Zeiss LRP S3 4-25 vs MARCH 4.5-28

[Vinnie45ACP]

Trying to decide between these two optics. so if anyone has an opinion if they have had the fortune of looking through either or both that would be stellar to get some feedback. Planning to put it on a Rimfire. So Parallax is great on both, the March is more of a crossover and has a bit more top end but also cost more, both made in Japan, the list goes on of the similarities and of the differences. Locking Diopter on the March which I like and S3 does not lock, etc. etc. but again the March cost more. is the extra cost worth it in those that have looked opinions.

 

[Dough300]

I find the March 4.5-28x52 features better. It’s lighter, more compact, has a larger FOV and higher top magnification with Alpha glass and a excellent reticle. The turrets as well. worth the money to me.

 

[Denys]

Allow me to point out two features that may not be readily apparent.

The S3 has a low end of 4X with an FOV of 28.5 feet at 100 yards. The March has a low end at 4.5X but even at that higher magnification, it has a wider FOV at 29.1 feet at 100 yards compared to the Zeiss. This increased FOV will be applicable at all magnifications. For the equivalent mag on the zeiss, you'll get more FOV with the Marh, yet the apparent target size will be the same.

The elevation adjustment range (46.5MIL) on the S3 is larger than the one for the March (30MIL). If this is critical to you, choose wisely. But my point here is that both riflescopes have a 34mm tube. The difference in the adjustment indicates to me that the S3 has a tube wall thickness of 2mm or less. We know that on the March, the tube wall thickness is 4mm for all the 56mm objective riflescopes as well as on the 4.5-28X52. A 4mm thickness makes for a VERY solid riflescope. If strength and longevity are important to you, that's something to consider.

 

[srt-4_uk]

I have no experience with the March. I owned the Zeiss. It has one of the brightest illuminations I've used on a scope that isn't a LPVO. IQ was good but slightly worse than a G3 Razor or Burris XTR Pro. If I needed the massive adjustment range of the Zeiss, I would have kept it but the other 2 scopes fit my style shooting better.

 

[TheOE800]

I have no experience with the March. I owned the Zeiss. It has one of the brightest illuminations I've used on a scope that isn't a LPVO. IQ was good but slightly worse than a G3 Razor or Burris XTR Pro. If I needed the massive adjustment range of the Zeiss, I would have kept it but the other 2 scopes fit my style shooting better.

You already owned the S3?

 

[srt-4_uk]

Yeah. Sold it on here a week or so ago too

 

[TheOE800]

Neat, wanted to make sure you didn’t mean S5.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have no experience with the March. I owned the Zeiss. It has one of the brightest illuminations I've used on a scope that isn't a LPVO. IQ was good but slightly worse than a G3 Razor or Burris XTR Pro. If I needed the massive adjustment range of the Zeiss, I would have kept it but the other 2 scopes fit my style shooting better.

Interesting observation, price wise they seem to have put it under these two, maybe closer to the XTR Pro, but like most things in the optics world, "you get what you pay for". I'm always on the lookout for the less expensive unit that punches above its class, but more often than not, if it's less expensive it usually means it is inferior in some way. I'd still like to get my hands on one or both S3's at some point and compare direct to my G3 6-36 and March 4.5-28, but I'm having a hard enough time getting out my reviews that I did months ago...

 

[Vinnie45ACP]

Interesting observation, price wise they seem to have put it under these two, maybe closer to the XTR Pro, but like most things in the optics world, "you get what you pay for". I'm always on the lookout for the less expensive unit that punches above its class, but more often than not, if it's less expensive it usually means it is inferior in some way. I'd still like to get my hands on one or both S3's at some point and compare direct to my G3 6-36 and March 4.5-28, but I'm having a hard enough time getting out my reviews that I did months ago...

Well what are you waiting on man

 

[Vinnie45ACP]

No, seriously, thank you, we appreciate all you and others do for the community!

 

[srt-4_uk]

Turrets were really good on the S3 though. Much better than the G3 (unfixed turrets). The tightness was just right to where you can dial a single click without overshooting. The Burris has a real right elevation turret in comparison.

 

[AMTGMC]

Turrets were really good on the S3 though. Much better than the G3 (unfixed turrets). The tightness was just right to where you can dial a single click without overshooting. The Burris has a real right elevation turret in comparison.

When you say “real right elevation turret” , is this compared to a liberal elevation turret that at any moment could identify as a windage turret ?lol

 

[AMTGMC]

Interesting observation, price wise they seem to have put it under these two, maybe closer to the XTR Pro, but like most things in the optics world, "you get what you pay for". I'm always on the lookout for the less expensive unit that punches above its class, but more often than not, if it's less expensive it usually means it is inferior in some way. I'd still like to get my hands on one or both S3's at some point and compare direct to my G3 6-36 and March 4.5-28, but I'm having a hard enough time getting out my reviews that I did months ago...

Why am I eagerly awaiting your G3 razor review when I already own one and like it?

 

[srt-4_uk]

When you say “real right elevation turret” , is this compared to a liberal elevation turret that at any moment could identify as a windage turret ?lol

Shit lol. Real tight.

 

[Zoomie]

Any thoughts on how this might sit on an M82? The adjustment range and brightness is moving me in that direction. I'm just wondering how it will hold up, and compare to others like the MK5 and the new T6xi.

 

[longshot2000]

There is a certain amount of refinement about March. Very high quality. But when you get a the Alpha and almost Alpha level in scopes, the personality of the scope and the turret feel and the reticle have their own personality that will make your mouth water and you just have to have it. No doubt that Zeiss is good. 2022, I am liking ZCO, March and Nightforce a lot. The latter has been a longer love affair, the first two are new mistresses to my collection and for our customers.

 

[koshkin]

Allow me to point out two features that may not be readily apparent.

The S3 has a low end of 4X with an FOV of 28.5 feet at 100 yards. The March has a low end at 4.5X but even at that higher magnification, it has a wider FOV at 29.1 feet at 100 yards compared to the Zeiss. This increased FOV will be applicable at all magnifications. For the equivalent mag on the zeiss, you'll get more FOV with the Marh, yet the apparent target size will be the same.

The elevation adjustment range (46.5MIL) on the S3 is larger than the one for the March (30MIL). If this is critical to you, choose wisely. But my point here is that both riflescopes have a 34mm tube. The difference in the adjustment indicates to me that the S3 has a tube wall thickness of 2mm or less. We know that on the March, the tube wall thickness is 4mm for all the 56mm objective riflescopes as well as on the 4.5-28X52. A 4mm thickness makes for a VERY solid riflescope. If strength and longevity are important to you, that's something to consider.

You can't derive wall thickness information based on the available data. Unless you have cut through the tube of the S3 or have specific design information, like the focal lengths of the objective lenses of the two scopes and physical size of the reticle cell, you have no idea what the wall thicknesses are.

This is just unadulterated nonsense.

ILya

 

[Denys]

You can't derive wall thickness information based on the available data. Unless you have cut through the tube of the S3 or have specific design information, like the focal lengths of the objective lenses of the two scopes and physical size of the reticle cell, you have no idea what the wall thicknesses are.

This is just unadulterated nonsense.

ILya

Fair enough. Send me one and I'll cut it open and measure it. I have all the equipment needed for that.

 

[Denys]

Hold the phone, no need to sacrifice an S3. The information is at their website. It says up to 3mm thickness. "Up to" us not the same as "is".

 

[Convex]

Nobody has to cut anything.

Becasue of what Koskin said, I went on the Zeiss site and navigated around to features (where they have the image of the scope w/blue dots to click on......

FFP Precision Rifle Scope LRP S3 425-50 | ZEISS

www.zeiss.com

Clicked on the one near the bell house which says "up to 3mm". That's kind of vague in a way (if that's the maximum, is most of the tube that thick, what part of the tube is less, and how much less).

So the thickness of the Zeiss isn't 2mm, but the mention of "up to 3mm" still leaves me kind of hanging unless I've missed something.


So the March HM 4.5-28X52, which I've got, still has the thicker tube @4mm. I'm glad I checked because the thickness of tube is one of things that nudged me in the direction of considering the March.

If I knew U was gonna ck, I would've skipped typing this LOL

 

[Convex]

I'm a little surprised at Zeiss, why not use more specifics.

 

[RHutch]

So now we have another (seemingly worthless) metric with which to judge scopes?
Good lord…..just buy the March or S3 or both. Sell ‘em if they suck. Simple.

 

[Convex]

It may not make a difference, but a thicker tube made a difference to me as far as being a little tougher if God forbid I get clumsy and my 3k plus scope takes a spill/or I fuck up torquing it down/taking it off my rifle/putting it back on, which I've down several times.

OCD flare up, probably, but it's my money.

 

[Glassaholic]

So now we have another (seemingly worthless) metric with which to judge scopes?
Good lord…..just buy the March or S3 or both. Sell ‘em if they suck. Simple.

Well hold on now, I think we should be looking at whether or not they are using 6066 or 7075 because we all know that 7075 is more accurate

 

[Vinnie45ACP]

Well hold on now, I think we should be looking at whether or not they are using 6066 or 7075 because we all know that 7075 is more accurate

Very good point, it's all the little things that matter, it should be noted as ILya has mentioned, Most Scope manufacturers use only 2MM thick walls and most seem to do fine. It comes down to material, craftsmanship and User following instructions on install, use and care.

 

[Zoomie]

Put them on EV already, Zeiss. You know you want to do it.

By the way, I hate this place. Like I needed another metric to judge a scope.

 

[Convex]

OP seems to be interested in the issue, so it was w/me, perusing this impressed me.....

March Scopes’ bodies are manufactured by machining from solid aluminum bar stock discarding nearly 90% | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

Through innovation, maybe a better technique using a different alloy which comes up w/more strength in a more cost effective way arrives w/the S3 (enabling them to use a 3mm wall thickness in some spots and not in others), and I don't know if the Zeiss S3 involves that kind of innovation but 4 me that's a legit question to ask at the prices they're asking for these scopes along w/the question/issue of why the March is so expensive/so much more expensive.

I guess the ultimate question is it a process you're willing to pay for/you need to pay to get the results you're looking for.


What might be an interesting aside to some is the fact that producing Carl Zeiss optics under license in Japan is "old hat" via what Kyocera did producing Carl Zeiss legacy lenses under license in Japan for their Contax-Yashica line of cameras.

The experience for doing this and doing it well, is in Japan. I think this bodes well for what Zeiss produces in the way of scopes made under license in Japan.

 

[koshkin]

I think I am getting irritable in my old age. Or the particular semi-literate pseudo-technical nonsense in this thread annoys me. Hard to tell.

One way to make the tube stronger is to make it thicker. Some optomechanical designs can tolerate that and some can't. It varies. That's the approach March chose and it works well. March scopes are unquestionably well built and seem quite robust.

However, not all designs can support that. March seems to use comparatively short focal lengths in a lot of stuff which allows to do a lot within normal sized tubes, but often at the expense of depth of field, for example. There are other compromises with all designs. This is just one example. Other designs often do need the real estate inside the tube. That issue can be resolved in a variety of ways. Keep in mind that I am not talking about any one specific scope since I have seen it done in a variety of different ways.

One way to get the extra real estate is to go with a larger tube and we have been seeing that with 34, 35, 36 and 40mm tube diameters depending on the company and the design.

Sometimes, you only need that extra space in a couple of spots, so you can make other solutions. Sometimes you only need to beef up the tube walls in a couple of places. For example, you can either make a thicker tube wall there or insert a thin stainless steel sleeve around the focus cell to achieve the same effect. Both approaches work. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. You can combine them (some companies do). You can add additional high lubricity coatings to the inside, so that you can increase the engagement surface and have better tilt/tip control for the lenses that you are moving along and so that you can have less POA hop. You can do a lot of things with that if you are designing a scope.

What you can not do, unfortunately, is have any control over baseless speculations on the forums from people with very marginal idea of how most of these things work. They do make for entertaining discussions some days.

There are things that matter and that you, as a shooter, can easily ascertain: image quality, adjustment repeatability, POA/POI retention, etc.

Tube wall thickness really isn't one of those things we should be giving a rat's behind about. If the scope works as advertised, do you care if the tube wall is 4mm? or 2mm? or 0.5mm? If wall thickness is what you really care about, you can just take a solid aluminum rod. That's probably going to be the most robust option of all. Image quality might not be ideal though.

ILya

 

[Convex]

"I think I am getting irritable in my old age. Or the particular semi-literate pseudo-technical nonsense in this thread annoys me. Hard to tell."

It ain't hard to tell, you're getting irritable in your old age,, that's why you get annoyed by being right.

And this is right....

"One way to make the tube stronger is to make it thicker. Some optomechanical designs can tolerate that and some can't. It varies. That's the approach March chose and it works well. March scopes are unquestionably well built and seem quite robust."

Not only right, but it's one of the reasons I bought the March, for 3 grand plus, because I gave more than a "rat's ass" about the way March did it because I'm one of the folks who gets into that kind of detail/craftsmanship KNOWING FULL WELL that wall thickness may never have any appreciable effect on the performance/longevity of an optic if you don't bang it around/if you treat it right.

I've got plenty of gear that's downight flimsy I've had for years, that I've used and used hard and it still keeps on trucking so I get it about not going overboard on this.

As you say, the way March chose works well, and the scopes are quite robust, so admiring that quality is different than going overboard about the wall thickness issue and letting that attitude get in the way of using/enjoying the scope, or buying a different scope from somebody else that ain't 4mm, so we part ways on that slant.

 

[beetroot]

Does anyone know what lubricants have been used on the internals of the new S3?

I'd heard that nightforce uses Dow lubricants which is part of the reason why they are so bomb proof.

 

[Glassaholic]

Does anyone know what lubricants have been used on the internals of the new S3?

I'd heard that nightforce uses Dow lubricants which is part of the reason why they are so bomb proof.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

 

[Convex]

"What you can not do, unfortunately, is have any control over baseless speculations on the forums from people with very marginal idea of how most of these things work. They do make for entertaining discussions some days."....

What ain't a marginal idea at least to me is my admiration for a guy who makes a mistake (or more like a wild guess), then he'll "man up" by admitting it w/a de facto response of "fair enough" after which he immediately hunts after the truth via checking what the wall thickness actually is of the scope.

You tell a man he's wrong, which you did in "spades' but after that, neither you or anybody else had to tell him to look for the truth.

 

[RHutch]

it’s cool to be emotionally attached to a decision made….whether it be wrong or right or simply nonsensical.

 

[Denys]

Wow, what a firestorm. Sorry for the delay in coming back; work is a bear.

What ILya said about deducing the thickness of the wall by only looking at the adjustment range being unadulterated nonsense is very correct. But I was correct; the Zeiss has a 2mm thick wall. The usual wall thickness for aluminum riflescopes is right around 2mm, so it was an easy guess. I used the adjustment range to confirm in my mind that Zeiss did not have a thicker wall.

In my experience, the difference between a 1-inch (25.4mm) scope and a 30mm scope is the wider adjustment range of the 30mm. The difference between a 30mm tube and a 34-36mm is one of two things: larger adjustment range or thicker wall. This is for equivalent styles of riflescopes, of course. I went looking at Nightforce and they state: "They are two to three times thicker than other riflescopes. This means less overall stress, greater thermal stability, a consistent zero and a virtually impervious shield for the precision optics within." Their ATACR series has an adjustment range that leads me to believe it indeed has a thick wall. (Happy to be corrected.)

I went looking at the Tangent Theta site and looking at the specs of their 34mm tubed riflescope, I believe it has a thicker wall. (Happy to be corrected.)

I went looking at the ZCO site and they have 36mm tubes but with ordinary adjustment range. I believe those have thicker walls also. (And also happy to be corrected.)

The short riflescopes will have a larger adjustment range compared to the conventional riflescopes and, of course, there are always variations and exotics and so on. In our case here we are comparing a March-FX 4.5-28X52 to a Zeiss LRP S3 4-25X50. The zoom ratio is virtually identical (6.22 Vs 6.25). The eyepiece diameter is almost identical (46mm Vs 45mm). The objective lens is similar (52mm Vs 50mm). The length is similar (12.5in Vs 13.4 in and I notice the objective lens on the Zeiss seems to be deeper in the objective bell.) These two riflescopes are very similar in every respect, except that the 34mm-tubed March has 30MIL of elevation and the 34mm-tubed Zeiss has 46.5MIL.)

So now, I revealed a new metric that seemingly none of you were aware of, and panic ensued. I NEVER said that 2mm thick tubes were bad. They are perfectly fine, and they work very well. But as pointed out earlier, some manufacturers opt for thicker tubes for various reasons. This extra thickness does not extend all the way to the front of the scope, you would notice the extra 4mm of objective diameter compared to other riflescopes.

The extra thickness of the main tube is a little bit like the extra thickness of a rifle barrel. As Nightforce explained it provides for greater thermal stability, among other things. That's pretty important to me, especially when I shoot at places like Ben Avery, Raton, Bayou and other hot, sunny venues. And it protects the internal precision optics even better. I can vouch for that; I still remember that incident with my match rifle a few years bag; I thought I was going to have an episode when I heard the sickening crashof the rifle hitting the floor on the riflescope. The next morning at the 1000 yards match, I could not detect any difference.

Some manufacturers such as Nightforce use 6061 aluminum, others use different aluminums. I don't think that makes any difference in the performance of a riflescope. It would be interesting to see what aluminum is used by the various manufacturers, but I believe many treat that information as proprietary.

Finally, let we just add a few thoughts about adjustment range. I'm an F-class shooter (boo, hiss.) I usually compete at 1000yards. I have setup my riflescope such that at 1000 yards, it is just slightly above mechanical 0; the optical path sweet spot. This is where a riflescope will provide the best IQ. When I pay over $3000 for a riflescope, I want to enjoy the very best IQ I can extract from it and that's as close to the middle as possible. My March-FX 4.5-28X52 is mounted using a 20MOA rail. I do everything I can to stay away from the extremes in adjustment.

 

[Vinnie45ACP]

Lot of time spent gathering this info, much appreciated for all and everyone’s comments. Lot of great discussion on this topic, a lot learned from many on things I never thought or meant to even ever come up when I first posted the first question. However, I’m really glad they did, more info is good, doesn’t make the decision any easier though, lol

 

[Sako man]

I notice the L3 is popular with rimfire. How would this optic work on a 6.5cm for some long distance? Or is it more specifically a22lr type optic?

 

[308pirate]

Fair enough. Send me one and I'll cut it open and measure it. I have all the equipment needed for that.

So you were full of shit then?

 

[308pirate]

I'm a little surprised at Zeiss, why not use more specifics.

Because wall thickness might be variable along the length of the scope based on a whole host of engineering factors?

Because Zeiss doesn't owe anyone a look into their proprietary (design) information?

Because it will create unending controversy and criticism from shithouse engineers who have never designed and engineered optical systems?

A whole list of reasons why a company would not list out specifics.

 

[308pirate]

By the way, I hate this place. Like I needed another metric to judge a scope.

Be a little more discerning? Otherwise I hope that's sarcasm.

 

[308pirate]

Wow, what a firestorm. Sorry for the delay in coming back; work is a bear.

What ILya said about deducing the thickness of the wall by only looking at the adjustment range being unadulterated nonsense is very correct. But I was correct; the Zeiss has a 2mm thick wall. The usual wall thickness for aluminum riflescopes is right around 2mm, so it was an easy guess. I used the adjustment range to confirm in my mind that Zeiss did not have a thicker wall.

In my experience, the difference between a 1-inch (25.4mm) scope and a 30mm scope is the wider adjustment range of the 30mm. The difference between a 30mm tube and a 34-36mm is one of two things: larger adjustment range or thicker wall. This is for equivalent styles of riflescopes, of course. I went looking at Nightforce and they state: "They are two to three times thicker than other riflescopes. This means less overall stress, greater thermal stability, a consistent zero and a virtually impervious shield for the precision optics within." Their ATACR series has an adjustment range that leads me to believe it indeed has a thick wall. (Happy to be corrected.)

I went looking at the Tangent Theta site and looking at the specs of their 34mm tubed riflescope, I believe it has a thicker wall. (Happy to be corrected.)

I went looking at the ZCO site and they have 36mm tubes but with ordinary adjustment range. I believe those have thicker walls also. (And also happy to be corrected.)

The short riflescopes will have a larger adjustment range compared to the conventional riflescopes and, of course, there are always variations and exotics and so on. In our case here we are comparing a March-FX 4.5-28X52 to a Zeiss LRP S3 4-25X50. The zoom ratio is virtually identical (6.22 Vs 6.25). The eyepiece diameter is almost identical (46mm Vs 45mm). The objective lens is similar (52mm Vs 50mm). The length is similar (12.5in Vs 13.4 in and I notice the objective lens on the Zeiss seems to be deeper in the objective bell.) These two riflescopes are very similar in every respect, except that the 34mm-tubed March has 30MIL of elevation and the 34mm-tubed Zeiss has 46.5MIL.)

So now, I revealed a new metric that seemingly none of you were aware of, and panic ensued. I NEVER said that 2mm thick tubes were bad. They are perfectly fine, and they work very well. But as pointed out earlier, some manufacturers opt for thicker tubes for various reasons. This extra thickness does not extend all the way to the front of the scope, you would notice the extra 4mm of objective diameter compared to other riflescopes.

The extra thickness of the main tube is a little bit like the extra thickness of a rifle barrel. As Nightforce explained it provides for greater thermal stability, among other things. That's pretty important to me, especially when I shoot at places like Ben Avery, Raton, Bayou and other hot, sunny venues. And it protects the internal precision optics even better. I can vouch for that; I still remember that incident with my match rifle a few years bag; I thought I was going to have an episode when I heard the sickening crashof the rifle hitting the floor on the riflescope. The next morning at the 1000 yards match, I could not detect any difference.

Some manufacturers such as Nightforce use 6061 aluminum, others use different aluminums. I don't think that makes any difference in the performance of a riflescope. It would be interesting to see what aluminum is used by the various manufacturers, but I believe many treat that information as proprietary.

Finally, let we just add a few thoughts about adjustment range. I'm an F-class shooter (boo, hiss.) I usually compete at 1000yards. I have setup my riflescope such that at 1000 yards, it is just slightly above mechanical 0; the optical path sweet spot. This is where a riflescope will provide the best IQ. When I pay over $3000 for a riflescope, I want to enjoy the very best IQ I can extract from it and that's as close to the middle as possible. My March-FX 4.5-28X52 is mounted using a 20MOA rail. I do everything I can to stay away from the extremes in adjustment.

Time for my favorite gif

 

[srt-4_uk]

I notice the L3 is popular with rimfire. How would this optic work on a 6.5cm for some long distance? Or is it more specifically a22lr type optic?

The only reason the popular with rimfire is because of it's massive elevation adjustment. It will also work just fine on a 6.5 Creedmoor.

 

[Convex]

"Because wall thickness might be variable along the length of the scope based on a whole host of engineering factors?

Because Zeiss doesn't owe anyone a look into their proprietary (design) information?

Because it will create unending controversy and criticism from shithouse engineers who have never designed and engineered optical systems?

A whole list of reasons why a company would not list out specifics."


The Silhouette 612


Camera/optical system which took me 6 years to create. Specifics are in my about section near the bottom. Know all about what you said B4 U said it.

I agree w/some of what U said.



What I said was simply a passing thought/simply curiosity. Nobody owes me shit.

I said a "little" surprised, because I grew up/grew old w/Carl Zeiss optics; own a couple dozen of them and like/always curious how they problem solve different issues, but of course this was a passing thought, seeing as how I don't intend on buying the lens, I don't really give a fuck.

 

[fdkay]

Which one has the most bertillium and zantium with other, rare earth minerals?

 

[fdkay]

View attachment 7962337

Sorry, I couldn't resist

She has a fondness for all you can eat buffet's.
Would NOT bang.

 

[308pirate]

She has a fondness for all you can eat buffet's.
Would NOT bang.

Fat bottomed girls they make the rockin' world go 'round

- Brian May

 

[Sako man]

I thought I read that the S3 has Schott glass? But yet it's fabricated in Japan? Perhaps Zeiss owns Schott... not sure.

 

[TheOE800]

I thought I read that the S3 has Schott glass? But yet it's fabricated in Japan? Perhaps Zeiss owns Schott... not sure.

It uses Zeiss-specified optical package (Schott glass) and is fabricated in Japan by LOW. Fancier Vortex/Nightforce.

Does anyone know what lubricants have been used on the internals of the new S3?

I'd heard that nightforce uses Dow lubricants which is part of the reason why they are so bomb proof.

Nightforce epoxies the everloving fuck out of their scopes to get their depth ratings for the Navy.

 

[Glassaholic]

It uses Zeiss-specified optical package (Schott glass) and is fabricated in Japan by LOW. Fancier Vortex/Nightforce.

Where was this documented, all I've seen Zeiss say is that the S3 is made in Japan, but if they spec'd Schott glass somewhere I appear to have miss it. Also never saw them mention LOW, again, just vague "Japan". Not saying it's not true because I trust you, but just curious if this had been officially reported.

 

[Sako man]

Where was this documented, all I've seen Zeiss say is that the S3 is made in Japan, but if they spec'd Schott glass somewhere I appear to have miss it. Also never saw them mention LOW, again, just vague "Japan". Not saying it's not true because I trust you, but just curious if this had been officially reported.

I did see a review on YT, the reviewer mentioned Schott, from memory. So I believe that is correct.

 

[TheOE800]

Where was this documented, all I've seen Zeiss say is that the S3 is made in Japan, but if they spec'd Schott glass somewhere I appear to have miss it. Also never saw them mention LOW, again, just vague "Japan". Not saying it's not true because I trust you, but just curious if this had been officially reported.

A very good authority gave me those details.