Will NF design a wide angle lens?

[Cody S]

I keep wondering why tangent theta, Nightforce and zco are falling behind in the FOV department and no advertising or teasing that they have something in the works...
I'd be super interested in that zco 8-40 if it could have the super large fov like kahles, S&B or March.
also I wonder how much the extra FOV actually is on 25 power which is where I shoot a lot.

 

[Ledzep]

Honest question, why?

If I can get 10 mils either way at 12-15x I've never wanted more. My ATACR F1 is more like 12+. That's just for rough target alignment, once I've found it my eyes usually don't leave +/- 5 mils from center.

 

[Cody S]

I shoot a lot at 25x + and having double the FOV would be immensely valuable to me personally for target acquisition with the tiny targets at unfamiliar ranges.
I guess if I'm spending 3k+ on a scope i want it to be the best possible

 

[Ledzep]

I design bullets for a living, not glass, so bear that in mind... BUT I did read a few optical design books and at one point understood prime optics and a couple of the effects (defects) associated with telescope design...

What you're seeing through the scope is already "throttled" through an aperture. They could just open the aperture up and you could see wider FoV than what is there now. However, the problem is that the distortions and aberrations would get increasingly bad the further from center you went, the further you opened it up. The closer to center the FoV is restricted, the easier it is to deal with these issues. My guess is that to design and build an optic (several lens arrays with a moveable reticle in the middle) with twice, or even considerably more than the current offerings' FoV and maintain clarity/resolution/color edge to edge along with all of the reticle movement range is going to cost a lot more or be physically bigger/different than most people are willing to pay for. It doesn't take long, especially with variable power optics, to wind up with some funky lens shapes that have to be executed pretty dead-nuts for proper performance. Talking single-digit microns in some cases.

Not at all saying it's not possible, just don't expect it to be priced the same or less than current offerings. From a semi-educated perspective what I'm saying is that I'm a little surprised they're as good as they are as cheap as they are as-is. Especially the latest generation of LR rifle scopes in the $2500-4500 range are optically pretty amazing.

 

[Cody S]

I don't expect them to cost the same or less with more FOV, in fact the premium seems to be about 1k usd as to what some companies I'm considering buying, charge.

 

[carbonbased]

At this point we are waiting for a patent to expire so other scope companies can open up their FOV. Swaro holds the patent but mainly seems interested in Euro companies. That’s why there are some (Vortex, March, etc) that ignore the patent. It was also invalidated in the EU but in force in the UK and USA.

Anyway, out of time to type, but search is your friend.

Edit: also, Kahles is owned by Swaro. Re:328 scope

 

[Emerson0311]

My FOV wants become much less important to me when I shoot centerfire. Rimfire is a lot closer, so FOV makes a much bigger difference trying to find widely spread targets under 300, and sometimes 100.

 

[Cody S]

My FOV wants become much less important to me when I shoot centerfire. Rimfire is a lot closer, so FOV makes a much bigger difference trying to find widely spread targets under 300, and sometimes 100.

to be fair I'm shopping for a rimfire scope and that's the main reason I'm so keen on large fov. tiny targets spread out with timers. I personally don't care about translating turrets all that much.
obviously I'd prefer to pay an extra hundo for the cooler product but whatever.
prs22 is stupid addicting.

 

[NateVA]

Some manufacturers I imagine are waiting for the Swarovski patent to expire (in a year or two? I don't remember). Nightforce probably isn't waiting for that because the Japanese scopes already seem to ignore the patent anyway. They just don't feel much pressure to change anything I guess. Honestly for rimfire the Vortex 6-36 has a pretty big FOV.

 

[Cody S]

any way to be sure what year that patent will expire?
does the gen3 razor have the wide angle eye piece in it?

 

[NateVA]

any way to be sure what year that patent will expire?
does the gen3 razor have the wide angle eye piece in it?

I don't know if anything has a freakish eyepiece like the Kahles 328i. My faint hope is that companies have stuff ready to roll out when the patent expires but that might be cope.

 

[Glassaholic]

I keep wondering why tangent theta, Nightforce and zco are falling behind in the FOV department and no advertising or teasing that they have something in the works...
I'd be super interested in that zco 8-40 if it could have the super large fov like kahles, S&B or March.
also I wonder how much the extra FOV actually is on 25 power which is where I shoot a lot.

The NF NX8 4-32x50 is what you want for 25x use as it has surprisingly large FOV at higher mags. It is the ATACR series that has somewhat limited FOV. I say somewhat as NF has opted for a design that limits FOV at low mags but quickly gains with increase in magnification. The 7-35x has more FOV at 25x than many scopes.

As others have mentioned, FOVgate caused by the Swaro patent has limited most mfr’s from offering wide angle eye pieces in their high end FFP designs - Japanese mfr seem to get a pass for some reason. No one is certain when the patent will expire but I’d imagine some of the bigger names are keeping close watch…

 

[koshkin]

The wide angle lens discussion is probably worth a livestream as well. Maybe next week. I'll do one on why reticles are black tonight or tomorrow.

A couple of observations: to make a riflescope with a very large apparent FOV, you need either a very large eyepiece or shorter eyerelief. There are some basic geometry considerations there. Then, naturally, everything forward of the eyepiece needs to be designed with wide FOV in mind as well, since you are sampling a larger area in both focal planes.

On the 4-32x50 NX8: I do not think those specs on Nightforce website are entirely correct. If the FOV and eyerelief specs are accurate, the eyepiece lenses should be more than 1.75" (~45mm) in diameter. Physical diameter of the eyepiece is listed as 41mm (that's both lenses and aluminum housing).

If you do the math in Nightforce's published specs, the apparent FOV of the NX8 is around 28 degrees. That sounds too good to be true and it is. If memory serves me right, the AFOV on the NX8, once you get past the mild tunneling on the low end is right around 23 degrees, which is quite good in its own right.

ILya

 

[Cody S]

March claims about 26 degrees on their new 5-42 gen2 so I'm excited to try one of those out in a few months.

 

[koshkin]

March claims about 26 degrees on their new 5-42 gen2 so I'm excited to try one of those out in a few months.

I have the Gen1. It does have wide FOV.

 

[Glassaholic]

If you do the math in Nightforce's published specs, the apparent FOV of the NX8 is around 28 degrees. That sounds too good to be true and it is. If memory serves me right, the AFOV on the NX8, once you get past the mild tunneling on the low end is right around 23 degrees, which is quite good in its own right.

ILya

This is something that really bugs me. How can manufacturers get away with putting up bogus information, I get that mistakes are made, but for many, they are never corrected even when well documented? Are there no “truth in advertising” rules that apply here? This is in part why I have gone to the “measure the mils” method when reviewing the scope, it’s not perfect but it certainly appears more trustworthy than FOV values from many manufacturers.

Too often I assume the specs are accurate which is why I mentioned the NX8 4-32 above thinking that it would have one of the widest FOV at 25x but several have indicated otherwise. I feel duped.

 

[carbonbased]

The wide angle lens discussion is probably worth a livestream as well. Maybe next week. I'll do one on why reticles are black tonight or tomorrow.

A couple of observations: to make a riflescope with a very large apparent FOV, you need either a very large eyepiece or shorter eyerelief. There are some basic geometry considerations there. Then, naturally, everything forward of the eyepiece needs to be designed with wide FOV in mind as well, since you are sampling a larger area in both focal planes.

On the 4-32x50 NX8: I do not think those specs on Nightforce website are entirely correct. If the FOV and eyerelief specs are accurate, the eyepiece lenses should be more than 1.75" (~45mm) in diameter. Physical diameter of the eyepiece is listed as 41mm (that's both lenses and aluminum housing).

If you do the math in Nightforce's published specs, the apparent FOV of the NX8 is around 28 degrees. That sounds too good to be true and it is. If memory serves me right, the AFOV on the NX8, once you get past the mild tunneling on the low end is right around 23 degrees, which is quite good in its own right.

ILya

I own the 4-32. I can verify the dimensions. Should I just measure the widest part of the eyepiece?

 

[koshkin]

Just measure the FOV with the reticle on highest power

 

[Cody S]

isn't the 7-35 atacr glass better anyways? that's what I'm more interested in is huge fov in the top of the lines

 

[PappyM3]

isn't the 7-35 atacr glass better anyways? that's what I'm more interested in is huge fov in the top of the lines

It should be better glass, but both the ATACR 7-35 and NX8 4-32 have other differences too.

56mm vs 50mm objective lenses
34mm vs 30mm tubes
39.3 oz vs 28.6 oz weight
15 ft/3.4 ft vs 26.1 ft/4.6 ft FOV (though these may be wrong it seems)
6mm/1.6mm vs 7.3mm/1.6mm exit pupils
$3,600 vs $2,150 cost

And other differences as well, of course.

It’s all about what you want. Yes, the ATACR is their more premium line, but I personally liked the weight and 4x ability of the NX8. I was less concerned about anything over 20x. But if I were more concerned about the higher magnification and didn’t care about weight, I’d probably take a longer look at the ATACR.

 

[NateVA]

It’s all about what you want. Yes, the ATACR is their more premium line, but I personally liked the weight and 4x ability of the NX8. I was less concerned about anything over 20x. But if I were more concerned about the higher magnification and didn’t care about weight, I’d probably take a longer look at the ATACR.

I think most peoples' argument for the 7-35 isn't that they need the higher magnification but that its "sweet spot" for image quality is right in the 12-18x range.

 

[PappyM3]

I think most peoples' argument for the 7-35 isn't that they need the higher magnification but that its "sweet spot" for image quality is right in the 12-18x range.

That is kind of what I meant when I said being concerned with the higher magnification. Not the max magnification, but how the scope functions within the higher magnification range. Thank you for the clarification.

I rarely go over 12x with the NX8, but it seems quite at home in the 4-16x range. The 16-32 is just nice to have if I want it on rare occasion. And even then, I haven’t really gone over 20x aside from checking shots when zeroing/load development.

I’m sure the ATACR is much better in the 16-32 range compared to the NX8. Regardless of glass quality differences, the simple fact that the ATACR has a bigger objective lens means that it will have a bigger exit pupil for the same magnification, compared to the NX8. Hence, the ATACR will be better in the higher magnifications compared to the NX8. It doesn’t mean the ATACR is less good at lower mag, but the NX8 does have a much lower minimum magnification.

 

[Cody S]

I think most peoples' argument for the 7-35 isn't that they need the higher magnification but that its "sweet spot" for image quality is right in the 12-18x range.

maybe, but for me I'd much appreciate the higher magnification but I'd rather have better glass and more FOV if I'm spending that level of cash.
I'll be going with march's gen 2 42 power prs scope

 

[NateVA]

This is something that really bugs me. How can manufacturers get away with putting up bogus information, I get that mistakes are made, but for many, they are never corrected even when well documented? Are there no “truth in advertising” rules that apply here? This is in part why I have gone to the “measure the mils” method when reviewing the scope, it’s not perfect but it certainly appears more trustworthy than FOV values from many manufacturers.

Too often I assume the specs are accurate which is why I mentioned the NX8 4-32 above thinking that it would have one of the widest FOV at 25x but several have indicated otherwise. I feel duped.

This is a side thing but I've been wondering. In your OpticsThoughts review of those alpha scopes, your flare/tunneling results confused me a bit. Do they mean you found the RG3 to control flare better than the ATACR? And for the tunneling, I thought it's pretty agreed upon that NF ATACR scopes tunnel. Did you not find that to be the case for the 7-35? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

Flare/Halation (direct sun on objective at 15x)*​

• TT 7-35: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• NF ATACR 7-35: Slight flare buildup above 10x
• S&B 6-36: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• Vortex RG3 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall
• Element Theos 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall

Tunneling​

• TT 7-35: None perceived
• NF ATACR 7-35: None perceived
• S&B 6-36: None perceived
• Vortex RG3 6-36: None perceived
• Element 6-36: None perceived

 

[carbonbased]

This is a side thing but I've been wondering. In your OpticsThoughts review of those alpha scopes, your flare/tunneling results confused me a bit. Do they mean you found the RG3 to control flare better than the ATACR? And for the tunneling, I thought it's pretty agreed upon that NF ATACR scopes tunnel. Did you not find that to be the case for the 7-35? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

Flare/Halation (direct sun on objective at 15x)*​

• TT 7-35: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• NF ATACR 7-35: Slight flare buildup above 10x
• S&B 6-36: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• Vortex RG3 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall
• Element Theos 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall

Tunneling​

• TT 7-35: None perceived
• NF ATACR 7-35: None perceived
• S&B 6-36: None perceived
• Vortex RG3 6-36: None perceived
• Element 6-36: None perceived

I too was confused by the flare test. I took it, perhaps wrongly, that the NF was the best in this test at 15x with a centered eye position.

I’d prefer the results of a perfectly centered eye pulled out so I could see just those results. I’m not a positional shooter/PRS dude, so my eye is always centered (tripod or bench).

Also, maybe I missed it, but could you give us some specifics on that flare test? Was it run at 50yds like your other optical tests?

It’d be cool to know the time of day the flare test was run, approx how low the sun was and relative position to the scopes, how far out was the target you were you focused upon, what was the target and was it in sunlight or shade, and I assume the shades were not installed?

It’d also be very informative to see how well the shades knocked down the flare, as it seems to me that some shades work better than others (shade too short or scope is simply too flare-y to help much).

Here’s a link to the test if someone hasn’t seen it. It’s very comprehensive! Thanks for doing that, @Glassaholic

https://opticsthoughts.com/?p=3176

 

[carbonbased]

Just measure the FOV with the reticle on highest power

Ok, assuming you mean FOV in mils, at 32x I see 6.4 mils plus a bit extra, like 6.42 mils (less than halfway to 6.5mils).

 

[koshkin]

Ok, assuming you mean FOV in mils, at 32x I see 6.4 mils plus a bit extra, like 6.42 mils (less than halfway to 6.5mils).

I assume that is 6.4mrad from center to the edge, right? Assuming the magnification calibration is accurate, that translates to ~23.5 degree Apparent FOV and 3.86ft at 100 yards instead of the listed 4.6ft.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

This is a side thing but I've been wondering. In your OpticsThoughts review of those alpha scopes, your flare/tunneling results confused me a bit. Do they mean you found the RG3 to control flare better than the ATACR? And for the tunneling, I thought it's pretty agreed upon that NF ATACR scopes tunnel. Did you not find that to be the case for the 7-35? Thank you for any clarification you can give.

Flare/Halation (direct sun on objective at 15x)*​

• TT 7-35: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• NF ATACR 7-35: Slight flare buildup above 10x
• S&B 6-36: None to almost complete whiteout dependent on eye position
• Vortex RG3 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall
• Element Theos 6-36: Slight whiteout when perfectly centered, not bad overall

Tunneling​

• TT 7-35: None perceived
• NF ATACR 7-35: None perceived
• S&B 6-36: None perceived
• Vortex RG3 6-36: None perceived
• Element 6-36: None perceived

Keep in mind, the notes for flare were specific to 15x, they performed differently throughout the range. I would have to go back to my detailed notes but memory says the NF ATACR handled flare slightly better than RG3 at 15x. The RG3 and Theos both had strange behavior where you could induce almost complete whiteout when perfectly centered but slight off center view and the whiteout (flare) effect would disappear.

Regarding tunneling, I thought I spelled this out but maybe not, what I'm looking for is whether of not the image changes in size (magnification), with the 7-35 I continued to see magnification effect the image down to 7x. Compared to the Schmidt 5-25 (the most well known tunneler) at about 7x you don't see much magnification change down to 5x, the periphery gets larger and FOV is narrowed which is why I say none perceived, doesn't mean there is none, just means I was not able to perceive it like I can with the Schmidt...

 

[carbonbased]

I assume that is 6.4mrad from center to the edge, right? Assuming the magnification calibration is accurate, that translates to ~23.5 degree Apparent FOV and 3.86ft at 100 yards instead of the listed 4.6ft.

ILya

Yep. 6.4 from center, so 12.8mils is the diameter.

 

[koshkin]

Keep in mind, the notes for flare were specific to 15x, they performed differently throughout the range. I would have to go back to my detailed notes but memory says the NF ATACR handled flare slightly better than RG3 at 15x. The RG3 and Theos both had strange behavior where you could induce almost complete whiteout when perfectly centered but slight off center view and the whiteout (flare) effect would disappear.

Regarding tunneling, I thought I spelled this out but maybe not, what I'm looking for is whether of not the image changes in size (magnification), with the 7-35 I continued to see magnification effect the image down to 7x. Compared to the Schmidt 5-25 (the most well known tunneler) at about 7x you don't see much magnification change down to 5x, the periphery gets larger and FOV is narrowed which is why I say none perceived, doesn't mean there is none, just means I was not able to perceive it like I can with the Schmidt...

Every single ATACR 7-35x I have ever seen tunnels below 8x.

ILya

 

[carbonbased]

I assume that is 6.4mrad from center to the edge, right? Assuming the magnification calibration is accurate, that translates to ~23.5 degree Apparent FOV and 3.86ft at 100 yards instead of the listed 4.6ft.

ILya

You know…I wonder…do you think NF neutered their USA scopes like S&B had to? I am in the US.

I mean, I doubt it as they have a Japanese OEM m, but it would be interesting to have our Euro or maybe Australian/New Zealand friend check their scopes.

 

[koshkin]

You know…I wonder…do you think NF neutered their USA scopes like S&B had to? I am in the US.

I mean, I doubt it as they have a Japanese OEM m, but it would be interesting to have our Euro or maybe Australian/New Zealand friend check their scopes.

No. 23.5 deg AFOV violates Swaro patent

 

[carbonbased]

Aaahhhh that’s why you get paid the big bux

Apparently NF is just lying. Sigh.

 

[koshkin]

Aaahhhh that’s why you get paid the big bux

Apparently NF is just lying. Sigh.

Well, for what it is worth, it is entirely possible that the marketing/website people who put the specs up do not understand any of it and do not care enough to correct it. In other words, if I were to choose whether it is willfull deceit or general purpose incompetence, the latter is usually the right answer.

 

[Glassaholic]

Every single ATACR 7-35x I have ever seen tunnels below 8x.

ILya

This is how I've understood tunneling - at a certain point in the magnification range (usually close to the bottom magnification) the FOV ceases to increase in size (as you head down toward bottom magnification), with that said, on the NF ATACR 7-35 I had, I could see a change in FOV all the way down to 7x, maybe the way NF handles it gives a different perception to my eyes whereas with the Schmidt 5-25 it is quite obvious between 8-7x the outer periphery gets larger while the FOV doesn't appear to change, at least not much, the NF ATACR did not give me the same impression as the Schmidt or least it wasn't as obvious to my eyes. Because I have heard the ATACR tends to tunnel I spent more time with it than normal trying to see if I could perceive this effect.

It is possible I am misunderstanding the concept of tunneling and happy to be educated if that is the case.

 

[Cody S]

tunneling is the one thing I couldn't give less of a shit about.
I'm generally not interested in the lower mag range at all.