Zeiss LRP S3 Glass SHOWDOWN vs MK5, Razor G2, Kahles, ZCO

I have to crank every eye
Piece way out so the reticle is clear to my blind eyes.


But yes. Props
To Frank for going over extensively rifle fitment in the online training

Turbwhistle said:

How bad is the scope shadow on the zeiss? I know my lrp s5 has a good amount of scope shadow, which makes the image feel distant.

Click to expand...

Ah…and does that not mean you aren’t within the scope’s eye relief and need to maybe change its position on your rail/in its rings?

I’m confused as to what the issue is?

lowlight said:

His set up is wrong

Just like we see in class when during the Eval guys struggle to find the target hrt the shots off the waste 3 minutes to shoot 5 rounds because they are hunting for sight pictures.

But notice after we set you up, nobody does

Click to expand...

I'm with @Baron23 and genuinely curious to what adjustment you are talking about. Is it the diopter adjustment for bringing the reticle into focus?

chutinlead said:

I'm with @Baron23 and genuinely curious to what adjustment you are talking about. Is it the diopter adjustment for bringing the reticle into focus?

Click to expand...

Ah, you quoted @lowlight and I know he and I are saying the same thing in response to @Turbwhistle post. We are in violent agreement. Haha ;-)

There is no such thing, to my knowledge, as scope shadow that is intrinsic to a Zeiss or any other optic.

That member doesn’t know how to set up his scope on the rail/in the rings so that he’s in the eye relief with his head comfortably on the comb. But he’s blaming the scope when the issue is his flawed set up of it on his rifle.

Nothing to do with focus of his ocular. It’s distance of the ocular from his eye that is not correct. He needs to be able to put his head in the same comfortable place on the gun repeatedly. Then at high magnification, where eye relief is least forgiving, move the scope forward or back until he sees a clear picture with no occlusion (shadow). Move it on the rail is easiest, if need be move it within the rings.

There is zero wrong w his scope. Google is his friend. Tons of info out there if one is willing to just look.

lowlight said:

Baron can tell you it’s why we pull scopes

During our initial Eval guys will struggle with sight picture, we see it, we note it.

We then pull scopes to check a few different things, reticle, parallax (we educate) then when we’re done you come to me and I set it up with you on the gun. I am watching you adjusting and if I’m still not 100% sure you get it. I will check myself

It’s super common people are just not educated in the process and what to look for

Click to expand...

That might be worth attending one of your classes. What's the closest you guys get to NE WY?

Shadow was the wrong word for what i was talking about. What i was talking about is the black ring you see while looking though the scope, the image is perfect, i dont know what the correct term is. I dont know if it is scope body you see.

I did come home and verified my eye relief was good, as well as diopter. All of which were as good as could be.

Here are some pictures to hopefully show what i am talking about. The first two are the s5 at 25power, one without the cap, one with, the last is my razor gen II at 27.

I am not saying it is an issue, as much as something i notice more with the zeiss then any other scope i have used recently. I have been using the s5 in matches for most the summer and really like it, no issues finding the reticle, or reading the reticle.

Turbwhistle said:

Shadow was the wrong word for what i was talking about. What i was talking about is the black ring you see while looking though the scope, the image is perfect, i dont know what the correct term is. I dont know if it is scope body you see.

I did come home and verified my eye relief was good, as well as diopter. All of which were as good as could be.

Here are some pictures to hopefully show what i am talking about. The first two are the s5 at 25power, one without the cap, one with, the last is my razor gen II at 27.

I am not saying it is an issue, as much as something i notice more with the zeiss then any other scope i have used recently. I have been using the s5 in matches for most the summer and really like it, no issues finding the reticle, or reading the reticle.

Click to expand...

Part of the difficulty is we don't have a clear definition of terms that we use for some of these things. What you are referring to is the periphery distance between the sight picture and the outer housing which can sometimes be exacerbated by the use of scope caps like the case of image 1 and 2 above. ZCO and some other scopes have a very thin outer periphery and are known to have a perceived, almost HD widescreen like effect, whereas some more traditional designs with a thicker periphery can have almost a tunneled or closed in effect. Both scopes could have the same FOV but the scope with the thinner periphery distance will be perceived to have the larger image. ILya may have covered this some in his video on apparent FOV IIRC.

Thank you. And when i was taking the pictures i did realize the periphery was worse with the scope cap on. But thank you for your post, it explains what i was thinking.

Ocular covers make you feel like you’re looking through a straw, regardless of the optic.

Turbwhistle said:

Shadow was the wrong word for what i was talking about. What i was talking about is the black ring you see while looking though the scope, the image is perfect, i dont know what the correct term is. I dont know if it is scope body you see.

I did come home and verified my eye relief was good, as well as diopter. All of which were as good as could be.

Here are some pictures to hopefully show what i am talking about. The first two are the s5 at 25power, one without the cap, one with, the last is my razor gen II at 27.

I am not saying it is an issue, as much as something i notice more with the zeiss then any other scope i have used recently. I have been using the s5 in matches for most the summer and really like it, no issues finding the reticle, or reading the reticle.

Click to expand...

Wait, you are saying the lens cap occludes the field of view significantly. So, maybe get diff lens caps?

P.S. - ah, never mind. Lol. I see Glassaholic and you covered the ground.

Cheers

I am saying the caps makes it worse, but it still is more noticeable on the zeiss then the vortex or zco.

"These are good to see FOV and reticle at different magnifications, but through the scope images do not do any scope justice, everything must be perfect and exact between all scopes and I've found it's just about impossible to do that without some serious calibration equipment. Rather than images I'd rather hear your comments on how each scope performed, how was edge to edge sharpness, how was color, how was contrast, how was CA..."



Pics can be a problem.



There should be admiration for folks who work up quite a bit of "sweat equity" in trying to present the impressions/differences of various scope on here and everywhere else.

Set that aside, because the problems w/picking out some aspect of an optics performance after it's been combined w/another optical system has nothing to do with sweat equity, nor is it a criticism of these folks. U go to a restaurant and order a new dish, so before they bring it out, they swamp it w/hot sauce, and then ask U what do you think? It's impossible to taste anything other than both the dish, and the shit they put on it.

The interplay between optical systems, even how an image is uploaded here can disquise/change what things seem to look like.



Most venues like this have a white screen/background, even that contributes to your eyes playing tricks on U/seeing something other than what U think you're seeing.













The two images above show how even the simple act of uploading an image to this forum will change how what's inside your image looks. The two images look like they're presenting two oval shapes w/one darker than the other. They're not.

THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT. One oval is surrounded by white (like the white screen in this forum), of course the background is bright, so your eyes will close down, making the tone of the oval appear darker.

The other oval is surrounded by black (blocking out some of the white) and since it's darker than the oval it surrounds, that makes the oval appear lighter.

The spots didn't change, WHAT WAS AROUND THEM CHANGED, but it STILL made/makes the ovals themselves LOOK DIFFERENT.

SAME THING happens when you upload UR pics to this or any other venue, including taking pics of what you think U see INSIDE a scope. When I take a shot, I tweak it in an image editing prograpm/CS6 against a midscale grey background.



The response of some will be "so fucking what".



Because midscale grey is the exact midpoint between white and black, which means w/that background I get what I want. When I upload here, I'll take a duplicate of the image and present it against a white background, and it will look dark, so I'll increase the exposure by a stop(100%), which makes it look right against a white background, or I'll surround the image/subject matter w/a thick dark grey border to get the same effect.

The illusion applies to what you think you're seeing when you look at a pic of what seems to be coming through a scope, and the fact that the screen/what's surrounding the image can affect/change/darken/lighten that image.

Colors. There's also colorspace. The digital device you took the pic with, what colorspace is it going by.

If you were to get an expensive scope, no matter how good it looks through the eyepiece, if the rear element is "cockeyed"/not plano parallel w/it's optical center not in line w/the optical centerline axis of the rest of the lens elements, U send it back because even if it looks good, it ain't right.

Same issue exists with substituting an optical system for the rear element that was "out of whack" and placing behind an optic, if it isn't lined up right, it may even look good, but it won't perform what it was designed to do, that's just the way it is.

REPEAT, this ain't a knock on folks trying to help, only drawing attention to the problem itself. Please take it that way.

I personally prefer scopes that present a ”heads up display” image as opposed to the “looking through a straw” effect. I don’t like seeing a thick ring around the image. My old SHV F1 had this and I found it to be mildly irritating. I’ve heard people say that ZCO’s image seems to float, I’m guessing they mean there is very little to border the image. I hope the S3 doesn’t have that thick border because it’s on my short list of rimfire scopes.

Guns&WhiteWater said:

I personally prefer scopes that present a ”heads up display” image as opposed to the “looking through a straw” effect. I don’t like seeing a thick ring around the image. My old SHV F1 had this and I found it to be mildly irritating. I’ve heard people say that ZCO’s image seems to float, I’m guessing they mean there is very little to border the image. I hope the S3 doesn’t have that thick border because it’s on my short list of rimfire scopes

Click to expand...

I’m looking into one of these for a rimfire. Are you thinking 4x25 or 6x36?

Bayou1535 said:

I’m looking into one of these for a rimfire. Are you thinking 4x24 or 6x36?

Click to expand...

4-25 would be ideal for me.

Islas82 said:

Would love to see an image quality comparison between the S3 636 and the G3 razor.

Click to expand...

I second this.

lowlight said:

Oh and o should clarify

I know many of you have no clue how to set up a scope, we remove every scope in every class and now look at your set ups because in every class 1/3 of the students dont have set up correctly.

Many of you can’t even see the reticle right and when Marc sees your buried Ocular he knows, oh boy, hey is this better, ya…

You wonder why you fidget and can’t find the target and fight the eyebox

View attachment 7969686

View attachment 7969687

Click to expand...

Where can I get a setup like this?

cjs88 said:

Where can I get a setup like this?

Click to expand...

lowlight said:

You can't have a comparison anymore,

it's all about narratives and who is affiliated to whom; the idea you can judge one scope to another and have a real is not practical, to begin with, not without tools, but the comparisons today are totally off the rails

The only comparison that matters, is one you look at yourself and determine how your eyes and brain feel about the scopes

I can tell you the Zeiss is better but there will a dozen examples where people disagree so who is right

Do your own homework, that is the real test

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree here, in fact, this is how I started getting into reviews almost a decade ago, I got so many different answers from the community that I decided I needed to "see" for myself. We all "see" different things even if the scope is setup perfectly, some will prefer the color cast of one brand over another, the mechanics of one over another and so forth, but at the end of the day, no matter how "thorough" I try to make a comparison, the fact is that my preference may not be yours. I get quite a few PM's from guys asking "which scope should I get?" that is so hard, I am not you and my needs may not match your needs.

Tyler Kemp

MAN 2 MAN I have the highest respect, for you, and what you do, I've even contacted you in the past re some gear where you talked to me w/civility/courtesy/respect which I appreciated.

You had your BIG BOY pants on when U try to help folks as you have done; being considerate enough to try to help people will never be doing something wrong.

Forgive me if what I said came off like it was a criticism of the work and sweat from what you did, it was not.


In regards to a dead level, just 4 the "hell of it", and to see what was involved in throwing together something myself I looked around and found EGW (Evolution Gun Works) and ordered an unfinished picatinny rail/a so called 8 inch "blank". It's just under 8 inches, 3/4" tall/completely flat on the bottom and black not bare metal.
Here's a link to what I'm talking about (I did in fact order directly from EGW because they had a sale



The link shows $53 and change, I think I paid $l0 less.


I ordered an extended release plate/base plate (which fits into the Arca Swiss type quick release clamp) which comes in @ 8" from Hejnar Photo.

Hejnar Photo is a small American outfit, and he makes great stuff out of his machine shop. I've talked to the gentleman, and he mentioned that he doesn't advertise, but depends on "word of mouth" to sell his stuff, which I find to be well made.


I practiced several "dry runs", attaching the pic rail from EGW to the Hejnar base, and getting it lined up quickly but accurately because I used contact cement which dries just after a few seconds, and if you fuck up, you're stuck.

Luckily I got it right and here's the result where I've got the EGW rail which is now permanently bonded to the Hejnar base clamped down in an Acratech tripod head. This is what I used to line up my March HM 4.5-28X52 w/a plumb bob after I got the base leveled.

The total of the EGW pic rail and Hejnar base came to about $100 plus tax/shipping.

Seems like a lot of work when this already exists.

For $39 it might've been worth a try, I won't lie about that. Who makes Sunwayfoto if that's who makes this.

What I have was a lot more, but I assure U the machining/workmanship I got w/this is right "on the money".


Just answered my own question after a search, it's a Chinese part, and what I ordered from EGW also comes in steel/7075. I ordered the pic rail in 7075.

"You get what you pay for" is the cliche, I'm going w/the cliche.

Tyler Kemp said:

Oh hey everyone.

Tomorrow I've got another test coming up:

Zeiss S3 6-36
Razor G3 6-36
NF NX8 4-32


As always, I'll have my popcorn ready, and my big boy pants on to hear how I did something wrong and the pictures don't look like real life. LOL

Click to expand...

Patiently waiting for Nightforce to come out on top.


LOL jokes. We all know that guy though.

There is also this.

Convex said:

For $39 it might've been worth a try, I won't lie about that. Who makes Sunwayfoto if that's who makes this.

Click to expand...

It is Chickity China They are the Chinese knockoff of RRS, but admittedly make some pretty well machined gear.

"There is also this".....

That's also T6061. I got what I wanted which was 7075.


The pic rail in this is too low to the plate for me and I wouldn't order this, I prefer what I got which is 3/4" off the base.

Convex said:

"There is also this".....

That's also T6061. I got what I wanted which was 7075.


The pic rail in this is too low to the plate for me and I wouldn't order this, I prefer what I got which is 3/4" off the base.

Click to expand...

The beauty of innovation

TheOE800 said:

Scope Tools

Scope Tool Scope track testing base. Design for Marc Taylor with Alaska Precision Rifle and Frank Galli with Sniper's Hide to check the scopes ability to track properly and return to zero on a...

www.targetsusa.com

Click to expand...

Dang, $400? There a SH price

cjs88 said:

Dang, $400? There a SH price

Click to expand...

There have been members who posted their home made version....square steel pipe, some welding, carriage bolt and nuts for adjustable feet....and somehow found a flat pic rail to mount to it. But these guys had shops, knew how to weld, and didn't destroy everything they ever touched with a tool like myself! haha

Or, you can be like me and have a GREAT friend who lives near by and bought one of them when they first came out for WAYless moola. They are rock solid and heavy as a boat anchor...which is a good thing for a leveling base, right?

P.S. here is one example I found


and another


and this is the one I originally thought off


Cheers

"There have been members who posted their home made version....square steel pipe, some welding, carriage bolt and nuts for adjustable feet....and somehow found a flat pic rail to mount to it. But these guys had shops, knew how to weld, and didn't destroy everything they ever touched with a tool like myself! haha

Or, you can be like me and have a GREAT friend who lives near by and bought one of them when they first came out for sig less moola. They are rock solid and heavy as a boat anchor...which is a good thing for a leveling base, right?"





That is true; some folks have a "touch" for putting things together, some might be better served by having things machined by someone else.

We had someone in the neighborhood a great many years ago (passed away) wasn't anything he couldn't put together in his shop, all U had to do was tell what you wanted, and he'd make it better what you were thinking you wanted, for "peanuts".



BTW: The guy who started Acratech is local to me, did some business w/him when he first started and it was incredible seeing what he started grow to what is now.

His Acratech head, the one pictured above, and this is the one I bought from him the year he started selling this tripod head, will hold much more than the rated 25 pounds despite being compact, and is so good, the same design has reached the present day w/very few changes.

cjs88 said:

Dang, $400? There a SH price

Click to expand...

Probably charge you more if you say you know SSgt Taylor or Frank.

srt-4_uk said:

There is also this.

ARCA to Picatinny - Short Plate

Save weight on your next hunt with a back up target scope instead of a heavy spotter. More compact and more versatile than a dedicated spotter the day scope allows you to use your tripod to spot or to shoot. Also fits thermal sights to use as a detection equipment at night or day on coyotes...

patriotvalleyarms.com

Click to expand...

I took another look at this, and even though I'm happy w/what I did, I'd say this looks like it has the basics covered for not a lot of money.

The pic rail is still kind of low, but it's American made, so I might spring for the $69 to keep this guy going and have a 2nd level.

Being low/flat/unobtrusive, might be a plus 4 holding up my optics when I take pics.

I wish they had a few more reticle choices for the S3.

I took this after I got everything leveled, and then lined up the scope on a plumb bob.

Tyler Kemp said:

700 Yards, MK5 & Razor G2 on 18x, others on 20x

S3

View attachment 7952010

Razor G2

View attachment 7952011

MK5

View attachment 7952012

525i

View attachment 7952013

ZCO

View attachment 7952014

Click to expand...

Look how clear the S3, Khales and ZCO 700 is in these photos. IMO these 3 are the standout. In all honesty tho, I was expecting the ZCO to do way better when the price is considerably higher. I think that ZCO only competed here, based on these photos. Not a standout.

banks2020 said:

Look how clear the S3, Khales and ZCO 700 is in these photos. IMO these 3 are the standout. In all honesty tho, I was expecting the ZCO to do way better when the price is considerably higher. I think that ZCO only competed here, based on these photos. Not a standout.

Click to expand...

Photos don't do these images true justice. Truthfully there are quite a few options that compete with zco for clarity and rendition in the center of glass view, however when you get out on the edges or at max elevation travel, the zco is still as clear as in center. The rest, well they don't do that. Zco, TT, Minox zp5 are all very queal on overall IQ. I have had a gen3 razor, zco 527, 525 zp5, and an atacr 735 all next to one another, these scopes for what I paid ranged from 2000-3700$, the center view resolution was all near equal, but in low light the zco starts pulling away from all but the zp5, it also has better edge clarity and sharpness, no fringing. I don't have access to a theta for testing.

4O6shootist said:

Photos don't do these images true justice. Truthfully there are quite a few options that compete with zco for clarity and rendition in the center of glass view, however when you get out on the edges or at max elevation travel, the zco is still as clear as in center. The rest, well they don't do that. Zco, TT, Minox zp5 are all very queal on overall IQ. I have had a gen3 razor, zco 527, 525 zp5, and an atacr 735 all next to one another, these scopes for what I paid ranged from 2000-3700$, the center view resolution was all near equal, but in low light the zco starts pulling away from all but the zp5, it also has better edge clarity and sharpness, no fringing. I don't have access to a theta for testing.

Click to expand...

Did you ever get a chance to check out Cdoes on you tube? He tests high end and low budget optics on his channel. He only has one vid where he tests a ZCO but the reason I mention is because of how he highlights a strange tracking issue within his testing. Not really sure if the item was defective or damaged but it was interesting to see. Another thing he mentions is the unparalleled clarity of glass in the unit. Anyways, thanks for the reply. Check him out if you havent already. p.S, another good optics reviewer is Cyclops

banks2020 said:

Did you ever get a chance to check out Cdoes on you tube? He tests high end and low budget optics on his channel. He only has one vid where he tests a ZCO but the reason I mention is because of how he highlights a strange tracking issue within his testing. Not really sure if the item was defective or damaged but it was interesting to see. Another thing he mentions is the unparalleled clarity of glass in the unit. Anyways, thanks for the reply. Check him out if you havent already. p.S, another good optics reviewer is Cyclops

Click to expand...

One more thing i have found through research, ZCO sources their glass from Zeiss

banks2020 said:

One more thing i have found through research, ZCO sources their glass from Zeiss

Click to expand...

You're high as giraffe pussy man, go troll elsewhere.

4O6shootist said:

You're high as giraffe pussy man, go troll elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Im just trying to figure out how a 5 year old company has figured out how to make better glass than everyone else. Common sense would tell me they are sourcing it from another company. Seems you are in your feelings about it for some reason.

Jeff from zco been in optics industry for a very long time.

Rob01 said:

That was a joke right?

Click to expand...

You mean you haven’t given your S3’s a nipple twister?