Yessir I have spent a lot of time and money trying to wring an extra minute or two or three out of that first/last part of the day.

Am even considering new binocs primarily for that reason. Will have to look at Zeiss now.

Zeiss has several models. The Victory HT are their best performers in low light.

Why do scope objectives have to be circular? If they were oval shaped, they could be mounted lower.

Leupold made one that had a “cut out” at the bottom so it could be mounted lower. The marketing guys worked overtime on that one.

And I think it failed miserably. See VX-3L. UGLY

I want to get my hands on one of those 3Ls and do the math. I’m not sure there’s any surface gain. I agree with NP. Strictly marketing.

Last time I bought scopes, I bought 3 of them all at about the same time umm 3 years ago. Having had lots of 3x9x40's 4x12's, 3.5x10's yadda yadda 1" tubes in various medium priced brands and models most of my 40+ years of shooting life, I wanted more light than I was getting from those scope configurations the older I've gotten, and have lost the use of my non shooting eye as well, making binoculars less efficient to use for me as well.

I wound up buying a pair of Vortex Viper HS's in 30mm tube in a 2-10x44 and a 4x16x44 AO, and a Minox ZA HD 5 30mm tube 2-10x50. IMO the Minox has definitely better glass, in a slightly heavier bulkier scope, but gives me more dawn & dusk light and it gets used as a fixed position scope in semi brushy settings with ranges under about 300-350 yards. The Vortex 2-10x44 is my do all go anywhere scope and needs it's sun shade in bright light and is significantly better for my useage than a standard 3x9x40 in the same quality glass, for an insignificant $'s difference.

The 4-16x44 AO Vortex has been used the least but I am very comfortable with it, and it will get more use as a open FOV shooter whenever I finally settle on a rifle for that use. Right now it's sitting on a 7Rmg that I've decided not to use, and will get moved to a 24" barreled M70 270 for the coming season.

FWIW I picked up a Minox ZA3 AO 1" 4-16x44 and it is a surprisingly clear scope and the best of the bottom end price range scopes I've ever shot...and will go on a loaner/back up short/carbine length rifle eventually of whatever my primary caliber rifle becomes. Biggest issue with it is the Short Mag kinda tube length available for mounting rings to get the proper eye relief with its 4" ER available. JMHO & everyone's eyes are different from mine.

Bottom line...I will not go back to a 1" tube & 40mm objective as the 44mm objective is sufficiently larger enough for my ageing eye that will need a lense replacement eventually, and a 2-10 magnification is adequate for my shooting skills at the distances I hunt at.
Ron

The negatives have nothing to do with weight for me.

I have done a LOT of very low light testing
Assuming the same high end glass quality and comparing the same power range, a 50mm objective will give you a few more minutes of useable shooting time.

Same with a 56 over a 50
I hunted a lot with a 44mm on my main "deer rifle" with a Bushnell 3-12x44 LHRS and when going from Leica 10x42HD binos to the scope at last legal light I can still easily kill a deer out to several hundred yards. Now, we all know that easily killing one and being able to count points or if you are an MLD property with tagged bucks roaming around, that is a different story!

50 is ugly

I thougt I read that ocular lense size determines FOV VS Objective size. Not sure if that is accurate.

Negative Ghostrider, objective size.

Come look through my 80mm objective spotting scope and see what you believe.

My understanding is that FOV is related to eyepiece construction, not objective lens size, like Scott mentioned.
If everything else is equal (brand, eyepiece construction, magnification, etc...) a 3.5-10x40 and 3.5-10x50 should have the same FOV but the 50 would be brighter giving more shooting time.

For instance, the NXS 5.5-22x50 and NXS 5.5-22x56 have the same FOV but the 56 has larger exit pupil diameter making it brighter.

FOV is more in the:
Magnification More magnification less field of view.
Grind of the lenses(all the lenses) affects what we see. (think fisheye lens in a GoPro.
Eye relief distance is a big factor

Look out your window from say 10 feet away then walk up to the window, which position has the largest field of view? Objective lens aka. window has not changed size but as you get closer the field of view gets wider for what you can see out your window.

I think I once read something along the lines of "...everything about the design of an optic is a compromise of some kind."

At 20X would an 85mm objective have more field of view, or would a 50mm objective have more field of view?

From the link: https://www.cabelas.com/product/Spotting-Scope-Buyers-Guide/531809.uts








Compromise, compromise, compomise...

I think that would depend on the compromises made in the design and manufacture of the scopes. Take for instance these 2 leupolds, basically the same other than 44 and 56mm objective bells

I'll have a look this week at 20X. One with an 85mm objective, one with a 50mm objective, one with a 56mm objective.

But yall are saying it's the ocular lens causing FOV.

Jason I believe you will find it is more a combination of things. length of tube and lens grind being a couple of them, Eye relief being another. Like RiverRider said Compromise, compromise, compromise.

Take for example this case




Biggest difference being tube length, objective diameter and power, But look at the 1.5X4 and the 4X12 at 4X the shorter tube with the shorter eye relief has the larger field of view. I believe these two have the same ocular lens but are vastly different in FOV.

Curious what you will find with the 50 and 85mm scopes and what those scopes specs say. There is some liberty taken by scope manufactures on power and FOV numbers, very few exactly match the published data.

I don't know what you guys do but I use a very good pair of Binoculars to size deer up not my scope.....

One thing no one has mentioned in here is quality, although some mentioned lens grind and that is close. But the overall quality of a scope, lenses, coatings, inert gases, everything as a package, makes more difference than anything else. And quality doesn't always mean Big Names, or Big Price tags.

As for FOV, Tasco marketed a great 3x9x40 TV, where the view was TV shaped.... wider than taller... get one of those....

IF, IF, if, everything else is identical/eliminated, then the larger objective will allow more light to ENTER the objective lens, that's physics. However, there's no guarantee that the other factors involved allow any more light to EXIT .

It also depends on what you are hunting and when.... if I'm hunting wide open spaces, with more heat/mirage, or snow/ice, then I want LESS light into the scope....

I have a VX-5HD, 3-15 x 44. I also have a VX6, 3-18 x 50(not HD). The edge goes to the VX-5 for low light clarity, although both are fantastic. It's slight, and mostly my opinion based on my use of these two scopes on consecutive days. Must be due to the HD glass. I have the VX6 50mm on my 5R Millspec that I mostly use from my tower blind. It's already heavy so no big deal. The VX5 HD 44MM is on my Tikka CTR, shorter, lighter more mobile rig I use when covering ground. I also shot this at the hunters challenge so I could really test it. I was pleased.

Jason, you are not often wrong. However Field of View is controlled by the diameter of the ocular lenses. The larger the the lens in diameter the wider the FOV will be. This is most evident with the Vortex 1-6X24 Razor. When this scope was introduced, one of the complaints was that it was not authentically true 1X, more like .9X or .8X. Upon review, I see that it fish eyes some on 1X and that is a result of the over sized lenses within the ocular housing.

As an example, check out:

Konus 1-6x24 Konuspro M-30 30mm Riflescope
https://swfa.com/konus-1-6x24-konuspro-m-30-30mm-riflescope.html




Leupold 1-6x24 VX-6HD 30mm Riflescope
https://swfa.com/leupold-1-6x24-vx-6hd-30mm-riflescope-2.html




Vortex 1-6x24 Razor HD Gen II-E 30mm Rifle Scope
https://swfa.com/vortex-1-6x24-razor-hd-gen-ii-e-30mm-rifle-scope-178745.html



As illustrated above, increased sized eye pieces attribute to changes in Field of View and Eye Relief. Additionally, the weight is increased as well.

Find me the ocular on a Gen 1 Razor, with a fixed 30X Mil reticle. Then on a NF ATACR 5-25X56mm. I'm not being argumentative, I just want to know is that why my field of view is so huge, in that spotting scope.

If it's due to the ocular lens, I'll accept it. I'm not often wrong, but it does happen.