I own a bunch of NF scopes, both 8-32x56 and 12-42x56 NXS, as well as the 15-55x52 Competition. All are mounted on F-TR rifles. I also own a couple IOR-Valdada fixed 36X BR scopes, also on mounted F-TR rifles. My take on the clarity/quality of the glass may be a little different than others, as that is not the first thing I look for in a scope. Over time, I have come to realize that if I don't like the reticle, or can't hardly even see the reticle, the quality of the glass means very little. Although there is obviously a range of different glass quality amongst all the scopes mentioned herein, even the "lowest" (which is solely a relative term) quality amongst them would suffice for shooting F-Class, IMO.
In recent years, I have at times struggled with the various floating dot-type and fine crosshair with a dot reticles that are in some of the scopes I own, specifically the 12-42 NXSs, and the Competition. Of these scopes, the issue is the most apparent with the Competition. The reticles I have in these scopes are the NP-2DD (NXSs), and the CTR-2 reticle in the Competition. In conditions of low light such as early morning (first match of the day), or heavy overcast, I often "lose" the aiming dot of these reticles against the target black. In contrast, the IOR-Valdada floating dot reticle appears "in your face" obvious to my eyes against the target black, even in poor light. In trying to understand this issue, I determined the various subtensions of the dot as listed by NF and back-calculated them to 36X magnification so I could compare them to the fixed 36X IOR-Valdada reticle. It turned out that the floating dot in the 12-42x56 NP-2DD reticle has an angular subtension of ~0.115 MOA at 36X, whereas the the Competition dot subtends ~0.106 MOA. Not surprisingly, the IOR-Valdada has a true 1/8th MOA dot (0.125 MOA). I was quite surprised my eyes could distinguish such small differences in the angular subtensions for each of the dots as 0.106 MOA vs 0.115 MOA vs 0.125 MOA doesn't seem like much difference. Nonetheless, the size of each dot was directly proportional to how easily I could visualize it, especially in low light conditions. In fact, I just had the rifle with the Competition scope out for a little load development a couple days ago and even in relatively bright light, I struggled with it, to the point I'm considering replacing it with one of my IOR-Valdada 36X scopes. The key takeaway here is that features of the reticle and how easily your eyes can visualize them are at least as important as the glass quality, especially when all the scopes you are considering have what I would call "very good" glass to begin with.
In terms of the glass quality of these scopes, I rate them as IOR-Valdada > Competition >> NXS. The IOR-Valdada with Schott glass is the clear winner in side-by-side comparisons, the Competition comes in second, and the NXS scopes obviously do not have the same glass quality as the newer Competition scope. Nonetheless, with their larger aiming dot, I struggle much less using the NXS scopes, and not at all with the IOR-Valdada. Before buying the Competition scope, I had looked through a few Vortex Golden scopes and found that I had extreme difficulty visualizing the reticles, which have the exact same angular subtension for their aiming dot as does the Competition scope. I had hoped that by choosing the fine crosshair with a dot (CTR-2 reticle) for the Competition scope, the crosshairs would help "lead" my eye into the center dot. To some extent, that approach worked as I could visualize the Competition dot better than the floating dot of the exact same angular subtension in the Golden Eagle scope, which I could hardly see at all. But as I get older, it appears as though my ability to use the Competition scope is effectively diminishing. In retrospect, I think I personally would have been much better off with the FCR-1 (hashmark) reticle in the Competition, as I feel the hashmark-style reticles do a better job of "drawing" my eye to the center.
The main point here is that one can discuss/debate relatively intangible items such as "glass quality" or "cutting through mirage" at length without ever reaching any true consensus, as they can appear quite different to different individuals. In that regard, personal opinion matters, and the only way to form a truly valid opinion is to look through a particular scope yourself. However, being able to see and use a given reticle under low light conditions is a topic I find to be somewhat under-represented in typical scope discussions, which always seem to focus on less tangible items such as glass quality. I would much rather use a scope with "decent" or "good" quality glass that has a reticle I really like and can easily visualize, than a scope with the absolute best glass on the planet that has a reticle I have difficulty seeing in some conditions. Given the amount of money that these scopes are going for these days, I think it's wise to consider all the features, including the reticle, glass quality, turret adjustments and range of adjustments, weight, etc., and then make a decision on which you think will work best for your purposes.
)
