• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

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

Tyler Kemp

Print Daddy
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 23, 2008
1,927
1,765
MO
mkmachining.com
Obviously the S3 is all the buzz. I was sent one to run through its paces, and think this thing is a really nice value with an absolutely absurd amount of elevation. They advertise 46mils or something, mine was well over 50 and tracked very well across the entire range. The glass is competitive with others as well.

Here are some comparison shots. Before the photo snobs pick everything apart, these were locked settings with a newer iphone, and track well with my (and another observer's) personal observations. The biggest gripe about these photos is that the S3 has a red coating on the glass that you don't see at all when actually using the optic, but a camera grabs it. So, as impossible as it may be, pretend that the red reflection doesn't exist.

Eyebox on the S3 is not as friendly as the S5, it is more touchy and "on/off" rather than being able to shift with a black border on one side, etc. It isn't crazy tight by any means, but the S5 is a kickass scope IMO and bats with the ZCO. Some may not like the huge turrets, but that's a conversation for another day.

Turrets feel fine, not super audible, not super mushy, not insanely crisp. I like how the windage knob is offset a bit for better viewing behind the scope. Reticle is satisfactory for my uses, weight feels reasonable, overall build is stout feeling.

Without further conversation, the unedited photos incoming. It's going to take multiple comments for all these, give me a few minutes before any responses so things can go right in order!



IMG_2492.JPG
IMG_2493.JPG
IMG_2528.JPG
 
That's it for now folks. I'll get 6-36x comparisons ASAP. Want to see another comparison? Let me know.

Again, these are not perfectly scientific, but do absolutely represent similarities and differences seen between scopes with my eyes, and others concurred.

The red sheen is not visible on the S3 in use, but does make for sad pictures.

If you're in the market for an S3, I have them showing up very soon, and am offering a free Adversus mount with preorders!

 
Side note: no idea why it says "our LRP are made in the USA....", someone more tech savvy than I would need to explain that.
 
Wow, the Razor actually seems to compare very well against these other scopes.

I'm still loving the ZCO 5-27 but the price point on the S3s is very attractive.

Thanks for the photos, Tyler.
 
Thank you for sharing the pics TK, can you or anyone else tell me more about that yellow Leupold?

Looking at it gets me excited... makes me want to buy a metal chassis and go full Rainbow Brite with anodizing and cerakote.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: stefan73
Is that S3 Zeiss tunneling?
S5 was a terrible tunneling, what i tested it.
ZCO is the best, also the reticle on that, MPCT3X is great, i like it better than the previous MPCT3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gebhardt02
Is that S3 Zeiss tunneling?
S5 was a terrible tunneling, what i tested it.
ZCO is the best, also the reticle on that, MPCT3X is great, i like it better than the previous MPCT3.

I didn't notice anything "wonky", only wish I have for the price is that the eyebox wasn't quite so touchy. On a rifle no issue, but noticeably more touchy than the ZCO or an S5 for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viking78
Hey Tyler, do my eyes detect some CA from the Zeiss at the 700 yard target and nothing if anything from the g2 razor?
 
Hey Tyler, do my eyes detect some CA from the Zeiss at the 700 yard target and nothing if anything from the g2 razor?
I haven't been behind them lately (BUSY), but I did make detailed notes when observing, and I have to say there wasn't any CA so noticeable I made notes about it. That being said, it does seem the "euro" scopes seem to have more CA than "non-euro" scopes on average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hardpan
I haven't been behind them lately (BUSY), but I did make detailed notes when observing, and I have to say there wasn't any CA so noticeable I made notes about it. That being said, it does seem the "euro" scopes seem to have more CA than "non-euro" scopes on average.
Thanks for the feedback Tyler! Much appreciated. I may have to get one from you to try out
 
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...
 
Dumb fudd completely misstates the benefits of more travel. You will still need an even more severely sloped base to get the full benefit.

He should stick to talking about hunting.
 
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...
I agree that through the pic scopes might not portray the glass "exactly as your eye sees it", but I disagree that they're useless.
I've done multiple optic comparison photo sets, with multiple sets of eyes that confirm the general vibe of the glass.


In this case, it wasn't just the pictures that showed MK5 glass being subpar compared to the others in this comparison, my eyes and others confirmed that.

In the case of ZCO vs TT, older eyes preferred the brighter glass of the TT, photos confirmed this, etc.

I'm not going for some scientific clarity/resolution benchmarks here, but the pics jive with in person observations in all circumstances. I take care make sure the pictures represent what I, and others see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
Dumb fudd completely misstates the benefits of more travel. You will still need an even more severely sloped base to get the full benefit.

He should stick to talking about hunting.
I get what you're saying here. However if you compare a scope with 45mil travel vs a scope with 32mil, you're still gaining up to 6.5mil of affective turret travel. But his thoughts on not needing a +moa base is a fail. To get as much that 46 mil, could run a 20 moa rail, 10moa mount, and get around 28-30 mil total travel depending on how much you need to drop from center of travel to zero the rifle. This is a prime example of a guy advertising to a clientele base of people who dont know or understand the use of a product someone is pushing. Think the majority of gunwerks customers. Wealthy individuals who buy "1k yards in a box" rigs and expect to go hit targets accurately cuz that's what's marketed.
 
These are the best scopes for the money

$2200 and $2400 nothing can touch them in this price point
How's the eyebox/depth of field? Listened to straight dope podcast where Chris talked about it a little, made it sound like the eyebox wasnt the best. But a short tube, high zoom ratio, doesnt surprise me if that's the case.
 
IMO eyebox is acceptable but as mentioned at the very beginning, a bit on/off. Not a lot of partial view through the scope, either you have it or you don't.
 
In order,
What scopes (even ones not mentioned yet in the discussion), would you consider having the very best Eye box, and also the ones to stay away from who have the worst eye boxes. Other than many of the other attributes in a scope, Eye box seems to be very picky with me so this info would be greatly helpful.
 
Last edited:
In order, what scopes even ones not mentioned yet in the discussion, would you consider to have the very best Eye box, and also the ones to stay away from who have the worst eye boxes. Other than many of the other attributes in a scope, Eye box seems to be very picky with me so this info would be greatly helpful.
From the scopes I own/have owned, I think Zero Compromise is probably the best. Tangent Theta, Kahles, ATACR, Gen 2 Razor, Mark 5, and AMG are all quite useable, but ZCO is really really good.
 
ZCO and S5 are probably the most forgiving for me. I really disagree with the TT having an easy eyebox. Trying to get pictures through it at max magnification is nearly impossible, and comparing a ZCO and a TT side by side with folks that know NOTHING about rifle optics, it was mentioned how folks had difficulty getting behind a TT.

It's of course not a terrible eyebox, but when not on a rifle you can clearly tell the difference.

525i is pretty forgiving as well, 624i too, Swaros, Razor is good, etc as mentioned above.
 
ZCO and S5 are probably the most forgiving for me. I really disagree with the TT having an easy eyebox. Trying to get pictures through it at max magnification is nearly impossible, and comparing a ZCO and a TT side by side with folks that know NOTHING about rifle optics, it was mentioned how folks had difficulty getting behind a TT.

It's of course not a terrible eyebox, but when not on a rifle you can clearly tell the difference.

525i is pretty forgiving as well, 624i too, Swaros, Razor is good, etc as mentioned above.
I've had several TT's and never had the experience you mention with eyebox at max mag, friends also have TT's and not one of them have mentioned an issue with eyebox, never had an issue with getting a good image even at max magnification, in fact, the TT is known to be quite forgiving throughout the entire mag range, your comment has me wondering if something was wrong with your scope.
 
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.
 
I've had several TT's and never had the experience you mention with eyebox at max mag, friends also have TT's and not one of them have mentioned an issue with eyebox, never had an issue with getting a good image even at max magnification, in fact, the TT is known to be quite forgiving throughout the entire mag range, your comment has me wondering if something was wrong with your scope.

Not sure, it is my buddy's/someone I sponsor on my PRS team. He seems to like it quite a bit as the parallax is very forgiving.

Now I would like to get a TT, get a camera behind it, and print an easy jig that could make the camera follow a "mesmerizing" style path, basically slightly larger orbits around the eyebox centerline, then compare to other optics.

In fact I feel this would be a kickass tool to use for that use.
 
Sounds like to me a bunch of you have no clue how to set up a scope

You do realize you don’t just take it of the box and mount it you have to set them up for the shooter

Never had shadowing or a distant look in a Zeiss ? That makes no sense at all ?

Funny how some people love one thing and then the others bitch about you have to wonder why. I mean I don’t need to buy any scopes, they’ll usually give them to me, I bought a set of Zeiss after using the ones they gave me. Same with ZCO, I happen to love the Zeiss for a bunch of reasons and really the S3s just make it easier to use more of them too me.

I have a list of go to, will pay for more, both the S5 and S3 are on my list
 
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

08F1F5F3-3739-4AC9-8E4C-1295366AF1B2.jpeg


7E0B4385-0B5F-4EC4-A539-0D0005EA4DC6.jpeg
 
When you say buried I assume you mean spun all the way in? It seems I have to do this on every scope I own to get a good reticle through out the power range.