New Glass?

[Lawdwaz]

With the addition of the extra 30 minutes at the start and end of each day and the fact that one of the places I hunt has some big fields that the deer will pile out into at dusk I'm thinking on changing out a scope on my primary rifle.  A couple evening sits had me on a field edge right up to quitting time and the old Leupold VariX III 2.5x8x36mm is lacking a bit.  Yea, if there was snow or a moon lit night it'd be sufficient but it hasn't been either of those conditions for me.

A couple friends swear by the 50mm Leupold scopes (older models by 10+ years) but I've been looking at a couple others of late via the web; the Tract Toric UHD 2-10x42 and Leupold VX-5HD 2-10x42.  I may not do anything but was just curious on thoughts on light gathering and if I need to just go to a 50mm objective or these more "Modern" scopes with 42mm objectives will give me an optical advantage over the 36mm 2.5x8?

Personally I don't like the aesthetics of a 50mm objective especially with a 30mm tube but whatever, I'd consider slumming one.....(TG is going to have a coronary)

So, anyone have experience with either scope above or just chime in on your light gathering thoughts.  Muchas Gracias

[chrisw]

With the addition of the extra 30 minutes at the start and end of each day and the fact that one of the places I hunt has some big fields that the deer will pile out into at dusk I'm thinking on changing out a scope on my primary rifle.  A couple evening sits had me on a field edge right up to quitting time and the old Leupold VariX III 2.5x8x36mm is lacking a bit.  Yea, if there was snow or a moon lit night it'd be sufficient but it hasn't been either of those conditions for me.
A couple friends swear by the 50mm Leupold scopes (older models by 10+ years) but I've been looking at a couple others of late via the web; the Tract Toric UHD 2-10x42 and Leupold VX-5HD 2-10x42.  I may not do anything but was just curious on thoughts on light gathering and if I need to just go to a 50mm objective or these more "Modern" scopes with 42mm objectives will give me an optical advantage over the 36mm 2.5x8?
Personally I don't like the aesthetics of a 50mm objective especially with a 30mm tube but whatever, I'd consider slumming one.....(TG is going to have a coronary)
So, anyone have experience with either scope above or just chime in on your light gathering thoughts.  Muchas Gracias

When I used to sell scopes I never understood why someone would pay for a Swarovski. Until I handled them a few times, they're pretty incredible, the glass is insanely clear, the best I've ever seen. Now they are still crazy expensive but price is relative to the buyer. The Leupold VXL's are nice, getting a huge objective while still keeping a low mount height. I'm surprised your current VXIII isn't up to par though for you.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[Waterfowler]

Can’t beat a 30mm tube and 50 objective for light gathering 

[TreeGuy]

I will remain silent as you are well aware of my position on the matter.



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Lawdwaz]

26 minutes ago, Waterfowler said:

Can’t beat a 30mm tube and 50 objective for light gathering 

30mm tube adds nothing to light gathering from what I’ve found.   

[stubborn1VT]

My deer rifle was a gift and came with a 3x9 with a 50mm objective.  I really liked it and replaced it with a Bushnell with the same specs.  Bushnell makes a number of models with Rainguard and that's one of the greatest things ever.  That scope stays clear in wet conditions and resists fogging.  I haven't used scope caps in 10+ years.  

The scope looks fine on my A bolt, as it is a big/long rifle.  I'm more concerned with performance.  The 50mm gathers lots of light and since I'm a sitter, I'm not concerned much with weight.  Unless you are dead set against the aesthetics, I would recommend the bigger bell.  We've had the extra 30 minutes in the AM/PM in Vermont for many moons and in a few instances the light gathering has come in handy.

[E J]

I put one of these on the 6.5 prc I bought last year. I'm very happy with it.

[ATbuckhunter]

While technically a 50mm will take in more light than a 40, It actually wont make a difference when it comes to what you can actually see. Your eye can only take up so much light, so a 3-9x40 will take in as much light as your eye can handle. Better off spending extra for higher quality glass than getting a bigger objective. I've always been able to see better through my 40 than my own eyes after a certain point.

[sbuff]

Don't over look vortex scopes ,they have some very impressive scopes in their lineup.

I too have been thinking of upgrading an older nikon buckmasters scope for same reasons you stated .

[Rack Attack]

The vx5 hd's are nice scopes. I don't have the exact one you are referring to, but have two 3-15x44 and a 3-15x56. I also have an older 4.5-14x50 vx3LR that I feel is every bit as good. While somewhat true the larger objective will only help you so much. What the larger objective does do is give you the same light transmission at a higher power. High quality glass is the most important thing with light transmission, so that should be your first consideration. While most believe that the best a human eye can use is an exit pupil of 8 (objective/magnification) that is not always the case as some people (myself included) have larger than 8mm pupils (learned that while getting lasik eye surgery). The best advice I can give is to look through them with your own eyes, preferably in a low light situation.

[stubborn1VT]

27 minutes ago, ATbuckhunter said:

While technically a 50mm will take in more light than a 40, It actually wont make a difference when it comes to what you can actually see. Your eye can only take up so much light, so a 3-9x40 will take in as much light as your eye can handle. Better off spending extra for higher quality glass than getting a bigger objective. I've always been able to see better through my 40 than my own eyes after a certain point.

This doesn't make any sense to me in a low light situation.  Maybe I'm missing something.  If a a 50 will take in more light than a 40, wouldn't that make a difference 29 minutes before sunrise?  Or are you saying the difference in light gathering won't allow me to see better.  That doesn't scan either.  I don't think a 40 or a 50 will provide more light than my eye can handle at dawn and dusk.  

[Rack Attack]

You can actually see better through a quality optic at the proper magnification during low light than with your naked eye because of the magnification.  It's even better to use quality binoculars because you are using both eyes and two objective lenses.

[Robhuntandfish]

1 hour ago, TreeGuy said:

I will remain silent as you are well aware of my position on the matter.



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

Infrared yote scope?  

[stubborn1VT]

I can see better in low light with my scope than my binos.  Neither are particularly high quality.  I considered upgrading my scope, but I can't live without Rainguard and I don't think any other manufacturer has this technology.

[onlybrowning]

I have both, VX3i 2.5-8X36 (a few) and the VX5hd 2-10X42. The added size and weight of the VX5hd is significant to me, while I don’t necessarily see a difference in dim light performance. That said, I can’t say I’ve ever had a complaint about either. For me, the reason for trying the VX5 2-10 was the increased field of view on the lowest power and the increased magnification on the highest. If you care at all about weight, stick with the VX3. If you don’t, the VX5 definitely looks super clear to me (it’s different than the VX3, specifically the way I perceive the crosshairs), but I’ve never found the VX3 lacking. I’ve always wished I could have the size and weight of a VX3 1.5-5X20 in a 1.5-8 or so scope. That doesn’t exist yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[moog5050]

I had the vx5 hd.  And a vx6 hd.  The best I have used overall is my zeiss conquest hd5.  44mm obj.  Great great glass, including in low light.  

[Gencountyzeek]

I have a older vx3 3.5-10x40 on a rifle, i also just purchased a zeis conquest v4 4-16x44. The zeis is definitely brighter than the older leupy. Its the objective but just newer glass with better coatings. Got a good deal on the zeiss as a demo model. Tube size has nothing to do with light transmission its all elevation and windage adjustment amount.

 

[Lawdwaz]

1 minute ago, moog5050 said:

I had the vx5 hd.  And a vx6 hd.  The best I have used overall is my zeiss conquest hd5.  44mm obj.  Great great glass, including in low light.  

"HAD"..........?!?!

 

[moog5050]

2 minutes ago, Lawdwaz said:

"HAD"..........?!?!

 

Bought at a discount and sold them for what I paid.  Didn’t think they were worth the money if I am honest.  No offense to those using them.  
 

did the same thing with a $2700 swaro - was awesome but not 2700 awesome.  Lol

Edited December 8, 2021 by moog5050

[Nomad]

I have a cheap savage rifle with some sort of scope package deal , I think it’s a bushnel  ? Idk . No complaints .

$2700 !? That’s more then I’ve ever spent on hunting guns, stands ,binoculars,and clothes lol .yikes that’s some pricey meat . 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nomad

[chrisw]

I have multiple Leupold, a Weaver, Nikon etc. and honestly I could shoot well past what my naked eye can see with all of them. They are all bright enough to shoot before or after legal times and none of them are 50mm even. I don't care for 50 mm scopes due to the higher cheek weld it requires. Any quality glass should be more than capable of covering all legal shooting times.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[Lawdwaz]

14 minutes ago, moog5050 said:

Bought at a discount and sold them for what I paid.  Didn’t think they were worth the money if I am honest.  No offense to those using them.  
 

did the same thing with a $2700 swaro - was awesome but not 2700 awesome.  Lol

Understood. 

The Tract is interesting......and gets great reviews.

https://tractoptics.com/all-products/toric-uhd-2-10x42-t-plex-rifle-scope

[stubborn1VT]

11 minutes ago, Nomad said:

I have a cheap savage rifle with some sort of scope package deal , I think it’s a bushnel  ? Idk . No complaints .

$2700 !? That’s more then I’ve ever spent on hunting guns, stands ,binoculars,and clothes lol .yikes that’s some pricey meat . 

Says the guy with all the fancy time pieces.  How much does it cost to tell the time? 

[Lawdwaz]

5 minutes ago, chrisw said:

Any quality glass should be more than capable of covering all legal shooting times.


 

Thanks for that tidbit but I don't know where else you've hunted but this is the first year NYS has given us the 30 before/30 after.  I hunted Pennsylvania for lots of years and never gave it much thought as they had the 30 before/30 after and didn't sweat it with my 2.5x8x36 Leupolds. 

 

[Lawdwaz]

4 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

Says the guy with all the fancy time pieces.  How much does it cost to tell the time? 

Ya beat me to it!