92% vs. 95% light transmission scopes...

S

Sitting Duck

Guest
Hi all. I was wondering, for all practical purposes, how much difference the average person can discern between the 92% and 95% light transmission claims.

If you are shooting targets in bright sunlight (AZ) and not in dusk or dawn conditions, is there really a noticeable difference?

I ask because I don't want to discount the 92% scopes if the 95% is more marketing than benefit for my shooting conditions.

If you've owned and shot with the above (in say Nikons, Leupold, Burris) could you give me your opinions.

TIA.
 
Can you compare for yourself? I've seen people disagree at the range in side by side comparisons. Ask people to look through theirs at the range if you can't get a good comparison at the store.
 
If you are shooting in good light.....up to 15 min after sunset, it won't matter as long as you have good optical quality, i.e. no glare and good resolution. If you are shooting late....30-45 min. after sunset, then you want all the help you can get. You need all the light transmission you can get AND great resolution. The Elite 4200 3.5-10x50mm will give you this. The Leupold VX-3 will not. In my state, we can hunt up to 1 hour after sunset.
 
Thanks, for the replies.

I've tried to get stores to let me eyeball their scopes outside but so far no luck. Even with an offer to hold my DL in lieu of. I must appear as an unsavory looking character. :D

I've found that most people at the range seem to be more truthful than many on the online forums. You can always put them on jumpstreet and say show me. They'll either put up or shut up.
 
The difference isn't in the missing 3% of light tha you don't see. The problem is what happens to the 5% or 8% of the light which doesn't get transmitted. If it were just absorbeed and went away it wouldn't matter much. But llight is not absorbed in optical devices. It is reflected. If it bounces twice off of optical surfaces the light will be out of focus and will tend ot wash out the image you are trying to see.

Try this test. Just before the sun sets behind a mountain look at the trees on that mountian with the scope aimed so hte sun is just outside of the field of view. Do you see scatered sunlight in the form of flares? Are the trees still have good contrast or are they hazy? The flares or hazyness is from scattered sun light reflected at least twice off of the optical surfaces. Light refelctedi only once it would go back out the objective lens.
So if you have two 92% reflection you have two 8% reflections. (.08*.08=.0064) instead of 95% transmission or 5% refelction. (.05*.05-.025) So internal reflections will be about 2.56 times worse in a scope which has 92% transmissive coations vs one with 95% coatings.

The visible result not so much a dim image as it is loss of contrast making the image look hazy.

There are several things which make high quality optics better than junk optics. Image brightness is one of hte least of them.
 
I've come to the conclusion that I won't buy anything lower than VX-III for hunting anymore. Bushnell 4200s are ok, but the VX-III appears much clearer to my eyes. But honestly, for the money of the Bushnell or the Leupold, I'll take a Zeiss Conquest for a hunting rig. The Zeiss Conquest is absolutely the best for the money. Optically, it ranks just below my Night Force 3.5-15x50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top