Nightofrce NX8 4-32x50 SFP. Where is the infamous tight eyebox?

[ssimo]

It's a NF NX8 4-32×50 SFP. I didn't even mounted it on a rifle yet. I have heard complaints about the 8 zoom factor scopes, someone even told to have sold his NX8 because of this. It's funny, my NX8 has a totally acceptable eyebox, surprisingly good at 6x, good at 16x and still totally usable at 32x. Actually this scope has a much more forgiving eyebox than the SHV 4-14x50 F1 i had. How is that?
I want to underline that i am talking about the SFP version, never tried the FFP or the 2.5-20 model.

Ciao!

 

[Ashy Larry]

As someone very interested in the scope, in FFP, this is reassuring.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

It’s not there, that’s why. I have two.

 

[SDHNTR]

The big one isn’t bad, the little one is more challenging.

 

[LIWolverine]

I have an NX8 8-32 and have zero problems. I thought my Leupold VX6 4-24 had a worse eye box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ssimo]

As someone very interested in the scope, in FFP, this is reassuring.

yes, i don't know about the FFP versione eyebox but shouldn’t be too different. Why do you want a FFP with such a wide magnification range? I think that, for most applications, this scope is more useful in SFP

 

[ssimo]

It’s not there, that’s why. I have two.

I don't know why they say that, i was expecting something bad considering what i read on forums. That problem just isn't there. Maybe the first batches of these scopes had some difference internally?

 

[ssimo]

I have an NX8 8-32 and have zero problems. I thought my Leupold VX6 4-24 had a worse eye box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The eyebox on this, at similar magnifications, is not significantly different than the one of my khales 2-10x50i. Maybe is better, maybe a little worse. It's such a non issue that i can't even tell.

 

[ndlawrence]

Most of the complaints are on the 2.5-20.

yes, i don't know about the FFP versione eyebox but shouldn’t be too different. Why do you want a FFP with such a wide magnification range? I think that, for most applications, this scope is more useful in SFP

An 8x scope is exactly where you’d want a FFP if you use reticle sub-tensions at all. I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics trying to actually use the reticle over that power range in SFP.

 

[ssimo]

Most of the complaints are on the 2.5-20.


An 8x scope is exactly where you’d want a FFP if you use reticle sub-tensions at all. I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics trying to actually use the reticle over that power range in SFP.

I actually think that a wide magnification range is exactly where a ffp suffers because the reticle will be very small at 4x and too big at 32x, with just a marginal benefit in my opinion, especially if you dial for elevation. Reticle design can mitigate this issue but most reticle i saw on ffp scopes suffer for this. The mental gymnastic to use this sfp scope is just: i want to hold wind and 32x is too much? Crank it down to 16x and you are done. The reticle in this scope is smart because it has marks for mil values both at 16 and at 32x. For anything inside 250 yards i will not probably need to make big compensation for wind so i can use whichever magnification i want. Same if the distance is greater but there is no side wind. Doesn't sound too hard for me. Sfp scopes are usually also more forgiving optically wise, are less complicated so they cost less with an equal level of quality and are generally more reliable and robust (even if also a quality ffp is reliable and durable enough to make this point practically insignificant).
I agree that ffp and sfp scopes are both perfectly usable, for hunting i definitely lean towards sfp but it remains mostly a matter of personal taste and everything depends on the use. I would run a good quality ffp instead of a bad sfp all day. That said, if i had to choose a ffp scope, i would not want a 8x zoom factor, i would prefer a 4x zoom factor.

 

[Pronghunter]

Thought you’d have had your answer from the thread you started on Long Range Hunting.

There isn’t a tight eyebox. The NX8 seems to get a bad wrap on a few things, but in actuality it’s a phenomenal optic for what NF was able to do with it. Compact, 8x, and I’ve compared glass side by side more times than I can remember. It’s very good. The low light is surprisingly good, and resolution is fantastic. The eye box issue that people seem to have with it is nonexistent if you take off the ocular ring cover.

…..take off the ocular tenebrex cover folks!

 

[Wrench]

I have both nx8's.....they're fine. I set my rifles up when I mount the scope for middle of the road between summer and winter and they're still fine.

 

[ssimo]

Thought you’d have had your answer from the thread you started on Long Range Hunting.

There isn’t a tight eyebox. The NX8 seems to get a bad wrap on a few things, but in actuality it’s a phenomenal optic for what NF was able to do with it. Compact, 8x, and I’ve compared glass side by side more times than I can remember. It’s very good. The low light is surprisingly good, and resolution is fantastic. The eye box issue that people seem to have with it is nonexistent if you take off the ocular ring cover.

…..take off the ocular tenebrex cover folks!

I didn’t cause i got banned for having compared expecting how a scope would perform optically wise just keeping it in hand to how a woman would be in bed just looking at her a bit excessive in my opinion

Btw yes, sometimes i used to post also there because i liked also LRH, i don't think this is shameful or against the rules, i am very passionate about hunting so i follow(ed) two forums. Unfortunately this won't happen again.

Btw thanks for the input on the ocular, I will try to remove it!

 

[ssimo]

I have both nx8's.....they're fine. I set my rifles up when I mount the scope for middle of the road between summer and winter and they're still fine.

You mean for when you use winter or summer clothing i guess.. i never bothered about it because, even in winter clothing, i never have such thick clothes to make a difference, at least i never noticed it. The only time there is difference is when i shoot wearing the backpack but that's no big deal cause in this case it's most likely a quick shot at close distance and i am using low magnification

 

[Buzby]

LRH deja vu.
You like your scope, it’s a great scope!

I’m just not sure what you’re looking for in either of these threads you’ve started. I may be wrong, but they way I see it is either;

You want other people to chime in and agree with you, that you like your unmounted scope, and it’s a good scope.

Or you want to disagree with people who have the 2.5-20 FFP version. That is the scope most people are referring to when complaining about the NX8 eye box.

The last thread degraded pretty quickly, to the point the site owner piped up.

 

[ssimo]

LRH deja vu.
You like your scope, it’s a great scope!

I’m just not sure what you’re looking for in either of these threads you’ve started. I may be wrong, but they way I see it is either;

You want other people to chime in and agree with you, that you like your unmounted scope, and it’s a good scope.

Or you want to disagree with people who have the 2.5-20 FFP version. That is the scope most people are referring to when complaining about the NX8 eye box.

The last thread degraded pretty quickly, the point the site owner piped up.

I already replied above about the LRH forum threas and i didn't think it could have been so interesting to know where do i, a random user you don't know anything about, post things. Who cares, right?
Secondly, why would you care about what i am looking for.. is it that big of a deal? Since you are curious i will tell you, full disclosure: i am on hunting forums because i like talking about hunting even when i am at home. I am passionate about it. In this specific case, i asked myself "since this is the infamous eyebox, is it possible that NF made some changes and the scope i got is a newer, better sample?" "Actual owners of this same scope in SFP (most threads i read before the purchase were about FFP models) have ever had issues with the eyebox?". That's it. I have never been interested in the smaller NX8 and i couldn't care less about disagreeing with people about a scope i am not interested in. Your hypotesis is a bit weird honestly. Then, why do you underline that the scope is unmounted? Lastly, i couldn't care less about people agreeing on me about a scope i already have and i already like, only from the optical point of view of course.

Please man, i really don't want to argue with you, i really don't care. You are free to do your speculations about why random people you don't know anything about and you will never meet but please don't post them here. You don't like my threads? Just ignore them.

Nothing personal of course, bye and good hunt!

 

[ChrisAU]

I just moved on from a 2.5-20 FFP because of the eye box. I found it not as bad as people say, but still annoying. On a bench or shooting long range where you build a position to shoot it was fine. Snap shooting or shooting from awkward positions when whitetail hunting in the east it got annoying quick.

NF acknowledges it in their specs. Take a 2.5-10 NXS and a a 2.5-20 NX8 and compare them side by side and you'll quickly see how much more forgiving the 42mm NXS is than the 50mm NX8. Its right there in the specs - exit pupil diameter at 2.5x on the NXS is 15.5mm while the NX8 is 7.1mm. And remember, exit pupil is not a linear measurement in use - it is an image projected in a circular shape that you position your eye within to get a full view. The 15.5mm exit pupil gives you 188.69 sq mm of viewing area to position your eye within. The NX8 is only 39.59 sq mm.

Hold a scope away from you and look at the eyepiece slightly off axis - you'll see a circle of light. That is what you are actually looking at. You could fit 4 of the NX8's into the exit pupil of the NXS, with room to spare.

It is a side effect of the design of high ratio erector scopes.

The 4-32 is also small but it is larger than the 2.5. But compare the 4-32 NX8 to the 4-16 ATACR like I did above and you'll see similar results but not as extreme. NX8 at 4x at 7.3mm and ATACR at 10.3mm.

So it is definitely there, and whether that bothers you are not depends on your use.

 

[ssimo]

I just moved on from a 2.5-20 FFP because of the eye box. I found it not as bad as people say, but still annoying. On a bench or shooting long range where you build a position to shoot it was fine. Snap shooting or shooting from awkward positions when whitetail hunting in the east it got annoying quick.

NF acknowledges it in their specs. Take a 2.5-10 NXS and a a 2.5-20 NX8 and compare them side by side and you'll quickly see how much more forgiving the 42mm NXS is than the 50mm NX8. Its right there in the specs - exit pupil at 2.5x on the NXS is 15.5mm while the NX8 is 7.1mm. And remember, this is not a linear measurement - its an image projected in a circular shape that you position your eye within to get a full view. The 15.5mm exit pupil gives you 188.69 sq mm of viewing area to position your eye within. The NX8 is only 39.59 sq mm.

Hold a scope away from you and look at the eyepiece slightly off axis - you'll see a circle of light. That is what you are actually looking at. You could fit 4 of the NX8's into the exit pupil of the NXS, with room to spare.

It is a side effect of the design of high ratio erector scopes.

The 4-32 is also small but it is larger than the 2.5. But compare the 4-32 NX8 to the 4-16 ATACR like I did above and you'll see similar results but not as extreme. NX8 at 4x at 7.3mm and ATACR at 10.3mm.

So it is definitely there, and whether that bothers you are not depends on your use.

Very interesting, can you tell me what is the way to relate exit pupil measurements to the areas you posted here? That would be very, very interesting

 

[Wrench]

You mean for when you use winter or summer clothing i guess.. i never bothered about it because, even in winter clothing, i never have such thick clothes to make a difference, at least i never noticed it. The only time there is difference is when i shoot wearing the backpack but that's no big deal cause in this case it's most likely a quick shot at close distance and i am using low magnification

I hunt in temps from 100 plus to minus 20. I might change LOP by up to 2 inches.

 

[ChrisAU]

Very interesting, can you tell me what is the way to relate exit pupil measurements to the areas you posted here? That would be very, very interesting

Exit pupils are spec'd in diameter, I simply calculate the area of the circle given the diameter since you are looking at a circle filled with the image.