Rifle Scopes Optical quality impacted by magnification factor?

[ToddM]

In general if the glass is the same quality does a higher magnification range yield more image distortion at the min/max power?

For example are you more likely to see more image distortion at min/max power with say the S&B 3-20x (6.5x mag) scope -vs- the 4-16x scope (4x mag) etc.

I know that glass quality is probably the bigger factor especially across brands/price tiers but was just curious if magnification factor also played a part.

I'm sure on the flip side you could also evaluate if say the 16x image on the 4-16x scope was worse (since it was at max mag) compared to the 16x image on the 3-20 which would be in the middle of it's range. As I understand it typically variable power optics are at their worst in image quality at mix/max powers.

 

[bama110]

Re: Optical quality impacted by magnification factor?

Light transmition comes in to affect also. More mag less light all other things being equal

 

[samnev]

Re: Optical quality impacted by magnification factor?

It's a trade off. For example I can't see 22 caliber holes at 8X on my NF 8-32X56 so I go to 20X. There is a very very slight change in light gathering but the resolution doesn't appear to change. Same is true all the way up to 32X but I almost never go much higher than 25X (600+ yards). On the cheaper scopes I had many years ago the change was very noticable. Think Tasco, Barfka, Simmons etc. The ones I looked thru recently at my club there was a distinct difference as magnification went up.

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Optical quality impacted by magnification factor?

I think it's some sort of immutable optics law that the greater the magnification, the greater the distortion and the more power RANGE, the greater the distortion. That is with everything else being equal, which it never is.

Fact it, it's really hard to tell without a good side by side comparison. Even then, its hard. And since everyone's eyes are different, there is no universal agreement.

There is a lot of quality glass available in the $300 price range now. Low cost optics have gotten pretty good. Not too suprising, once a company knows how to produce good optics, they can probably produce it for not much more than the lower quality optics they used to produce. Economics of scale and so forth being what it it.

What seperates the scopes now is mostly features. Reticle, zero stop, elevation adjustment and single turn knobs being the features that the higher price scopes still posess. There are some that are enamoured by optical quality. The highest price scopes seem to have $1000 dollars more of optic cost. Varies from person to person as to what is worth what.

The perfect rifle scope has yet to be invented.

 

[ToddM]

Re: Optical quality impacted by magnification factor?

That was kind of my thought, while it's already so hard to compare optics without side/side inspection it seems there's a recent trend to get more magnification range. We're seeing a lot of new scopes than have mag factors of 6-8 or higher and my thought was just how much image quality and distortion is being introduced with these new large magnification ranges, compared to say the 3-10, 4-16 etc. There's no clear answer obviously since there are too many factors but it would be interesting.

On the other hand if there was a bit more distortion the additional range and functionality of having that range may well be worth the trade off. For example the 3-20 S&B has lower and higher power than the 4-16, and perhaps there's more image distortion at 3x and 20x than the 4-16 has at 4x and 16x, but the 3-20 might have less distortion at it's 4x and 16x setting, so you have a better image at the same power range as the 4-16 offers but still have more/less magnification available if needed even if it introduces a bit more distortion at min/max.

I'm not picking on S&B they were just the scope that came to mind, obviously their optical quality is without question superb.