Scope for low light hunting

low light hunter · Guest

Hi!

I need some advise for a good scope for low light hunting. I mostly hunt whitetail deer and roe deer up in the north of Europe where the low light hunting conditions are extreme. Typical shooting distances are 100-2000 yrd.

So, light transmission is the most critical selection factor + of course illuminated rectile. I am willing to spend max. $400-$700 for it.

I have been looking at the elite 4200 2,5-10x50 which seem to have quite good light transmission, at least stated on paper. So, is this the one to go for or what are the other alternatives? Is the conquest series from Zeiss anyting to think about?

Steven-L · Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 956

The 4200 is fine, as are the Conquests. If you need an illuminated reticle you can look at this VX-III Leupold. Exit pupil size offers a good idea of light transmission and takes simple math to determine. Objective lens divided by magnification equals exit pupil size. Anything over 5mm or so is fine for low light, and bigger is better.
_________________
Aim Hard!

Steve at OpticsPlanet
www.opticsplanet.net

low light hunter · Guest

What I have understood from searching the web (it's amazing what you can do with google)is that Bushnell Elite 4200 is actually not a low light scope. It really perfoms very bad in low light conditions, as does the VX-III. However Burris Fulfilled II seems to have got a lot of credit in low light tests compared to the cost(now I'm only relying on test results I've seen on the web, because I don't have the possibility to go to a dealer and borrow all the scopes for testing my self). Another scope that has got very got credits is the Shirstone Gold 3-10x56 illumni. But to my surprise the Meopta Meostar 3-12x56 seems to be a good low light scope with 4C red dot cross. Does anyone know if Meopta uses fully multicoated lenses in their Meostar scopes?

So now I'm more confused than before, but on a higher level. What should I choose? Burris is interesting for it's price but Meostar seems to be much better (and more costly of course). I don't have any knowledge about the Zeiss Conquest, other that I know that it's their "low cost" series not made in Europe.... I think Bushnell is out of the question. Correct me someone if you think I'm on the wrong track.

MrGman · Guest

I would love to see the websites with the information you mentioned on Burris and Leupold, etc, having good or bad brightness at low light levels.

How about posting the links to those specific sites to save us time.

Bamahunter · Guest

I up graded from an old V-III Leop. to a Zeiss Conquest and found there to be a world of difference. I can scope the edges of food plot when it's too dark to see and pick up deer or judge what kind a rack a buck has. I am well pleased with the Conquest.

MrGman · Guest

low light hunter · Guest

To MrGman. Here is a test from a Finnish magazine where a bunch of scopes where tested.
A test board with E letters in different sizes on separate levels(the same as used for the driving tests) where placed 110 yards away. The test results show how many rows could be seen through the scope at different times during the evening. If a minus (-) sign is placed after the row number, it means that it could not be determined where the E pointed (up, down, left or right). The test results are in finnish, but here is a translation table:
- riv = row
- ei näy = could not be seen

The test where done during winter time conditions.

Here are the test results:

Burris 2,5-10x44 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 1 riv.- 20.00: ei näy
Bushnell 2,5-10x50 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 1 riv.- 20.00: ei näy
Bushnell 3-9x50 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv.- 20.00: ei näy
Docter 2,5-10x48 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv.- 20.00: 1 riv.
Docter 3-12x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.
Kahles 2,5-10x50 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.
Kahles 3-12x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.
Karl Kaps 2,5-10x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 1 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.-
Leupold 4,4-14x50 17.00: 3 riv.- 17.30: ei näy 20.00: ei näy
Meopta 3-12x50 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv.- 20.00: 1 riv.-
Meopta 3-12x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv.- 20.00: 2 riv.-
Schmidt & Bender 1,5-6x42 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 1 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.-
Schmidt & Bender 2,5-10x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 2 riv.-
Shirstone 4-12x56 17.00: 2 riv.- 17.30: ei näy 20.00: ei näy
Swarovski 2,5-10x42 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 1 riv.
Swarovski 2,5-10x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 2 riv.-
Zeiss 2,5-10x50 17.00: 2 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 2 riv.-
Zeiss 1-12x56 17.00: 3 riv. 17.30: 2 riv. 20.00: 2 riv.-

And here is another test made by a Swedish hunting magazine. Zeiss has made a printout on their website (for a strange reason.. Very Happy

):
http://www.zeiss.se/4125680F002BA25A/EmbedTitelIntern/Vapentidningen/$File/Vapentidningen.pdf

I totally agree with MrGman. I want to see real test results and not just some hunters own opinions. Of course if you have spent $2000 on a nice Zeiss scope(or $1300 on a Docter, or....), you certainly think that your scope is the best there is, and than can be seen in many discussion forums.

MrGman · Guest

Here is my brightness merit calculations based on the scopes you gave and just the 8pm (20:00) target readings of the rows. Unfortunately I cannot spread out the columns to show them lined up.

The Scope Mag Obj Lens Product Twilight F Exit Pupil Bright. Merit 8pm Visibility
Burris 2,5-10x44 10 44 440 20.98 4.40 92.30 not seen
Bushnell 2,5-10x50 10 50 500 22.36 5.00 111.80 not seen
Bushnell 3-9x50 9 50 450 21.21 5.56 117.85 not seen
Docter 2,5-10x48 10 48 480 21.91 4.80 105.16 1 row
Docter 3-12x56 12 56 672 25.92 4.67 120.97 1 row
Kahles 2,5-10x50 10 50 500 22.36 5.00 111.80 1 row
Kahles 3-12x56 12 56 672 25.92 4.67 120.97 1 row
Karl Kaps 2,5-10x56 10 56 560 23.66 5.60 132.52 1 row -
Leupold 4,4-14x50 14 50 700 26.46 3.57 94.49 not seen
Meopta 3-12x50 12 50 600 24.49 4.17 102.06 1 row -
Meopta 3-12x56 12 56 672 25.92 4.67 120.97 1 row -
Schmidt & B. 1,5-6x42 6 42 252 15.87 7.00 111.12 1 row -
Schmidt & B. 2,5-10x56 10 56 560 23.66 5.60 132.52 2 rows -
Shirstone 4-12x56 12 56 672 25.92 4.67 120.97 not seen
Swarovski 2,5-10x42 10 42 420 20.49 4.20 86.07 1 row
Swarovski 2,5-10x56 10 56 560 23.66 5.60 132.52 2 rows -
Zeiss 2,5-10x50 10 50 500 22.36 5.00 111.80 2 rows -
Zeiss 1-12x56 12 56 672 25.92 4.67 120.97 2 rows -

First Refer to my previous post the Gman's Low light scope brightness comparisons. My comparison of twilight factor of scopes with big objective lenses versus the exit pupil and the total product of those 2 numbers shows that lower mag power with bigger exit pupil and a bigger objective lens has a higher merit of brightness than a higher magnification scope. The only Leupold shown in the data you provided above is the 14X scope and that higher magnification causes the exit pupil to be smaller and its below 100 in the total merit of brightness value on my spreadsheet table above. So I wouldn't say the Leupold VXIII series are bad for low light use because they selected one scope with higher mag. It would have been very interesting to have seen a Leupold 3 by 9 or one that stopped at 10X power.

The only Burris shown above from your data does not have good brightness and could not see the target at 8pm so I don't understand how you said it was better than the Bushnell or Leup's. It had the same bad results,

The disappointing scopes are the Bushnells. You say they are the 4200 series. The table you provided doesn't actually list complete model names. If they truly are then even though they have big objective lenses and the exit pupil and total merit of brightness numbers shown above are high, they couldn't see the target at 8pm.

All of the European scopes except for the Shirstone (never heard of them have no idea if they are a good high end scope company or not) had at least one row of the letter E Eye chart "Target" visible at 8pm. The bigger the objective lens, and the lower the mag the greater the exit pupil and the total merit of brightness (again this is going back to the Gman's Theorem that twilight factor is outweighted by exit pupil and the total product can be used for comparitive merit) shows those scopes could help the observer make out the second row of E's.

So for the expensive high quality European scopes with great lenses and AR coatings they track that if if you don't go too high in magnification and have a really big objective lens to keep the exit pupil at or very near 5mm or a little larger you can see dimly lighted targets at 8pm. The Leupold with too much mag for its objective lens size and the smallest exit pupil number of this group could not see the target, is not surprising to me. They should have tried some other lower mag Leupold scopes.

The only real contradiction to the general trend is with the Bushnell scopes. I don't really know what models they are from this data. I will just say that if they are good models, it goes back to the other half of the equation of just how good the overall scope lense design and AR coatings are that the simple math of twilight factor and exit pupil cannot be used to determine. Which is also in my other post.

I already knew that the relatively low budget American Zeiss Conquest was brighter than the Bushnell 4200 series elite. My own observations and those of Big Squeeze and some others have shown that. Now we know that it would not be useable to see an eye chart target at 110 yards at 8pm in Finland and probably not good to see the side of a deer at 8pm in Finland either (in the winter time when the day is shorter).

Goes back to my own personal choice for scopes, I have the Zeiss Conquest on my #1 hunting rifle. The testing shows you have to not go over 12X, 10X was actually better in most cases, get the biggest objective lens you could, and stick with a top of the line name brand European scope known for excellent lense design, the best of AR coatings to provide high light transmission as well as clarity.

Now here is the disclaimer. This is a subjective test not an absolute quantitative test. There was a person behind those scopes reading the eye charts and so his vision was part of the test.

If they simply put a photometer behind those scopes and measured the amount of light in units of lux that each scope had coming through them off the same meter, reflected from the same target, then there would be no subjectivity to it. Its a good start but it is not absolutely free from human bias and possible error. Even if the photo meter they would have used was slightly off, if they used the same meter for all scope readings with the same level of source brightness they could have given hard numbers of transmitted light from each scope, free from human subjectivity.

We don't know if they took all these readings at exactly the same amount of light, if there were clouds rolling through that made it even dimmer for some targets or not. You may have seen this in the total review that you read. I don't know by what I see in just the data column you provided.

I also don't read Swedish so I can't read the other link but I am sure that if they did good comparitive testing under conditions similar to what was shown in the Finnish review, that the data is mostly reliable.

The bottom line is we can't get really good twilight performance from a low budget scope, and you still can't make up for brighness with simply going to high mag. That was confirmed and not contradicted by this set of testing that they provided.

Thanks for the info. G Cool

MrGman · Guest

The Scope______ Twilight F Exit Pupil Bright. Merit 8pm Visibility
Schmidt & B. 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5
Swarovski 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5
Zeiss 1-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1.5
Zeiss 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1.5
Docter 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1
Kahles 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1
Kahles 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1
Docter 2,5-10x48 21.91 4.80 105.16 1
Swarovski 2,5-10x42 20.49 4.20 86.07 1
Schmidt & B. 1,5-6x42 15.87 7.00 111.12 0.5
Karl Kaps 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 0.5
Meopta 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0.5
Meopta 3-12x50 24.49 4.17 102.06 0.5
Bushnell 3-9x50 21.21 5.56 117.85 0
Shirstone 4-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0
Bushnell 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 0
Burris 2,5-10x44 20.98 4.40 92.30 0
Leupold 4,4-14x50 26.46 3.57 94.49 0

Sorry again I can't get these columns to line up. I took the Results from the Finnish test that I calculated the Merit of Brightness as the product of the Twilight factor and the exit pupil diameter and resorted them by order of the scopes that did best on the eye chart visibility test. In order to do the sort I took what was 2 rows with a minus sign meaning they could not tell the direcition of the letter E and changed that to a 1.5. 1 full row that they saw and could recognize the direction of the E simply as a 1. 1 row but they couldn't recognize the direction of the E as 0.5, and of course those that they could not see at all as 0. Again this is all the 8 pm data from the original Finnish test of an eye chart at 110 yards away, which seems to be the real discriminator between the "good" scopes and those that simply were not useable for twilight hunting.

I am pretty sure the Zeiss is not a 1X12 but something higher, I simply copied it as was initially presented. Probably a 2 or 2.5-12X scope.

Again except for the Bushnell and Shirstone, the data presented in order of best visibility to worst shows the Biggest Exit Pupil's with Magnification at 10X are at the top of the list. There is one 12X in the top 3 only because it has yet an even bigger objective lens and from Zeiss with excellent design and AR coatings. From there the bigger mag with smaller objective lens go down the list to less visibility at 8 pm. Then there are the exception to the rule group, which has to be design, AR coatings, or some combination of both holding them back which cannot be calculated mathematically here.

If we take the Finnish test as a good legitimate reference for what works to see best in basically night time viewing, There is your list in order from best to worst. Some are tied with identical numbers. I don't have the prices on these scopes, you can find that yourselves. I am sure none of them are cheap.

low light hunter · Guest

The Burris statement comes from the Swedish test results. It seems to be a very priceworthy scope for a low budget. I personally think the marketing of the Bushnell Elite 4200 is a bit overkilled...

If you look at the table on pages 10&11 of the swedish test.
The 3rd column from the end shows measured light transmission values. 95-100% = 10, 90-95% = 9, 85-90% = 8 and so on.

2nd from the lend is showing the low light performance. It's rated according to how late in the evening the test panel could see the target through the scope. 10 = latest(Zeiss & Swarowski), 3 = not very late (for the OXO Ontario). Equal numbers mean that the scopes performed equally.

The last column shows the overall rating of the scope.

I would be good to find a translated version, but I doubt it exists.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that I will myself test both Zeiss Victory 3-12x56 and the Meostar 3-12x56 and if the Meopta is not much worse than the Zeiss(in low light), then I will go for that. Otherwise I will just have to start doing some serious money saving until next autumn.. Very Happy

MrGman · Guest

Thanks for the further input.
the Burris FFII was rated a 7 The Bushnell elite 4200 at a 6.
The Swarovski's 9, The Zeiss Diavari's (may be wrong spelling) got 10's. That Shirstone was the worst at 5. Since I can't read all the text I don't know if they did that over the full visible light spectrum. Bushnell says their transmission is 95% at one wavelength which is in the middle of the green spectrum. So I am guessing the test was much broader than that if they were down so far. Having good transmission across most of the visible light spectrum and not just a narrow band does make a big difference. So that fill's in a lot of blanks. But then I always knew the Zeiss Diavari's were the top of the top of the line. Its nice to know they are even better than Swarovski.

It looks like that they also put together a total brightness rating system with numbers that took the twilight factor, exit pupil and light transmission all into account and assigned a multiplier number to each, that put the Zeiss at the top of their list, with best overall brightness.

lowlighthunter · Guest

Does anyone have practical low light epxerience in the difference between Zeiss VM/V 3-12x56 compared with the Meopta Meostar 3-12x56?
If you measure in minutes(or hours) how much longer can you be in wait with the Zeiss compared to the Meopta before the visibility disappears in the night? I don't know what the light transmission for the Zeiss is during night time, but for the Meostar it has been measured to 88,7% (93% in day time).

low light hunter · Guest

Maybe this is the wrong forum to ask about low light hunting, because I've understood that in the US it's not allowed to hunt during night time?

ShooterAceI · Guest

I just got my Zeiss Conquest 3-9 50mm scope in yesterday. Since I'm a moonlight hog hunter, I decided to upgrade to something better than my leupold Vx-II 3-9 42mm. The Zeiss was much better than my Vx-II. For one, it gathered more light around the target and it provided a closer view of the target at at the same magnification as the Vx-II, with a cleaner, less fussy view than the Vx-II. Also, I could make out the plex crosshairs on the target much faster than my plex crosshairs on the Vx-II. My Vx-II did the job, but I wanted something that would allow me to make out head shots a little easier, and the Zeiss sure helps with that. I had a leupold Vx-III 4.5-14 50mm, and for hunting hogs under moonlight, it couldn't get the job done like my Vx-II. I'm very satisfied with my Zeiss.

MrGman · Guest

WEA · Guest

Please help me out on this. I did not read the 8pm Visibility data the same way as MrGman. Other people's knowledge of the characteristics of the scopes tested might support or repute my interpretation. The normal "E" Vision Chart lists a series of rows of the letter "E" randomly turned to face the cardinal points of the compass, and getting smaller and smaller in size as the rows descend to the bottom of the chart. Therefore: "2 rows -" would mean, they were able to read the second row down on the chart, but not very well; "1 row" would mean that they were able to see the first row very well; "1 row -" would mean that they were able to see the first row but not very well; and "not seen" would mean that they were not able to tell which way the "E" was turned.

I to am struggling with trying to stretch my scope dollar to meet my perceived needs vs wants on a variety of weapons systems. The largest problem at the moment is balancing failing eye sight against a desire to hit accurately and consistently at 300 plus yards with an 7.62x51 FAL platform. Later, if funds permit I will acquire and outfit a moderately priced bolt gun in the same caliber.

Anyway, please check to see if I read the implications of the data wrong, and whether it really makes a big difference in the outcome of selection. Very interesting thread.

MrGman · Guest

I don't know why you are trying to reinterpret the results. The - sign meant that they could not tell which direction the E was facing but they could see the row. so a 2- originally meant they could see the second row but could not distinguish which way some or all of the E's were pointed in that row. Not seen meant they could not read the eye chart at all at the darkness level that 8pm provided, not that they did see it but could not see it well, not seen means not seen. I wasn't the one who interpretted the results.

If you can't afford the scope you want that did well on this test, trying to upgrade the interpretation of the results isn't going to help that. If your vision isn't getting any better, not getting the brightest and clearest scope you can isn't going to help that either.

In some areas of life there is no compromise. I sure wish they would all publish their light transmission data and lines of resolution in a more standardized and clear cut manner but they don't. No one wants to be known as the second and third runner up with a clear first place winner.

There is a quantum leap difference from the typical American market scopes and the top of the line european scopes and no disagreement on interpretations will change that either.

As a wise man once said "to thine own self be true". You don't have to convince anyone else that they scope you can afford to buy will be good enough. You only have to convince yourself. but from the tone of your email, you already know you don't believe it either.

Guest · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject:

The Scope______ Twilight F Exit Pupil Bright. Merit 8pm Visibility
Schmidt & B. 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5
Swarovski 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 1.5
Zeiss 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1.5
Zeiss 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1.5
Docter 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1
Kahles 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 1
Kahles 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 1
Docter 2,5-10x48 21.91 4.80 105.16 1
Swarovski 2,5-10x42 20.49 4.20 86.07 1
Schmidt & B. 1,5-6x42 15.87 7.00 111.12 0.5
Karl Kaps 2,5-10x56 23.66 5.60 132.52 0.5
Meopta 3-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0.5
Meopta 3-12x50 24.49 4.17 102.06 0.5
Bushnell 3-9x50 21.21 5.56 117.85 0
Shirstone 4-12x56 25.92 4.67 120.97 0
Bushnell 2,5-10x50 22.36 5.00 111.80 0
Burris 2,5-10x44 20.98 4.40 92.30 0
Leupold 4,4-14x50 26.46 3.57 94.49 0

the 1.5 for the top 3 brands of scopes indicates they quality of merit for being able to see and resolve the eye chart at night. The 3 brands are all at the same level and are only listed in alphabetical order since they have to be listed in some order. All other scopes brands and models listed below that had descreased ability to resolve the targets in low light. Those with a 0 could not be used to see the target at 8pm.
So basically the top 3 brand of which Zeiss had 2 models that did the job, all with equal footing were Schmidt and Bender, Swarovski and Zeiss, in alphabetical order only.

These scopes all cost a lot of money. we all "want" them, we can't all justify buying them because of how often we would every really "need" and "appreciate" them. But whether we can appreciate them or not, they can and do perform at a higher level of anything else out there. If I was going on a $10,000 once in a lifetime hunt somewhere exotic, I wouldn't be taking a $300 or less scope on that adventure.

MrGman · Guest

Too fast on the trigger yet again. Last post was mine. Sad

lowlighthunter · Guest

To MrGman. I have new results for you from a Finnish low light conditions test. The test was made for illumintaed scopes with 56mm lense size.

I will translate and write a summary of the results.

FYI also, I have made lots of real life comparisons and purchased on a scope for low light hunting that I'm more than satisfied with(both price and performance).