Well so now as most of you know Leupold has the VX-L scope with the 50mm objective lense. http://www.leupold.com/products/vx-l.htm This thing is HUGE! There are 44's and 40's, 36's, 32's, etc. on the market also. What do you all think about the larger objectives? The human eye can only let in a certain amount of light no matter how large the obj. lense on the scope. At some point a larger obj. is just a waste of metal and glass. I guess they sell though. I have studied this and just came across a very simple statement a guy made that sums it up:
Depending on the power of magnification you intend to hunt with you may not need any more than 32mm. You see the human eye can only absorb so much light through the pupil. A young eye can go to 5mm, maximum. As you get older that reduces with time, 4mm and even less. The formula is simple, the capability of the eye X magnification = needed objective size. An older eye with a 8X scope can only utilize 32mm of objective (4x8=32), any larger is useless. A younger eye could take advantage of a 40mm bell at 8X, but how often does one hunt at max power. My biggest scope is a 2.5x8 Weaver and it doesn't spend a whole lot of time at 8x.
obj. lens divided by power = exit pupil. My leupy 2.5-8x36... 36/2.5=14.4 exit pupil.
How much larger than 40 does a guy really need? When the 40's came out they were considered huge. My postition is that bigger is not necessarily better when it comes to scopes.