2010 at 00:40
LEFTBOLT View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/09/2010
Location: MISSISSIPPI
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Light gathering for you hunters that hunt late last legal light for deer ect.. I have spent lots of time going through forums for information on such scopes and looking for that scope that gives you the last light edge over all others and my opinion is that after reviewing the different types of scopes over the last few years is you usually get what you pay for and i have tested some of these scopes and this is what my eyes have seen and not others but the truth is my eyes are not as good as they used to be either so i need as much help as i can get,first of all i have a swarovski z6 1.7-10x42 30mm great little scope and it works hard for it's size field of view is amazing and light transmission is very good,also i have a zeiss victory davari 3-12x56 30 mm tube good late scope great light transmission but the S&B 2.5-10x56 Takes the cake my eyes tell me this is the best one for me as far as light transmission or last light hunting,im sure there are a lot of good scopes out thier that i have not yet looked through that are really good but anyone looking for a good late last light scope needs to make it a point to get the % of light transmission at least 90+ or you will be dissapointed in the results.   (The higher % light transmission the better)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 01:29
WestOfPecos View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/08/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Leftbolt - the only one you left out was the Hensoldt:-) Nice collection - hope you actually use them in the field!

As for good light gathering for less money, I would suggest Minox ZA5, Zeiss Conquest, or IOR.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 03:54
Magnumdood View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/17/2009
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 172

I'm running a 6-24x72 Hensoldt on my custom rig.  I'd say short of outright night-vision gear, it'll be hard to top my little piece of glass.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 04:07
LEFTBOLT View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/09/2010
Location: MISSISSIPPI
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Hensolt is in a different class as far as deer hunting nice optics but to big and pricey and as for minox and ior i don't know much about them except they are much cheaper than the scopes in mention and thier is no technical data on light transmission on the minox and the ior is i think at around 90% but the zeiss victory is i belive at 93% and S&B is at 95%+ swarovski z6 is at 91% but i  might have to pick up one of the minox scopes and try it out thats one of my favorite pass times is hunting somthing better but i always seem to know in the back of my mind you still get what you pay for,but a first time for everything,i have owned at least 100 scopes leupold,burris,elite,kahles,swarovski,nikon over the years was in the business for over 20 years and really love to check out all the products that are out there but i would love to find a scope that is in the price range of the minox and have the capabilities of a s&b scope at last light.  If anyone has the tech data of a 50mm minox light transmission please pass it on,Thank's Mark.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 07:33
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
While in no way am I going to say that the glass in the Trijicon is as good as the likes of Zeiss, S&B or the Swaro, I do think that it is just as important to see your reticle in low light.  If I were looking for this type of scope I'd sure want to look at this one.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 07:45
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 14671
Scopes don't "gather" light... 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 07:58
biggreen747 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2009
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 461
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

Scopes don't "gather" light... 

THANK YOU...... All they can do is transmit it.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 08:29
stickbow46 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/07/2009
Location: Benton, Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 4231
LB welcome to the OT!
 
You might want to check out the new Zeiss VD 4-16x50 T*FL.The Florite glass does make a better difference then the non florite!When I compared mine to my Swaro Z5,Minox ZA5 & Conquest,none had the detail & crispness to match the FL.
 
To my eyes the only one that came very close was my new Leica,but even that one didn't quite make the grade.The Zeiss just plain had better detail & clarity in low light when the rest had shut down.The one thing I like about my Leica is it's the only scope I've ever looked threw that makes the reticle look as if it was suspended in space with no glass in front of it.A bad thing about the Leica is it does not come with a life time warrenty,only 3years[very disappointing]
 
I have yet to look through a Premier or the Hensoldt but I hear nothing but good things about both,they are always mentioned in the same sentence as the best. 
 
LB nice stable of glass!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 09:17
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5044
Got to be fair here. Scopes gather light in passive sense, the same way that rain falls on a large tub. In one case the bottom of the tub stops the object and in the other the eye.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 09:25
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7446
I think light gathering has become synonymous with light transmission. Same as "brightness".
Regardless, you have to have a visible reticle to make use of the best glass. Most of the alpha scopes come with them.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 09:49
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5044
thats a good point, about the melding of the terms. It is sad that all they all lack a quantitive aspect and therefore become all but useless. Hang in here for a second, consider the dual aspect of light having both particle and wave properties, then consider that each definition stems from the selective use of "nature" of light. Terms like brightness, that depend on coatings etc. are based in a wavelength frame of reference, and terms such as gather are based in the particle reference frame. Neither consider the observer reference frame, except in rare cases when modular transfer functions (used only in camera lenses forums, or research papers) are used to describe the spatial and frequency sensitivity of the human visual system. Instead back yard testimonials are all thats discussed.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 10:34
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4039
To me, the main stumbling block towards acquiring useful objective info, is the sheer cost of doing so. It's not like you can assemble 20 or 30 scopes and send them around to 50 relatively experienced people for realistic evaluation. The only people who seem to do that are military branches and even then they are focused on a few models that fit some specific parameters - like the Marines recent evaluation of various 1-8X offerings.

So we're basically left with anecdotal experience and manufacturer reputation. It's hard to go wrong with most any high-end scope, as long as the magnification range and objective size are a decent fit for your needs.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 11:17
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5044
It wouldn't matter. Even if the problem of putting hard set definitions of groups (catagorizing) could be solved, the results would be a histogram of a Gaussian distribution. The biggest problem, as I see it, It only addresses the Glass Problem or lack of. To me tracking, overall construction ,  warranty, are alot more important.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 11:29
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 14671

1gath·er

< =au title="Listen to the pronunciation of 1gather" = itxt="1"> verb \ˈga-thər also ˈge-\
gath·eredgath·er·ing< =au title="Listen to the pronunciation of gathering" = itxt="1">\ˈgath-riŋ, ˈga-thə-\

Definition of GATHER

transitive verb
1
: to bring together : collect <tried to gather a crowd> <gathered firewood>
2
a : pick, harvest <gather flowers> b : to pick up or amass as if by harvesting <gathering ideas for the project> c : to scoop up or take up from a resting place <gathered the child up in his arms>
3
: to serve as an attraction for : accumulate <books gathering dust> (maybe it's this one  Yippee)
4
: to effect the collection of <gather contributions>
 
So how do you GATHER in a passive sense...   Exactly what ACTION does a riflescope take to GATHER light???  Is there something in the coatings that SUCKS the wave or particles in??? 
 
 
I really don't see any passivity there...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 11:55
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7446
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

So we're basically left with anecdotal experience and manufacturer reputation. It's hard to go wrong with most any high-end scope, as long as the magnification range and objective size are a decent fit for your needs.
..and I am quite happy with that, based on my own experience and the experience of "most" others here. I won't get into outside of "most".
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 12:45
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11885
Bottom line -- you can see stuff better in low light with really good scopes... and all the scopes used as examples in this thread do indeed qualify as really good ones.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 12:45
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5044
The light was gathered by the scope, the rain was gathered by the tub-- passive
either definition 3 or 4 would work
gather transitive can be changed to intransitive by promotion, or changing semantic roles
 
 
description of scopes ability  depends on which reference frame, math,physic,
same as description of transmission,  and in either case is based on the observed effects rather than a mechanistic model, simply because of the dual nature of light.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 13:05
LEFTBOLT View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/09/2010
Location: MISSISSIPPI
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Ok,i put the term( light gathering) in this topic becouse most people do not even know about light transmission but i do know a bit about it,i do know a scope will not gather light but i do know when you look through a victory diavari or s&b at dark 30 and it looks as if you turned on a light that is amazing but my main reason for starting this thread was to shead a bit of light on the subject to someone who is looking for a real nice unbelivable crisp clear scope so they would have an idea of what to look foward to when hunting with one of these top line instruments scopes i mean becouse it gets expensive if you have to buy them to see what is better,remember thier are lots of scopes out there and they all try to claim to have late low light ability well they may but not what i am talking about,remember the proof is in the pudding and i got the pudding
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 13:15
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6139
Owning everything mentioned thus far (and night vision), my brightest conventional scope is Hensoldt 3-12 at 3X.  Swaro is a very close (if not indistinguishable, but not illuminated) second if only due to the fact that FOV seems to extend beyond the limits of the tube itself.

For clarification, it is my experience that the difference between good glass and great glass, in low light shooting, is maybe an additional 3 minutes of shooting time.  We ain't talking about great glass getting 30 more minutes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 13:26
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11885
Good low light performance is not just a light transmission thing.  Beyond light transmission, the other reason why high end optics perform better in low light is due to better resolution and contrast and coatings optimized for blue spectrum wavelengths.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2010 at 13:38
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9506
I will not get into the whole light gathering argument.  I do not like the term light gathering.  I think it is misleading and incorrect.  However, it is commonly used (and misused) and if we replace it with another nice sounding term, I suspect it will be misused just as often.

On the whole light transmission issue.  Light transmission is a ratio.  It is completely independent of the objective lens diameter.  "Light Transmission" and "Amount of light delivered to the eye"  are not the same thing.

Light transmission by itself (unless it is really horrible) is all that important for low light performance.

I put together a brief discussion of that as a part of "Riflescopes Basics" series.  I am not yet done with the whole thing, but most of the sections are already on my website.  Go to opticsthoughts.com, click on "Riflescopes" in the menu on the left.  There you will find a direct link to the whole article.  THe section on light transmission is about three quarters of the way down.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2010 at 18:54
WestOfPecos View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/08/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:


For clarification, it is my experience that the difference between good glass and great glass, in low light shooting, is maybe an additional 3 minutes of shooting time. 

I agree with Jeff. Between a $600 scope and a $1,800 scope, when you look only at dawn and dusk you only have a difference of a few minutes.

Of course, these few minutes can sometimes mean a lot:-)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2010 at 22:24
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 14671
Originally posted by Dale Clifford<strong> Dale Clifford wrote:

The light was gathered by the scope, the rain was gathered by the tub-- passive
either definition 3 or 4 would work
gather transitive can be changed to intransitive by promotion, or changing semantic roles
 
 
description of scopes ability  depends on which reference frame, math,physic,
same as description of transmission,  and in either case is based on the observed effects rather than a mechanistic model, simply because of the dual nature of light.
Not semantics... PROCESSES
There is NO logical (however, many do not have a clear understanding of logic) basis upon which the collection of rain in a tub can be compared to the erroneous assumption that light can be "collected" in an optical system such as a rifle scope. 
 

"Reason is not automatic... those who DENY it cannot be defeated by it..."
 
"
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2010 at 22:45
308 Sav View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: July/18/2010
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 362
It does collect the radiation emitted by light. The radiation collection does damage to the scope as the particulates bounce inside it. Al things reflect and absorb light that is why there are different colors.

See this as a definition of collecting or gathering light waves.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2010 at 01:00
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 14671
Originally posted by 308 Sav 308 Sav wrote:

It does collect the radiation emitted by light. The radiation collection does damage to the scope as the particulates bounce inside it. Al things reflect and absorb light that is why there are different colors.

See this as a definition of collecting or gathering light waves.

Gerald, I am not going to spend a lot more time disputing this INANE argurment, but first let us define "collection"... it is, by definition, an accumulation.  Without going into depth of your erroneous interpretation of the "article" you cited, exactly HOW does a lens "accumulate" light... where is it stored and for how long is it stored before it reaches the critical accumulation whereby it is then transmitted through the lens to the eye?  A "perfect lens" would merely allow the transmission of ALL the available light through it to a receiver, in this case a human eye.  Would we not, if we were able to "collect" light, ensure that each lens in the riflescope was able to "collect/accumulate" all the light available  from each preceeding lens???  Therefore our "transmission" due to collection/ accumulation would be 100%.  I want one of those.  Well, maybe not, because IF we allow a process whereby all light COULD be accumulated (some storage process), by the time we passed the light throgh all the lenses the object of our interest, usually a deer or some other game animal, could be long gone due to the time involved in accumulation and retransmission at each lens.  (I know of a couple of scopes that have 16 lenses, that could take a while...at least the difference in making a shot or NOT.)
Lenses DO NOT collect light, they merely allow it to pass through, and any dissertation that states they do is in error from the outset.  Any lens allows a percentage of the light incident upon it to pass through.  There are a number of factors, too complex for this discussion, which determine how much light passes through.  One is lens coatings.  Some coating reduce reflectivity better than others and they allow more light to pass through the lens.  However, lens coatings are not storage devices and therefore do not collect light, there is nothing a lens coating can do to INCREASE the amount of light initially available to it, can't store it, can't accumulate it, can only decrease the amount of light that is reflected away from the lens and therefore not transmitted to the final receiver... in the case of rifle scopes, the human eye.  Lens coatings, glass quality, lens alignment all contribute to how much light finally reaches the eye.  However, that amount is NEVER greater than the amount incident upon the objective lens.
So, while our language has become less and less precise and the lack of precision has created a belief that a lens can collect light, no matter who prints it, it still is NOT true for rifle scopes. 
Now lets get back to your "proof". Please note that one of the primary references in the article is MIRRORS.  Mirrors do, in effect, "collect" light in that they can take the incident light and focus it into a narrow beam, and intensifying certain wavelengths of light in a narrower focus. 
Takeaways... while the imprecise language allows for it, physics does not allow for "collection of light" by a rifle scope.  If we COULD collect it, why would we not ALWAYS transmit 100% or more??   I would be willing to accept that the term "collection" could be a misrepresentation of the term "focus"...
That is an argument for another day. 
 
Tutorial

This discussion is restricted to the general use of sources, such as arc lamps or quartz tungsten halogen lamps. Diffraction and coherent effects are excluded. The emphasis throughout this section will be on the collection of light.

Terminology is king... we are not talking about rifle scopes in your "proof", nor is the term "collection" appropriately used. Just for info, lasers are excluded as legitimate to this discussion, as well.  What we are talking about, at least what the original discussion was about and what I am talking about, is the transmission of light through a series of lenses to the human eye (in "normal" lighting conditions") which aids in the sighting and magnification of a "distant" object which is the general subject of a hunt. 
Physics is a constant.  Energy is neither created nor destroyed.  Light is NOT collected by a rifle scope. It is a misuse of the language that has unfortunately gained "a life of its own".   
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "RIFLE SCOPES LIGHT GATHERING"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
scope light gathering ability ?? Al in SC Rifle Scopes 13
Optics Light Gathering Question Brazos_Jack Rifle Scopes 6
Need low light, light weight rifle scope ElkMan Rifle Scopes 1 4/29/2004 3:26:17 AM
Will an 8x30 gather enough light? dw0229 Binoculars 13
Weapon Light- Rifle/AR SVT_Tactical Shooting 7
Rifle Scope Wired2Tight Rifle Scopes 1
Best low light/light gathering scope under $500. 153 Rifle Scopes 5
zeiss victory v8 rifle scope verminator Rifle Scopes 11
Nikon m-223 / m-308 rifle scope JRcales Rifle Scopes 5
Leupy mk41-5x choice for light carry whisper rifle barrabruce Tactical Scopes 28


This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.