Having seen both, the reticle in the Tangent is more usable at higher magnification versus the thickness of the 840.
Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta 7-35
- Thread starter Danrobberg
- Start date
Thanks for that
I was more interested in the optical comparison. The two 8-40s that I looked through were dark and a bit soft when going beyond 30X. I was not that impressed when comparing it to the ZCO 5-27
I would agree. The Tangent 735, even at the higher magnification is pleasant, bright and typical contrast. But the typical tight eye box remains... Something ZCO, IMHO, does well at being generous.
I owned "2" ZCO 8-40,s and totally agree with this..
Having possession of a TANgent Theta, I can confirm their vast superiority over all other Thetas.
As of right now the color is black. Maybe a cerakote option down the road but not looking like it right now.
When are the jtac 7-35 coming?
So with the Schmidt USA FOV issues with the 6-36, i think this gives the TT the opportunity to be top dog of the high magnification scopes. Looks like i’ll get a chance to play with one this weekend, will be curious how it compares to the venerable TT 5-25.
While Tangent hasn't confirmed they're limiting the FOV of the 7-35 in the US for the Swarovski patent issue like s&b is doing with the 6-36, I find it highly suspicious that the Tangent 7-35 has the exact same apparent FOV that the US market S&B 6-36 has (the tangent 5-25 actually has a wider apparent FOV than the 7-35 according to the specs.) I can't believe tangent would release a new scope with a narrower apparent FOV than their older scope unless they're limiting it for patent compliance... But that's just a hunch as I have not emailed ATI to ask.
So with neither of the newest offerings from s&b and Tangent having a huge apparent FOV advantage over the other (at least for US customers) the comparison will fall on other merits; turrets, reticles, contrast, color, resolution, flare handling, eyebox, depth of field, etc.
I'm in no rush to run out and buy either an S&B 6-36 or Tangent 7-35, partially because of the artificially limited fov for patent compliance, but I'm very interested to read about a good side by side comparison. I'll stick with my s&b, premier, minox, and Tangent 5-25s for a while longer before trying the latest and greatest. I could live with the throttled fov if there are decent improvements in other areas.
My biggest concern with the new Tangent 7-35 is packing more magnification into a shorter scope might result in a less forgiving parallax and depth of field than the 5-25, and I hope that's not the case as the extremely forgiving parallax is one of my favorite things about the premier/Tangent/minox 5-25 design.
Last edited:
Makes me wonder if all the early sale ATI callbacks to the factory of these new 7-35 units had anything to do with the FOV point you brought up. They said it was to make a parallax 'adjustment.'
IIRC the first batch of 7-35s had to go back because you couldn't adjust the parallax out beyond 250-300y or so.
I have a premier 5-25 that's the same way, but only because the parallax is broken and can't be repaired.
I moved it to a .22 PCP air rifle so I could still get some use out of it rather than junk it, because it turns out it was a former test and evaluation unit that was never returned to premier after it was loaned out, so it has zero trade in value with Tangent. Unfortunately I didn't know that when I bought it off the px here, as I bought it after premier went under but before ATI picked up the assets so I had no way to verify warranty coverage at the time of purchase. I only found out I got hosed a few years later when the parallax took a shit and called Tangent to try and get it repaired.
Last edited:
Very interesting observation between the AFOV of both the TT 7-35 and the neutered USA version of the 6-36. Is this 21.66° AFOV the magic number to slip under the Swaro patent? But what about the Schmidt 5-45 and Ultra shorts that all have AFOV greater than 21.66, maybe licensing agreement which is why these scopes are $$$$? I suppose we'll find out in 2031 after the 20 year patent infringement situation with European manufactured scopes ends in the US (I say European mfr'd because the Japanese and Philippines made scopes appear to not have this restriction). Of other interesting note, the original Kahles 5-25 had very limited FOV; however, after Swarovski took on Kahles we then get the "DLR" version and the DLR has a very wide AFOV of 24.83°, so apparently Kahles gets a pass because of relationship with Swarovski? ZCO also has spec'd wider FOV; however, some have called into question whether those numbers are truly accurate for the USA version, might be a good exercise at some point to measure USA ZCO FOV at some point to confirm.
That's right an unfortunate that this is the case which seems to open the doors for non-European manufacture scopes to make some strides. For example, the new Vortex Razor Gen3 6-36x56 has an AFOV of 24.06° which is quite a bit better than the USA version of the Schmidt but not as good as the non-USA version of the Schmidt 6-36. That being said, 21.66° is not horrible, just not as good as some other offerings available in the USA.
As some early adopters have mentioned, even with the limited FOV the Schmidt 6-36 still excels in every way, is it possible that it is "better" than the Tangent 7-35, we'll have to wait for ILya's review of these top alpha high mag scopes coming soon.
That is a question I have as well, the new TT and Schmidt both come in a "shorter" body design than their 5-25 counterparts which traditionally has meant more finicky when it comes to eyebox, parallax and DOF. That being said, the Vortex G3 also is a shorter body and yet when I did my alpha scope review last year, the Vortex was not as far behind TT and ZCO as I thought it would be so I'm hoping these new designs from TT and Schmidt may somehow impress as well.
Do you have a link to the patent? The Swaro ones I found wouldn't apply to the TT735 or ZCOs cause its 36mm.
How the fuck do you patent FOV? Unless they are using some patented tech, this makes no sense.
Even though the Swarovski patent states a combination of high erector ratio, >22 degree apparent FOV, tube diameter between 30 and 35mm, along with a specific kind of reversal element in the ocular, that doesn't mean simply going to 36mm on the tube means you're free and clear to infringe on the other claims defined in the patent without paying licensing fees. We had that conversation in the s&b 6-36 thread and had input from those with plenty of experience in the patent process and they thought the patent without probably hold up to challenge in the US.
While Leica challenged the Swarovski patent in Europe saying it was too vague (it's basically patenting a combination of specifications) and got it invalidated there after 3.5 years of litigation they did not challenge the US patent so it still stands here in the US, hence the neutered FOV of the US market S&B 6-36 and the possibly neutered FOV of the tangent 7-35.
Link to the patent in question:
EP1746451A2 - Telescope with wide field of view and large magnification - Google Patents
A telescope or target telescope has a reverse system and an adjustable magnification optical system with more than four times magnification. The distance optical device has an optical beam deflection device (2) which provides, at all magnifications, a subjective field of view of the distance...
patents.google.com
Link to the US patent:
US8054544B2 - Far-optical device - Google Patents
A far-optical device comprising a reversal system and an adjustable optical magnification means with more than fourfold magnification, wherein the far-optical device has an optical beam deflection means which at all magnifications ensures a subjective field of view of the far-optical device of...
patents.google.com
Last edited:
FWIW, the person you replied to works in the legal field of patents. But I'll let them reply.
Stop accepting Swaro money and prize table sponsorships until they surrender the patent.
No one wants to make sacrifices anymore.
Hey hey, we can have our Tangents and NL Pures, too. 
It's in the Schmidt 6-36 thread, starting around page 24
Rifle Scopes - New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56
I’d like to know why a Euro spec 6-36 has 17.74% more FOV than the US spec and then I’d like a 17.74% refund.
www.snipershide.com Hey hey, we can have our Tangents and NL Pures, too.
Are you suggesting we boycott Swaro similar to Bud Light and their marketing malfeasance?
I disagree with the 2030 expiration (its 2026), but thank you for the background information.It's in the Schmidt 6-36 thread, starting around page 24
jbailey's post #1,222 on page 25 references the patent and in post 1,224 he gives a summary of the patent, several conversations ensue as a result. ILya addresses it in post #1,232 with a different link to patent information.Rifle Scopes - New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56
I’d like to know why a Euro spec 6-36 has 17.74% more FOV than the US spec and then I’d like a 17.74% refund.
Depends what patent you look at. The European patent was granted in 2006 and would have expired in 2026 (now invalidated after Leica litigation), while the US patent was granted in 2010 and would expire in 2030. I linked to both. US patent is valid until 2030 I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong.
So I'm not an optical expert, but I do know something about patents/IP. You can't patent FOV - but you can patent a device that generates FOV, if this device does so in a fashion that is 'novel' and 'not obvious' to someone expert in the art/science of optics. I don't know if the device in the two Swarov patents is 'obvious' or if they are 'novel' - as I don't know what devices are used today to make optics work. Additionally, it doesn't need to be 'novel' or 'obvious' today, 2023, but novel back at the time the patent was issued (2006 if I recall correctly).
I was using rifle scopes in 2006 and can tell you they were not anywhere close to as good as the ones today, due to the industry's investment in innovation. Protecting this innovation is important for us, consumers, because it makes innovators comfortable about innovating so future scopes will be even better than today. No IP protection = no innovation and we are walking around using 40yr old Leupold designs. Also remember that innovations protected by patents will be freely usable by everyone in 20 years, when the patent expires.
Looking at those Swarov patents, I do see how they make the claim their device is NOT 'obvious' at the time and how their device is 'novel' and improved optical performance (on factors like FOV among others). I can see how a patent expert would see and understand this as such. I also see how you would have to spent a lot of money to litigate these patent claims today. Many many hours of lawyer times at over $500/hour (IP lawyers are pretty much the most expensive lawyers around - as they are legal experts and experts in the respective fields of science). And you can spend all this money and still lose in the courtroom. Plus damages are often award at 3x the monetary amount for punitive reasons. The small market that is high end scope simply doesn't justify this expense and risk.
I'm not defending Swarov - just explaining. If I was them, I would be attempting to monetarize my IP/patents by licensing them to others at reasonable terms.
I was using rifle scopes in 2006 and can tell you they were not anywhere close to as good as the ones today, due to the industry's investment in innovation. Protecting this innovation is important for us, consumers, because it makes innovators comfortable about innovating so future scopes will be even better than today. No IP protection = no innovation and we are walking around using 40yr old Leupold designs. Also remember that innovations protected by patents will be freely usable by everyone in 20 years, when the patent expires.
Looking at those Swarov patents, I do see how they make the claim their device is NOT 'obvious' at the time and how their device is 'novel' and improved optical performance (on factors like FOV among others). I can see how a patent expert would see and understand this as such. I also see how you would have to spent a lot of money to litigate these patent claims today. Many many hours of lawyer times at over $500/hour (IP lawyers are pretty much the most expensive lawyers around - as they are legal experts and experts in the respective fields of science). And you can spend all this money and still lose in the courtroom. Plus damages are often award at 3x the monetary amount for punitive reasons. The small market that is high end scope simply doesn't justify this expense and risk.
I'm not defending Swarov - just explaining. If I was them, I would be attempting to monetarize my IP/patents by licensing them to others at reasonable terms.
20 year term based off the filing date, not the grant date. In this instance, it dates back to 2006.
The US could be a more easy to defeat legal issue. The US patent looks like a word for word copy, although I didn't read every word of the US patent after the first few paragraphs. To me, the US patent is invalid, based on obviousness from the '06 Euro patent and could be proven in court of law for not a ton of $'s.
Yes correct. Swarov attorneys also correctly cite the EU patent on the US patent. '26 is expiration, for both US and EU. EU legal status is up in air with some court cases that might have overturned it there, at least Leica thinks so.
I meant to type filing and not granted, but my brain to keyboard interface malfunctioned.
The US patent filing date appears to be 2010-06-03, but it also references the 2006 European patent therein. If the US patent expires in 2026 instead of 2030 that would be great, and with only 3 years left that may explain why S&B didn't want to pay licensing fees for only 3 years to offer the full FOV of the new 6-36, 10-60, and 3-18 models in the US right now. It might save them money just to throttle the FOV for 3 years and then sell them at the full FOV after the patent expires (and hopefully let current buyers send back scopes purchased before the patent expiration to be restored to full FOV.)
While I'm not a patent lawyer, I should think that because the patent was invalidated in Europe that would make a US challenge an easier prospect as there's legal precedent to reference. However, I believe Ilya said Leica challenged the Swarovski patent in the UK and lost, but I haven't searched for documentation to verify that. Ilya is usually correct though...
Regardless of the patent status, it's irritating the new Tangent 7-35 has a smaller apparent FOV than the older 5-25, but that could be tolerated if the other aspects of the 7-35 are significantly improved. I'm also wondering if the 7-35 tangents sold in Europe have a wider FOV than their US counterparts, but Tangent chose not to advertise that like S&B did.
I like the 3x 5-25 tangents that I currently have, but the 7-35 is going to have to offer some significant improvements to get me to consider switching. More magnification alone isn't enough as unless it's first thing in the morning I'm usually only running 12-15x tops for most of the day because of mirage.
Last edited:
Man I'm glad I'm not the only one who's brain to keyboard interface malfunctions at times. I often have to tell my wife, "I'm sorry, my brain thought one thing but my mouth said another"
Irritating yes, but TT may have done this on purpose to allow the scope to be more forgiving in other areas. As with all things optics, there is always a compromise or tradeoff somewhere. The good news is, even with these limitations, we have today the absolute best sport optics we've ever had in history and they do more than two decades ago.
After this Schmidt debacle I think any manufacturer who thinks they are affected by this patent will have zipped lips
Unless we have someone in Europe or AU with TT, ZCO, et al actually test their copy, I'm not sure we'll ever know. For anyone who doesn't care about 5x but does lots of load dev, rimfire shooting or short range paper work I do not foresee the 7-35 class of scopes offering much over the existing TT 5-25. They used a 36 mil tube but travel remains the same as the 5-25 tube so not an advantage there either.
1) Leica succeeded in invalidating the patent at issue in the EPO, of which the UK is a member state. Essentially, you can file in the EP and if a patent is “issued” you then choose which member countries to validate in. https://leica-camera.com/en-int/Company/Press-Centre/Press-Releases/2014/Press-Release-European-Patent-Office-revokes-Swarovski-Optik-KG’s-riflescope-patent
2) There appears to be at least two patents in the US.
A) As to the narrower one, the independent claim(s?) mention the maximum 35mm diameter, would almost certainly be limited to that in claim construction as neither the claims nor the specification support a broader construction. An infringing product must include all the features of the claim at issue, if it does not, it does not infringe.
B) As to the broader one, the independent claims are means plus function. These are limited to the corresponding structures in the specification. You’d need to evaluate these types of claims very specifically based on the specification. And again, if your product does not include all the features (e.g., each structure required by the claim in a configuration as described in the specification) it does not infringe.
The broader claim is highly unlikely to be enforceable, but that doesn’t mean that those who are aware of it might simply choose to avoid a legal issue over it. If you can scare a competitor off it’s almost as good as suing someone and winning, you get 80% of what you want without expensive legal fees and the potential for an invalidated patent.
I think someone needs to send Leupold a memo as it feels like some of their design decisions are made from guys who are stuck 40 years in the past
One more outburst and I’ll hold you in contempt of this SH court of pure conjecture.
IIRC the first batch of 7-35s had to go back because you couldn't adjust the parallax out beyond 250-300y or so.
I have a premier 5-25 that's the same way, but only because the parallax is broken and can't be repaired.
I moved it to a .22 PCP air rifle so I could still get some use out of it rather than junk it, because it turns out it was a former test and evaluation unit that was never returned to premier after it was loaned out, so it has zero trade in value with Tangent. Unfortunately I didn't know that when I bought it off the px here, as I bought it after premier went under but before ATI picked up the assets so I had no way to verify warranty coverage at the time of purchase. I only found out I got hosed a few years later when the parallax took a shit and called Tangent to try and get it repaired.
Interesting. If @MOUNTIC confirms, and if I am not mistaken, I was one of those early adopters of the TT735P who merely sent it back because @MOUNTIC told me ATI said to.do so with "something about the parallax." I did just that (had not mounted it yet besides the unboxing and comparison pics I did with the TT525P in another post) and got it back within 10 days. Point is I am learning more here than I was ever told by the factory with regards to FOV; albeit the two issues, I know, are completely separate.
It was a parallax issue. If you found an object beyond 1000m, if it would focus in and would be parallax free you were good. No issue. Keep the scope. If the scope was short focused (issue) then that same object would be unable to focus, or in focus but exhibit parallax.
Instead of having customers check for themselves and have the risk of having one with an issue and not being sent in, they just wanted the first very small limited number of scopes back to make sure they were factory set. Nothing to do with FOV or anything else.
Instead of having customers check for themselves and have the risk of having one with an issue and not being sent in, they just wanted the first very small limited number of scopes back to make sure they were factory set. Nothing to do with FOV or anything else.
There are many of us who sit on the high counsel of pure conjecture
It is a very convenient counsel as there is no accountability 
The high counsel, chairman of the council of pure conjecture, must give some good mustache rides.There are many of us who sit on the high counsel of pure conjecture
Update: JTAC and Tremor optics will be coming October. There was a delay in reticles.
I have just a few open spots on the list for the first ones coming. Two more JTAC slots and one more T3. Shoot me a PM.
I have just a few open spots on the list for the first ones coming. Two more JTAC slots and one more T3. Shoot me a PM.
35x out to 2640 was amazing… NOT! While the scope is perfectly capable at 35x battling mirage at anything above 20x is a lesson in frustration. Stayed between 12x-16x the whole day even out to 2640 - you do not need high magnification to shoot long range/ELR, but the clarity of these optics sure help especially on lower mags.
This 7-35 reminds me a lot of the 5-25 but in 7-35 mag range, same outstanding IQ. Not enough time for full evaluation but seemed very good through 35x. For those needing a scope that focuses close and/or for rimfire comps I think many will be very happy, same TT quality as we see in their other scopes.
We all like what we like, but I actually prefer a less forgiving parallax. More forgiving is good if you can't or don't want to mess with parallax in the heat of the moment. I get that. But having a shallower depth of field (less forgiving parallax) means it's easier to nail that exact sweet spot where 100% of the parallax error is dialed out and your target is 100% in focus. I understand many don't need that because they're hunting or competing in a PRS-style match and just need it to be good enough to get through multiple targets without messing with the dial. I would happily trade forgiving parallax for a more forgiving eyebox at max mag.
Last edited:
If the 7-35 has a more forgiving eyebox than the 5-25, I could live with a shallower depth of field as a trade off, as long as it isn't so shallow that the image is out of focus as soon as you go slightly closer or further than the target (although that will probably be the case at closer ranges at 25x+.)
Use matters, like you said. I don't shoot PRS but have tangent and premier 5-25s on a couple of varmint blasters (squirrels and coyotes) and it's very nice being able to scan a field and jump between targets at different distances without having to constantly mess with the parallax to clear the image up enough to see the targets, especially when they might only pop up for a few seconds at a time. The 5-25 is forgiving enough on the parallax I usually don't have to touch it while scanning to keep the image in focus, and the parallax is minimal enough it won't cause misses on little ground squirrels. I'll only fine tune it for the real long shots.
I will agree with you that having a tight parallax and shallow depth of field is great for precisely dialing out parallax when you're shooting at targets at fixed distances when you're not under a time constraint, but when you're scanning a field and looking at things popping up and down a few seconds at a time that are spread out over 400-500y a forgiving parallax and generous depth of field is really nice, and that's something the tangent/premier/minox 5-25 design does very well.
Last edited:
Yeah, same.
Totally understandable and makes sense.
I think these scopes have a nice balance. It's easy enough to get the target nicely focused. But I have seen other scopes where the out of focus area is much more blurry, so it's easier and faster to focus. I'm not really complaining. TT scopes are the best I've used either way
Couple things here I'd like to address
True to a point, but may be more a matter of lazy fundamentals, even with a "forgiving" parallax you still need to make parallax adjustments if you want to be truly parallax free at your target. Also, diopter plays a role here, if you're shooting at 1000 yards (or whatever distance) and no matter what you do with the parallax dial you still get wobble I'd highly recommend fine tuning your diopter - I've had this happen to me on a couple scopes and minute changes in diopter cleaned it right up.
Depending on the scope 100% in focus doesn't always mean 100% parallax free, again, diopter may play a role here so always good to verify.
I'm not sure that "many" are fine with good enough, especially at this level of the game; however, I understand your point with regard to "good enough" vs. "precise". This is likely where the F Class/benchrest shooters have an edge (and need that edge because that is the level of their competition), most of them could care less about FFP but precise parallax control is very important when they're trying to shoot a 2 inch group at 1000 yards. Now that being said, I know many F Class shooters prefer to use much higher magnifications than do PRS shooters and claim that mirage isn't the issue that it is for many who shoot dynamic long range sports, and these same F Class shooters also prefer the "less forgiving DOF" so they can focus on a narrow band of mirage (heat waves) to judge wind at various distances before their target - in this regard less forgiving is actually a benefit for many in this field, but guess what, at higher magnifications DOF and parallax are going to be a lot less forgiving than at lower magnifications or I should restate that to say the "appearance" of DOF and parallax are less forgiving (that's the way magnification works, you are magnifying everything through the optic). So is it possible that something like the TT 7-35 might actually benefit both worlds - for the PRS shooter who stays around 15x or less the DOF and parallax (or appearance thereof) are going to be more forgiving but crank up that magnification to >25x and DOF and parallax are going to be more finicky which may be just what those shooters want...
A forgiving eyebox is always a benefit, I can't think of any situation where a forgiving eyebox would be a detriment. Maybe the above situation of using higher magnification in order to get narrow DOF and require more precise parallax adjustment is the solution. Unfortunately the drive for shorter and larger magnification ranges in scopes has created some unique designs, but the finicky eyebox in some of these optics is a real beast to bring under control, that being said I do not think this new TT 7-35, even though it is shorter than it's 5-25 counterpart, falls into this class, my brief experience with it showed it being forgiving in the eyebox arena.
Similar threads
