ED glass, CA and mirage

[Turbulent Turtle]

The 48HM seems a lot brighter than the 10-60 x52 and somewhat brighter than my 5-50x56... jim

The 10-60X52 is not an HM model, it does not have the High Master Lens system. The 5-50X56 (the same one I have had for 6 years before I got my 10-60X56 HM) does not have the High Master Lens system. It has ED lenses, but only one ED lens element, and does not have the same other lenses as the scopes with the High Master Lens system. I will point out that the HM Lens System is more than just the two Super ED lens elements. The other non-Super ED lenses are different than in the 5-50X56 or 8-80X56.
So I would expect the 48HM to be brighter and the 10-60X52 and a touch brighter than the 5-50X56, at 48 to 50X.

It's also difficult to compare scopes with various objective sizes and lens construction.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Beats me but it has all the HM bells and whistles , and it is a fixed power without the added lenses needed to make it a variable, also a lot lighter ...... jim

Even though the 48HM is a fixed power, it still has lenses in the erector tube to take the power to 48X. You should know that the power of a scope is calculated by dividing the focal length of the objective assembly by the focal length of the eyepiece and then multiply that by the lens power of the erector tube assembly.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Jim, that's what I'm thinking. Less glass to darken the light transmission thru the tube.
I've got to believe that the more lens, no matter how good they are, it's going to
affect the amount of light you see.
Has to be a trade off between amount of lenses to the objective diameter and power.
My old Sightron SIII 8-32x56 was one of the brightest scopes I've looked thru.
Had the 56mm objective, but no ED glass.
Sold it, so I can't compare it to my ED glass now. (clarity)

The lens coating has gotten so good these days that having one lens or two more or less makes the overall light transmission difference so small as to be virtually unnoticed by the mark 1 eyeball. You need specialized instruments to measure and even then...

A 32X power in a 56mm objective is going to look very bright. We are talking about 48X and 50X here. That's a common mistake that occurs when people compare different scopes and models. And then relying on "memory."

If you want to compare the performance of scopes, make sure you at least have them set at the same magnification when you do your comparison side by side, not hours, days or weeks later.

Also ED glass is not "brighter" than non-ED glass; if anything it can be a little darker. Its purpose is to combat or eliminate CA. That does make for a better contrast and the colors seem to pop more. The HM Lens system has more than just the Super ED components.

 

[Ranger188]

Thanks Denys, at the time I compared the Vortex GE to the SIII at the same power, 32x (I knew that)
and the SIII looked to me a bit brighter. I would like to look thru a March 10-60 HM and a Sightron SV
both have the ED glass and see which (too me) has better clarity in mild mirage.
Until then, I'll stick with my Trijicon AccuPowers 5-50 that I have. (ED glass)

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Thanks Denys, at the time I compared the Vortex GE to the SIII at the same power, 32x (I knew that)
and the SIII looked to me a bit brighter. I would like to look thru a March 10-60 HM and a Sightron SV
both have the ED glass and see which (too me) has better clarity in mild mirage.
Until then, I'll stick with my Trijicon AccuPowers 5-50 that I have. (ED glass)

Well, the March-X 10-60X56 HM has Super ED glass; two elements, the objective lens doublet. My long time, well used and insanely sturdy March-X 5-50X56 has one ED element, pretty much like your Trijicon and Sightron. Just FYI, there are currently no other manufacturer using Super ED glass in their scopes. March was the first to use ED glass 13 years ago and is the first to use Super ED glass for the last 3-4 years or so.

At any rate, the difference between my March-X 5-50X56 and my March-X 10-60X56 HM is difficult to discern and I would go so far as to say most people, while seeing the HM is overall better, would be hard put to explain why and how. The difference is probably not worth selling your current ED scope to buy the HM, but if someone is considering buying an ED or Super ED scope, the difference is enough to cause you to eschew the ED scope and jump onto Super ED. I posted that observation here about 18 months ago and stayed with my March-X 5-50X56. Then I acquired the March-X 10-60X56, I did not sell my 5-50.

 

[johara1]

Jim, that's what I'm thinking. Less glass to darken the light transmission thru the tube.
I've got to believe that the more lens, no matter how good they are, it's going to
affect the amount of light you see.
Has to be a trade off between amount of lenses to the objective diameter and power.
My old Sightron SIII 8-32x56 was one of the brightest scopes I've looked thru.
Had the 56mm objective, but no ED glass.
Sold it, so I can't compare it to my ED glass now. (clarity)

I have a sightron SIII and a sightron SSSVED both are 10-50x60 and a March 5-50x56 and a march48HM, the brightest is the SSSV next is the March 48 then the march 5-50x56 are on guns the 10-60 x 56 HM is on the shelf I need to get it on the a gun first I would take the 5-50x56 off but it is a rock solid scope.... jim

 

[Ranger188]

Denys, so what does the second lens (Super ED) suppose to do over a single (ED) lens scope?
and all the other ED scopes? Or what does it help with.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Denys, so what does the second lens (Super ED) suppose to do over a single (ED) lens scope?
and all the other ED scopes? Or what does it help with.

At this point any attempt I would make at answering this technically is doomed to failure, ridicule and gross error. I do know well enough to say that if Deon (the makers of March scopes) are using two Super ED elements in their lens system, it's for very good reasons. Off hand, I would say that CA is controlled extremely well but beyond that...

In photography, camera lenses usually have one or two and sometimes more ED, Super ED and even fluorite elements. It's all in the design of the lens system.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I have a sightron SIII and a sightron SSSVED both are 10-50x60 and a March 5-50x56 and a march48HM, the brightest is the SSSV next is the March 48 then the march 5-50x56 are on guns the 10-60 x 56 HM is on the shelf I need to get it on the a gun first I would take the 5-50x56 off but it is a rock solid scope.... jim

I totally agree on that; my 5-50X56 has been flawless and I have had it for close to 7 years now. The March-X riflescopes are built like tanks, not the Sheman, more like the Abrams.

 

[jelenko]

Two thoughts.
How about asking March what they think?

My own speculation is that reducing chromatic aberration is going to, yeah, provide a clearer image. If I remember correctly, there will be dispersion around each of the 'lines' in a mirage => reducing the dispersion around the 'lines' will produce a clearer image.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Two thoughts.
How about asking March what they think?

My own speculation is that reducing chromatic aberration is going to, yeah, provide a clearer image. If I remember correctly, there will be dispersion around each of the 'lines' in a mirage => reducing the dispersion around the 'lines' will produce a clearer image.

What makes you think I didn't?

They are using ED and Super ED glass for the purpose of controlling CA and presenting the best IQ possible over all the field of view.

I am the one going out on a limb and presenting my observations and hypothesis about ED and Super ED helping to tame the degradation of the IQ done by mirage.

 

[JEFFPPC]

All this bs with fancy terms really is just hype. Go to matches in various conditions, compare scopes with YOUR eyes and decide what suits your need. I would buy one that was fuzzy and had various rainbows of color in it IF I could see 6mm bullet holes at 1000 with bright sunlight and lots of mirage.To me it's like the borescope/carbon/coppering thing, what counts is the target.

 

[Fred Bohl]

@Fred Bohl Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually a little hesitant when I wrote that sentence thinking the use of "shimmering" might be confusing especially in light of my earlier diatribe about the misnomer "mirage" and its usage.

I went ahead an edited my post to remove the confusion I caused. What I see in my scope when the mirage is heavy is that the lines on the target seem to be alive, electrified even, sparkling and vibrating, but definitely clean and very distinct. I hope this clears it up for you and @SPJ .

TT - A new thread on what we loosely call mirage is needed. I had hoped you would provide an opening post to start the discussion. Maybe your 'explanation' of the optical impact of the air between the scope objective and the target (hopefully simplified for us old guys).

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

TT - A new thread on what we loosely call mirage is needed. I had hoped you would provide an opening post to start the discussion. Maybe your 'explanation' of the optical impact of the air between the scope objective and the target (hopefully simplified for us old guys).

I'm not much younger than you are.

I think that's a great idea and I would urge you to take the lead and start it.

Some years back, I outfitted my camera with the required equipment to do digiscoping through my Kowa spotting scope. My ultimate goal was to record some videos of bullet trace (done) and also some videos of mirage and then discuss how to interpret it and figure what's happening downrange. I never got around to the second part but I still have the equipment.

 

[JFrank]

Well Gents, I certainly do appreciate all the excellent posts on the subject although I must confess that a lot is over my head.
J

 

[jelenko]

What makes you think I didn't?

They are using ED and Super ED glass for the purpose of controlling CA and presenting the best IQ possible over all the field of view.

I am the one going out on a limb and presenting my observations and hypothesis about ED and Super ED helping to tame the degradation of the IQ done by mirage.

Understand. I was thinking that March or other optics company might have their own explanation.

 

[Link]

TT - A new thread on what we loosely call mirage is needed. I had hoped you would provide an opening post to start the discussion. Maybe your 'explanation' of the optical impact of the air between the scope objective and the target (hopefully simplified for us old guys).

I would like to see that ;}

 

[Larry Koch]

good read.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

It's now "official."

Shimmer Protection in March riflescopes with Super ED glass | Quality, Factory | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

 

[Fred Bohl]

We seem to have "Official" recognition of your term "shimmer" and confirmation of both your observation and your explanation of its cause. Congratulations Denys!