Cheap scope with chromatic aberration.

[tangolima]

Certain budget make and model of scope has received numerous favorable reviews. Almost all but one famous reviewer. He would never put that scope on his guns, because of chromatic aberration, especially at high magnifications(>20x).

Why do we care about chromatic aberration? Nice not to have it, no questions there. But I'm not taking award winning photo with the scope. As long as it enables me to put poi on target, I shouldn't care, should I?


-TL

PS I didn't mean to talk down high magnification. There is other thread on that. Chromatic aberration is related to lens coatings. Probably the scope just ups the magnification without upgrading lens coatings. That's why it is cheap.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Scorch]

Biggest reason I can think of for avoiding scopes with chromatic aberration is haloing. Makes everything look flat (no contrast) and surrounds points of light with little rainbow colored edges. Makes brown animals turn the same color as brown grass and brown sticks. Contrast helps you spot and identify game.

Cheap scopes usually have cheap glass lenses as well as poor coating. Higher quality lenses have glass specifically formulated for lenses. Looking through a cheap scope is about like looking through a glass of water, clear enough but you can't really identify what it is you're looking at.

 

[Txhillbilly]

It isn't really cheap glass or coatings that cause CA, it is how the lenses and erector angle the light through the scope.
Many high dollar scopes have problems with CA depending on the length of the scope tube doesn't agree with the angles of the light trying to get focused from one end to the other.
I have a $2400 Steiner T5Xi 5-25x56 scope that has terrible CA issues, all of them did. It is just the way the lenses are setup in the scope. Other than that, it performs just as well as any of my other high end optics.
S&B's short tube scopes are known to have CA issues also.

 

[tangolima]

You are right. It isn't the coating. But rather it has more to do with the material composition of the glass.

Chromatic aberration (CA) is because of different focal planes for different color. So it is almost certain that CA makes image fuzzy. Severe CA would make it difficult to locate the center of bullseye. But I doubt it is that bad on a rifle scope.

So high end Steiner has CA. Pretty sure it does affect the accuracy of the rifle. So it reasonable to say some CA doesn't matter?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

Why do we care about chromatic aberration? Nice not to have it, no questions there. But I'm not taking award winning photo with the scope. As long as it enables me to put poi on target, I shouldn't care, should I?

Leaving aside what causes it, the fact that it is there speaks to the quality of the item. The OVERALL quality. It begs the question, if they screwed up X (or just didn't care to make it "right" in the first place) what else did they do "wrong"?? Maybe nothing. Or maybe there's a host of issues just waiting for you to discover them.

IF you're willing to accept flaws because its cheap and still usable, fine. Some times "cheap" stuff is entirely adequate, once in a while its actually pretty good, but sometimes, even at a cheap price, you don't get what you pay for...

 

[tangolima]

Leaving aside what causes it, the fact that it is there speaks to the quality of the item. The OVERALL quality. It begs the question, if they screwed up X (or just didn't care to make it "right" in the first place) what else did they do "wrong"?? Maybe nothing. Or maybe there's a host of issues just waiting for you to discover them.



IF you're willing to accept flaws because its cheap and still usable, fine. Some times "cheap" stuff is entirely adequate, once in a while its actually pretty good, but sometimes, even at a cheap price, you don't get what you pay for...

That's quite true. You really need to know what you are doing to buy cheap stuff. Why is it cheap? Do I care what's missing? Those are the key questions.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HiBC]

I have never used a SWFA SS scope. I have read and watched reviews on them.
The 10X scopes are held in high regard. Apparently there is a "balance" and at 10X, per the reviews, the SWFA SS hits the sweet spot.

Per the reviews,at the higher magnifications, (16 X +) the "glass" by whatever criteria was a weak link in the chain. Similar to what you describe.

I'm just a squawking parrot here, I've never looked through one.

ymmv

 

[tangolima]

The cheap scope I was referring to is not swfa ss. It is a variable power scope made in China. SWFA SS is made in Japan. Their HD (better lens) series is not cheap at all. The non-HD products with fixed power are quite affordable.

Mine is non-HD 10x in moa. I really like it. A bit on the heavy side though. No detectable chromatic aberrations. I will buy more when I need another scope, probably 6x or 12x.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Txhillbilly]

You are right. It isn't the coating. But rather it has more to do with the material composition of the glass.

Chromatic aberration (CA) is because of different focal planes for different color. So it is almost certain that CA makes image fuzzy. Severe CA would make it difficult to locate the center of bullseye. But I doubt it is that bad on a rifle scope.

So high end Steiner has CA. Pretty sure it does affect the accuracy of the rifle. So it reasonable to say some CA doesn't matter?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

As far as affecting accuracy, it really doesn't. It just causes an annoying colored halo around the outer edges of any target / animal you are looking at through the scope.

 

[tangolima]

As far as affecting accuracy, it really doesn't. It just causes an annoying colored halo around the outer edges of any target / animal you are looking at through the scope.

That's what I thought too. Thanks.

I haven't been bothered by CA, even when I still gravitated towards high magnifications. It makes target identification more difficult, so it may be a bigger concern for hunters.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Shadow9mm]

With optics, I tend to find what I think I need, and go up a tier. Yes it hurts the wallet a little, buy once cry once. I would rather have a higher quality image than I need, than lower quality. and that is regardless of the magnification level I need for my application.

 

[Nathan]

Honestly, I find if I look through a bunch of riflescopes from $100 to $5000 outdoors, I tend to value “good” glass cost way less than “good” mechanicals. I’m not saying I know how to really define good glass.

I do know i had a Weaver K4….I thought it was a fine scope and killed deer as far as 350 yards with it just fine. It seemed to have a good image to me in most hunting situations. Next I tried some low end Bushnell which was fine.

Later I bought the best USA scope I could afford. A Burris XTR 3-12x. It had a pretty good image. Later I bought the XTR2. I was disappointed with the image quality above 12x.

Mind you everytime I bought a scope, I looked through 20 plus scopes in a store or at the range.

All this said, I’ve looked through or handled cheap and expensive scopes that flopped managing CA. The confusing thing is CA and other issues can be managed fairly well with good lens design without fancy words like HD, ED, UHD, etc. Leupold does a good job in delivering a good image without throwing a bunch of hashtags on it. Scopes like the Vortex Viper HS 4-16x have good balanced glass, imo….although they may struggle with mechanicals a bit.

I have a Tract Toric 4-20x that seems similar to the Nightforce I’ve looked through, but Nightforce has a solid reputation for being incredibly reliable after being dropped.

I guess what im trying to say is figure out what you want mechanically….identify those scopes. Then identify which ones have the reticle you want/can live with. That should narrow you down to about 5 scopes. You maybe able to test, but likely you have to buy them to really look through them. They may be returnable…not sure. In the end, there are a lot of $1000-$1500 scopes……I’m sure the $3000 -$5000 scopes are nice, but the look through them never justifies the price to me.

Actually, some of the $300-$650 Vortex scopes I’ve looked through were as good as anything else I’ve looked through.

A few weeks ago, I was comparing the reticle in a NF ATACR vs my TT and Vortex PST G2….the NF was better, I guess, but I couldn’t really see dropping another $2500….to my eye, it just doesn’t matter that much.

People don’t like when I post things like this, but I killed a lot of game with that Weaver K4 on a 1917. I could hit an moa target at 100yds with factory core lokts with little trouble…..and see it!

IME, the first $300-$500 over a $100 scope can buy a lot or improvement for me. It is like night and day! The next $500-$1000 is probably worth spending if I have it. After that, I can only really see spending the money to get NF durability….. otherwise…..I’m not really seeing much value. That’s me. You have to decide if you see value. Maybe I’m blind…I don’t think so…

 

[Nathan]

With optics, I tend to find what I think I need, and go up a tier. Yes it hurts the wallet a little, buy once cry once. I would rather have a higher quality image than I need, than lower quality. and that is regardless of the magnification level I need for my application.

Do you ever confirm you see a better image?

 

[Shadow9mm]

Do you ever confirm you see a better image?

Im fortunate to have a cabelas near by. So i try and go look through glass when im shopping.

But they dont have everything. So i try and buy from places with good return policies, like midway and Amazon. Sometimes despite my best efforts and thorough research an optics glass just looks poor to me, or generally does not meet my needs.

Optics are something you will use every time you pull the trigger. They can make or break your shooting experience or hunt and can limit your ability. I generally stay in the $200 to $400 range and have been able to get fantastic glass for that money. I would go up, but have found going below the $200 mark or getting walmart grade optics has always been a poor decision.

 

[tangolima]

Pay once may not always only cry once. A few purchases have bugged me to no end. Why the xxxx did I pay more for that? Some feature that I hardly ever need or use. I could have paid less for the next model down and be happier. Worse yet, the extra I pay actually buys me extra burden, such as heavier and bulkier scope, or a fancy car that is expensive to maintain.

Anyway everyone has his own way to do things. The key is knowledge and understanding, or I need to know what I am doing. That's the reason I posted the question. I tend to buy used / less expensive gears. The best deal happens when the seller doesn't know what he is selling but I know exactly what you are buying. Good return policy is certainly good insurance.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Shadow9mm]

Pay once may not always only cry once. A few purchases have bugged me to no end. Why the xxxx did I pay more for that? Some feature that I hardly ever need or use. I could have paid less for the next model down and be happier. Worse yet, the extra I pay actually buys me extra burden, such as heavier and bulkier scope, or a fancy car that is expensive to maintain.

Anyway everyone has his own way to do things. The key is knowledge and understanding, or I need to know what I am doing. That's the reason I posted the question. I tend to buy used / less expensive gears. The best deal happens when the seller doesn't know what he is selling but I know exactly what you are buying. Good return policy is certainly good insurance.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Some features you may never need or actually use, that goes into understanding your needs

you could have paid less for the next model down, but unless you did it, or have experience with that optic specifically, there is no way to know if you would have actually been happy with it or that it would have met your needs.

Paying more does not always mean a heavier or bulkier scope. sometime paying more means a lighter scope. But I consider weight, or rather lightness, or be a feature that needs to be considered when picking a scope.

I agree, it really all comes down to understanding your needs, as well as your budget.

At the same time, the over all goal is an optic that makes it EASY to put POI on target, and some scopes do that better than others.

Maybe I have not gone high enough yet or feature dense enough, I have only been up to $400. but so far that has bought be great reliable scopes with nice clear glass. with just the vortex crossfire and diamondback as the exceptions.

 

[Txhillbilly]

I don't buy lower priced scopes. I learned decades ago that most of the time, you are just throwing money away doing so. I do still have a couple $200 - $300 scopes on a couple 22 rimfire's, but most of my scopes run in the $500 - $1k range on my hunting / varmint rifles. All of my long range / precision rifles use scopes in the $1500 - $3k+ range.

I know people that will never spend over $200 on a scope, and they brag about how good their scope is. But, those same guy's shoot 1-2 boxes of ammo a year out of their rifle's.
Most of it is the week before deer season, and the rest is trying to shoot a deer during the season. Good for them!
I shoot all the time at ranges from 100 yards out to 1 mile. Hunt deer, hogs, elk, and all kinds of varmints at general ranges of 100 - 500 yards, so all of my scopes must track great when turning the turrets. 99.9% of scopes under $500 will fail a tracking test after cranking on the turrets a few times. The internal components of the scope just aren't made for it. They work fine for the guy that zeroes his scope and never touches the turrets again.

Glass in todays scopes is so much better than it was 30-40 years ago, so yes you can buy a cheap scope that has superb clarity when you look through it, it is just everything else inside the scope is still cheaply produced.
There's a reason that no professional hunter or competition shooter uses cheap scopes - They don't do the job.

 

[tangolima]

Perhaps one day I will have that sort of resources to support my hobby. Hobby, not profession. Till then, I just do what I can with what I have, and have fun doing it.

Thank you guys.

Even top dollar scopes could have CA. It may not be that big of a deal really. That's what I have learned.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Nathan]

99.9% of scopes under $500 will fail a tracking test after cranking on the turrets a few times.

Can you be specific here. I’ve only had a couple scopes I suspected were not tracking right. I have only confirmed 1 cheaper Leupold as having a failure to track.

I ask because this is popular to say, but I only know of the one in my personal experience.

I have read that 99%+ won’t pass a basic drop test…. Like 3 ft.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Cant say for all scopes. But my psa 4-14x44 ffp is a tank and tracks. Always returns to zero after dialing. Also while shooting 3 years back i hit the scope hard. Were at a friend's property shooting off the bed of a farm truck. I had the butt of the rifle resting on the bed while standing on the ground. Rifle slipped off, scope hit the steel rail on the side of the bed on the way to the ground, gouged the scope housing a bit. Kept zero still running fine. Rifle was unloaded and safety was on. For a $300 optic it has been amazing.