Scope Recommendations for New Airgun Shooter

[2L8]

Steve, Were the Midas-Tac's the "HD" versions you were seeing? I remember in early 20' picking up both the Midas-Tac 6x24 and 5x25 (non-HD I believe) and compared them to my ETR and it was evident to me, at the time, there was no comparison. They both were returned. At your recommendation, I picked up a G2 Helos 2x12 when they became available and am very satisfied. Your observation of the Midas-Tac's you saw being good enough to even compare to the Cronos is mighty impressive. I will put them back on my radar for consideration.

Patrick

 

[beerthief]

MY advise is to not get thinking in POWER = better a less power scope is less shake , more Field of view better /easier/faster target acquiring

 

[steve123]

Steve, Were the Midas-Tac's the "HD" versions you were seeing? I remember in early 20' picking up both the Midas-Tac 6x24 and 5x25 (non-HD I believe) and compared them to my ETR and it was evident to me, at the time, there was no comparison. They both were returned. At your recommendation, I picked up a G2 Helos 2x12 when they became available and am very satisfied. Your observation of the Midas-Tac's you saw being good enough to even compare to the Cronos is mighty impressive. I will put them back on my radar for consideration.

Patrick

I forgot about the HD aspect.
I've had both versions, the standard glass back then when they came out, and HD glass now, but the recent HD 5-25 version is what I currently have, and my friends newish 6-24's that I often look through, and that I compare to the G2 Cronus scopes that I own.

One particular friend has the original version 6-24 and as far as I know its still his favorite scope. He likes the glass in it as well as the rest of the scope.

The friend I mentioned in the first paragraph sold some of his other scopes and has two 6-24 TAC's now. He has said to me several times that he won't even consider buying other scopes in this price range anymore.

I sold my original TAC 6-24's, the TAC 4-16, the ETR 4.5-30, and the Cronos, not because of any other reason than that I wasn't enthusiastic about the reticles because I like all .2 mil reticles if I can get one in the scope I want, not because I didn't feel like the glass wasn't already good.

At this point I'd need an older one to compare to the newer ones to see.

 

[Sanctify7]

I forgot about the HD aspect.
I've had both versions, the standard glass back then when they came out, and HD glass now, but the recent HD 5-25 version is what I currently have, and my friends newish 6-24's that I often look through, and that I compare to the G2 Cronus scopes that I own.

One particular friend has the original version 6-24 and as far as I know its still his favorite scope. He likes the glass in it as well as the rest of the scope.

The friend I mentioned in the first paragraph sold some of his other scopes and has two 6-24 TAC's now. He has said to me several times that he won't even consider buying other scopes in this price range anymore.

I sold my original TAC 6-24's, the TAC 4-16, the ETR 4.5-30, and the Cronos, not because of any other reason than that I wasn't enthusiastic about the reticles because I like all .2 mil reticles if I can get one in the scope I want, not because I didn't feel like the glass wasn't already good.

At this point I'd need an older one to compare to the newer ones to see.

Greetings, Folks.

I am following this conversation closely. I have a couple of clarifying questions and comments for anyone, but perhaps for Steve mostly.
I am being a bit redundant, so please forgive me.
What I am asking only concerns present-day models of the Athlon line because I have no Athlon history, concerns glass, and is not concerned about long-range capabilities. It’s about glass. (What would help is if a lighter weight model had superior glass.)
One, the glass gets (obviously?) better with each line as one goes up the ladder, from the Argos to the Ares/Cronos.
Two, and this overlaps with one, what models have the best glass in Athlon lineup? The Ares? The Cronus?
Three, what is the difference in the two Midas categories: BTR and TAC?
Four, please locate the Helix with a given Athlon line. Which Athlon is absolutely better than the Helix—or the Sidewinder?
Finally, is the $1,500 Nexus superior to all the Athlon products, or just some of them?
If you only want to answers one or two questions, I get it.

Thank you. S7

 

[EdinGa]

I love

I was thinking of putting it on a benjamin cayden, but I still haven't decided what pcp I am going to get. The gun will be specifically for squirrels with most shots at 25 yards or under; 50 yard shots would be rare.

I love my Cayden, but it's a big, heavy rifle. Not sure I would pick it for a woods carry gun.

 

[steve123]

Greetings, Folks.

I am following this conversation closely. I have a couple of clarifying questions and comments for anyone, but perhaps for Steve mostly.
I am being a bit redundant, so please forgive me.
What I am asking only concerns present-day models of the Athlon line because I have no Athlon history, concerns glass, and is not concerned about long-range capabilities. It’s about glass. (What would help is if a lighter weight model had superior glass.)
One, the glass gets (obviously?) better with each line as one goes up the ladder, from the Argos to the Ares/Cronos.
Two, and this overlaps with one, what models have the best glass in Athlon lineup? The Ares? The Cronus?
Three, what is the difference in the two Midas categories: BTR and TAC?
Four, please locate the Helix with a given Athlon line. Which Athlon is absolutely better than the Helix—or the Sidewinder?
Finally, is the $1,500 Nexus superior to all the Athlon products, or just some of them?
If you only want to answers one or two questions, I get it.

Thank you. S7

The Midas BTR series are all SFP scopes. Typically SFP scopes if the same level as a FFP scope have superior IQ than the FFP scope because there are fewer lenses. I don't have the 4.5-27 version so I can't compare.

The TAC's are all FFP.

The Cronos series are the Flagship FFP scopes and I personally think have the best glass.

If you don't feel like you need a tactical style scope, want the best glass for the money, as well as lightweight, you might consider other brands, maybe a used Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, Meopta, and likely having 10Y close focus will greatly narrow your choices and will cost quite a bit.

 

[Sanctify7]

The Midas BTR series are all SFP scopes. Typically SFP scopes if the same level as a FFP scope have superior IQ than the FFP scope because there are fewer lenses. I don't have the 4.5-27 version so I can't compare.

The TAC's are all FFP.

The Cronos series are the Flagship FFP scopes and I personally think have the best glass.

If you don't feel like you need a tactical style scope, want the best glass for the money, as well as lightweight, you might consider other brands, maybe a used Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica, Meopta, and likely having 10Y close focus will greatly narrow your choices and will cost quite a bit.

Thank you, Steve.
You made clear several things.
I am aware of those other high-end brands, but I have done little exploration of them. I have a pair of Zeiss 8x binoculars, and they were not cheap (maybe $700.00 or so 10 years ago). While I may be on the lookout for a deal on one of those scopes in used condition, as you say, it would certainly have to be that—I could not justify buying one new. But I will now check them out more intentionally.
And thanks for the (simple) clarification of the Midas line. But I am not sure that I knew second focal plane scopes have better glass due to less lenses. This jibes with what a Hawke rep told me: every added lens decreases light transmission to some degree. It makes me think more about this type of scope, of which I have two: lighter, less expensive, and perhaps better IQ.
I learned some helpful things here.
One question: By tactical scope do you mean FFP?
Thanks a lot.
S7

 

[JungleShooter]

Listening in on the conversation carefully.
Learning lots!

Thank you all!



A concept I want to keep in mind when thinking about the image quality IQ and wanting better GLASS:
"Better glass" seems to be as broad a concept as "better food":

• For some "better" means "more meat on the plate"... — or "brighter glass" (the dusk hunters and scopecamers).
• For some "better" means "healthier"... — or "clearer image".
• Some want it "high in vitamines"... — or "more contrast".
• Other with "less fat"... — or "less chromatic aberration".
• "Nothing deep fried"... — or "no yellow tint" (or blue, or whatever).


Matthias

 

[Sanctify7]

Listening in on the conversation carefully.
Learning lots!

Thank you all!



A concept I want to keep in mind when thinking about the image quality IQ and wanting better GLASS:
"Better glass" seems to be as broad a concept as "better food":

• For some "better" means "more meat on the plate"... — or "brighter glass" (the dusk hunters and scopecamers).
• For some "better" means "healthier"... — or "clearer image".
• Some want it "high in vitamines"... — or "more contrast".
• Other with "less fat"... — or "less chromatic aberration".
• "Nothing deep fried"... — or "no yellow tint" (or blue, or whatever).


Matthias

Hi, Matthias.
Please distinguish “clearer image” from “more contrast.” I thing I am after clearer image, but am not sure.
Thanks.
David

 

[JungleShooter]

Actually, David, I'm not sure I can — I'm wading through the deep waters of the optical sciences, and the water level is above my chin....

Maybe "clearer" and "more contrast" is the same...??

Matthias

 

[2L8]

Was wondering if I could get some scope recommendations. New to Air guns. Was looking into Leupold, US optics, and Nightforce Scopes. But any advice would be appreciated.

To get back on track...silly me
You know, I think I hijacked @elock49 OP a couple (few) pages ago after some excellent dialog goings on and need to apologize to Eric. His question is legit and we all have thrown out a lot of great suggestions for scopes he could consider for his Cayden. Many who have posted here are very knowledgeable and offer a keen view and understanding of optics as a whole.
It would be great if @elock49 would chime in and share what he has learned/decided.
@elock49 Your up ma-man!

Patrick

 

[steve123]

Thank you, Steve.
You made clear several things.
I am aware of those other high-end brands, but I have done little exploration of them. I have a pair of Zeiss 8x binoculars, and they were not cheap (maybe $700.00 or so 10 years ago). While I may be on the lookout for a deal on one of those scopes in used condition, as you say, it would certainly have to be that—I could not justify buying one new. But I will now check them out more intentionally.
And thanks for the (simple) clarification of the Midas line. But I am not sure that I knew second focal plane scopes have better glass due to less lenses. This jibes with what a Hawke rep told me: every added lens decreases light transmission to some degree. It makes me think more about this type of scope, of which I have two: lighter, less expensive, and perhaps better IQ.
I learned some helpful things here.
One question: By tactical scope do you mean FFP?
Thanks a lot.
S7

Tactical style, Yes, as in a FFP variable, and things like matching turrets and reticle with hashes, zero stop, lots of elevation travel, side focus, good eyeybox.

Basically you can shoot long range with almost any scope but its the combination of the above conveniences that help makes shooting long range more efficiently and somewhat easier when time is involved.

The opposite would be like using and old 1 inch tubed 2.5x fixed power hunting scope with capped turrets and crosshair reticle for long range. Not fast, or convenient to shoot long range with but it can be done. I actually won a vintage rifle match using a 4x scope(it was a state of the art tactical scope back then, lol) and not too unsimilar to the 2.5x hunting scope, this was on an old Swedish M41B sniper rifle and it was very hard to do even with that scope and the longest distance was only 500M!!!!!
It's like comparing an old car of the same era to a modern sports car. They'll get you from point A to point B but.....

 

[steve123]

Listening in on the conversation carefully.
Learning lots!

Thank you all!



A concept I want to keep in mind when thinking about the image quality IQ and wanting better GLASS:
"Better glass" seems to be as broad a concept as "better food":

• For some "better" means "more meat on the plate"... — or "brighter glass" (the dusk hunters and scopecamers).
• For some "better" means "healthier"... — or "clearer image".
• Some want it "high in vitamines"... — or "more contrast".
• Other with "less fat"... — or "less chromatic aberration".
• "Nothing deep fried"... — or "no yellow tint" (or blue, or whatever).


Matthias

Yep and on top of what you mentioned everyone has preferences in what their eyes like more.

For example my eyes are not sensitive to CA so if its there I don't much notice it.

I like a warm focused image. Kind of like when one looks through Swarovski bino's. Hard to describe but I have Zeiss HT 10x42's and I prefer my friends Swaro more even though the Zeiss is already wonderful??????

 

[Sanctify7]

Tactical style, Yes, as in a FFP variable, and things like matching turrets and reticle with hashes, zero stop, lots of elevation travel, side focus, good eyeybox.

Basically you can shoot long range with almost any scope but its the combination of the above conveniences that help makes shooting long range more efficiently and somewhat easier when time is involved.

The opposite would be like using and old 1 inch tubed 2.5x fixed power hunting scope with capped turrets and crosshair reticle for long range. Not fast, or convenient to shoot long range with but it can be done. I actually won a vintage rifle match using a 4x scope(it was a state of the art tactical scope back then, lol) and not too unsimilar to the 2.5x hunting scope, this was on an old Swedish M41B sniper rifle and it was very hard to do even with that scope and the longest distance was only 500M!!!!!
It's like comparing an old car of the same era to a modern sports car. They'll get you from point A to point B but.....

Thanks again, Steve.
My knowledge base is getting better incrementally with these relays.
I have never shot anything beyond 100 yards, so 500 meters still sounds long to me. But I know that the idea of what’s constitutes ‘distance’ has changed considerably, and that Dubber and crew and others are moving slugs way out there.
Take care. S7