20 Best Scope Rings For Long Range Shooting (2023 Updated)

I usually rent the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 for Chicago’s Air & Water show, but this year I wanted more reach with a little less cost because I wasn’t sure how much time I’d be bale to dedicate to shooting over the weekend of my rental.

For an air show, the zoom range was great. If/when the planes got too close I could zoom out from 600mm to frame them nicely. The sharpness was decent. When you’re tracking jets flying 300-600+mph a tiny bit of motion blur – even with an extremely fast shutter – can masquerade as softness.

The softness in a few photos did give me a good excuse to try Topaz Labs’ AI sharpening software a try and I was blown away by it. Long story short, the lens is plenty sharp for Topaz Labs to make the resulting photos pin point tack sharp.

But back to the lens. For an air show the auto-focus is a bit slow. And I didn’t like that it doesn’t have a focus memory button. On the Nikkor I previously used, I could set a focus memory button – I’d set it to infinity – so I could easily find the airplanes farther out to continually track them as they got closer to show center before engaging the AF.

With this lens, I found the the AF would hunt for focus – and if I momentarily looked away to focus on something distant it would take me a few seconds to find/lock back onto the plane which caused me to miss some shots – thankfully none of the critical ones! Overall I liked the zoom range and was pleased with the sharpness, but the AF speed and lack of a focus memory button was a con of this lens used in this application.

This is a great lens that is made all the more wonderful by its somewhat more obtainable price compared to the camera manufacturer lenses (yes, I know Sigma also makes cameras). I adapted the rental to my Fuji X-T4 to see if there is such thing as an adapter that would make one of these beauties work for moving wildlife (answer = nope).

For still images though the results were great. I had a huge test matrix to go through to figure out if I would keep one of the adapters and then buy the lens and while it was ultimately a fail – it did leave me stunned by the image quality.

I had an old Nikon 500 f/4 and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. This actually produced better images on my X-T4 than the old Nikon did on a D500 (which is probably the fairest comparison as both are using the best parts of the lens and ignoring the edges).

The one thing I can’t say is how this will actually perform on a Canon – but it is worth the rental to see if you like it. Worst case scenario – you will walk away with some keeper images. Side note – I love Lensrentals.

These are customer focused people who are friendly, considerate, and willing to jump in and help when needed. If you are just getting into renting you will be thrilled.

I had done a lot of YouTube research on this lens before I decided to jump in and get it. It seemed to be a good fit for the high school sports that I take pictures of. I have only had a chance to use it at a little league baseball game so far.

The real test will be next month when Friday night football starts up. I will update this review then. It took a bit to get used to the weight of the lens, but by the end of the game, I was fine with it.

This is definitely not a lens to handhold for any length of time. Since I’m using it for sports, a monopod is needed. I am using it with a Nikon D600. Both of those products are about the same age; 10 years or so and they work well together.

The first of the three pictures below was shot behind the backstop fence and the fence can’t be seen at all. I just rested to hood against the fence.

The brand “Zeiss”, the nostalgia of my first Zeiss film camera and Zeiss binoculars some 5 decades ago, and all the reviews, perhaps set this lens up for unreasonable expectations? You be the judge: I had the lens for only a few days, and compared its performance briefly to my canon 24-70 2.

8L II at 25 mm, on a tripod, both opened at 2. 8 , 4 and 8, and shooting a skyline, 2 hours before sunset, with the sun over my right shoulder. I could not see any difference between the photos on large monitor.

I cropped hard the pix from both lenses at 2. 8, and printed them on 17×22 paper. Can’t see a difference. The pros would probably do more agressive testing? Can my Zeiss copy be just slightly off? I can’t recal whether I had rated the canon 24-70, which I had liked a lot upon receiving.

If I had rated it 5, would it be fair to rate this 4 because it didn’t rise to my very high expectations? The Zeiss is built like a tank, beautiful, and makes you feel good about having it (how important is that?) and I can open it to 1.

4. While it is manual focus, it does signal to the camera when focus is achieved, and I could hear the beep, and see the dot in the view finder, indicating that it’s in focus. Good help. I can’t remember whether others had compared the Zeiss to the canon 24 L 1.

4, which I don’t have. I’ll keep the lens because it’s faster, but it is good to know that the much more versatile/flexible zoom is as good. I will probably use the canon zoom more than the Zeiss, but the latter will have its uses/niche.

An after thought: in some reviews, people have not found much difference between some Milvus lenses, of which this is one, and top of the line Zeiss Otus. Is there room for some extrapolation here ? I suppose all is in the eye of the beholder.

These look good and fit exactly my scope to rifle. They have a screw in scope stop in the rear base. The screw is conical, I turned it upside down so the flat end was the connection to the flat recess hole in my receiver.

My objective bell is 1. 8 this fitted with about 1/16th space so my scope is as low to the stock as it will go, but I can adjust the objective focus ring. Perfect.

If you are the proud owner of a classic Win. 9422 and desire more options with scope positioning these weaver mounts will help. They slide on and are held tight with two set screws. You may wish to place a piece of plastic between the mounts and receiver to prevent damage to the top of your receiver.

these mounts have only two slots for full size rings but I cut a third slot to offer a better fit with my scope.

Perfect help to give scope a little lift to get over the front sight easy to install.and able to adjust eye relief by be able to slide scope forward and back with ease.

Good optical quality but; – extremely stiff focus to the point its unusable – focus changes as you change magnifying power – no diopter – not terrible since it has good eye relief – small apparent field of view.

Seems like they traded this off for better eye relief -12x is hand holdable but for higher magnifying power you definitely need a tripod Comes with a nice bag though. These are probably extremely durable so if you truly need that then get these.

I think most people want better ergonomics and optical quality in this price range.

I have been looking to upgrade my spotting scope for a few years now and when I saw this one I bought it. I saw this one back in the early 90s and was way impressed with the clarity and compactness. Leupold makes some good optics and I have several of there rifle scopes also threre obsolete straight tube spotter 30X, that’s why when I saw this one with FFP MOA redical for calling shots, I was hooked.

I am pleased to say, I was not let down in the least, Great spotting scope, very clear, compact and my girlfriend can call my shots for me!.

IšverstiShow in original languageI love this spotting scope. I love the view and the crispness. The weight is ideal; which is what I was looking for. The bigger spotting scopes are massively heavier than this one, which I find unacceptable for a hunter who hikes.

I also like the fact the controls are harder to turn because they won’t bump off focus or magnification. Love it.

In switching to a mirrorless camera system, I discovered few of my new lenses used 77mm filters. With a large investment in the 77mm, I chose to buy this and several other, slightly different sized step-up rings, all from B+W.

I am impressed with the quality and sturdiness of these B+W products. They proved reliable solutions to the problem I faced.

I had been using Fotodiox adapter rings and have had quiet a bit of trouble with the threads jamming. From all the comments I’d seen related to that issue it seemed the reasons were low quality construction and aluminum composition.

Reviews of the B+H rings seem universally good, and one reviewer even said it was due to their brass construction. So I decided to switch to B+W Step up rings because of their brass construction figuring that brass is less likely to bind than is aluminum and that using the same metal for both filter and ring eliminates the problem of dissimilar metals (some of my filters are B+H and eventually all non-B+H filters will be replaced).

When the rings arrived I noticed they were very light and appeared almost indistinguishable from my Fotodiox rings. At that point I wrote to B+W to verify the metal used since it isn’t specifically stated in the product descriptions even in the B+H web catalogue.

I was told that they are made of aluminum. I used my 67 to 77 mm step up ring yesterday for the first time, being careful to tighten it only to the point that it will not unscrew itself. But no matter, at the end of the shoot, I had to resort to filter wrenches to separate the B+H ring from my Hoya HMC filter.

Not an auspicious beginning. So, I give the rings only 3 stars. They do the job, but thus far not any better than other aluminum filter rings costing less than 1/3 as much. For the price of these filters, I think they should have been brass.

Had I known they were aluminum I wouldn’t have bought them. In the future I’ll be more careful to verify specs before I order. Perhaps my first experience was a fluke and future use will be without incident.

If that happens, I’ll come back and update this review.

I have come to really like and respect the Vortex brand as being good quality with an affordable price tag. Some may have had a negative experience but as for myself it has all been positive so far. I paired this mount with a Crossfire II 6-18×44 AO on a SA Saint Victor in.

308 and it clears the rear flip up sight in the down position. No spacer needed. Very pleased so far.

I bought two of these Vortex scope mounts and I am pleased. I put one on my 458 SOCOM and the other on my grandson’s 450 Bushmaster. Both are rock solid on the pic rails and we’re holding zero after 25+ rounds each.

Time will tell, but much better than previous mounts. We used Vortex scopes with these Vortex mounts.

Gave it a shot. Going back to large adjustable wench and masking tape. With low rings, which don’t have much ‘shank’ below rings, this plastic wrench’s force is pretty much all bearing all the ring section.

Also like longer handle on big adjustable, not because force is needed, but because it is more controllable with the extra leverage. With the short handled plastic wrench I tended to overshoot (both directions) as had to lean/pull on it to get things moving and, “things in motion tend to stay in motion.

“.

I recently use this to install the front Leupold ring on its base. Previously I used either a wrench which scarred the rings or the scope itself. That put excess side loads on the scope. This is a no fuss no muss easy to use tool.

I highly recommend it.

I have used Leupold rings for decades and installing them was always a major pain and due to tolerances, sometimes more of a pain than others. It was by accident that I saw this wrench and given that the price was so reasonable I picked it up.

It is so simple yet it one of the best things I bought in 2015. It works like a charm, no more fighting to turn rings in or to adjust them. There is no chance of marring the rings and the leverage is excellent.

I can honestly say that if you use Leupold and you install them yourself, you should do yourself a favor and buy this item.

This lens has a very shallow depth of field, which means you get a bit more blur on anything not in that shallow field. Which is good if you dont need detail outside that area. Not so good if you want that detail.

Depends on what you are shooting , but for me I find it difficult to actually see what Im capturing. The field is so shallow. Makes it hard work for me. Only tried it out a few times though, so far. And only used it on macro, not portraits.

The Nikon 60mm macro seems to have a slightly deeper field , I feel.

My lens came very well packed in it’s own padded lens carry case. Its a large case with a strap for holding it and a loop for fastening to a belt. I was impressed that the lens includes two hoods, one for full frame and the other for the APC sensor cameras (which is a smaller frame chip).

This means the lens suits both full frame camera’s and APC sensor types. My primary camera is a full frame Nikon D610 but my backup camera is also a Nikon and with a APC sensor. So I can use the lens on both bodies simply by fitting the correct hood.

I have trialed the similar Nikon 105mm Macro and it was very nice to use. But around twice the price of the SIGMA. I have read very good reviews of the SIGMA 105mm Macro and already own the second generation SIGMA 12-24mm ultra wide zoom which is fantastic.

My first goes with the SIGMA 105mm were a little clumsy as I tried to hand hold the camera and shoot various objects around the garden. I found the autofocus went off into infinity and eventually back as it searched for the correct sharpness.

I later realized I can set the distance the autofocus will go with a slide switch on the side. So selecting the shortest focusing distance was best for Macro rather than short to infinity. My first results were really good but I realized looking at theimages that the depth of field is very shallow and it is easy when hand holding to accidently focus on something slight in front or behind the important detail and end up with a second rate image.

So, that means for Macro I will be committed to using a tripod and experimenting with f stops and associated depth of field. Particularly where flowers are concerned. I have read that you can fit the camera to a sliding indexed scale and take a series of images with the focus gradually shifted from the foreground of the image to the rear then stack it all in software which bends the sharp images together quite advanced sounding but I’m keen to investigate that once I master using the lens as is.

It would have been nice to have the brand name lens to suit my camera but I am not a professional and other reviews I have read of the SIGMA convinced my to buy one, although its early yet I do not regret my purchase.

I think I will as I get more used to using it in various setups get more than my moneys worth. If you are interested in Macro photography with a DSLR either full frame of APC sensor seriously consider the SIGMA 105mm Macro.

This camera is small feels cheap and not user friendly. I have Been taking pictures over 35 years with canon products starting with the canon AE-1 35mm. The lenses are super small and not interchangeable with the EOS canons.

This is how canon makes their money. Buy a mirrorless and you need to buy all specialty lenses too. QVC should eliminate these small toy cameras. The EOS t series are so much better. I’ve had the 35 mm EOS t5 and t3.

All quality cameras like the AE-1. I’ll have to read the manual on how to use. Ridiculous price for this toy camera. Once I use It if I don’t rerun it I’ll leave another review.

Great upgrade to the kit lens – takes nice wide angle and macro stuff but also has a bit of zoom for some great framing options. Is it built like a Canon? No! It’s plastic mostly – which makes it lighter – but I do question the long term viability of the construction.

Clarity is phenomenal for the price however – especially used. Overall, great all around versatile lens for just about any application with a nice range of focus and low 2. 8 aperture. For the price you really can’t go wrong – give it a shot! (no pun intended!).

The version I got is the Sigma 17-70 F/2. 8-4 DC Macro HSM. It is not the OS (Optical Stabilzer) model. This particular version is in the Pentax K mount so OS was not needed anyways. Since vetting the lens, I’ve put it through the ringer.

Shot Portraits both with off camera flash and natural light wide open. Low light portraits wide open. Each situation resulted in near prime lens sharpness. Astrophotography was a bit difficult because the lens can focus past infinity and the throw isn’t very long, so making micro adjustments is pretty hard to pull off.

The flip side is this, once It’s dialed in, the contrast, saturation and color are amazing! The details really stand out. I was told by a number of my pro photog friends to grab the 17-50 2. 8 since it’s a fixed aperture.

I decided not to since if I want a shallow depth of field I can use the compression of the extra 20 mm in focal length for pretty much the same effect at F/4 as I would get with 50 mm at 2. 8. Not to mention the extreme close focusing that the 17-70 allows is awesome! It’s not true 1:1 macro but with the proper post processing technique you can easily create 1:1 macros with this lens without loss of quality.

I highly recommend this lens if you’re looking for a high quality lens for travel, walk around, landscapesand portraits and/or you’d like an upgrade from the kit lens. Just keep in mind that the Sigma isn’t weather sealed.

I really like this lens and I recommend it to anyone as a kit upgrade. It checks all the boxes of high quality glass: great sharpness, great contrast and colors and very little distortion. The focus seems to be spot on, right out of the box, I haven’t had to connect it to the dock to adjust anything so far.

It is quite heavy for the size but feels well built. I have read elsewhere about potential lens creep in either this or the older models of this lens but I haven’t experienced it in my lens. I can see, however, that due to the weight of the lens, it takes just a minimum force to extend the lens barrel when pointing down.

But it hasn’t been a problem so can’t hold it against the lens. It’s a must buy for a standard range zoom with high aperture.

Pros: Light weight Great zoom Almost same exact size/weight as my Canon 18-135STM lens Cons: Not tack sharp (but I knew that going in) but still good enough especially after post processing Lens zoom twists the opposite of every lens I’ve ever owned.

Why Tamron? Other thoughts: I bought this lens for my Canon 70D a week before heading to Disney World around Thanksgiving. I didn’t want to carry a bag full of camera gear because it was Disney and I wanted to also enjoy the trip not spend the time reaching for my camera bag! I was very skeptical because I had read a lot of mixed reviews on the lens.

But my wife is not a camera expert and never changes lenses, so why we’re traveling this lens does all the work. Yes if you pixel peep it’s not an L lens but for the price ($499 after rebates) who can argue with an 18.

8x zoom! I will say having the focus wheel twist the opposite of every other lens I’ve ever own was weird. But once you got use to it the lens is very tight. Does it suffer from some chromatic aberration.

yes. But with so much post processing software out there it’s not a big deal to fix. I take JPG/RAW on every shot so putting shots in light room is a snap. If you’re looking for a great lens to carry around for most shots this is your guy.

If you’re a professional taking wedding pictures you’re not even going to bother looking at this lens because you would know better. What surprised me was it’s size. I bought the Canon 70D with the kit 18-135 STM lens.

This lens is almost identical in size with it and the comprise of picture quality is almost a wash! At this point I’ll test this guy out a few more months and probably put my 18-135 STM lens up on Ebay.

This is my first lens of this type. I’ve only had it about a month, but in that time I haven’t been able to use it as much as I hoped (we’ve had a string of cruddy weather, so I couldn’t get out to shoot).

Just toodling around my backyard with my dogs- the lens feels good for weight and works well enough. There’s some minor stuff I need to get used to when it comes to using a lens this long (at its longest point, that is).

The real test will come next month when I use it at the Bristol Renaissance Faire (I’m one of their photographers). I dress up and carry my gear in a basket (which is both nerdy and kind of silly, because I whip out the camera whenever I need to, thereby negating the point of blending in with garb) so the lightweight feel compared to having two or three lenses in my basket was what drew me to this lens.

Also- not needing to change it out will come in handy as renaissance faires are notoriously dusty. Do I like the lens? Yes. Would I recommend it? I suppose, but I can’t say for sure till the “ultimate test of the ren faire” in July.

If I can update this review then, I will.

As its a long range zoom lens, it cannot compare in quality of exposure to a prime lens, but have been impressed with the quality I have obtained at present. There are a lot of Internet reviews which comment about bad chromatic fringing and distortion.

I have seen no evidence of this as I always use Lightroom to edit my photos. Was bought to use with video as well as photography and have also been impressed with the quality video produces. Very quiet and swift focussing in all areas.

Covers the range that two or three different lenses would be needed to achieve. Has not been off my Canon 80D since I purchased it.