Leupold Mark 4 TMR Spotters — 12-40 vs 20-60

[Yerman]

Looking for info from those of you that have experience with both. I’m most interested in light transmission and clarity when they are both on the same power. In other words, if running at 20x, 30x, etc, does the larger objective on the 20-60 make a noticeable difference?

FWIW, most of the time, we are spotting at 20-30 power. We shoot at ELR distances 2k+, and mirage seems to be the deciding factor which keeps magnification down to tame the mirage as best we can.

 

[Mr Flannel]

I just bought the 12-40, as I find any greater magnification difficult in mirage conditions and in getting a stabilized image. I’ve heard that Cory Trapp and Co. use the MkIV spotters for their ELR work at Gunsite. If that is the case then perhaps touch base with him. He’s active on here.

 

[Yerman]

Sounds good, thanks.

@CoryT, hoping you can chime in. Thx .

 

[nn8734]

Not CoryT but I’ve owned the Mk4 12-40 w/ the TMR for about 7 years and it’s a capable spotter. Image is bright, clear and sharp from 12-25x, which is sufficient for how I use it...It starts to struggle a bit beyond 25x (not as bright, tougher to get to sharp focus).

Mine went back to leupold due to a damaged ocular housing and they replaced it under warranty no problem.

I have since switched to 20x80 steiner binos and glass-wise/image quality, it’s no contest. They are my primary spotting day optic now while the mk4 is used in conjunction with my PVS 27 at night and it excels in that role.

 

[TheGerman]

Jack of all trades, master of none outside of aftermarket support.

They hold up to abuse and give you a good clean image, but nothing eartshattering. Then again, you're trying to see trade/impacts and not make out how many holes a button has in it at 700 yards.

I had one before a Spotter 60 and sometimes consider going back as it'll do 80% of the same thing and I wouldn't be too concerned about it falling off the side of a hill.

 

[LawnMM]

There's a lot of accessory support for them as well if you ever want to mount stuff.

Pvs14 on the occular, there's a widget for that. Clip on mounted out front? Rail kit for that. Cateye lens cover to avoid lens flare? Yep.

I think it provides a pretty clean image, for the money it's hard to beat. Once you get into the $2k and $3k tiers though now you're in Swaro/Hensoldt's domain and there's a reason they dominate there.

I think it comes down to how much spotting you do with an actual spotting scope. I don't do much so I can't see going past the Leupy. If I was shooting ELR or teaching classes or something where I was spending hours and hours a day on the glass, then I'd probably plunk down the $3400 and get a spotter 45.

I like the options for accessories on the Leupy. I have stuff that will let me mount a GoPro on the occular or my Nikon digital camera for photos/video through the spotter.

Just depends what you plan on doing with it.

 

[CoryT]

I've been quite happy with the 12-40, Walt has a 20-60, not as happy with those. Is the image as good as my Pentax 80mm ED? No. However,

It's light, compact, has good eye relief , it's rugged and has a great reticle. Mine in a Cadex roll cage, and mounts neatly inverted next to the Vector's creating a fine spotter system. I can mount a PVS-14 behind or a clip-on in front for night work.

The Hensoldt's have a better image, but crappy reticles. The Swarovski has a great image as well, but terrible eye relief, I can't use it. Would I really love to get a reticle eyepiece for the Pentax? I've tried for years and it's not happening. I don't know why Swaorvski can't put in a good wide field eyepiece, but they don't.

I'd stick with the 12-40, the 20-60 seems to be no real improvement in image and we've had issues with reticle focus on them. Add in the extra size, weight and cost and it's no choice at all.

If I could get a TMR type reticle in a Spotter 60 or 45 that would be great, also does not seem to be possible.

 

[Terry Cross]

Our experience is that the 12-40 is an excellent general purpose workhorse. The glass may not be as good as a couple other brands (costing way more) but it will do everything you likely need.

I chose a couple of the 12-40 because the FOV @ 12X is a huge asset for parts of our training and we rarely get to 40X much less feel the need for more. As mentioned already above, the 12-40 also has a shit ton of peripherals available so you can customize the configuration for how you need to use it. If strictly using for ELR, this may not be a plus for you at all.

Some of your decision may even boil down to what part of the country you live in (shoot in). Gulf South for example has terrible air to look through compared to higher and drier areas. When your atmosphere is thick and soupy to begin with, we believe it puts a damper on trying to use anything on the high end of your X. When we do classes in CA and AK for example, we can suddenly run higher X with good resolution.

Big difference between the 2 in size and weight but if you are primarily playing ELR, neither matter.

If you are mostly spotting single static targets at distance in mostly clean, dry air,.....you could likely use the higher X and slightly better resolution at medium X with the 20-60x.

./

 

[Yerman]

All great info guys, thanks.

 

[USMC22]

I’ve got a Mark 4 TMR and for what its worth I’ve been happy with it. Spotting impacts out to 1,000 etc hasn’t been an issue.

 

[sleeplz]

I enjoy the 12-40 over the 20-60. Most of the time I keep it on the low end and the 12-40 has slightly better eye relief. Look through both if you can at matches.

 

[westsidecamper]

Looking for info from those of you that have experience with both. I’m most interested in light transmission and clarity when they are both on the same power. In other words, if running at 20x, 30x, etc, does the larger objective on the 20-60 make a noticeable difference?

FWIW, most of the time, we are spotting at 20-30 power. We shoot at ELR distances 2k+, and mirage seems to be the deciding factor which keeps magnification down to tame the mirage as best we can.

That light transmission thing is a good question. If anyone has found actual transmission tests (e.g. t-stops) for any riflescopes or sport optics, I would love to see them.

If you know what power you want to run at most of the time, I'd suspect that a fixed power eyepiece would give you better light transmission than a zoom eyepiece. Ceteris paribus, a larger objective diameter decreases your f-number, which increases your light transmission. F-number isn't linear so for the sake of an example let's say you had a 70mm focal length and 35mm objective vs 70mm focal length and 50mm objective. The smaller objective optic is f2 and the bigger one is f1.4. That's a full stop difference which means you've (almost) doubled the light transmission.