Historically, higher end Zeiss scopes (Diavaris of all sorts, etc) were very robust. I've seen quite a few put through absolute hell by hunters for years. I would be surprised if we run into any sort of persistent durability issues with these.
ILya
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Historically, higher end Zeiss scopes (Diavaris of all sorts, etc) were very robust. I've seen quite a few put through absolute hell by hunters for years. I would be surprised if we run into any sort of persistent durability issues with these.
ILya
At ZCO we manufacture are own scopes. We are not affiliated with any other scope manufacture. Other scope manufactures are our competitors not partners.
ZCO scopes sold in North America are assembled in Idaho. ZCO scopes made and assembled in Austria are sold in Europe.
You are correct saying it is not just as easy as opening a work shop where you make riflescopes...…. it takes a hell of a lot more work than that
i will check this. right now i don't believe you.
So... brand new scope, starting from scratch and don't already have a ZCO... Buy once, cry once....
ZCO 5-27x56 ZC527 (MPCT-3X) or Zeiss LRP S5 5-25x56?
Which one? I like the ZCO reticle, 36mm tube, wider FOV, and the illumination options better, but.... the Zeiss has more elevation, and people are reporting it has a more forgiving eyebox, and it's about $400 cheaper...
Hmm... what to do, what to do...
ZCO 5-27x56 ZC527 (MPCT-3X) or Zeiss LRP S5 5-25x56?
Which one? I like the ZCO reticle, 36mm tube, wider FOV, and the illumination options better, but.... the Zeiss has more elevation, and people are reporting it has a more forgiving eyebox, and it's about $400 cheaper...
Hmm... what to do, what to do...
Where else are you going to check? One of the founders of the company just told you where they make their scopes.
Let us know how that works out for you.
@[email protected] , does this mean we get to skip school and come see your facility? LOL.
New guy here, don't want to hijack the thread, but noticed some discussion on different subjective opinions on scope optical quality. Is there an interest in developing some standardized tests for evaluating this and would this be the forum to start a thread on it? Or is there an existing program in place? Thanks and carry on!
There are some tests already and we have a few true experts here also who have and can do extensive testing. The issue is that so much of it is just how an individual sees it vs another. That's why I think kahles glass is better than others and you might say zco is better or whatever. I don't think there's a way to standardize that part of it. Even if a test says one scope is "more clear" than another, what matters is how it looks to me, which may or may not agree with the test results on a particular factor. There are quite a few things that effect what we interpersonal as "clarity" and it's an individual thing, like color for example. I don't know how any test would account for that but there are some experts here and some have already commented in this thread so, interested to here what they say too.
Why don't you believe one of the founders of ZCO? Do you know Mr. Huber's background and involvement in high end precision rifle scopes?
Please, go ahead and check wherever you think you have contacts to verify. But we do in fact manufacture our own products. Have a nice day.
Geb
Some people are just bored - recommend you ignore them.
How many fucking times do you need to show your ass here by being 1000% wrong and then doubling down?
Don’t argue with this guy he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience
If threads regularly devolve into memeage of Greta T. (who seems like an escapee from a Die Antwoord video) then I think I may like this place
I shall start a separate thread on some possibilities for semi-budget optical testing...
I shall start a separate thread on some possibilities for semi-budget optical testing...
You have at it with your optical testing format.If threads regularly devolve into memeage of Greta T. (who seems like an escapee from a Die Antwoord video) then I think I may like this place
I shall start a separate thread on some possibilities for semi-budget optical testing...
There are guys on this forum whose sole existence in life is to ooze misery & "double down" on conflict.
In point of fact, one of those guys just turned up.
it'll be interesting to see how you run the gauntlet.
Then, may I suggest that those that are interested instead check out other reputable vendors, such as Mile High Shooting, that currently has them listed at MSRP.
Read his post again.
Lol, ahh, I see I misread it.
Is there a tactile rev indicator on the Zeiss?
No there is no indicator like the others.
I honestly was expecting the scope to come out looking like a Vortex GEN 3 PST or something similar. A very common design, not much beyond the Conquest. Maybe a better set of turrets and a new reticle, but not the scope we see.
The scope is more like an updated Hensoldt, even though they sold the Hensoldt brand a long time ago.
It's solid, it's a great picture, and the reticle is very good.
I honestly was expecting the scope to come out looking like a Vortex GEN 3 PST or something similar. A very common design, not much beyond the Conquest. Maybe a better set of turrets and a new reticle, but not the scope we see.
The scope is more like an updated Hensoldt, even though they sold the Hensoldt brand a long time ago.
It's solid, it's a great picture, and the reticle is very good.
@MarkyMark007 you still checking? Any update?
Y’all pounced to soon! We’ve got to learn to pace ourselves.
Yeah, give him some time. He's probably busy writing his next hit single, "feel the retardation".
no sorry, i am not from US, so i'm not retareded
Shut up dumbass. The LAST thing this place needs is a moron like you that insults the owners of one of the premier rifle scope manufacturers in the world.
Hopefully they've placed you on ignore, like every one else should. I'm just keeping you on for entertainment purposes.
right one is answering. i knew that you will be the first one...
When are we getting a review video?
hopefully heading to mile high this saturday to check one out.
Ha, half your luck. Wish I could go have a squiz.
If you do get there, could you take special notice of the ease or not of the eye box.
The tech data lists an exit pupil of 9.2 mm at 5x. Although a little tighter than say the Schmidt 5-25x56, 9.2 shouldn't be an issue as a 9mm exit pupil would kick in at approx 6x anyway but, there can be more to the eye box than just the exit pupil number so, I'd appreciate your take on the overall feel of the eye box of the Zeiss.
This whole talk of exit pupil and eye box is nonsense, let alone 9 vs 9.2mm exit pupil.
Have you ever owned a Zeiss, Hensoldt or S&B?
Get behind something like a 4-16 Hensoldt and you will understand what people mean by the traditional Zeiss/Hensoldt eyebox, comparing that to something like the 5-25 S&B on exit pupil diameter alone is hilariously ignorant.
It seems one of us is ignorant but I don't think it's me.
I don't see what the brand necessarily has to do with it. It's more the design coupled with the size of the objective.
The Hensoldt you mention serves to underpin my point as the exit pupil on that particular scope is 13.4mm at 4x, one of the widest in the industry beside the Zeiss HT's &, well known for their excellent eye box.
The Schmidt 5-25 exit pupil is 12mm & is said by most accounts to be a good eye box. The Zeiss LRP at 9.2mm is reasonably smaller although not necessarily poor.
Eye box is something that I consider to be of significant importance because every scope I have is used in night time shooting, a lot. A tight eye box is of no more concern in the daylight than an inconsequential annoyance however, at night in a darkened vehicle, in cramped conditions & poor lowlight, I have found a tight eye box to be extremely inconvenient.
I simply asked a gentlemen if he would be kind enough to make a note of his take on the eye box of the Zeiss.
Last edited:
Why because you looked at some tech sheets on the internet?
You know the cool thing about variable power scopes? You can adjust them so the exit pupil is the same size and yet a 4-16 Hensoldt will always have a better eyebox than a 5-25 S&B.
How much internet people validation do you need?
Well that sounds like a crock of shit.
My understanding from what I've read is that the exit pupil is, or can be limited by the Field stop which effects the exit pupil at the lower power.
Otherwise, the exit pupil is set by the dia of the objective & the power setting. So when the power setting matches the limiting size of the field stop, from that magnification on up, the exit pupil will be virtually the same size in both scopes, all else being equal. So the Hensoldt should have the same exit pupil on 16x as the S&B 5-25x56 because they both have a 56mm objective.
As I stated though, exit pupil isn't the only consideration.
Anyhow, I didn't ask you so what the fuck are you ranting about?
eyebox is one of the things i'm really wanting to check out. I've put off driving to denver the last month, just because i wanted to handle one of these in person. I purchased my 7-35 mil-xt NF off trust of how good their other scopes have been i've owned and wasn't a bit dissapointed. But this time around decided to wait till the product was on the shelf. Only a 4 hour drive that i've done so many times i can do it in my sleep almost, and an HD dealer is just a few blocks away, so i kill 2 birds with one stone.
Yeah, the 7-35 has a shitload of very good owner accounts & is a very popular scope.
I've never owned a Night Force but I've shot with quite a few of them over the years. I probably should buy a good Australian owned scope like the NF but, they're an awful lot of shekels &, I do love the European scopes for not a lot more.
Anyhow, have a safe trip &, I look fwd to what you have to say next week.
I'm a professional photographer, at age 73, started photography when I was about 12, got serious @14, started getting 5 bucks shooting photos of the neighbors kids. My whole life I've ate and slept photography, and when my photography got serious, I had the opportunity to own/use Carl Zeiss lenses; some great Carl Zeiss lenses.
I'm experienced w/lenses and camera gear, and I'm doing my due diligence on learning how to utilize/operate a riflescope. The laws of optics don't change between lenses and riflescopes, but the mechanics are obviously different. One optic produces images, the other aids in coming up w/ballistics solution.
I've kept up w/this discussion, and I have to speak up, and speak up w/what I know about some of the things being discussed optics wise.
Modern optics flow from Carl Zeiss via their innovation in lens design and their utilization of modern glass. In all my years of buying/using Carl Zeiss optics I was amazed at the genius behind some of their lenses. Not only have they produced the best lenses, they jealously guard their legacy, one thing in the Carl Zeiss DNA as the best, would be their striving for excellence as opposed to resorting to cheating/manipulating to win at any kind of comparison whether it would be in comparing lenses or rifle scopes. That's just not in them to do that or ever consider doing it.
Optics is a branch of physics, the laws of optics/physics don't change from year to year, but lenses have gotten better because of innovation and Carl Zeiss was behind much of that innovation. Back in history, R&D regarding lens making, was holding one crude lens element in each hand, and putting your eye behind them as you move the glass closer to/farther away from each other.
James Petzval introduced math into lens making.
Then came the advent of computer power to come up w/more involved lens formulas/an increasing number of lens groups, which don't work until the advent of advanced lens coatings which keep light from bouncing off the front lens element. The modern lens coating has a lot to do w/the performance of a lens, via enabling optical engineers to come up w/more involved lens formulas/lens groups.
Carl Zeiss showed everybody the way to modern lens making, there's no way they would cheat or manipulate to gain an advantage their legacy has already achieved through genius.
As to "eyeballing" optics, I can recount my recent cataract surgeries. Having bad cataracts, I had implants which were also toric lenses to elimnate my astigmatism. The surgeries on my left and rt. eye were a month apart, and I could readily see the difference between the vision of either eye.
The vision in my rt. eye was now bright/clear equaling the vision of a 30 yr. old, and the vision through my left eye was dark and fuzzy. Looking through my cameras w/my rt. eye, gave me an image quality Different that looking through than same camera/lens combination w/my left eye until I got the left eye operated on.
Biometrics document how the pupils of your eyes narrow as you age. Optics have an entry and an exit pupil; your eye is an optic, and the diameter of its entry pupil narrows in relation to the exit pupil of a lens/riflescope you're looking through, so that what you think you're seeing through an optic, may not relflect the true capability/performance of that optic.
If the entry pupil of your eye has narrowed in relation to the exit pupil of the optic you looking through, that optic is going to appear darker to you than someone else looking through that same optic.
Don't get me wrong, if you're 25, no cataracts, no astigmatism because your eyeballs are shaped like basketballs, and you've got 20-15 vision, you should benefit/be able to perceive the nuance/detail from the best optics, until you get older.
I'm mentioning what little I know, because of a couple of issues w/what's been mentioned here In this discussion.
I'm experienced w/lenses and camera gear, and I'm doing my due diligence on learning how to utilize/operate a riflescope. The laws of optics don't change between lenses and riflescopes, but the mechanics are obviously different. One optic produces images, the other aids in coming up w/ballistics solution.
I've kept up w/this discussion, and I have to speak up, and speak up w/what I know about some of the things being discussed optics wise.
Modern optics flow from Carl Zeiss via their innovation in lens design and their utilization of modern glass. In all my years of buying/using Carl Zeiss optics I was amazed at the genius behind some of their lenses. Not only have they produced the best lenses, they jealously guard their legacy, one thing in the Carl Zeiss DNA as the best, would be their striving for excellence as opposed to resorting to cheating/manipulating to win at any kind of comparison whether it would be in comparing lenses or rifle scopes. That's just not in them to do that or ever consider doing it.
Optics is a branch of physics, the laws of optics/physics don't change from year to year, but lenses have gotten better because of innovation and Carl Zeiss was behind much of that innovation. Back in history, R&D regarding lens making, was holding one crude lens element in each hand, and putting your eye behind them as you move the glass closer to/farther away from each other.
James Petzval introduced math into lens making.
Then came the advent of computer power to come up w/more involved lens formulas/an increasing number of lens groups, which don't work until the advent of advanced lens coatings which keep light from bouncing off the front lens element. The modern lens coating has a lot to do w/the performance of a lens, via enabling optical engineers to come up w/more involved lens formulas/lens groups.
Carl Zeiss showed everybody the way to modern lens making, there's no way they would cheat or manipulate to gain an advantage their legacy has already achieved through genius.
As to "eyeballing" optics, I can recount my recent cataract surgeries. Having bad cataracts, I had implants which were also toric lenses to elimnate my astigmatism. The surgeries on my left and rt. eye were a month apart, and I could readily see the difference between the vision of either eye.
The vision in my rt. eye was now bright/clear equaling the vision of a 30 yr. old, and the vision through my left eye was dark and fuzzy. Looking through my cameras w/my rt. eye, gave me an image quality Different that looking through than same camera/lens combination w/my left eye until I got the left eye operated on.
Biometrics document how the pupils of your eyes narrow as you age. Optics have an entry and an exit pupil; your eye is an optic, and the diameter of its entry pupil narrows in relation to the exit pupil of a lens/riflescope you're looking through, so that what you think you're seeing through an optic, may not relflect the true capability/performance of that optic.
If the entry pupil of your eye has narrowed in relation to the exit pupil of the optic you looking through, that optic is going to appear darker to you than someone else looking through that same optic.
Don't get me wrong, if you're 25, no cataracts, no astigmatism because your eyeballs are shaped like basketballs, and you've got 20-15 vision, you should benefit/be able to perceive the nuance/detail from the best optics, until you get older.
I'm mentioning what little I know, because of a couple of issues w/what's been mentioned here In this discussion.
Last edited:
so do u revert back to 20-15 with the surgery? i've known several that have had it including my mother before she passed and she remarked how much better her eyesight was, but wondering to what extent better? thanks
My surgeon was on the money w/his predictions before my surgeries, because I did ask him how much my vision would improve. His response was I'd never get back to either 20-15, or the vision of a 25 yr. old but he said I'd have the next best thing which is the vision of a 30 yr. old.
You CANNOT know how JACKED UP you vision has become until it's corrected. What happens is your vision becomes bad gradually, and you become used to it.
Putting the improvement to my eyesight into specifics, I couldn't see anything clearly inside of 30 inches, so I couldn't see what was on a computer screen from 18 inches-2 ft. away w/o glasses.
The glasses are gone, I don't need glasses.
I can now hold my wrists about 8-10 inches from either eye and see the detail of every hair/pore on my wrists, so I'm completely happy w/the results.
You CANNOT know how JACKED UP you vision has become until it's corrected. What happens is your vision becomes bad gradually, and you become used to it.
Putting the improvement to my eyesight into specifics, I couldn't see anything clearly inside of 30 inches, so I couldn't see what was on a computer screen from 18 inches-2 ft. away w/o glasses.
The glasses are gone, I don't need glasses.
I can now hold my wrists about 8-10 inches from either eye and see the detail of every hair/pore on my wrists, so I'm completely happy w/the results.
In my recent experience, no. Matter of fact, doc told me that they hold a bit shy on correction…20/25…rather than overshoot.
And no, I really didn’t understand the detailed explanation that he gave me.
Biggest diff is color temp. Cataracts (or maybe even just old eye lenses) yellow and makes everything “warmer” in temp.
Most startling aspect after surgery is how much cooler (bluer) everything looks w new lens installed. I think my brain is getting used to it as it’s not as noticeable after a bit of time.
