[Ravenblack]

Objective lens dictates how much light is transmitted to the eyepiece as I understand it. The only advantage to the 30mm tube is adjustment range, which you need all you can get for long range shooting!

Not according to Mels optic FAQ..... :!:

 

[Ravenblack]

Mel wrote:

A top quality 40mm objective scope will be brighter and clearer than a cheap 55mm space scope. Again, buy the best you can afford, and suspect any cheap scope with fancy features.

I was getting my head messed up. Yes, a bigger objective is better than the same quality smaller objective.

The new Falcon FFP seems to be the best of their range for light gathering, but only has a 44mm lens.

You are correct.

 

[Ravenblack]

or Stevie Wonder....

 

[Ravenblack]

They manufacturer, if honest, will tell you the 30mm and the 1" both have the same erector tube and that the 30mm version is to give you more adjustment range within the 30mm main and there is not a difference in brightness.

Tell me, how does a 30mm tube provide a brighter image when it has the same erector tube in it?

As the soldier said to the bayonet maker..."Good point, well made."

 

[Ravenblack]

A scope is only as good as the sum of its parts...

 

[Ravenblack]

I've just read through the last few.....and we're all saying the same thing....

The smallest "hole" in the scope is the determining factor.....be it a drain pipe with a .5" lens, or a 30mm tube with a 1" lens.

If you have a 50mm Ob, 30mm tube and 1" erector, it'll let through more light than a scope where any of those is reduced.

BUT....scope manufacturers know what is best optically (it is there job....), so it's really down to research and reviews to determine what is best for your purpose and budget....Who cares if it has somehow got 102% light gathering, if you can't afford it. Forget the sizes and theoretical results, look at the actual results.

 

[Ravenblack]

Well, aren't we just the voice of reason and maturity. . .

Rasp!!! I know you are, but what am I :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: