Quote Originally Posted by Portzy View Post
I am in the less is more camp but I can underststand and I do appreciate and agree with the "pride of ownership" thing.

I'm learning that, pound for pound, a scope with fewer bells and whistles where the expense has gone into better engineering and clearer glass usually results in respect for the item and better performance. So for me, I now flit between 32mm and 40mm, the exception being........

On talking to my target shooting team mates, (25yd .22 lr benchrest), who think nothing of having scopes up to or beyond 20 magnification with 50mm lenses, (but set them on 12x), they tell me that you don't want to be on your limits of magnification so it's best to have plenty in reserve. I can sort of see the logic in that but ideally I need it explaining in more detail.
Sadly not possible to explain because it is just plain wrong. To think in terms of 'operating below maximum capability' they are drawing a false analogy to a car engine where if it is capable of say 120 MPH driving it at 70 MPH is well within its limits. This is NOT the case with optics. As a reasonably serious photographer I know just how much money needs to be spent to achieve incremental performance. The same consideration applies to sports optics. If anyone needs a lesson in this I suggest they look through a modest pair of binoculars and then look through something like a Leica or Swarowski pair with similar spec. The difference is between night and day. If you buy a cheapo scope with 20x magnification it WILL be rubbish-it cannot be anything else as too many compromises have been made in its design and manufacture. Spending the same money on a 12x scope will give you more chance of getting a satisfactory image at 12x.