Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Why big objectives? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
jackG
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January/23/2007 at 20:17 |
This may be obvious, but intuitively I'm missing something. The opposite end the scope tube is bell shaped to accomodate the 42mm, 50mm or whatever sized lense. I understand that part and the reason for a larger diameter lense. However, when it comes to the objective end, this doesn't hold. I see some scopes, often shotgun scopes, having the objective lense the same diameter as the scope tube. Other than a larger hole through which to peer, is there any optical reason for having an objective lense larger than the scope tube?
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Either I don't understand the question or you are using objective when you mean okular? As I understand it you mean the okular and that is the part that is closest to the eye.
In such case the question is very easy, the bigger the okular the bigger will the Fiel of View get.
Regards Technika |
|
jackG
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/27/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You're right. Thanks for the correction. And the explanation makes sense.
|
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
let's more light in the front - wider field of view - larger exit pupil depending on magnification setting.
i like big objective lenses for lowlight - but the glass has to be up to par.
J
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The objetive lens has nothing to do with FOW.
Regards Technika |
|
1stscope
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Large oculars, the assembly that you look into, are usually associated with a wider field of view and/or a longer focal length for lower magnification. The trade offs are more weight, often softer edges of the image, shorter eye relief, more prone to flare, and more cost, especially to minimize the other problems. |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
1 st scope. So you are saying you prefer smaller oculars?
Regards Technika |
|
1stscope
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll usually take a better executed 'plain ocular due better edges, smaller, longer eye relief, and less prone to flare, over one with a wide field that doesn't do as well in those areas and costs more.
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I prefers wide angle to sharp edges at the periferi.
The reason for me is simple, when I look through a scope or a binocular and I want to look very precisely at the object I use the center of the picture. When I use the wide angle is to see if there is more animals or whatever.
When it comes to scopes I suspect that you not have experience from the better quality scopes. The sharpness out to the edges on a good scope like Zeiss, SuB or Swarovski is in my opinion no problem.
And lastly the Swarovski Z6 is actually just the opposite to what you described, big ocular, long eyerelief and big FOV. The eyerelief is 95 or 120 mm depending on model.
Personally I use 80mm eyerelief on mostly guns, and though i don't use any caliber heavyer than .358 Norma mag i have never seen the use of long eyerelief scopes for my needs.
Regards Technika |
|
1stscope
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
But you perhaps 'prove' my point about cost, as one seems to need to spend more, possibly a LOT more, to get similar or better optical quality with a wide angle. Zeiss and whatnot are interesting optically but I'll never spend that much on a scope, so I look at what makes sense at my price points. For me the benefits of spending more results in returns diminishing close to zero. |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In such case you might be right. But I have bougth two Zeiss 3-12x56 ZM/Z second hand in good condition for 500 USD....so depending on the pricerange you buy in, i might have proven you'r point or not.......
Regards Technika |
|
1stscope
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Below is a comparison of 1.5-6x42 scopes, with field of view at 100 yds. The Sightron, which is what I ended up with, has the smallest field, but seems to be the most affordable in that size and range. I consider holding zero and not fogging as the most important attributes for a scope, and everything else is icing.
Kahles 1.5-6x42 Helia C 30mm Riflescope
Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6x42 Variable Hunting 30mm Riflescope
Nikon 1.5-6x42 Monarch Gold 30mm Riflescope
New Meopta 1.5-6x42 Artemis 2000 30mm Rifle Scope
Swarovski 1.5-6x42 Professional Hunter 30mm Riflescope
New Zeiss 1.5-6x42 Diavari VM/V 30mm Rifle Scope
Sightron SII 1.56x42 |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
We have different demands due to different hunting situtions.
On the top quality scopes there is rarely any problems with fogging and holding zero, so that is not a consideration.
When it comes to FOV I find it very important, as I would use such a scope on a rifle for driven hunts, where sometimes the game is VERY close. The 1,5-6X42 is a great allround scope, so with the best quality you can also be fairly sucessfull for dusk and low lighthunting, so therefor my choise would be Zeiss.
But as I don't really have a budget for Zeiss, i would have to buy second hand.
Regards Technika |
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
FOV is not as important to me as is target definition. Top end scopes allow for outstanding target defintion and outstanding accuracy in thier mechanics. Constant eye relief and well desighned FFP reticles and illuminated systems are also something that I look for in a scope. Target definition could appear similar in two top end scopes but the real secrets in the glass and coating quality are revield in the poorest light. I currently like Zeiss and S&B for the above features that I prefer, giving the slightest of edge on all of the above to S&B. Drawbacks for these two brands are less elevation due to larger internal movements and a 34MM tube is required to achieve increased elevation with these two brands adding weight. Is it worth it, I say hell ya, you only live ounce.
Edited by SVD666 |
|
1stscope
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/14/2007 Status: Offline Points: 66 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I ended up with with a 1.5-6 after looking at the typical 3-9 scopes, which didn't focus as close as I wanted. I don't like giving up ground close to me. The 3-9 scopes also didn't allow the instant target aquisition that I'm use to with aperture sights. |
|
oldman47
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/09/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The size will not matter if the lenses do not let light through . You could have a 65mm lens but the light gathering ability may be lower than a 40mm with better gathering characteristics . Look at it this way ... you could mount a huge spotting scope on your rifle but if the lenses are inferior on light gathering you'd lose !
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
But, the VXII is 300 bucks and only goes to 4x magnification. Edited by Dolphin |
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
rootmanslim, Jeezz, I don't remember making that statement.
|
|
Dogger
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/02/2007 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 8866 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Had to go back to the original post from jackG to remember what this thread was all about. Seems to me from his orginal post that he was wondering why the necessity for a big bell at the objective end. This being the case would need to confirm with him but think he was looking for support for a trimmer scope.
If this is the case would guess he needs something in a lower power. Not sure you need the high power scopes for large game that seem to be so popular for most hunting situations - bean field, plain hunting are obvious exceptions. |
|
God save the Empire!
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
what is "plain hunting"?
|
|
take em!
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
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 |