Thread: A comparison of HD vs non HD high end scopes

Good test Woody, very similar to what I found.
I think that what is being compared is not scopes of similar / dissimilar objective sizes but scopes of a certain price range. We would likely all agree that a six or seven thousand dollar Zeiss or Swaro will smoke all these other scopes even without trying one, but for the average hunter with between one and two grand for a scope who cares what the objective diameter is, its performance for dollars spent that matters.

Originally Posted by 55six

HD is pretty much a marketing term used these days to suck in buyers.
No point comparing scopes of different magnifications and objective sizes.
Lense coatings play a huge part in various optical qualities.
And please - tube diameter myth has ..no .. relevance.. on ..optical ..performance

Re tube diameter myth, surely there is a point reached at which the diameter does make a difference. A half inch air rifle scope vs a 34mm IOR for example ??

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Re tube diameter myth, surely there is a point reached at which the diameter does make a difference. A half inch air rifle scope vs a 34mm IOR for example ??

Ask the European's
They are going 34 now

Here is a SPECIAL
I just did it to save the arguments and offer up a middle of the road Aperture @ 45mm :-)
@Moa Hunter can vouch for this one

https://www.nzgrhunts.com/optics/p/d...6-hd-ffp-zxwgb

Thanks for posting woody , I enjoyed your comparisons.

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Ask the European's
They are going 34 now

But the question is, why? Fitting all the electronic shit in and maximising elevation adjustment and maybe better accomodating a bigger objective lens. I think.

There are a couple of very competent 1000 yard F class shooters on Youtube. Winning in the wind" and "Eric Cortina". These guys ate using very high end scopes ( e.g Kahles) with large dimensions allowing dialling adjustments down to 25thou and shooting groups down to 1 1/3 INCH at 1000 yards .284 Shehànes. So to achieve that degree of precision the internals of scope will be substantial. Like motor car technology adopting innovation derived a d developed from formula 1 racing, hunters and target shooters will tend to adopt better technology as it becomes mass produced and affordable. Chaps like me tend to be restricted to our old honda big reds rather than the fully automatic 500 cc with power steering etc. Old big red still gets the job done though ay

Larger tube is helpful for two things - housing larger internal parts for more adjustment range, and slightly stronger scope when you have ever-increasing larger and more glasses inside. When you have scops that are doing x4.5-30 with 56mm objective, 1 inch just cannot do it.

But larger tube has also became a trendy feature, an indication of quality. Nikko-stirling offers its Diamond 6-24 in both 30mm and 34mm, there is no discernible quality or feature difference. I feel it is just a marketing exercise.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

I BELIEVE the old old old rule of devide front lens size by magnification and anything more than 7 is wasted,any less than 7 is less than ideal...the human eye can take 7

More than 7 is wasted , but not "any less than 7 is less than ideal". 7mm is the maximum. Not everyone can do 7mm, and as people age, eyes can no longer open to 7mm. therefore quite often even a 7 is a waste.

Also, larger objective also narrows depths of field, so you are more focus-adjustment dependent. It is a trade off that matters in rifle scopes, because not everyone wants to spend 5 seconds refocusing for every shot.

Certainly that is true at high mag, say 25x but using large objective like 56mm and only 8-10x mag will give a good fov, great brightness and plenty enough depth of field. The high mag is not necessary for a shot under 600,
8- 10x being sufficient but the 15+ mag is handy for spotting and searching. Hunting requirement is different from long ra ge target shooting. The Delta scope I currently use on loan is 4-24*50 and even on 3-600 yard targets I don't use above 15x. The two new Deltas I have comi g are 2.5-15* 50 & 56mm. I know from experience that I will unlikely shoot animals at more than 12x and mostly @ 2.5 to 8x especially in low light. By contrast the 1000 yard F Class are using top end scopes like Kahles up to 50 x and shooting 1/2 moa (5 inch) 20 shot groups. Depth of field doesn't matter to them because the target distance is fixed.
Horses for courses.

Great thread Woody
I did a test when shooting animals a few years ago with a Vx6 3-18x44 and a Vx6 3-18x50 on dusk, the difference was considerable when it came down to last couple of minutes of hunting.


Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Bushnell is going to release Ed glass scopes soon ( all ready the case in their Lrhs 2). It will be interesting to compare with older technology.

Originally Posted by Woody

Certainly that is true at high mag, say 25x but using large objective like 56mm and only 8-10x mag will give a good fov, great brightness and plenty enough depth of field

Firstly, larger objective does not affect field of view. It only affects amount of light collected. Check out vertex lht 42mm and 50 mm specs, and leupold vx5hd 44mm and 56mm specs, same model gives you same field of view, regardless of objective size.

Secondly, field of depth can be quite pronounced even at x8-10 magnification, Otherwise, most hand held binoculars would not need to focus. I know of no 56mm objective scope that does not have AO or side focus.

As for how much magnification one needs, everybody is different. I use x15 to headshot possums at 75m standing and kneeling, i cannot do it if i only had x8.

some of us do that with open sights!!!!! or at least did when were younger,with good eyes and using single shot remington to boot. LMFAO.

Well on comparing HD vs NonHD glass I have this to say

My 2-12 vx6 non hd and 3-18 vx6 Hd in 42 and 44mm respectively side by side on 12 power the hd is slightly better......very very slightly.

Wether that is due to the hd glass or having parralax adjustment or having 2mm more objective I am not qualified to say.