We actually would like to keep this thread on topic, which is this offering from Zeiss, and not photography, your career, or your differences w other objecting members of the board.
You can understand that, right?
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
You can understand that, right?
Huskydriver asked if I was "seriously quoting myself"
So hold it. Let's be fair.
After I told Huskydriver the "fight was over" and he was off topic, he talked some more about the "back and forth" in an earlier part of the discussion, and I don't have a problem responding to something he brings up, but he brought it up not me.
Someone else brought it up after I was through w/it, so ask him that question.
If that isn't fair/accurate, then go ahead and ban me because I'm on the wrong forum.
Last edited:
found the science behind the making of the glass we receive very interesting myself. Thanks Convex
Thank you for the kind words.
Anyone know of a review video online anywhere yet? Haven't been able to find one.
True that. There is a flourine lens coating though. Nikon is using it on their high end teles. It's a hydrophobic coating.
Thanks for posting all this info Frank. Haven't had one on hand but on paper it looks like a terrific scope. I ordered a new 6mm rifle from Badrock and needing a new scope will be looking at this scope carefully. I'll follow your lead on this, you having a lot more experience with these optics than most all of us here.
And also thanks for putting up with all the bullshit from the optical engineer wannabe bitches! I bet none have ever even tested an optic, or even know how they are tested. I've tested a number myself and know how to test them, mostly telescopes and binoculars using airy disks, strehl ratios and RMS wavefront errors.
This "theory" that Zeiss manipulated the demo is so ludicrous that I am glad you made a point to hand out a burn. It falls on it's face on so many levels but mainly because Zeiss brought all these other scopes out VOLUNTARILY! That takes guts, stupidity, or supreme confidence in the knowledge of having a superior product. I will pick the latter.
JAS-SH
Haven't been following all the drama, but I can say Zeiss is about... 10 years late to this party? They have pretty much been putting inferior reticles and turrets on scopes with otherwise excellent glass and construction for a long time. It's nice to see them finally recognize that no serious shooter has taken their scopes seriously in a decade and get with the program.
Has there been any word on when these will make it to dealers?
The 3.6-18 are in stock at Mile High and EuroOptic. Haven't seen any 5-25s yet other than Mile High's demo optics.
Yeah the 25 is what I am after. Looking at the information that is out there it could really hold close to if not right there with ZCO.
Wonder why they waited this long to put out anything not hunting related? I always figured they were fudds that had no respect for other applications. I also find it strange that they refuse to market it as a tactical scope even though it really is. Anyhow, I'm not gonna be a test dummy for their first scope in this class when everyone else has been making them for years.
I hope this doesn't derail further, but how do you think the new march WA stacks up with the current crop ZCO, Tanget, S&B and Minox along with the new LRP?
SportOptics had a few of the 5-25s
Please add the amg for my curiosity. I will certainly watch it no matter how long lol.
This is one of the most utterly idiotic things I have ever read in my 26 years in the manufacturing business
You are Dunning-Kruger at its finest.
I can only assume that your reading comprehension is low or you just like complaining.
If we compare buying a vehicle to buying a scope, on the strength of a comparison of the technical information available concerning what the buyer is getting for their money, would have thought it was obvious.
With some digging, we can find most technical information on the various systems in a vehicle which gives the buyer a general idea about what they get for money they have to shell out. Car makers have the same kind of slick advertising but, the discerning buyer is well able to compare one vehicle to another in terms of engineering differences which, the vehicle manufacturers seem well able to make available. The car dealers use this information all the time to highlight the difference between brands with a similar price point or, when called upon to substantiate price differences in models.
Scopes are quite the opposite. The buyer has virtually no access to technical information.
Occasionally, scope manufacturers point out one or two differences. One famous example is Schmidt & Benders comparison graph of the percentage of transmitted light in their T96 range.
That is all I was saying.
The technical information that you think you get about automobiles is about the same depth as what you get from scope manufacturers.
What you are not being told, and what you will not be told in terms of technical information, is like the mass of the iceberg under the water.
But that's not all you're ranting about. Let's not forget your rants about being disclosed what manufacturing costs are. You will never, EVER be told that for a multitude of reasons. Not even on a rough percentage basis.
And I won't even address your ignorance about manufacturing cost trends over the years. You could not be more wrong there.
You truly don't know what you don't know.
right one is answering. i knew that you will be the first one...
So, did you stop by ZCO's Austrian factory yet?
Did you go in and tell them they can't open a scope manufacturing facility in Austria? Did you ask them who did they think they were?
Because not every company chooses to run from one market segment to the next as soon as another trend appears?
Companies exist to make money, not to "respect other applications".
Maybe you should understand the political and regulatory climate in Zeiss' country first.
Cool story bro
Someone's butthurt..
It's the most profitable market segment by a large margin lol. You really think soley profit chasers wait that long .
If that's the climate I wonder why S&B got away with it so successfully.
Learned a lot of cool things reading your posts. Keep them coming!
Thank you Sir!!
Take care.
Take care.
IDGAF I don't work for Zeiss
The fudd market outspends whatever you think yours does by orders of magnitude
You have no earthly idea about product profit margins
You're full of shit you are. Bullshit generalized statements & you're a fucking expert.
If the profit margins shrink, as you say, how come every man & his dog is jumping in the market hocking the Chinese & Jap scopes? There's more scope brands now than there's ever been &, it seems every 6 months a new bastard jumps in the market, boots & all.
If the situation were as you say, they'd be leaving the ship like rats.
As far as new car information, I can only conclude that you must only read the slick brochure & call it good. Not surprising really.
I never said the margins are getting thinner. I never even mentioned margins. Only costs. Nice try.
LOL
Well, you can play semantics as you will but, there's only one reason why so many new scope companies are jumping on the band wagon &, it aint because they just can't help but sell scopes...is it?
not yet, even if i have only 4 hours to their place. covid and those things. but i didnt manage it yet. meybe i will first ask one trusty trader what he can tell me
Dude, keep rolling. All you're doing is showing everyone how little you actually know about business.
BTW, it's not semantics. Costs, profits, and margins are not the same thing.
Anyway, you'll never be given the information you think you're entitled to as a consumer.
not yet, even if i have only 4 hours to their place. covid and those things. but i didnt manage it yet. meybe i will first ask one trusty trader what he can tell me
Quit back-pedaling and making excuses.
In fact, just quit completely.
If I got to play with the cool shit Frank gets to play with, I'd gladly wear that titleDon't worry. You are already late. And you just called Frank a test dummy!
And to go back to Ohioguy not wanting to test Zeiss' first "tactical" scope is just plain stupid. That is like accusing Porsche being late to the crossover/suv game and not buying one because others have been make them for much longer. It's still a Porsche and is still gonna be badass. Zeiss is a quality optic company, if you read where they make most of their money in the OP that started this thread, riflescopes are a small portion. Even if you aren't a shooter looking for a scope, you know of Zeiss lenses through photography or eyeglasses that are top tier.
Hell, do a quick google search of some of the top tier optic producers, Swaro, S&B, NF, ZCO. Zeiss has been making lenses since 1846, Swaro was the next closest at 1949. Zeiss has 103 more years of experience in producing/designing lenses than the next closest top tier optic producer.
Update after researching some more. Zeiss even has 50 years on Hensoldt but from what I've seen on here Hensoldt broke off of Zeiss and essentially became their military/tactical line of optics.
Last edited:
but swarovski bought kahles, which i think produce the first rifle scope in the world.
Zeiss looks like its still got 50 years on Kahles as it exists today. As far as the first riflescope, that is debatable. Maybe the first modern riflescope as in what they resemble today.
"Kahles dates to 1898, when Karl Robert Kahles assumed control of a small optics shop founded 75 years earlier by Simon Plossl. Karl R. Kahles died suddenly in 1908, but his widow kept the business going until sons Karl and Ernest took charge. In the final days of WWII, the factory was bombed and young Karl killed. His widow, then his son Friedrich, rebuilt the enterprise, which in 1959 became the first to offer multi-coated lenses."
Source: https://shotshow.org/shot-40th-anniversary-blast-from-the-past-swarovski/
"Simon Plössl (September 19, 1794, Vienna – January 29, 1868, Vienna) was an Austrian optical instrument maker. Initially trained at the Voigtländer company, he set up his own workshop in 1823. His major achievement at the time was the improvement of the achromatic microscope objective"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Plössl
"The first telescopic rifle sight was made in 1776 by Charles Wilson Peale, however his model proved unworkable as recoil forced the sight back into the shooter’s eye. The first successful attempt to combine telescopic technology with a rifle is attributed to Morgan James, of Utica, NY, during the 1830s."
Source: https://gunnewsdaily.com/rifle-scope-history/
Seriously, do people think that PRS is a dominate force in the firearms industry? I think @308pirate is right that the Fud market easily outspends our side of the house by a wide amount.
My only real hang up with this optic is the height of the elevation turret. It almost looks like it may be taller (for sure more girthy) than a Beast or MK 8. Does anyone have any comparisons?
My only real hang up with this optic is the height of the elevation turret. It almost looks like it may be taller (for sure more girthy) than a Beast or MK 8. Does anyone have any comparisons?
Back on topic (sort of)
Anyone seen the 25s available for American Pesos?
Anyone seen the 25s available for American Pesos?
I'm waiting for the experts on this site to compare the Zeiss to all others, but come on......the name ZEISS is enough to know the glass in this scope is gonna be stunning. And yes, the turrets leave alot to be desired from 'sexy' look.
If you don't mind waiting. Tons a of goodies included with it.
ZEISS LRP S5 525-56 Black Friday Special Pre Order
ZEISS LRP S5 525-56. Includes Free Pro Series Throw Lever and Billet Level. Take 25% of rings and mounts with purchase. Free Shipping!
www.mkmachining.com I still would very much like @koshkin take on subjective quality of the image. I’m looking forward to his report.
Again, I want to be very clear that I don’t think Tyler has his thumb on the scales, but I’m very skeptical that the very large difference in color saturation, brightness, and clarity between the Zeiss and ZCO and Kahles shown in pics in his thread is real vs an artifact of the setup and photog process.
Again, I want to be very clear that I don’t think Tyler has his thumb on the scales, but I’m very skeptical that the very large difference in color saturation, brightness, and clarity between the Zeiss and ZCO and Kahles shown in pics in his thread is real vs an artifact of the setup and photog process.
I have not seen Tyler's pictures, so I can't make any specific comments. However, if you let the camera auto white balance and auto focus you can have all sorts of weird looking variations absolutely unintentionally. Together with slight variations in camera positioning, it is an absolute crapshoot. That's why I always warn people to now make too many conclusions based on through the scope pictures. It is really hard to make them consistent.
ILya
So, I again feel the need to say that I do not think that Tyler is biasing his pics intentionally and indeed suspect the camera/photography factors that you referenced as the culprit.
Hence, my strong interest in the results you...an unbiased expert observer...see.
Here are some pics from his thread.
ZCO @ 10x (5x25)
Zeiss @ 10x (5x25)
there is quite a bit of difference in color saturation and contrast, in my absolutely uninformed o pinion and inexpert eye! haha
I believe this says it all..... about what's problematic in considering which lens for how much, from a picture taken behind the optic.
The front of the image taking optic needs to be plano-parallel to the rear element of the scope, and the centerline optical axis of both optics need to merge as one straight line, which is what happens when you put the riflescope/camera up to your eye.
The disc-exit pupil looks like it's in a "sea of black" until you get the scope/optic at the right distance (via eye relief), then the centerline optical axis of your eyeball and the centerline optical axis of the riflescope merge as one line and then you see the image as it's supposed to be.
Also, taking a pic from cellphone where there's a gap between the cellphone and the rear of the other optic, and whether the surrounding ambient light is affecting exposure, which I would think possibly underexpose/overexpose the overall image, obviously changing the impression of whether the light coming through the optic itself would appear bright/dark.
I'm not knocking the folks here, they do a terrific job of putting a lot of work/sweat into trying to give folks an idea of what these riflescopes can do, and they give the due diligence caution that the gentleman mentions, but ultimately there's a point when you've got to look for yourself if that's at all possible.
I am close to buying a another ZCO. I keep dragging my feet waiting on an in depth review of the Zeiss before pulling the trigger. I am not crazy about the turrets but am waiting to see how they feel and what they sound like.
After reading the thread -
- Fudds are still buying Tascos and cheap Bushnells at Walmart.
- Thankful the ignore button exists for the offtopic novelas
- The turrets are just too f'n big though awaiting koshkin's review of this for sure.
- Fudds are still buying Tascos and cheap Bushnells at Walmart.
- Thankful the ignore button exists for the offtopic novelas
- The turrets are just too f'n big though awaiting koshkin's review of this for sure.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
Well, we’ll find out how this all goes…
Lowlight had indicated during his course that we attended in September he had been playing around with the scopes. I’m willing to give him a considerable latitude when espousing decent products.
Given that he didn’t have anything bad to say I’m thinking it’s worthwhile playing around with…
I have a 5–25X 56 model on the way; in fact it’s arriving on Wednesday.
We’ll compare it to a schmidt version of the same scope and a Schmidt 4-16X56 ultra bright.
I’ve got a buddy working on printing a three Picatinny rail holder for the scopes… @SierraLima
One thing I would love to say is that if the Zeiss 3–18 X 50 is anywhere as nice as the Hendsoldt 3-12 that once owned, it’ll be amazing.
Lowlight had indicated during his course that we attended in September he had been playing around with the scopes. I’m willing to give him a considerable latitude when espousing decent products.
Given that he didn’t have anything bad to say I’m thinking it’s worthwhile playing around with…
I have a 5–25X 56 model on the way; in fact it’s arriving on Wednesday.
We’ll compare it to a schmidt version of the same scope and a Schmidt 4-16X56 ultra bright.
I’ve got a buddy working on printing a three Picatinny rail holder for the scopes… @SierraLima
One thing I would love to say is that if the Zeiss 3–18 X 50 is anywhere as nice as the Hendsoldt 3-12 that once owned, it’ll be amazing.
Last edited:
I have a 525 on the way. If the testing info that Zeiss puts on its promo materials is accurate these will also be tough optics. I really think some people are thinking Zeiss is completely new to the optics world. It's just a new product. People took a gamble on ZCO when they came out and that optic is a home run.
Got one a couple days ago in 3.6-18x50 and I like it a lot. The resolution and clarity of the glass is very good.
I dont really care if the turrets are big, its going on a hefty gamer gun so who cares.
I dont really care if the turrets are big, its going on a hefty gamer gun so who cares.
