50mm Vs 56mm Front Objective. Is There A Difference?

[@geebeaux]

If optic companies were smart, they would send you all their products before production. Hands down, best optic reviews ANYWHERE.

[@GroinsItchin]

Agreed 💯, I won't be an optic now if he hasn't reviewed it. He's just so good a reviewer! Thank you C Does

[@Bender_B._Rodriguez]

If optics companies were smart they would drop test them . It's why 99% of optics are all junk

[@rustynut1967]

The 56 seems a tad sharper and edge to edge, but if they weren't side by side I don't think you would notice.

[@jasoncown]

This continues to be the best optics review channel online. Great stuff man, excellent scripting

[@martinm.5588]

Great review! I got this Optika6 with the 56 objective. Love it! At a Meopta booth I had both in hand and have the feeling the 56 was slightly sharper and had a little bit better eye box, but a little heavier and bigger. Else than that no difference.

[@justsnuggle]

Please don't give up on the 2-12. They have a 2-10 but it is non-aluminated, I think I like the open circle aiming point and the rest of the BDC looks chunky but I have not found a real picture of the reticle. So please keep working on a 2-12 with a decent reticle, or maybe can you review their 2-10 so I can see what that actually looks like

[@AAkCN1]

Thank you so much. Good review. Came here through a comment from another long-term sibsciber about your quality work. Was not disappointed.

[@davidpayne3604]

Excellent video, side by side optical comparisons like you do are the only way to truly judge the views between scopes. You have an excellent format for the way you test in different lighting situations and testing one of the most important aspects of whether I would buy the scope, the eyebox and the ease of getting a full view of your target. I do hereby give you the award for the best optical tester on KZbin. This is very important to the viewers who are trying to decide whether or not to spend their hard earned money on a scope. Again, a big thank you for your due diligence.

[@AF-O6]

I really appreciate how convey the experience and feel of an optic. There are plenty of channels who torture and test minute details. But ultimately, I use a scope, and the interface and feel, which is an esoteric quality, is very important to me.

[@bghiggy]

I really like that Reticle. I'd love to see it on a 2-12

[@RewardedRocki]

I have this scopes bigger brother (5-30 I think) and I absolutely love it. I have no reason to look for any other glass. Meopta really outdid themselves with the Optika6 line.

[@dhouston9049]

I always look forward to your reviews. I have the 56 mm version. I bought it from Sportsmans Warehouse when I saw it listed for $400. The last I looked a few months ago their pricing on Meopta scopes was still messed up. Should’ve bought a few more at the time. I love this scope. The illumination on mine does bleed through a little bit on high illumination, but can’t imagine ever needing that high of intensity. On low intensity, there’s no problem. The only other complaint and it’s minor is the heavy rubber knobs. It’s a chunk of a scope. Otherwise I find that the glass is clear all the way up to 18 power and at sunset you don’t lose the reticle perhaps a factor of the coatings? Recently I bought the 4.5-27 x 50 with illuminated BDC and it’s mounted on my 243 varmint rifle. For the price Meopta is hard to beat.

[@CDOES]

I have been eyeing out their higher powered versions for a long time. The non capped windage and non locking turrets turn me off tho.

[@dhouston9049]

@@CDOES I picked it up specifically for a FFP big game hunting application. It has the 223 BDC illuminated reticle. Although I like it just fine if I had to do it again I would just get another 3-18 with the MRAD reticle or with a BDC illuminated reticle of some sort. For me 18 or 20 on the top end is perfect. Specifically, I am curious about the Dichro Tech feature.I guess I can pick up another job! I agree about the windage turret however the elevation turret does lock. Overall, I think it’s a nice scope. With this reticle it’s perfect on my varmint rifle. It darkens ever so slightly at the highest magnification, but unlike my similarly powered 5-25X50 Burris XTRll it is still very usable. The 3-18 seems to have a more forgiving eye box. Again,it’s that Meopta glass.

[@turipz]

Great job with this video. Thank you!

[@Jamesy1993]

Another great review. Any idea when your Vortex show down will be ready, comparing them all?

[@seymour2113]

Number 1 optic reviewer on this site. Keep it up mate!

[@Umslopogas666]

Great video as always! I was just wondering - have you had a chance to play with the Meosport R 3-15x50? It looks like a great budget alternative from Meopta...

[@ozJman86]

How long do we have to wait for the Nightforce NX8 review im looking at both these scopes!! Love your reviews!

[@Dirkietje8]

Unless you go for 1000+ m/yds shots you really don't need much bigger than 32/35mm objectives to kinda max out the light transmission, if the internal lenses of the bigger sized objective scope are the same diameter as the smaller sized objective scope, you're not gonna get a brighter image anyways. Coupled with the fact that smaller objectives also provide a better depth of field and field of view in some cases. Big objectives are just weight, and companies sell them because people are asking for them. But honestly my Vector Optics Veyron 4-16x44 FFP is already bigger than I'd really need. Only at far away distances does objective size start to matter more or at really high magnification (25x+) but those two instances are kinda often together if you know what I mean. Best is still to go for the highest quality glass, not the biggest number of anything.

[@drostly3220]

Have you compared to the Mostar? I was under the impression that its the coatings performance at low light that are the magic sauce they have pulled off that is even better than tier 1 uppers.. ?

[@Liquid_Faith]

I honestly was asking this very question. Thank you. I know my next purchase.

[@edwardburrowes4243]

Hi good morning I am a new subscriber , an acquaintance of yours recommended I check out your videos. I am trying to decide which optic to buy for my new cz600 , is the meopta 3-18x 50 much better than the Arken 4-16x 50 which costs half as much? Thanks

[@N.M4d4l1n]

What did you chose ??

[@StayFrostyR9]

Where is Leupold 2-10x30 mate ? I dont wanna purchase befoe then see your review.

[@CDOES]

The editing process is in motion. Should be the next video to drop

[@StayFrostyR9]

@@CDOES Sound's solid. Cant wait thanks mate for all videos. You doing good.

[@TheFlea1987]

@@CDOES Yay! Specs are the perfect hunting scope for me so hoping it holds up on your review. Guess I'll just have to wait and see your video before I buy one.

[@zedoktor979]

I have one. Pretty fantastic.

[@StayFrostyR9]

@@zedoktor979 i experience at shot show and love it especially with side parallax.

[@F15ElectricEagle]

Just my opinion, but it seems that in most cases the contrast and the vibrance of the color on a target is better on the 50mm. The color of a target on the 56mm seems a bit muted but is brighter.

[@SnapD24]

I sent Meopta an email because there's a fleck of something that popped up in my scope. It's not on the outer glass (objective or eye), and I still haven't heard anything from them. I didn't even get an automated response.

[@non-binaryjesus]

So Obj lens size just allows more light in the scope. 50 to 56 is not much difference. Maybe in low light situations? Now going from 40 to 56 or 40 to 50 you will notice

[@VB6000.]

How do I send you my super budget Victoptics S6 1-6X?

[@DD-gi6kx]

there is no reason to think the 56 will perform better the 56 should be more comfortable for the eye, which is going to be pretty difficult to objectively determine with a camera whether this more comfortably is what you need depends on you and how you are using it

[@kshatriyacowboy_]

Ok if they reach back to you about the 2-12 tell them the turrets are too high and must be shortened 😊

[@alexxu3004]

strange how a bigger objective have a darker image

[@LarsLarsen77]

56mm looks "darker" because it's got more contrast. It's actually brighter overall.

[@bryanspilner]

the 56 is much more crispy much more hi def

[@irwig05]

The 56mm will have a better exit pupil and therefore be able to view objects in low light at a higher magnification compared to the 50mm.

[@Bender_B._Rodriguez]

Not if the main tube is the same size. That's why a 1-4 lpvo is the best you want with a 30 mm tube. Changing the size of the ends doesn't do anything helpful when you up the magnification.

[@stevennewman4778]

@Bender B. Rodríguez Exit pupil is objective lens divided by magnification level. For example 50mm/10(mag level)= 5mm exit pupil. It doesn’t matter what size the tube is. Tube size has nothing to do with the amount of light transmission.

[@irwig05]

@@Bender_B._Rodriguez dumbest comment I’ve ever read.

[@Dirkietje8]

@@stevennewman4778 Exit pupil is A metric to see what kinda of low light functionality there is. But Bender is kinda right too, the internals are also lenses and reflective surfaces that need to be scaled up to appreciate the extra light captured by the larger objective. Phase coatings, ED glass and other tricks can help much more than going for a 7 mm exit pupil for instance.

[@lidijabacic8348]

do a review of riton

[@rf9078]

I believe there is about a 12% difference lol

[@mattfleming86]

pi r 2.. it SHOULD be 25% "better", as you have 25% more area to shove glass in. I'd rather have the lighter version for that minimal improvement shown. I keep drifting towards "good enough" glass in more compact and light form factors.

[@lidijabacic8348]

no way 56 is darker than 50

[@ryaniam22]

Why would the 56 mm version be darker? That makes no sense. Curious..... But I think chromatic aberration is harder to control the larger the objective is and the shorter the scope. It bends the light at more of an angle

[@modap3000]

The 50 mm looks noticeably better.