Author Topic: 2x Leupold (Read 1006 times)

Zelphia · « **on:** November 05, 2004, 07:09:08 PM »

I'm looking for a new scope. I think this is the one for me. I like the diminutive size, light weight, and bright optics. The 2x part will suit me fine. It's available locally for just under $200. Any comments on this scope, pros or cons?

Bob C · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2004, 12:47:42 AM »

I have two, and previously had a third which was included in a trade.

I had no problems with any of them, and had them on (among other things) a .454 Casull Revolver, and a .358 JDJ Contender.

Special Ed · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2004, 12:52:18 AM »

Great scope til the sun starts to set, because they don't gather squat for light due to the small objective lens size. I use them & they are an excellent scope.
Leupold really needs to upgrade their handgun scopes. They have pretty much redone their entire product line, hopefully handgun scopes will be next.

Gregory · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2004, 07:30:51 AM »

The Leupold 2X is a very good scope, I had one for years. I prefer the Nikon 2X though, a little brighter and a larger field of view. I have three of the Nikons now and never a problem.

Duffy · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2004, 07:37:26 PM »

Have had good luck with both of mine, adjustments are always accurate and have always been bright enough for legal shooting. It isn't nessasarily the size of the objective that makes for a bright scope, has more to do with the coatings.

Lone Star · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2004, 02:59:51 AM »

Quote

It isn't nessasarily the size of the objective that makes for a bright scope, has more to do with the coatings.

Boy, that comment would make my old university physics professor roll over in his grave! Brightness has a lot to do with exit pupil size; coatings can enhance transmissivity, but it is the physics of the lenses which are the real players.

My 2x Leupold worked great for me for 25 years in Alaska. I purchased it in 1976 and used it on several heavilly-recoiling barrels. In about 1981 as I was transferring it to another barrel I noticed that it made a slight rattling sound when I shook it - it still performed perfectly. After hunting season I sent it in to Leupold for repair - they sent me a brand new scope back. Apparently they had re-designed the interior for better recoil resistance and updated me when I sent it in.

Graybeard · « **Reply #6 on:** November 07, 2004, 06:22:53 AM »

While I like the Leupold 2X and used them for years with much success I do not agree with the comment they are bright enough for all legal shooting conditions. If you are in thick woods and especially if in an area where a mountain takes away direct sunlight long before sundown and/or end of legal shooting hours you'll find it nearly impossible to use to the end of legal shooting time.

Long ago before my best friend Billy Doss died we used to shoot at his back yard range until light ran out. At times we'd even illuminate the targets with headlights or flashlights and keep on shooting. Folks with Leupold 2X on their guns had to stop long before those with Leupold 4X did.

I've had to pass on legal shooting opportunities and/or end my shooting day early many times because of that scope. As a result I no longer use them or for that matter any straight tube scope with only a 20mm objective. I feel no need for huge objectives as some do even on rifles but a 28mm to 32mm handgun objective is far superior in the hunting woods to a 20mm objective. You also do not want the cross hairs too fine or they'll disappear on you even tho the scope is bright enough to see game. Been hunting with handguns for about 35 years and these are my observations in that time.

Zelphia · « **Reply #7 on:** November 07, 2004, 08:53:05 AM »

Thanks for all of the insight. I have had a Leupold go bad too. It was a 1.5-5x Vari-X III that had been mounted on a 35 Whelen for years. It is an excellent scope. Something let go inside and I couldn't turn the vari-x ring. Leupold repaired it and returned it in short order. My only cost was the shipping charge from me to Leupold. A very fine company and I'm a lifelong fan. What I've read about the physics of a scopes' relative brightness states that the eye can't benefit from an exit pupil of greater than 7mm. I think that is the diameter of the average human pupil. A 10mm exit pupil won't be any brighter than a 7mm exit pupil. Conversely, a 7mm exit pupil won't be any dimmer than a 10mm exit pupil. You arrive at that number by dividing the scope objective diameter by the power. Thus, 20mm / 2x = 10mm. This low power straight tube scope should as bright as a 28mm 4x scope. Of course this doesn't take into account the magic lens coatings that all of the manufacturers brag about now a days. This old model scope doesn't benefit from the latest technology. This is all academic I know and yous guys experience is the bottom line. I guess that I'll try to do some comparisons at the gun shop and see if my old eyes can see the difference. Thanks again.

Duffy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2004, 10:39:51 AM »

How many of you have looked through a cheap scope with a huge objective lens and a high quality one with a smaller objective to find the higher end one is brighter?
Generally the objective size has little to do with exit pupil size, it's power and how the lenses are focused.

BTW if your physics prof is dead that means he hasn't seen the new advancements in lens coatings and technology eh?

Graybeard · « **Reply #9 on:** November 07, 2004, 10:53:22 AM »

Quote

Generally the objective size has little to do with exit pupil size, it's power and how the lenses are focused.

Say what?

Objective size has every thing to do with exit pupil size. By definition exit pupil is the diameter of the objective lens in mm divided by the magnification. Those and only those two factors affect exit pupil size. Nuttin else enters into it.

Lone Star · « **Reply #10 on:** November 07, 2004, 12:51:45 PM »

Quote

BTW if your physics prof is dead that means he hasn't seen the new advancements in lens coatings and technology eh?

He did see plenty of single magflouride coatings, and more modern multi-coatings only increase transmissivity by another 9% (that's what Nikon says here: http://www.maxwell.com.au/photo/nikon/sportoptics/interest/key.html ). He also knew a thing or two about optics, knowledge which some posters here apparently lack.

I read all the talk about the magical exit pupil but nothing on the more important characteristics relavent to this discussion: relative brightness and twilight factor. To compute the Exit Pupil: divide the diameter of the objective lens in millimeters by the power of the scope. To compute Relative Brightness: square the Exit Pupil. An 8mm EP has a relative brightness of 64. An 11mm exit pupil has a RB of 121, twice as bright as the 8mm scope.

Another factor is the twilight factor. Twilight Factor = square root of (magnification x aperture). The TL factor for our 2x Leupold is 6.3. That for the 4x is 10.6. That's why the 4x appears brighter at twilight, as Greybeard suggests. Both have the same coatings, so that is a non-factor in the physics of the two lens systems.

These characteristics are mathematically derived and anyone can calculate them without measuring instruments. Another effect of the physics of the lenses is very obvious - the more glass in the scope the less light can pass through it. All else equal, the scope with fewer lenses will be brighter. Magic coatings help transmissivity but they are not 100% efficient either - very good coatings are 90-95% efficient, so light is lost through the coatings as well. Nope, coatings are hardly the chief factor in a scope's brightness.

Duffy · « **Reply #11 on:** November 07, 2004, 01:55:59 PM »

LS & GB,
GOTCHA!

At least everyone got a good optics lesson. Thanks for the info...

Zelphia · « **Reply #12 on:** November 07, 2004, 03:09:44 PM »

Relative brightness for a 2x Leupold w/20mm objective lens = 100

Relative brightness for a 4x Leupold w/28mm objective lens = 49

Twilight factor for 2x Leupold w/20mm objective = 6.325

Twilight factor for 4x Leupold w/28mm objective =10.583

Now I'm really confused. I think I'll just go look through the two scopes side by side and see what I can see...

Graybeard · « **Reply #13 on:** November 07, 2004, 09:16:44 PM »

Yes it is confusing. Each scope maker wishes to push the particular measure that makes their scope look best. All optics are compromises as I've said so many times. Look at it as a triangle. The three sides of that triangle are magnification, eye relief and field of view. To increase either you must decrease one or both of the others. Each manufacturer must decide which to accentuate and which to let slide in thier packages.

But trust me or take them out and try it yourself. No scope with a 20 mm objective is gonna be nearly as good in low light as one with a 28 mm or larger objective assuming lens quality and coatings are at least pretty much the same. That's real world. I've never been much of a believer in Relative Brightness as a deciding factor. To me Twilight factor more closely mirrors what you experience in the real world.

BTW the Physics Prof was wrong IF he stated it exactly as shown above. True the human eye cannot or generally cannot open beyond 7MM but that larger exit pupil does make eye placement less critical so to that end it can be used and used to good benefit. But yes he is right larger just means it's bigger than your pupil and doesn't make it seem brighter to you.

Zelphia · « **Reply #14 on:** November 07, 2004, 09:39:28 PM »

I took a peek at one of the sponsers (SWFA) and discovered a Weaver 2x EER with a 28mm objective. Very similer to the Leupold 2x in weight and length, fully multicoated, same FOV, at about 60% the cost new, and with a lifetime waranty. The only complaint so far on this thread against the Leupold 2x is poor low light performance. With the bigger objective lens on this Weaver it must perform better at dawn and dusk based on the theories stated. I haven't found any discussion on this particular scope via the search engine...anyone have any experience with this baby?

Graybeard · « **Reply #15 on:** November 07, 2004, 09:45:01 PM »

I have no personal experience with that scope but Bushnell also has such a scope as the Weaver and I can assure you it is a top choice in the 2X handgun field.

bgjohn · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2004, 01:09:34 AM »

Quote from: Arctic Tern

I'm looking for a new scope. I think this is the one for me. I like the diminutive size, light weight, and bright optics. The 2x part will suit me fine. It's available locally for just under $200. Any comments on this scope, pros or cons?

You can get a used one for about $100-150.
JM

SLAVAGE · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2004, 12:00:41 PM »

find a nice used leapold for that life time warn. on them

so most people are ok with useing a 4x28 leapold for around 100 yard shoots say a 41 mag?
dave

rickyp · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2004, 04:12:44 PM »

my leupold 2x works well enough for my hunting style.
in the evenings I will stay in the stand until I can no longer see trough the scope well enough for a good shot. When I can no longer see trough it well I get down and move to the edge of a field and sit in a makeshift ground blind. most of my shots will be well under 50 yards.

that being said: I would still love to trade my two leupolds 2x for Bushnell 3200 / 4200 or even the t/c variable scope