So, Ye Optic Gods?

 

 

So does the fact that the light in a store is a differant color than sunlight affect how we see things when trying thigs out in a store?

yes it does! different types of light for one thing, and if its a big store its really hard to test low level lighting capabilities of a scope. for me its pretty hard to tell a cheapo scope from a very spendy one from inside a store.

Well, have ya ever seen the inside of a store look like dusk?  Seriously, though, koshkin could answer that one I'm certain. Short answer is yes.

There is generally nothing more irrelevant than what can be "seen" or how something looks inside a store.  Everything looks good at mid-day also.  If you are not comparing at pre-dawn and/or evening, it doesn't matter.

ND2000

In fact many el cheapo scopes actually have their coatings formulated to be optimum under florescent lighting, so that they look really good inside a store.

 

We plan to have an outside observation deck at our new store so that optics can be compared where they will be used.

 

Chris,

 

That's a great idea about the observation deck.  I was at your place last August, comparing scopes, when I picked out my new Kahles.  I felt a little guilty about holding the door open so much, and letting out all of the cool air! 

 

How about some late evening beer, pretzel, scope comparison parties? 

 

Steve

So that was you that let all the air conditioning out!!

 

It won't take much twisting of my arm to arrange an evening beer, pretzel, optics party.

Well I am going to go against the grain on this topic.  I am not so sure that some scope manufacturers really use coatings to make their scopes look better inside with flourescent lighting.  That seems like alot of trouble, when it may make their scopes appear inferior outdoors, where the owner may then want to return it.  Personally, optically clarity should stand for any scope indoors.  Now I agree with pyro6999, I do have difficulty evaluating a scope just by looking through them in the store.  But, then when I take them outdoors, my opinions rarely change.  Dusk and dawn are the real tests and how many of us have the chance to test them then.  I just know that both my future son in law and nephew have take deer and almost complete darkness with a Tasco World Class and Old Bushnell, neither had beed re-sighted in 7-10 years at about 125 yards, one shot and they dropped where they stood.  Sorry pyro6999, one was a 270 win. and the other a 30-06.  By the way, every time I go to my local gunshop and check scopes indoors, SWs, Millet, Bushnell, Nikon and Zeiss, the Zeiss always wins out (at least before I looked through the Trijicon).

I think the general point in the previous posts is the fact that the lighting inside a store doesn't duplicate natural diffuse light outdoors, so it's harder to distinguish the better optics from the mediocre optics.  The cheap scopes generally have very basic coatings that don't require much process time (and therefore added expense) along with lesser quality optical glass, less complex lens elements that cannot correct optical aberrations, and less precise grinding, polishing, and alignment of lenses.  Under perfect lighting or unidirectional light as in a store, without low angle light to create flare, it is more difficult to see their optical shortcomings as you would in the varying light and environmental conditions outdoors.  Cheap scopes still look decent inside the store because the artificial lighting in the store doesn't create flare or CA problems.  As for the cheap scopes maybe appearing inferior outdoors... well... they do.  That's why they are cheap scopes.  The average person who buys really cheap scopes do so precisely because they are cheap price-wise.  Therefore, they don't generally return it based on poor optics because many, if not most of the cheap scope customers aren't willing to part with the $ for more expensive scopes and aren't very critical of poor image quality because they don't have a basis of comparison.  In addition to more complex lens elements (doublets, triplets), better optical glass, precise lens grinding, polishing and alignment, and carefully tailored and controlled coating types and thicknesses, expensive high end scopes undergo a more time consuming, meticulous multicoating process using coatings that maximize light transmission in the blue spectrum, which is important for good low light performance. 

RifleDude wrote: I think the general point in the previous posts is the fact that the lighting inside a store doesn't duplicate natural diffuse light outdoors, so it's harder to distinguish the better optics from the mediocre optics.  The cheap scopes generally have very basic coatings that don't require much process time (and therefore added expense) along with lesser quality optical glass, less complex lens elements that cannot correct optical aberrations, and less precise grinding, polishing, and alignment of lenses.  Under perfect lighting or unidirectional light as in a store, without low angle light to create flare, it is more difficult to see their optical shortcomings as you would in the varying light and environmental conditions outdoors.  Cheap scopes still look decent inside the store because the artificial lighting in the store doesn't create flare or CA problems.  As for the cheap scopes maybe appearing inferior outdoors... well... they do.  That's why they are cheap scopes.  The average person who buys really cheap scopes do so precisely because they are cheap price-wise.  Therefore, they don't generally return it based on poor optics because many, if not most of the cheap scope customers aren't willing to part with the $ for more expensive scopes and aren't very critical of poor image quality because they don't have a basis of comparison.  In addition to more complex lens elements (doublets, triplets), better optical glass, precise lens grinding, polishing and alignment, and carefully tailored and controlled coating types and thicknesses, expensive high end scopes undergo a more time consuming, meticulous multicoating process using coatings that maximize light transmission in the blue spectrum, which is important for good low light performance.

Excellent points.

RifleDude........ I don't know if any of the stuff you said is correct or not......... but you sure impressed the hell out of me!  Nice job.

RifleDude wrote: I think the general point in the previous posts is the fact that the lighting inside a store doesn't duplicate natural diffuse light outdoors, so it's harder to distinguish the better optics from the mediocre optics.  The cheap scopes generally have very basic coatings that don't require much process time (and therefore added expense) along with lesser quality optical glass, less complex lens elements that cannot correct optical aberrations, and less precise grinding, polishing, and alignment of lenses.  Under perfect lighting or unidirectional light as in a store, without low angle light to create flare, it is more difficult to see their optical shortcomings as you would in the varying light and environmental conditions outdoors.  Cheap scopes still look decent inside the store because the artificial lighting in the store doesn't create flare or CA problems.  As for the cheap scopes maybe appearing inferior outdoors... well... they do.  That's why they are cheap scopes.  The average person who buys really cheap scopes do so precisely because they are cheap price-wise.  Therefore, they don't generally return it based on poor optics because many, if not most of the cheap scope customers aren't willing to part with the $ for more expensive scopes and aren't very critical of poor image quality because they don't have a basis of comparison.  In addition to more complex lens elements (doublets, triplets), better optical glass, precise lens grinding, polishing and alignment, and carefully tailored and controlled coating types and thicknesses, expensive high end scopes undergo a more time consuming, meticulous multicoating process using coatings that maximize light transmission in the blue spectrum, which is important for good low light performance.

Ted, you painted a good picture with this