GTA
Support Equipment For PCP/HPA/CO2 and springers ,rams => Optics, Range estimation & related subjects => Topic started by: Cableaddict on November 08, 2021, 02:16:18 PM
-
Please help me decide, guys.
- but first please throw out your old pre-conceived ideas based on standard scope designs.
We're only discussing wide-FOV prismatics here, such as the MTC SWAT scopes and the Immersive Optics designs.
I primarily hunt small game (.25 cal) at maybe 20 - 60 yards. I also pest at very close range, but I've decided to optimize my scope choice for hunting. I can always use offset iron sights for the pesting.
Standard (old) thinking is that too much scope is a bad idea, but I can only find four reasons given for this:
1: Too small a FOV means you may not quickly aquire the target, or you may miss a hanging branch, or another target to the side, etc.
2: Some guys say that at close range, with too much magnification, they can't hold the crosshairs steady enough.
3: Smaller magnifcation for a given objective size typically means a bright scope
4: Smaller magnification for a given objective size typically means a longer DOF, so less fiddling with the parallax wheel.
5: A larger objective means more distance from the bore center, which means more turret fiddling or holdover. - Esp if you also shoot at close range.
An additional factor for some shooters is that the 14x50 does not play nice with NV attachments, for complicated reasons. (According to the manufacturer.) That doesn't bother me or even apply to me.
If there's another reason, I'd love to know
==========================================
SO let me address each issue, as pertains to me.
1: FOV limitations:
Definitely something to consider, but the super wide FOV of these scopes more than compensates. At any given yardage, even the 14x50 will have more than twice the FOV of a typical scope at 7x. I just don't see a problem here, and the extra magnification should make it easier to spot small game in trees & brush.
2: Shaky crosshairs:
This one just makes me laugh. Just no.
3: Brighter:
True, and important as I shoot a lot at dusk. However, these are fixed magnification, and also have very thick tubes, so they are already significantly brighter that typical variable scopes in the same price range. I'm not ruling this out as a deciding factor, though.
4: Shorter DOF:
Hmmm, I'm totally undecided. I love the idea of being able to use the scope as a rangefinder, but I also know that lots of guys don't do this. Plus of course the short DOF means a lot more parallax / focus adjustments, which is not great for small game hunting.
5: More distance from the bore center: Yeah, this not worthy. But I think I will take this off my "important" list, and (again) go with offset sights for pesting. Or maybe just memorize a close-range turret setting. This is easier to do with a fixed magnification, anyway.
==========================
So waddaya' think?
My heart says to go for the 14x, but it's so hard to buck traditional thinking, even though it's new technology.
-
Get the 14x, if you do not like it I will buy it then you can get the 10x ;) simple :)
-
Well then, I have my answer !
:(
;D
- I guess these things are too new, but I was hoping some folks would at least have an opinion.
(or maybe some actual experience with the MTC 12x50)
Maybe I'll have to be the trailblazer.
-
I am posting a link to some pictures I took of my 5x version, the through scope view with the target range, there is a door frame seen in the left, and it is just out of view on the right, with a normal scope at that power, I do not see the door frame and only see the refrigerator target area 10 x narrows it down more. My guess is that at 10 x and the7 yards to the door frame it would be out of view of the optic, but still a larger FOV than normal scopes, so 14x may have the same FOV as regular scope @ 5x.
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=191946.msg156239990#msg156239990 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=191946.msg156239990#msg156239990)
-
Cableaddict,
we've been on this topic for a while now and I have been going back and forth on this yeah, I know, you have, too! 😄
🔶 For you it's whether to get the 10x40 or 14x50.... 🔶
(1) Smaller FoV
FoV 34y vs. 28y this is 21% less. Not insignificant, and I personally try to have my all-round scopes all with at least 30y....
Your extremly close shots would really benefit from a wide FoV.
But: Are those shots rushed shots because the quarry is aware of you or moves quickly, or are they leisurely shots?
If leisurley, this will give you enough time to acquire your target.
I just read one comment in a different thread that affirmed that quick target acquisition with a narrow FoV scope is a skill that can be trained (especially if you often shoot the same gun/scope combo).
🔶 (2) Shaky Crosshairs
Mike Niksch, champion shooter and builder of champion guns (Thomas Rifles), said this in another thread just days ago about too much magnification to hold the crosshairs steady:
"Lower power mag can make you wobble less, because you are not as easily lured into a pattern of back and forth over-correction because you dont see as much of the wobble that actually there in lower mag.
That said, you can teach yourself not to fall into that over-correction pattern with a high power scope and still reap the benefits of the higher mag."
Link: https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/is-aim-small-high-magnification-really-the-key-to-accuracy/page/2/#post-1124632 (https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/is-aim-small-high-magnification-really-the-key-to-accuracy/page/2/#post-1124632)
So, if you have to desire to train and learn you could get the best of both worlds. (I'm not sure if I'm willing and able to do that my shooting practice opportunities are pretty limited.)
Also, if you can avoid off-handed shots and field rest the gun on a window frame or tripod the problem with shakiness is significantly reduced.
(3) Less Bright
From what I hear the brightness of these scopes is very good.
(Note that the thickness of the tube [1", 30mm, 34mm] will not make a difference in brightness, only in how far you can dial the turrets.)
One critical piece of data is the exit pupil. It can be roughly calculated by dividing the objective diameter by the magnification in use. So:50 / 14 = 3.6mm40 / 10 = 4.0mm➔ The difference is small. And both values are fairly high: The pupil can only take advantage of a limited amount anyhow, because the pupil of young(!) eyes opens at the most IIRC 6mm older (and old) eyes, much less than that.
The 10x24 should be quite a bit darker, I would think:
24 / 10 = 2.4mm (that's pretty narrow).
🔶 (4) Shorter Depth of Field (DoF)
The shorter the DoF the more you have to dial on the parallax turret to dial out the parallax error (and get a sharper scope image).
And that takes time which is precious and short if your shots are rushed hunting shots.
But if they are leisurley shots because your prey is inaware of you, and does not move too quickly, then this is less of a concern.
The constant monkeying with the parallax is why I'd be interested in a scope with a smaller objective lens, like the 10x24.
🔶 (5) Higher Scope Mounting Height
I shoot from 5 to 100y, so yeah, I don't want huge holdovers at very close ranges because that's ususally when I don't have time to monkey with getting my elevation right I'd prefer that those shots were in my point blank range (PBR).
However, like you say, you could use a secondary sighting system: I just got a cheap laser to try for this. There are offset open sights, and offset red dot sights.
You could also establish a secondary PBR (one for your regular range shots, and one for your extreme close range shots). That secondary PBR might require you to set your elevation at 9y, for a PBR from 6y to 12y, or something like that.
🔶 (6) Using Attachments (NV, Scopecam) Might Be a Problem
Glad this isn't a deal breaker for you.
Until recently, it would not have been for me, either. But I discovered the fascination of scope cams and how I can watch my shots in slo-mo, analysing POI and kill effectiveness. And that's something I don't want to miss out on!! 8)
➔ And these and other extreme wide FoV scopes all have an extremely close eye relief and optical scope attachments are usually built for scopes with a regular eye relief.
So..., I'm bummed this isn't going to work for me. 😟
🔶 (7) Sturdiness of Mounting Location and Looks
I have seen a good amount of prismatic scopes mounted on different rifles and I have to admit that they look neither attractive, nor sturdy....
Another deal braker for me for rifle mounting.... 😟 I'm bummed.
➔ But on a pistol that is rested on door frames and fences no problem! 😊
Cableaddict,
I hope a prismatic scope will work out for you. Please, keep us updated. These scopes are a big step forward, and we need to figure out how to make them work at their best.
Matthias
-
I must add Immersive Optics has done well with dealing with some of the shortcomings of what I have experienced with some of the other prism scopes I and others have tried.
-
I am posting a link to some pictures I took of my 5x version, the through scope view with the target range, there is a door frame seen in the left, and it is just out of view on the right, with a normal scope at that power, I do not see the door frame and only see the refrigerator target area 10 x narrows it down more. My guess is that at 10 x and the7 yards to the door frame it would be out of view of the optic, but still a larger FOV than normal scopes, so 14x may have the same FOV as regular scope @ 5x.
https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=191946.msg156239990#msg156239990 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=191946.msg156239990#msg156239990)
Thanks. Very helpful.
-
Mathias,
Thx. Excellent thoughts. Some followups:
(1) Smaller FoV
FoV 34y vs. 28y this is 21% less. Not insignificant, and I personally try to have my all-round scopes all with at least 30y....
Your extremly close shots would really benefit from a wide FoV.
..... I just read one comment in a different thread that affirmed that quick target acquisition with a narrow FoV scope is a skill that can be trained (especially if you often shoot the same gun/scope combo).
I've actually trained myself to do that. it's not really that hard once you learn to control cant and maintain an exact shoulder position,
- But target aquisition isn't my main concern here. It's not seeing things AROUND the target. For instance, another critter off to the right, of a low hanging tree branch that's in the path of the slug, but not visible in the objective. Still, a very minor thing, considering that all of these scopes already out-FOV a regular 5x.
-----------------------
🔶 (2) Shaky Crosshairs
Mike Niksch, champion shooter and builder of champion guns (Thomas Rifles), said this in another thread just days ago about too much magnification to hold the crosshairs steady:
"Lower power mag can make you wobble less, because you are not as easily lured into a pattern of back and forth over-correction because you dont see as much of the wobble that actually there in lower mag.
That said, you can teach yourself not to fall into that over-correction pattern with a high power scope and still reap the benefits of the higher mag."
Link: https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/is-aim-small-high-magnification-really-the-key-to-accuracy/page/2/#post-1124632 (https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/is-aim-small-high-magnification-really-the-key-to-accuracy/page/2/#post-1124632)
Also, if you can avoid off-handed shots and field rest the gun on a window frame or tripod the problem with shakiness is significantly reduced.
I quite like the idea that this will force me to become more steady. (I think. Ask me again in 6 months, lol.... )
Also, usually when I shoot off-hand, I go down to one knee, and use an modified artillary hold, where my left elbow rests on my raised left knee, so it's reasonably steady.
So I haven't too concerned about this issue, even though I probably should be. In fact, this might be the single most important consideration, even though I had ruled it out.
His phrase "easily lured into a pattern of back and forth" is interesting and food for thought.
-----------------------------
-
🔶 (6) Using Attachments (NV, Scopecam) Might Be a Problem
Glad this isn't a deal breaker for you.
Until recently, it would not have been for me, either. But I discovered the fascination of scope cams and how I can watch my shots in slo-mo, analysing POI and kill effectiveness. And that's something I don't want to miss out on!! 8)
So..., I'm bummed this isn't going to work for me. 😟
This one needs clarification.
I asked the company if they could elaborate on this, and it seems the problem is only with NV attachments, not regular recorders, cameras, iPhone adapters, etc.
It has to do with the amount of NV energy required for the larger FOV. (Or something like that.) Evidently it would be very expensive to make something that could generate enough energy for such a wide FOV, even if someone wanted to. (Or something like that.)
- And note that they said the only model that's really a serious problem would be the 14x50.
It sounded like you probably COULD use an existing NV, but you just wouldn't get good results. Maybe Wes can get more info from them about this.
I can't post the exact info they sent, as my email server is having issues this week, but I'll post it if / when I'm able.
Of course, even with camera attachments, you won't get the full FOV (not even close) so that not worthy. I suggested to them that maybe they could manufacture replacement (wider diameter) adapter optics for some of the more popular units out there. (Just the piece that attaches to your scope) After all, that's just a small piece of optics. So maybe ......
-
A RELATED QUESTION:
Because mildots are metric, would using a mildot scope be easier on a 10x scope than on a 14X scope?
In other words, is it easier to figure / remember the distances, (or figure ranges) or is it just a case of memorizing for one or the other?
(I have very little experience / understanding of mildots right now, obviously.)
-
They should be true to the scopes set magnification. My 5x seems to be right, tested by looking at known size objects and comparing with dot spacing.
-
They should be true to the scopes set magnification. My 5x seems to be right, tested by looking at known size objects and comparing with dot spacing.
Thanks, James.
- but what I mean is, since a mil is "based on 10X magnification" (so it is written) and also based on the 10X metric system, is it somehow easier to deal with on a 10X scope? Is it 3.6" at 100 yards, no matter what the magnification?
Fo guys that use their scope markings to estimate range, does it matter THEN?
I'm probably shoving my lance at windmills, but figured I should ask, just in case. My current scope is MOA, so I have no idea.
-
They should be true to the scopes set magnification. My 5x seems to be right, tested by looking at known size objects and comparing with dot spacing.
Thanks, James.
- but what I mean is, since a mil is "based on 10X magnification" (so it is written) and also based on the 10X metric system, is it somehow easier to deal with on a 10X scope? Is it 3.6" at 100 yards, no matter what the magnification?
Fo guys that use their scope markings to estimate range, does it matter THEN?
I'm probably shoving my lance at windmills, but figured I should ask, just in case. My current scope is MOA, so I have no idea.
3.6" at 100 yards, no matter what the magnification?
Yes, since there is no variable in magnification the mildots stay true, like a scope that is variable , say 3-9x the mildots would be set for the highest mag. unless stated otherwise in the manual "rare". But all set mag. scopes are true spacing, so a dot is a dot like one experiences with FFP scopes. HTH
-
🔶 (6) Using Attachments (NV, Scopecam) Might Be a Problem
Glad this isn't a deal breaker for you.
Until recently, it would not have been for me, either. But I discovered the fascination of scope cams and how I can watch my shots in slo-mo, analysing POI and kill effectiveness. And that's something I don't want to miss out on!! 8)
➔ And these and other extreme wide FoV scopes all have an extremely close eye relief and optical scope attachments are usually built for scopes with a regular eye relief.
So..., I'm bummed this isn't going to work for me. 😟
My email is working again, so here is exactly what Immersive Optics wrote: (It's still a bit murky to me)
I asked:
" why don't you guys look into manufacturing wider FOV adapters, for some of the more popular recording & NV units out there? They would probably be huge sellers."
THEIR RESPONSE:
"To capture all FOV of the day scope, the NV attachment FOV needs to correspond it, meaning that the objective lens of that NV needs to have much wider FOV (or in optical terms - shorter focus) . This brings the problem - if used as a spotter with a shorter focus lens, that NV unit will have probably about X0.6 magnification, and very much useless as a spotter.
Also there is another problem: (the main one)
For the system to work, you need to pump lots of infrared illumination, and illuminating a wide area is a challenge. It is much easier to focus IR emission into a tight, small angle beam and get a good detection distance, than flooding the aria at wide angle.
So, it is possible for us to make an adapter as you suggested, but increasing FOV of the NV you need to change the illumination angle too. The problem will be to maintain high level of IR illumination at that angle. To maintain the same detection range, the illumination with our 3 times wider optics, it will need to pump 9 times more energy, and this is difficult to achieve.
Recording in a day time is easy - there are lots of mobile phone adapters to film through binoculars or spotting scopes, they work well with short relief rifle scopes."
-
I had the opportunity to do a "primer" on prismatic scopes for Hard Air Magazine. Here is part 2 of it with some pics showing the fov:
https://hardairmagazine.com/buyers-guides/a-primer-for-airgunners-on-prismatic-scopes-part-two/
There is a link to part 1at the bottom of the article.
-
I had the opportunity to do a "primer" on prismatic scopes for Hard Air Magazine. Here is part 2 of it with some pics showing the fov:
https://hardairmagazine.com/buyers-guides/a-primer-for-airgunners-on-prismatic-scopes-part-two/
There is a link to part 1at the bottom of the article.
Great! Thanks for posting.
14 X for 60 yard shots is not to much scope. 24 x+ maybe. :-[
-Y
-
I had the opportunity to do a "primer" on prismatic scopes for Hard Air Magazine. Here is part 2 of it with some pics showing the fov:
https://hardairmagazine.com/buyers-guides/a-primer-for-airgunners-on-prismatic-scopes-part-two/
There is a link to part 1at the bottom of the article.
Thanks for the articles Matt
-
Matt, 😊
I just recently read your articles. Well written. Good job. 👍🏼
Matthias
-
Matt,
that's a well written article, and you make a good point about variable scope reticles at their lowest magnification.
However, there's also an issue with higher-mag fixed scopes, at short distance, which you likely have not thought about yet.
Well, at least this was my experience with the Immersive Optics 14x50. (Which I reluctantly sent back as it was unusable at 10 yards.)
As I wrote in that other recent thread, there is a small chance that the scope I received was defective, and I'm waiting to hear back from Wes on that, but it's more likely that there is simply "only so much" a fixed scope can deliver. My 14x50 was lovely at 50 yards, but although it could "parallax focus down to 7 yards, I found it impossible to ACTUALLY focus even at ten yards. Besides having a razor-thin DOF at that range, the optics never seemed to get crisp. It literally hurt my brain trying to focus on the target. I mean, really awful.
Again, I'm waiting to hear from Wes on this, but not hopeful. Maybe one of the 10x versions will work for me.
I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on this, if you had the 14x50 to try. - Or how the 10x versions work at short distance.
-------------------------
Also, I think the main important feature of these scopes is the short eye relief / wide FOV, (perfect for pcp rifles and especially for bullpups) not the fact that they are fixed magnification. I hope / expect some manufacturers to recognize this market and start making short eye relief variable scopes.
Well, unless the digital video-display scopes simply take over, which is possible.
-
Again, sorry for my slow response here Alan! Here are some similar photos that I took at the same distance (17.5 feet) with the 14x50 as in my other post with the 10x40 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=182093.msg156280689#msg156280689 (https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=182093.msg156280689#msg156280689)). This scope is used and is missing the eye cup so it was really hard to cut down glare in these pics. It's also worth noting that it is extremely hard to take photos through this scope. It has the least eye relief of any of the IO scopes I have used.
I also feel some of the image softness on the sides (left in particular) is a result of the very shallow depth of field this scope has and that I was shooting at an angle to the bookshelf. But as you can see the image is reasonably sharp at 6 yards.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/uixmzbh3zWSp92qt7 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/uixmzbh3zWSp92qt7)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XcPTaBBu5CpjRA4AOGDm0-iXvxJ-5eQnQPUdcIxhwtp5a98d921Zljw4BbSInxoeIdUQjEapNvDuANZArxrMGM4JQxWbuSGPELpp1IiuR0FQeAGaImM0P3q2n__QCQaxfNf2fSukAQM2J_rJBxmd8_7eHKIfGTIBCc4hKUi8YE39_zkahw4uC_R3rpps3ySmuAw7qPmxMrB5eyRvtC9cmTiG1935JK70Nos6R5APytwZ_bBWEqrjW764vjUN3CddQCS8WHvx2UP9Uv-nDHimPxqjvInFHdb8LF1jf6i9f7YYgURKkV9gqR597epjuwpHWxL_SltGKKjHc42MaK4wpDb9x7BCPRKPxsuOvSRoTZW2azLS2Drrr12arIhGr0KrvJ8Yw0_KP-acBMDv8rW7ra6AvPbTluq38dWSJXxPyRBUEStffqmPbcKAbMMuZ0yK52ZE4lx3YO0RLbeYZUmi32GDskn_Tcvrm_Ge7AlZ1E_0mtOzbrchh_6azXurb8TuyqiwNtoidCgrceUt9fbYRlmecPDV8onKStjMirZSuUFYlQ-Tv_ulBUYS4yTWPxulQ1rKoU52TNI0SMHnyeOcLBHoWKJ02BXoYMw3UyhTHHdS-Q3GDNeeJ-RgulyqMCX8nfgH3rpV_9jqd5zZwMur3ML5T1ZB7d7y8OgXL6H6GwVYQP57GE8Q-HB0gS1s__iDTv8Z6G23RzTybybcwzeP8QGk=w1666-h937-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nfk_d193kOHgAVH8cgEx6j_18Rr5PJVnmIBgZDYbxeYXQHutHImk0vEeEpZD11RiA49MKK5dm0q_2praqOD2LBrscs68hieUpj3yvQOZ6TLIhvyIEZBXwtunR1XwsZZpsoyDuE0En8homU7B5EJ6aLlNcNXru1UsAGICuhmAwP-nVM-Gsp3JE9MWtNui0C5XGvCtzn1IsihJg7mmefbILNn77sbwDizbQT3QtEeA5V41G7_wQlEyAyYSw7V70b18jdEbN9BBGfwP1NlehzX__0akOVikmGWN2XDk5JJVtqIOFWwuY0N2cTsgCUA47K99paCfXGW346IWWl2RhoArk0SfrZoSzieRByOnN9MHBQlgHRB2AcmH8jN80OOF9v58fe1RQN95QHcwhOeKRgyftZhYSmmB0Cn24EfrsC7IUjKAW6huF9bUR9UsB6btG8ZkhNy8hhos6gzuC9pRMhk3lN60tnj2oPys09K7iJD0KsgbhpzmGdj35g7_15rOQe2lpjI4ukcBysGjCDh_aLIt4Zqsc4xEMW7UYFnYDpEsJ4Vpa5T89YKFgC0WVXN4lECAcA4wTrfgSC_ceXZ5-xJkH8SvgzSEMFXn83c0Uh8fiGQpo0A75j1QC86Vl5lEJEW-1rowim_7v9Vi6D4ZUpR0vQeZaDu8j1hrIH1uUiGOVJ4tu0CO43MTNIZo78j4vt6tsAWNUxlUcHTSRGDdUp3bsLiC=w1666-h937-no?authuser=0)
-
Matt, 😊
I just recently read your articles. Well written. Good job. 👍🏼
Matthias
Thank you Matthias!
-
Thanks.
I can only see one pic. It's a little soft, but MILES better than my 14x50 was.
Which scope is that?
-
I went with the 5x versions of this scope, couldn't be happier, 4-6x is my favorite plinking and hunting magnification. Not sure I would use it for FT, or long range shooting though ;) , Will see when weather gets warmer.
-
Thanks.
I can only see one pic. It's a little soft, but MILES better than my 14x50 was.
Which scope is that?
Sorry about the pics. Let me try here again. They're from a used 14x50 I got. Again, these are not as sharp due to this scope not having a nice eye cup to cut down on the glare as I took the pics:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QyYs5Yb4PwJzDAJYGV9dyyFvGGb2sFstEXu2l8fN_P_M_RZxcYcE78WQU5qiY8CtnwaN8xFF7qMGrJApMP4uzrIWPrUwBJcDWK_HANxff1hMY0LWPhNLA7tCfaVDPozXbQZcP5Ng97iRIfaUv4F4KLvI16C3tB83gJrUlFPaAyntuZ0NQGNOiBkUQwMZYmzDmW6U54PQJ3sQgf3bvrpKmOrXsUiSyM3JYoNzOdDw-2HzPhtOQqaacp5Q8qgs0Car_Df8IkNua_q7yC3dY2Vy1hQKUPPnp9YMESXo1lt3XjaUKapho6AAcbOVi6nb4BSq1JzRkVIRkwpyFx1pxDZFelq_Q-B6CF7BkopYiTxg_yMK0JzPfOkG92_1Sf33PAhgFqmm2F6KKZbfUi0dwkI6_CoMlz0iZ9GdQDrFZb_m9bnsFBUF8ae_qi2vz9x7Uzi_J4Snvgsl9CxVpQGz29MZDqvl5OTFoBgddL-M0MSQWC8mrSPiQXnaqgMhI3fbny_FfI8We3od-Vk4lA8uX4wTMJpeUbvN2EvhulD05_5QYKGgS75bTsbir81yETOahvNEzK2Wo9tE45tbryEs5gxXI10DJCxmTT5UqaHsllWeLc93Mt09SrOOgwBhiNxmWj_aVSu8OCU3keoEn5hrTLm1l3T3MOUb7QgR9jni_oB2qgr-_93CDopIsxpsYAp1xVVAQUY0CigvzSWbUlmNkx19mSZj=w1666-h937-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Uv4wH86YBHThofOSvlu92pkuJGLOiCcvA_oSX4cp8AzapBCfz5Ys-sxfzwMYa-ZCyqFDf6ODkxgl_uXU4hjuRXOdRhf1JLLOAbsAzbSMmPVe9yeW0YP9CUpXNH_cWtRrdOz-9PxuHVCqbtQeiqRGEvoc55icIFFqGZH8YqcscKY_GYGKdQGSAUNiaZ_Tc04u6AnVVIZ6HHSiZmwwY_V18vuEPADR-JHpgO50jwX-BsQc9R6irtp-RNOiRwI8amlhTo9AemPYbdqrS5O5mzaGL9WdNeFekMMXXFgipyYFBpEMg8AD38PF6XCHZUMXTAhhuCKVk-buNmf4tjKIglcN8HukPY6gdwemGdELR-VzLqcSdn8b_48o44XIJ_K14lf0Oxn3CLzlImHMM_iW5Pzt8vRHdmpcOcOMequLxeIXDYturUyzsCcW57ZaEeHUxBRK3D4hgL9jQzeREosvO-58mGIByFbsxP2KCk8r_R6clJdhOfJHemBOMEBOOMzFUha6R5KCdhxh80Wu7TpC9F3Ip9DJM5uHQzktWPwzxa9APfc4jy1ZiCF7fCXiSFei5GtVjQEXmbwLV35OBXQE3rK1Ia1603aS6ku9loI-9BAkKtbWoKcYbW733qBEwU7NFJNA9PeTfO8MBfms-AgAcfYoFkpZwlMubLOvaAayMUCVo4RVVdlAVJDP5we0KVngecMNM6kPoVXz-mbo4Ay9PAI2S9Us=w1666-h937-no?authuser=0)
-
^ Still can't see them, but I can see them now on that other thread, plus that it's the 10x40, so all good.
And yeah, the second ones seems very crisp for that distance. Again, DRASTICALLY sharper than the 14x50mm I had, with that one at ten yards.
I still haven't heard from Wes, but I think I'll try the 10x40 myself.
---------------
Manny, for shooting small game (including grouse, which are harder to hit than squirrels) do you think the extra DOF on the 10x24 would be worth the loss of brightness. or does the 40mm feel adequate for this task?