Vortex Razor HDII or Kahles?

[jmc67]

To put it another way - which scope is technically better out of each of the following pairs and why?

5-20x56 - x4 multiplier/zoom
4-20x56 - x5 multiplier/zoom

8-24x56 - x3 multiplier/zoom
6-24x56 - x4 multiplier/zoom

3) The Vortex has a 6x (27/4.5) multiplier and the Khales has a 4x (24/6) multiplier.

With reference to no.3, can someone explain to me the technical implications of the different multipliers (4 or 6) and the effect that can have on the scope/glass please? I know a higher multiplier lets you see further... but I thought there was more to it.

Anyone?

I'm not sure it can come down to which is better based on the multiplication factor as cost of components and manufacturing will also come into it. I know from photography the more you ask a lens to do (in terms of changing focal length), the more the compromises that have to be made to make it do that job. The easiest lens to make well for a camera is a single focal length. Making a zoom lens takes more lens elements, and typically leads to a less sharp lens, than for a prime lens. I would have thought the same principle applied to scopes - the easiest scope to make well will be a single focal length, the more extreme the range of magnification, the more the compromises needed to make it work 'acceptably' at all zoom settings. As an aside, again, with camera lenses, the largest apertures (so best light gathering) are prime, single focal length, rather than zoom lenses. Lenses are simpler to make when they only need to perform at one focal length.

[HALODIN]

Thanks, that's very interesting. So relating this back to the OP's question - what compromises would you expect the Vortex to make over the Khales, given the Vortex is a x6 multiplier and the Khales is a x4 multiplier? I appreciate it would just be a guess on your part, but if you have an opinion, I'm interested.

I was looking on S&B's site and it seems they have a new scope, the 5-45x56 which is the same multiplier as the 3-27x56, X9. I bet it isn't cheap... :)

[HALODIN]

I just had a chat with someone who's infinitely more knowledgeable than I am. The key points of the conversation were -

1) Depth of field reduces as the multiplier/magnification increases
2) Tunnelling (zooming out doesn't increase FOV passed a certain magnification, you just see the inside of the scope at low magnification)
3) Light transmission is a function of the objective size and the multiplier/magnification
4) FOV is inversely related to the multiplier/magnification.

Other considerations include mechanical tracking (because of issues like springback), tracking must be consistent both ways. Khales are particularly good at consistency even when compared to big hitters like S&B. Not sure how Vortex fair in this argument.

Anyway, I thought this might help.

[WelshShooter]

To put it another way - which scope is technically better out of each of the following pairs and why?

5-20x56 - x4 multiplier/zoom
4-20x56 - x5 multiplier/zoom

8-24x56 - x3 multiplier/zoom
6-24x56 - x4 multiplier/zoom

3) The Vortex has a 6x (27/4.5) multiplier and the Khales has a 4x (24/6) multiplier.

With reference to no.3, can someone explain to me the technical implications of the different multipliers (4 or 6) and the effect that can have on the scope/glass please? I know a higher multiplier lets you see further... but I thought there was more to it.

Anyone?

My understanding is that a higher multiplier takes up more room in the tube? I thought that in the optic industry there was a compromise between:
1. Magnification multiplier;
2. Total adjustment (i.e. windage/elevation).

Larger tube diameters allow for more movement of the lens and larger magnification multipliers. The tube diameter is often associated with image brightness/quality which is not true. The image brightness/quality depends largely on the quality of the optical lenses and whatever coatings have been applied to them as these enhance optical transmission.

[tackb]

this is all very nice but can you lay your hands on a vortex ? not the promise of one actually lay your grubby mits on it ?

this fact may influence your choice depending on your timescale?

[HALODIN]

Interestingly the Vortex is shorter, but has a higher multiplier and also has more vertical adjustment.

My understanding is that a higher multiplier takes up more room in the tube? I thought that in the optic industry there was a compromise between:
1. Magnification multiplier;
2. Total adjustment (i.e. windage/elevation).

Larger tube diameters allow for more movement of the lens and larger magnification multipliers. The tube diameter is often associated with image brightness/quality which is not true. The image brightness/quality depends largely on the quality of the optical lenses and whatever coatings have been applied to them as these enhance optical transmission.

[WelshShooter]

Interestingly the Vortex is shorter, but has a higher multiplier and also has more vertical adjustment.

My understanding is that a higher multiplier takes up more room in the tube? I thought that in the optic industry there was a compromise between:
1. Magnification multiplier;
2. Total adjustment (i.e. windage/elevation).

Larger tube diameters allow for more movement of the lens and larger magnification multipliers. The tube diameter is often associated with image brightness/quality which is not true. The image brightness/quality depends largely on the quality of the optical lenses and whatever coatings have been applied to them as these enhance optical transmission.

Huh, that showed me! Perhaps there's differences in the thickness of the tube material? Maybe the mechanism which moves the erector lens is different between manufacturers?

[HALODIN]

Quite possibly as they use different materials and what I consider the lighter material, is in fact heavier...

Huh, that showed me! Perhaps there's differences in the thickness of the tube material? Maybe the mechanism which moves the erector lens is different between manufacturers?

[Viper]

Just a little update, I received delivery of my Vortex this morning. It's a chunky b****** and I cannot wait to get it fitted!

[shugie]

Interesting replies, thank you. I think I will continue on my previous thoughtline for the Razor. My next challenge is what to do for mounts on my Steyr Mannlicher Pro Varmint. Any suggestions please?

I used Burris Signature Zee rings on my Steyr and they did the job perfectly well/