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

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

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.

Also comparing a few delta with them on the same day (not low light tho) delta compared very well for the price.

Be good to retest them side by side at last light but on 6x only.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

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.

Its interesting that the 2-12 VX6 like yours Cam have such good glass compared to the other vx6 models.
When they were all non HD the 2-12 was streets ahead to my eyes.


Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

As I have said before on here, I have the original VX6 2-12x42 ZL (no side focus,non HD), VX6 3-18x50 ZL (SF illuminated windplex) and VX3-18x50 ZL HD (SF illuminated duplex), comparing them at dusk there is very little between them at 10x, above that the 50 mm objectives produce a brighter image, between HD and non HD versions neither of 3 viewers could distinguish any perceivable difference. The VX6 2-12x42 ZL illuminated windplex reticle without side focus combination comprises a very practical scope for a wide variety of hunting circumstances, there will always be brand X (or N ) that's better for this or that but that particular scope is a very good all-rounder for anything that sticks it's head out in NZ. Unfortunately Leupold discontinued availability of this configuration with the HD ZL2 version adding side focus, ZL windage dial and no longer offering the windplex reticle - unfortunately turning it into something more complex than necessarily practical but it was possibly to differentiate from the very successful VX5 range and position it at a higher price point.

Originally Posted by BRADS

Its interesting that the 2-12 VX6 like yours Cam have such good glass compared to the other vx6 models.
When they were all non HD the 2-12 was streets ahead to my eyes.


Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Yes at the time they seemed better than the 3-18.
Once again not qualified to comment why but they just were.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Yes at the time they seemed better than the 3-18.
Once again not qualified to comment why but they just were.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

Like I said I have both scopes referred to but with 42 and 50 mm objective lenses respectively, I don't observe any distinguishable quality in the glass but with the 3-18 you need to use the side focus to get the best out of it because the scopes parallax is configured differently, it's entirely plausible that with 42mm (2-12) and 44 mm (3-18) objective lenses the 3-18 suffers at magnification greater than 12x due to inherent reduction in the exit pupil and this is maybe what has caught your eye.

@38 South I’ve got a non-HD 2-12 illuminated windplex as well. Agree that they are pretty hard to beat as an all rounder for everything from tight bush hunting through to 400+yd shots in open country. Great optics and the lack of parallax is a non-issue for me, I don’t shoot far enough to need a SF

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Yes at the time they seemed better than the 3-18.
Once again not qualified to comment why but they just were.

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

I think the percieved difference is more likely to do with the size of the scope etc rather than the glass inside which is more than likely the very same, it seems to be a trend ie: the 2-8x36 vx3 "seems" to have much better glass than the larger model vx3's, it's all just perception due to differing internal dimensions etc, I had a basic Zeiss terra 2-7 on a rifle I bought and it was one of those scopes that you picked up and looked through and just thought "wow!" It seemed awesome compared to a lot of its bigger/more expensive stablemates. "HD" is just a marketing term at the end of the day, it's all splitting hairs type stuff and it seems you have to spend a shit tonne of money to get any real leaps in glass quality etc.

Originally Posted by Woody

Be good to retest them side by side at last light but on 6x only.

What about just testing and comparing each at their optimum setting for poor light ?

I reckon that would be 6x for both.
42/7=6
44/7= 6.3.

OK.I have recently purchased a Delta 2.5-15*56 hd so tonight was able to compare this in fading light against my Delta 4-24*50 hd and Leupold 2-10*42hd. I set all three on 8x andined them up on the same lawson cypress tree 250m distant. Sky was clear and windless. The brown trunk and various exposed and shadowed parts of the foliage provided various amounts of light variability. The pic is at start of test at 5.40pm.

I checked each scope through 5minute intervals. Next post will describe what I observed. (Gotta stop for dinner)

I tried to rate each scope from a hunting point of view.
Time. Delta 4-24*50. Delta 2.5-15*56. Leup 2-10*42.
Viz:
Time: D50 D 56 L42
5.40 good best good
5.50 good best good
5.55 good best good
6.00 fair fair+ fair
6.05 fair- fair+ marginal
6.10 no shoot marginal no shoot
Pic of light conditions 6.11pm.

As in the initial test the Delta 4-24*50 hd is slightly better than the Leupold 2-10*42hd at 8x but the difference is more marked at 10x, as one would expect due to objective lens size difference.
The Delta 2.5-15*56hd had better definition and allowed a shot for 5 minutes more and I would guess this advantage would be more obvious at 10x too.
In summary the 56mm objective has low light advantages in the last 5-10 minutes of light compared to the other two scopes.
At it's current price it is definately the cheaper of the three and thus amazing value.
A younger set of eyeballs will likely get a few moments more visible shooting light than me, but my eyes need all the help they can get.

Thanks for doing that Woody.
Is the 56mm obviously bigger/more cumbersome/obnoxious?

Compared to the 4-24*50 it's similar weight and size except 6mm wider front end. The turrets are the same. My deltas have the 4asb reticles which I like. The width of the side turrets is aboutt the same as the 56 front end. Havent measured though, but measure across yrs if its handy, to verify. For sheer compactness the 2-10*42 leupold zl2 hd firedot is great, even though just a little less acute in low light but several hundred dollars more expensive too.

I would be interested in a test of those scopes to complete failure if you could do one. What I mean is to keep reducing the range on targets down to 60mtrs as a 'last man standing' test. It is just, or even more likely to be shooting an animal closer than 250mtrs at last light