40mm vs. 50mm obj. lens
10-23-2012, 05:58 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas and Arkansas
Posts: 1,496
I use 40mm obj or less. Keeping the scope low to the barrel and the head alignment are more important to me than possibly having more low light retention. It has never been a problem for me before, so I don't intend to change it.
10-27-2012, 07:09 AM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,914
I prefer 50mm objectives, and 30mm tubes. If cheekweld is a problem, add a riser.
You're talking about a $500-900 scope (depending on which you end up with), you can't really complain about adding $80 rings and a $30 cheekpiece.
Larger objectives and larger tubes mean better light transmission, less distortion/better resolution (generally), and wider field of view. All of these are benefits that I want in my scopes. The downside is that they come at a higher cost, more weight (negligible in my opinion), and may require a cheek riser. None of these are show-stoppers for me, so I'll benefit from the good, and won't really be effected by the bad.
Then again, this isn't the first time I've had a different opinion than most of the users here, don't get us started on scope magnification.
You're talking about a $500-900 scope (depending on which you end up with), you can't really complain about adding $80 rings and a $30 cheekpiece.
Larger objectives and larger tubes mean better light transmission, less distortion/better resolution (generally), and wider field of view. All of these are benefits that I want in my scopes. The downside is that they come at a higher cost, more weight (negligible in my opinion), and may require a cheek riser. None of these are show-stoppers for me, so I'll benefit from the good, and won't really be effected by the bad.
Then again, this isn't the first time I've had a different opinion than most of the users here, don't get us started on scope magnification.
