I am wondering if anyone actually needs a scope that has a magnification of x55 or more? I know there are scopes out there that go much higher in magnification. What would they be used for? Do the guys that shoot out to 2 miles or more use scopes like this? Just curious.
Scope Magnification
- Thread starter Josh1978
- Start date
I like having my rifle optic and my spotting scope as the same device. I run my Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60X52 at 40X and use the extra power to spot splashes when needed. I feel it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
That said I bought the GE and the Athlon Argos BTR 10-40X56 before it for the reticles.
VooDoo
That said I bought the GE and the Athlon Argos BTR 10-40X56 before it for the reticles.
VooDoo
Very high magnification needs to be accompanied by extremely high quality optics for it to be actually useful
Cheap scopes + very high magnification = Stevie Wonder
Cheap scopes + very high magnification = Stevie Wonder
+1 what 308pirate said
you're better off with a lower magnification higher quality optic than a high magnification cheap optic
better a tiny picture at high resolution
vs
zoomed in camera through heavy fog with no details or resolution
Different disciplines/sports have different needs.
Hence why we have first & second focal plane scopes, different magnification ranges, features.
I for example almost never use night vision or even reticle illumination as I don't shoot in the dark and rarely at dusk. Other people need it for what they do.
Ferrari, Jeep, 1/2 ton, minivan... they're all good for something/someone.
Once a person knows what they want from their optic, it's easier to match up budget to options that fulfill those needs, and make a selection from there.
The Benchrest guys are like the compound bow guys... they don't just hit the target... "Impact!" on a huge target doesn't cut it for them.
PRS guys want field of view so they don't get lost in the tunnel and shoot the wrong target. (I did this my first PRS style match and learned about wider FOV from the guys on the line... now I shoot using much less magnification in general)
you're better off with a lower magnification higher quality optic than a high magnification cheap optic
better a tiny picture at high resolution
vs
zoomed in camera through heavy fog with no details or resolution
Different disciplines/sports have different needs.
Hence why we have first & second focal plane scopes, different magnification ranges, features.
I for example almost never use night vision or even reticle illumination as I don't shoot in the dark and rarely at dusk. Other people need it for what they do.
Ferrari, Jeep, 1/2 ton, minivan... they're all good for something/someone.
Once a person knows what they want from their optic, it's easier to match up budget to options that fulfill those needs, and make a selection from there.
The Benchrest guys are like the compound bow guys... they don't just hit the target... "Impact!" on a huge target doesn't cut it for them.
PRS guys want field of view so they don't get lost in the tunnel and shoot the wrong target. (I did this my first PRS style match and learned about wider FOV from the guys on the line... now I shoot using much less magnification in general)
Frank did a video on this awhile ago. (I think) Depending on scope quality the higher the magnification range will give you better clarity. For example if you want usable 18x magnification a 4.5-27 might be better than a 3-18 in the fact the scope is maxing out. It might lose clarity at the far end of its range.
What you’re referring to is the “sweet spot” or Goldilocks zone of a scope. All zoom optics have this characteristic because it is nigh near impossible to build a zoom optic that performs exactly the same throughout the entire magnification range. That being said their are optical designs that do an incredible job throughout the magnification range and there are others that do not, almost always the biggest differentiator between the two is cost. For the lesser scopes, this rule applies more often, so if you choose a $1k class 5-25 it may have a sweet spot between 15-20 for example, but a ZCO 4-20 will still perform better at 20x even though that is the extreme end for the ZCO. As another analogy, think of camera lenses, you can purchase a 24-85 zoom for $500 or you can buy a 24-70 f2.8 for $2000, the big difference is the quality of the image throughout the magnification range. The 24-85 is going to show more mage degradation at the extremes (24 and 85mm) and will likely have a sweet spot between 35-70 for example but the image of the 24-70 will be much better at the extremes of the design.
With regard to high magnification you’re not just dealing with optical performance but if you’re shooting at distance you’re also dealing with mirage which can be a big issue the more you magnify the image.
See attached phone pic of March 80x @ 1000 yards, a multiple World Championship
winning optic. Other end of the scale; I’ve hit at 2700 meters, 3rd round on 5x zoom...
winning optic. Other end of the scale; I’ve hit at 2700 meters, 3rd round on 5x zoom...
Let me disagree with slightly, or perhaps just adjust, the concept presented above. The biggest differentiator way well be cost, but the reason for the cost in zoom optics such as for cameras, will be the size of the lens. The more expensive lenses that perform better than their cheaper stablemates, are going to be bigger lenses, with bigger objective and a correspondingly smaller F-number (ie. larger maximum aperture.)
For instance, Nikkor offers a 17-55 f/2.8 Zoom for $2,000. They also offer an 18-55 f/3.5 Zoom for $200. The first one has a 77mm filter size and weighs 26.6 ounces. The second one has a 55mm filter size and weighs 6.9 ounces.
There is a saying about there being no replacement for displacement. I can think of a similar one for optics: bigger glass, bigger IQ.
Of course, this pre-supposes all else being equal. (Which never is.)
Not to get too much off on a tangent but while "in general" it can be the size it is not always the case. The maximum aperture is usually defined by larger lens elements; however, you can have a smaller lens/max aperture that has equal or better IQ than the larger lens. This can be seen in some of the f/4 zoom lenses which are generally smaller/cheaper than their larger f/2.8 counterparts; however, some of them perform as well if not better. So yes "size" of the lens can contribute to cost but doesn't necessarily contribute to quality. If you look at the construction of "high quality/expensive" lenses you typically see glass elements that are much more costly such as SD, LD, ED and Fluorite glass elements, essentially these are all terms for higher grade glass and/or crystal which have better optical characteristics than their cheaper counterparts. And this is also what we tend to see in the more expensive scopes like Tangent Theta, ZCO, Schmidt, Kahles, March and so forth. But be careful, because not all "glass" is the same, marketing folks know how to use terms to their advantage, and we see HD or ED showing up on some "cheaper" scopes that just cannot compete optically with the higher end, which is why it usually comes down to cost as being the biggest differentiator, in the optics world higher cost is almost always synonymous with better quality. Yes, there are those scopes that "punch above their class" which really means that a scope is priced in such a way that it competes optically at a level that is higher than its price suggests. One example of this would be the Minox ZP5 scopes which compete optically with the Tangent Theta scopes; however, the ZP5 can be had for about $1500 cheaper. In my testing of the March 4.5-28 HM I am putting it side by side with my TT and have been pleasantly surprised so far, same can be said for ZCO, but these are all scopes that are in the $3k plus category. I like scopes that punch above their class; however, there could be some other drawbacks where a manufacturer cut corners in order to meet certain price points so it behooves us to do our due diligence and research what are some of the drawbacks.
Back to the OP's question of whether or not a scope that offers more than 55x magnification is "needed", and I believe this has been sufficiently answered by others as "need" is a very subjective term. Do any of us "need" a car that can go faster than 75mph? Do any of us "need" a 3 car garage or "need" a pool, etc.? The line between need and want and even "perceived need" can be a thin one. But I do want to point out that ELR shooting does not "need" ultra high magnification optics, I have a friend who shoots ELR with some of the big boys, one of the favorite scopes is the Tangent Theta 5-25. Further distance does not require higher magnification and as I mentioned above, atmospherics can wreck havoc on the image dancing around so much you may be better off to dial down magnification rather than increase it.
How the F-Class guys like Denys and Clearlight above can even see their target at 1000 yards on 80x baffles me, they must shoot in some very good conditions as even here in Colorado on a 70° day I can get some nasty mirage at 20x that makes me dial down so my steel plate isn't dancing and wobbling around due to the effects of mirage at distance. I will say this, the higher magnification optics seem to have their place among the benchrest and F-class community, but rarely if ever will you see these scopes on a rifle used for dynamic shooting such as that provided by PRS/NRL.
How the F-Class guys like Denys and Clearlight above can even see their target at 1000 yards on 80x baffles me, they must shoot in some very good conditions as even here in Colorado on a 70° day I can get some nasty mirage at 20x that makes me dial down so my steel plate isn't dancing and wobbling around due to the effects of mirage at distance. I will say this, the higher magnification optics seem to have their place among the benchrest and F-class community, but rarely if ever will you see these scopes on a rifle used for dynamic shooting such as that provided by PRS/NRL.
Completely agree, but I anticipated and addressed that when I explicitly stated : "all else being equal" when referring to the size differential as the main differentiator.
I shoot at 50X all the time; my scopes is a March-X 10-60X56 High Master.
Yeah, we have superb conditions all the time in the Gulf Coast region of Texas, where there is never any mirage. (In your dreams.)
Out of curiosity, were you at 10x due to mirage or for other reasons?^Ive won a few comps on 10x in 110 degree heat, target bouncing around
^ yes mirage. No point straining eyes, just have to trust your ammo and wind call.
In winter in that same location, no problem dialling up and seeing 6mm holes @500
meters in paper on a good day.
In winter in that same location, no problem dialling up and seeing 6mm holes @500
meters in paper on a good day.
I've owned and professionally used the 17-55 and 70-200 2.8 lenses.
The difference in IQ, image quality between them and a kit/$200 lens is night and day.
Think Strike Eagle vs Tangent Theta
Benchrest and ELR have different needs than PRS
The difference in IQ, image quality between them and a kit/$200 lens is night and day.
Think Strike Eagle vs Tangent Theta
Benchrest and ELR have different needs than PRS
Similar threads
