Rifle Scopes Schmidt & Bender "implosion"?

[918v]

Schott glass has magical properties, or at least it did back in the day. I took a photography class in college. My interest was entirely mechanical. The teacher was one of Ansel Adams' students. I tricked him one day and he actually thought I used a medium format camera. He was a fan of anything with Schott glass. Said it was magic. Maybe for B/W?

 

[Lowlight]

That is like saying you want a Cooke Lens look in film...

Glass gives you a "Look" in film and photography... that is not to say one lens is "Better' than other, it's about the look the artist is going for. That same "look" can sway people's opinion of the scope, and still says nothing about resolution or clarity just whether the end user likes the "look" better than something else. Some people feel they can see into shadows better or whatever but rarely are you comparing on equal footing as 10X on one scope does not mean 10x on another. You might be comparing 9.5x vs 10.75x on another.

 

[918v]

Right.

Exactly.

But, if you're enjoying the "look" of the image you're a happier camper.

 

[orkan]

There's a term for that. "Blissful ignorance."

 

[918v]

How so?

If you have to sit behind a scope for pronged periods of time, a better look is worth it. Your eyes are happier. Your brain is happier. Your heart is happier.

 

[Lowlight]

That is not necessarily true...

A look is meaningless to resolution... a look is just that, a "look" not a way to quantify resolution or glass quality.

You can camouflage bad glass with a better coating and give a desired look, the down side is, these scopes will quickly "loose" their look as the coatings will break down with use.

Better scopes have better coatings and better glass will stay consistent longer. Almost all scopes "Look" great out of the box, it's after the sun and conditions beat on the coatings for a while do you start to see differences. Or at least where the money went.

People confuse looks all the time, that is why every color grading plug in or filter tries to copy a "look" as different looks appeal for different reasons.

 

[orkan]

Yes indeed.

 

[918v]

But that's a different issue- Durability of the coatings.

If a scope presents an image that appears to have half the contrast of another scope (like the NXS vs Zeiss ) I could care less about the durabity of coatings issue.

 

[Lowlight]

Then you don't know what you are looking at...

People don't like the CA in Zeiss, the purple and yellow flaring.. on the other hand, a NXS has great resolution but no color pop... yet the picture stays consistent throughout the life of the scope. Benchrest and F Class guys trust NF, also the durability is second to none.

If you shoot, and not just stare through stuff out your window, you realize you'll never miss the target with an NXS because they didn't add extra splashes of color. It's bullshit argument.

You were asking about resolution and arc minutes, and I can tell you the new BEAST has averaged around 2.3, versus a S&B around 2.8. (S&B advertises 3.0 or better)

Color contrast is deceptive, and coating all not all created equal and if you actually use stuff you see it fall off because companies try overdoing it to mimic a look.

It's the difference between use and hand held comparing trying to satisfy a look.

 

[918v]

Here is a NXS

It has plenty of CA

My Zeiss does not have any.

 

[BigJimFish]

Then you don't know what you are looking at...

People don't like the CA in Zeiss, the purple and yellow flaring.. on the other hand, a NXS has great resolution but no color pop... yet the picture stays consistent throughout the life of the scope. Benchrest and F Class guys trust NF, also the durability is second to none.

If you shoot, and not just stare through stuff out your window, you realize you'll never miss the target with an NXS because they didn't add extra splashes of color. It's bullshit argument.

You were asking about resolution and arc minutes, and I can tell you the new BEAST has averaged around 2.3, versus a S&B around 2.8. (S&B advertises 3.0 or better)

Color contrast is deceptive, and coating all not all created equal and if you actually use stuff you see it fall off because companies try overdoing it to mimic a look.

It's the difference between use and hand held comparing trying to satisfy a look.

This does not seem correct. Do you mean Arc Seconds? An arc minute, 1/60th of a degree, is pretty large. I expect both of these optics to do well better than 2 and change inches at 100 yards.

This brings up another question I had. I remember two years ago the Nightforce rep throwing around these resolution numbers at Shot. I wondered then how they measure that as humans have such variability in our eyesight resolution. Do they have some kind of setup that transmits light though the scope to a fine ccd or cmos sensor allowing them to precisely distinguish just exactly how close two lines can be and read as separate or some similar test? If so, what wavelengths do they use for the test as coatings and designs will always favor some over others? Is this center f.o.v resolution or measured a ways out?

What I am saying this that they really seemed to want to impress me with this number but it did not have any methodology behind it. If you want to impress me with a number it needs to have meaning behind it. You have to release a white paper or conform to some industry standard procedure. Given that the photography industry (whose systems I might add include a sensor and whose users are pretty obsessed with this sort of thing) doesn't even use a standard procedure for the MTF curves they publish and therefore they are really only comparable to other of the same manufacturers products I kind of doubt that this kind of resolution number has meaning for rifle scope.

In summary, I had initially felt a little ignorant when Nightforce threw that number at me like I should know what a typical rifle scopes resolution was and how superior their's was but the more I thought about it the more it just sounded fishy.

 

[Lowlight]

One example, wow, impressive.

Zeiss is famous for the CA... as well I can show you two examples of my Hensoldts with the turrets that don't match up to the lines.

Your single anecdotal experience does not tell the story, that takes numbers and more experience than "your scope", a single sampling is nothing.

14 years this site will be around, millions of posts, the history on this is pretty clear. We can point to single examples of a lot, doesn't make it fact of the matter.

 

[Lowlight]

It is seconds... I thought he wrote minutes before, but it was just me multi tasking.

They have machines and some do it by eye.. I have posted images of it from places like kahles.

But they also have computers too that use a CCD Camera

Others have similar machines to record the data.

Zeiss is not some end all scope, they are good optically, but there is a reason you don't see them put up on high in use. To compare against, sure you see that comparison all the time, but very few are actually using them. They have their own set of issues.

 

[918v]

Are you suggesting that CA is a byproduct of QC?

 

[Lowlight]

It can be... if a lens is out of whack, if you over do the eye piece adjustment and throw it off. If you're off center too much taking the image.

CA in the NXS is not consistent with the line regardless of your one image... I can do picture after picture with everyone here (10+) and you won't see it.

I have also posted images of my Hensoldts with a lot of CA, same with Bushnell, guys had rash of them, while others didn't.

Here is a NF Through the Scope picture

I just canceled yours out... I can add another one to one up it if necessary Like this one, also a NF

Tell me that doesn't "LOOK" great...

 

[10fp]

CA is a product of the design and glass. My old Victory 2 binos had a ton of CA, new HT's have 0. Both are Zeiss, of course the new HT's have ED glass.

 

[Shortcut]

I sometimes get the feeling some of you guys are taking some of us for beeing fools. I mean come on! Trying to insinuate that the example shown of an NXS with CA would be some kind of exception from the rule just doesn't cut it. No way! NXS has quite shitty optics compare even to scopes such as S&B (and take that from a guy who's not a S&B fan at all). Compare to Hensoldt, NXS has no chance optically speaking and that is in every area: resolution, clarity, 3D feeling and light transmission. I've looked through a bunch of NXSs throughout the years and they will not match a Hensoldt. It's as simple as that.

I wish more people on the Hide would actually be able to look through a Hensoldt and an NXS side by side. Those times people have done that during the tests I attended the NXS was regarded as a joke in comparison to the Hensoldt.

 

[Lowlight]

Here is a Hensoldt...


Tons of CA in the Hensoldt line, I own them, not just viewed through the window of the gun shop. I have 4 Hensoldts, plus a Spotter60 and Spotter45, as well as one of the Hensoldt PSR Prototype scopes of which only 12 were made.

NXS don't have the pop, but they have resolution , hence the point, people confuse color contrast for resolution they are not the same. Again show me were people can't hit their target with a NXS. Are they pretty no, but they do resolve more than people give them credit for.

The idea people have a clue is the problem. Resolution is not color contrast, period and Zeiss has a ton of CA compared to other brands.

Do you need me to show you the $3400 Hensoldts with turrets misaligned too ?

I can do this all day as I actually own these scopes you TALK about ... I have dozens, 15 S&Bs, the Hennys, NF, including ones you have never laid hands on like the BEAST and others that are Military Only.

Name a scope you feel is the best I will post of picture of me standing here with it

Again a NF, call it a JOKE

When was the last time you looked through one ... the ATACR is one of the best Dollar for Dollar Scope out there right now.

 

[918v]

Yes, you can.

But you are saying resolution is everything. There is more: contrast, sharpness at the edges, and at all magnifications. Then there is eyebox forgiveness. I'm willing to trade a little resolution for a lot more contrast. I fully accept the Henny isn't the sharpest scope out there, but it has the nicest "look". And I'll bet you I could spot shit in the dark better than you using a NXS.

 

[Lowlight]

You guys are missing the point and nobody is saying NXS is the end all by any means, there is a reason they are improving the line which they have made significant improvements too it. I am saying there is more to it and resolution matters. Not that is everything quote me where I said that...

The same reasons you are saying matter above, is part of why Hensoldts aren't used as much. Limitations to the line, it's more than just the glass.

When you guys get a clue, let me know I will bring what is just sitting on my floor and not even mounted on a rifle. The day you have the same hands on experience call me ...

Instead you'd rather change the subject and point to a single line about something and completely miss the big picture and the point. I can bring a host of scopes that will let me shoot in adverse conditions and not all of it has to do with color or pop. Do you need me to post that NF picture again, can you not see into the shadows under that bench on the porch there ?



Shit I am not even using... you guys fixate on glass way too much ... one day you'll learn.

 

[Lowlight]

And for those reading along at home, here is a point to make... and we'll keep it NF vs the world.
[MENTION=12324]918v[/MENTION] or [MENTION=94500]Shortcut[/MENTION]

Have either of you used any of the following:

An ATACR which is an NXS model ?

A 2.5-10x42 also an NXS Line ?

How about the 15-55x which is considered one of the very best in its class of scopes ?

I am sure none of you have touched a BEAST ...

So tell us your experience with the following and how they compare to the rest of the field out there and then detail how they are a "joke" .

What is your experience with just those 3 scopes alone ?

 

[918v]

I have experience with the ATACR. I was deciding to get it or the SB and the store had both, so I spent a hour looking at stuff outside one afternoon. The SB had a much easier to acquire and maintain image. It seemed as if it was gyroscopically stabilized. The ATACR had decent glass, but the colors were way too intense. I passed.

 

[Lowlight]

Really is that experience cause a scope not mounted is not the same as a scope mounted. You can introduce a lot into it.

I do like how, Experience with an optic is now hanging around a gun store and trying to figure out which one you like better. That certainly qualifies as hands on per definition.

But now we go from no pop and color contrast, to, too much color, seems we can't make up our minds. Might been interesting if you actually used them.

So which S&B did you buy ?

 

[dimar1492]

You guys are missing the point and nobody is saying NXS is the end all by any means, there is a reason they are improving the line which they have made significant improvements too it. I am saying there is more to it and resolution matters. Not that is everything quote me where I said that...

The same reasons you are saying matter above, is part of why Hensoldts aren't used as much. Limitations to the line, it's more than just the glass.

When you guys get a clue, let me know I will bring what is just sitting on my floor and not even mounted on a rifle. The day you have the same hands on experience call me ...

Instead you'd rather change the subject and point to a single line about something and completely miss the big picture and the point. I can bring a host of scopes that will let me shoot in adverse conditions and not all of it has to do with color or pop. Do you need me to post that NF picture again, can you not see into the shadows under that bench on the porch there ?

View attachment 28508

Shit I am not even using... you guys fixate on glass way too much ... one day you'll learn.

You looking to sell or trade any of those scopes?

 

[Lowlight]

Not really,

They all work and if I did sell one or any of them, it wouldn't be at a significant discount or anything.
No deals to be found here.

Just cause I am not using one today doesn't mean I won't use it tomorrow.

 

[918v]

Really is that experience cause a scope not mounted is not the same as a scope mounted. You can introduce a lot into it.

I do like how, Experience with an optic is now hanging around a gun store and trying to figure out which one you like better. That certainly qualifies as hands on per definition.

But now we go from no pop and color contrast, to, too much color, seems we can't make up our minds. Might been interesting if you actually used them.

So which S&B did you buy ?

The one with the NH1 reticle.

I disagree with your premise that a scope has to be mounted. The scope's eyebox is either forgiving or not and the best way to find out is by hand holding it or resting it on something. I rested both on the counter and looked outside through open doors. I looked at vegetation, buildings, cars. The ATACR color rendition was too warm. It was like a contrast enhanced photo. The SB was too cold. Their reticles are a bit too thin. I went with the Henny cuz I was already familiar with Zeiss and I feel the NH1 reticle is what I need.

The picture you posted confirms that all the ATACRs are warm. Why would I buy one if I didn't like it? So now I can't comment cuz I don't own one? Honestly, this attitude that one can't comment unless one has participated is really obsolete. We have eyes. We have brains. We're not stupid. We can tell something is better or worse because many of us have owned dozens of scopes of all makes. No, we don't own dozens of every make, but we know what we want to see as far as image quality goes. We don't need to spend three months looking through each to have a valid opinion.

 

[Lowlight]

You bought a Zeiss not a S&B.... Duh.

And people wonder why I push the issue, you don't even know what you are saying when you say it. Bay window reviewers strike again.

The S&B was too cold, nice, well one day people will know the difference between an uneducated opinion and actually speaking from a place of knowledge. What people call a personal opinion vs pretending your personal opinion is a statement of fact or quality is the biggest problem.

You act like looking at something through the gun store window you have a calibrated eye to measure quality. No you commented on color. Nothing else.

So, you personally liking the color of one scope over tells the reading public nothing. As You confirmed nothing else, you personally like a color correction little more. That doesn't qualify to debate shit beyond that.

No zero stop, limited reticle choice, (Ps I have an NH1 too) turrets probably don't line up the same as mine, but what do you care. You liked the color and feel you can speak on choices because it. Classic.

 

[Km22]

Not really,

They all work and if I did sell one or any of them, it wouldn't be at a significant discount or anything.
No deals to be found here.

Just cause I am not using one today doesn't mean I won't use it tomorrow.

Not to derail this thread totally, but since we are on the topic of comparing and educated opinions. I remember you were quite fond of the Kahles that you had. How would you compare that with the BEAST?

 

[918v]

I was talking optics not the whole package. If I wanted everything I would have nothing.

I'll make a zero stop for the Zeiss. It's easy.

And your continuous insults aren't helping your case.

 

[Lowlight]

I like the Kahles, but love the Beast.

I use use both about the same since I only have 1 beast at the moment.

I am running 3 Kahles, including in competition and they have been great. No issues at all.

Careful through, better check the color correction with a meter as you might find the Beast to hard and the Kahles a bit soft, which means the Hensoldt could be just right depending whether you got LASIK or not. You should stare at pictures at Getty Images and define your preferred "look" ahead of time. What if one of your friends comes over and your scope not match his eye. Your dinner party could be ruined.

actually they are, people are clearly laughing.

 

[Graham]

Schmidt & Bender "implosion"?

The Beast is way too complicated for my simple mind. I'm waiting for the FFP ATACR.

 

[918v]

Some people are unable to discern fine detail. To them it's all the same.

 

[Lowlight]

Possibly... but if you use it, you'll find you don't need to concern yourself with much of it.

I didn't think I would like the MOA version as the .5 MOA Main adjustment with a .25 fine tune just doesn't line up right in your head. However once you start using it, it's really quite easy. Maybe because I was taught on an MST-100 i have the idea of using the fine tuning down, but really in practice it was easy. The spacing is nice, the turrets feels good in your hand. It's quite simple.

never needed the .25 lever to zero, and when shooting to distance, only needed it at 800 & 900 yards.

The brake you can take or leave for the most part. You can forget it is even there if you wanted too. Same with the illumination, lights everything up if you need it, stepped, two colors, etc... but honestly you can forget it is there, who really uses that stuff anyway.

And that detail you discern helps you shoot better than the next guy "how" ? Clearly you have an advantage over every one else cause you choose correctly where the rest of us suffer along and make due.

 

[peaceatwar]

I like the Kahles, but love the Beast.

I use use both about the same since I only have 1 beast at the moment.

I am running 3 Kahles, including in competition and they have been great. No issues at all.

Careful through, better check the color correction with a meter as you might find the Beast to hard and the Kahles a bit soft, which means the Hensoldt could be just right depending whether you got LASIK or not. You should stare at pictures at Getty Images and define your preferred "look" ahead of time. What if one of your friends comes over and your scope not match his eye. Your dinner party could be ruined.

actually they are, people are clearly laughing.

So when you going to let the rest of the rest of us get a shot at the beast? I'm ready to try something new.

 

[Lowlight]

Get a shot at the beast ?

What does that mean, I don't work for NF, I have no say when they release stuff to the commercial market. Not my call.

If you were in CO, you would have had several shots at it, as I have used it several times in classes and shoots with others around.

 

[Graham]

Schmidt & Bender "implosion"?

I say we get together at Euclid Hall and talk about it over a few beers.?

 

[sib1948]

At least we have many great choices to argue about! The manufacturers are also beginning to incorporate some of the shooters requests into their products, which I also find a plus. Any competition tends to keep prices lower and more competitive, so what's not to like about or present delima? Back to the original question, I'm sure S&B will still be around long after I am gone!

 

[Lowlight]

@Graham

You say when and I will buy the first round.

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

I was talking optics not the whole package. If I wanted everything I would have nothing.

I'll make a zero stop for the Zeiss. It's easy.

And your continuous insults aren't helping your case.

I guess this is the thread where know-it-all's come to die. We already lost one ignoramus, another who got a warning, and now this. I love this thread!

In an effort to help out a teammate, might I suggest 918v that you ratchet it back a bit. Try to draw your arguments from experience, both first hand and primary. Just arguing for the sake of argument is gonna get you nowhere friend.

But if you persist, try buying a shitload of scopes, testing them all under similar conditions, right next to each other FIRST and THEN report/argue. Or, you could really do some real testing like Mr. Koshkin did: High End Tactical Scopes, Part IV: The Heavyweights » OpticsThoughts I think your discussion over an impression received during a shopping trip is futile.

 

[Cobracutter]

After reading the whole thread a few times for pure entertainment value, it is summed up by one assumption.

First we have what I will call the IOR Crew (Owned a 2-12x32 10 years ago, While I had zero issues and loved the optic, I was also WELL aware of Val's asshattery back then and people who got defective $1K+ optics and couldnt even fucking get ahold of Val. If it wasn't for guys like Scott at LO, they would have fizzled as they rightly should have) and what I call the People Who Can Think Crew.


IOR Crew seems to have this wild notion that all opinions are equal. Well maybe in fairy tale teletubby utopia that is the case, but in the real world, it could not be further from reality. Your "opinion" means jack shit without context. Is your opinion about neurosurgery also just as valid as Dr. Ben Carson? Is your opinion of the universe equal to that of Carl Sagan? Are you starting to pick up what I'm putting down?

Everyone has the right to have an opinion, but that does not give it validity. Frank will tell you I'm one of the biggest pain in the asses on this site, And me and him have gotten into it a couple of time, so it's not like I'm here kissing his ass. He is however 100000% when it comes to this discussion. You would have to be a brain dead non-functional retard to ignore his experience and opinion when it comes to rifle optics.

You don't sound like you guys are here to learn. Ignoring such overwhelming data and history would lead one to believe that the only reason your posting is you have a monetary stake in IOR/Selling IOR or you are just stirring shit for the hell of it.

 

[Wireman]

A beer and two shots of whiskey.

Very entertaining.


Thanks guys.

 

[dms416]

Tell me that doesn't "LOOK" great...

Frank,

which NF is this exactly?

 

[Km22]

I like the Kahles, but love the Beast.

I use use both about the same since I only have 1 beast at the moment.

I am running 3 Kahles, including in competition and they have been great. No issues at all.

Careful through, better check the color correction with a meter as you might find the Beast to hard and the Kahles a bit soft, which means the Hensoldt could be just right depending whether you got LASIK or not. You should stare at pictures at Getty Images and define your preferred "look" ahead of time. What if one of your friends comes over and your scope not match his eye. Your dinner party could be ruined.

actually they are, people are clearly laughing.

Ah... I may need an IOR then.

 

[Lowlight]

Sniper is on in 8 minutes, ready to assimilate advanced degree in sniping. Surely watching it will raise my street creds. After all, my eye knows, right? One shot two kills.

The image is the NF Beast, the distance is 125 yards to the wall.

 

[918v]

Possibly... but if you use it, you'll find you don't need to concern yourself with much of it.

I didn't think I would like the MOA version as the .5 MOA Main adjustment with a .25 fine tune just doesn't line up right in your head. However once you start using it, it's really quite easy. Maybe because I was taught on an MST-100 i have the idea of using the fine tuning down, but really in practice it was easy. The spacing is nice, the turrets feels good in your hand. It's quite simple.

never needed the .25 lever to zero, and when shooting to distance, only needed it at 800 & 900 yards.

The brake you can take or leave for the most part. You can forget it is even there if you wanted too. Same with the illumination, lights everything up if you need it, stepped, two colors, etc... but honestly you can forget it is there, who really uses that stuff anyway.

And that detail you discern helps you shoot better than the next guy "how" ? Clearly you have an advantage over every one else cause you choose correctly where the rest of us suffer along and make due.

In the context of color rendition or contrast?

 

[Surgeon_Shooter]

I'm a die hard S&B fan but I have to be honest.... The price on the new 3-27 kinda pisses me off. That is just rediculous! I'd happily pay $4000 but holy cow $7000???

I was also excited about the super short but i think ill just keep my 5-25 that's a bit longer and way cheaper. I'm diss appointed in S&B to be honest, mainly because of their prices. Then partly because of what low light said about having to use their customer service.... Seems like they have got too comfortable in the #1 spot.

 

[918v]

I guess this is the thread where know-it-all's come to die. We already lost one ignoramus, another who got a warning, and now this. I love this thread!

In an effort to help out a teammate, might I suggest 918v that you ratchet it back a bit. Try to draw your arguments from experience, both first hand and primary. Just arguing for the sake of argument is gonna get you nowhere friend.

But if you persist, try buying a shitload of scopes, testing them all under similar conditions, right next to each other FIRST and THEN report/argue. Or, you could really do some real testing like Mr. Koshkin did: High End Tactical Scopes, Part IV: The Heavyweights » OpticsThoughts I think your discussion over an impression received during a shopping trip is futile.

I think my shopping trip is enough to allow me to optically evaluate a couple scopes. I can tell they have different color renditions. I can tell the SB was sharper. Yeah, just by looking through each resting on the counter. Maybe I'm special. If that's being a know it all to you, your self esteem needs some serious uplifting.

 

[dms416]

I think my shopping trip is enough to allow me to optically evaluate a couple scopes. I can tell they have different color renditions. I can tell the SB was sharper. Yeah, just by looking through each resting on the counter. Maybe I'm special. If that's being a know it all to you, your self esteem needs some serious uplifting.

Does phillip know you took his shovel?

 

[918v]

So is it your position that one can't tell two scopes apart by looking through them outside for an hour?

 

[dms416]

So is it your position that one can't tell two scopes apart by looking through them outside for an hour?

It's my position that you are not going to receive any validation for your purchase decision or the reasoning behind it. Hence, the shovel/hole-digging reference.