-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes K525 SUCKS !!!!! SB PM2 5-25 vs K525 VS TT525P
- Thread starter Msaon308
- Start date
I still want to see one of the new gen Kahles mounted to a rig and tested for tracking and parallax issues.
That's the entire point a couple of us are trying to make. Taking a through scope picture as evidence of optical performance relative to resolution, CA control, DOF, etc. means little to nothing when evaluating an optic. You're talking about completely anecdotal evidence. This is largely the problem with optic reviews. Because relaying what you're seeing without having some standard of metric/testing to quantify that is about as subjective as it gets. Doesn't necessarily mean that Mason's particular sample isn't crap but it's 100% against the majority what K525 owners have said thus far. It wouldn't matter if his opinion was opposite of that and he praised it as the best thing since sliced bread, a through scope picture isn't evident of that.
Ehh the difference is still pretty evident. Is it a perfect comparison? Obviously not. But if you’re not able to tell there is a (very) discernible difference in image quality between the three optics in the original post, well... you’re on your own.
In addition, the optical deficiencies (namely CA control, darkness at higher magnifications) of current and previous generation Kahles scopes are well-traveled. They are also consistent with those observed in the original post and pretty much any other person with complaints about a Kahles scope. While it’s true that optics reviews are very subjective, when the majority of complaints put forth about a specific product are due to the same issues... they carry a little more weight.
I don’t agree in saying that the K525/K624 “sucks” as so eloquently stated here, but I do believe that it’s difficult to justify the ~$3k price tag given the competition in that range.
In addition, the optical deficiencies (namely CA control, darkness at higher magnifications) of current and previous generation Kahles scopes are well-traveled. They are also consistent with those observed in the original post and pretty much any other person with complaints about a Kahles scope. While it’s true that optics reviews are very subjective, when the majority of complaints put forth about a specific product are due to the same issues... they carry a little more weight.
I don’t agree in saying that the K525/K624 “sucks” as so eloquently stated here, but I do believe that it’s difficult to justify the ~$3k price tag given the competition in that range.
5RWill,
Your comment 'without having some standard of metric/testing to quantify that is about as subjective as it gets' sums it up - how many times have you seen XX% light transmission - with not standard to how it was derived? Like saying your car will do 130 , without the mph or kph suffix it's pretty meaningless.
My experience, such that it is, with Kahles has not been too good. Friend ordered an early K525, first one had 'scratches' visible (he thought he was seeing things till we all looked!) returned to main distributor who would not send the replacement as they thought it was not up to snuff. Think they rushed out the originals as later models seem to be better.
For the past 3 years I've been on a stand at the IWA in the optics hall, if you ask you can take scopes and compare them side by side with others against targets outside (set up by S&B). My observations, no one has chosen the Kahles over S&B, Zeiss or March and the balance between the last three is no clear winner (no pun). My conclusion is it's down to what your eye likes re. the coatings when it comes to 'glass' and some optics that appear initially 'bright' will become tiring if used for prolonged periods.
Concur with 'what the pros use' as a yard stick, nice to know but PRS is not the be all and end all.
Brgds T
Your comment 'without having some standard of metric/testing to quantify that is about as subjective as it gets' sums it up - how many times have you seen XX% light transmission - with not standard to how it was derived? Like saying your car will do 130 , without the mph or kph suffix it's pretty meaningless.
My experience, such that it is, with Kahles has not been too good. Friend ordered an early K525, first one had 'scratches' visible (he thought he was seeing things till we all looked!) returned to main distributor who would not send the replacement as they thought it was not up to snuff. Think they rushed out the originals as later models seem to be better.
For the past 3 years I've been on a stand at the IWA in the optics hall, if you ask you can take scopes and compare them side by side with others against targets outside (set up by S&B). My observations, no one has chosen the Kahles over S&B, Zeiss or March and the balance between the last three is no clear winner (no pun). My conclusion is it's down to what your eye likes re. the coatings when it comes to 'glass' and some optics that appear initially 'bright' will become tiring if used for prolonged periods.
Concur with 'what the pros use' as a yard stick, nice to know but PRS is not the be all and end all.
Brgds T
I'm in the wrong business, how does one accumulate so much disposable income without, at some point, having to learn how to spell words like "they" and "some"?
I do appreciate the pictures though.
I do appreciate the pictures though.
First they some said CA is more important. Then some said the Kahles is not Focused. I believed what I can see. The Picture talks.
I was hoping to stay out of this one, but I figured I should say something. Besides, I have said this before.
No matter how nice a camera you use to take through the scope pictures, doing it well enough to judge image quality is very tricky.
For example, in the six images in the beginning of this thread, two have focus issues, two have camera alignment issues and at least one has scope set-up problems. Most likely, but not necessarily.
Some of these may be as simple as a combination of camera angular alignment and longitudinal positioning.
I am sure this was well intended and I am not questioning the OP's impressions from using the scopes, but the pictures should not be relied on for this.
As far as general condemnation of Kahles scopes goes, you have to keep in mind that scope design is a compromise. K318 and K5252 are comparatively compact, so there is a price to pay for that. They do have comparatively narrow FOV, which, I think, is a mistake on Kahles' part, since that was traditionally their strength. CA looks better than before, but in terms of pure image quality, based on what I have seen so far, Kahles is still a quarter step behind the best scopes out there. Whether that is an acceptable compromise to you is a personal choice.
ILya
No matter how nice a camera you use to take through the scope pictures, doing it well enough to judge image quality is very tricky.
For example, in the six images in the beginning of this thread, two have focus issues, two have camera alignment issues and at least one has scope set-up problems. Most likely, but not necessarily.
Some of these may be as simple as a combination of camera angular alignment and longitudinal positioning.
I am sure this was well intended and I am not questioning the OP's impressions from using the scopes, but the pictures should not be relied on for this.
As far as general condemnation of Kahles scopes goes, you have to keep in mind that scope design is a compromise. K318 and K5252 are comparatively compact, so there is a price to pay for that. They do have comparatively narrow FOV, which, I think, is a mistake on Kahles' part, since that was traditionally their strength. CA looks better than before, but in terms of pure image quality, based on what I have seen so far, Kahles is still a quarter step behind the best scopes out there. Whether that is an acceptable compromise to you is a personal choice.
ILya
Focus wise, like somebody said previously, the SB in not even correctly focused and it wins the K525 for sharpness.
I really appreciate what Mason did here. Over all, he gave the most honest and convincing result and attached couple nice picture for proof!
If you like your Kahles that much, buy a SB and see through it side by side.
Oh, I have a SB and I used to have a Kahles
I really appreciate what Mason did here. Over all, he gave the most honest and convincing result and attached couple nice picture for proof!
If you like your Kahles that much, buy a SB and see through it side by side.
Oh, I have a SB and I used to have a Kahles
So koshkin should I worry about buying the k525i over other scopes? I am putting it on my duty rifle and will more than likely be running between 8-18 at most. The other reason I chose this one is that it will focus down to 25. I have had two major scopes to rail in less than 2000 rounds. I was looking for a scope that have a more reliable internals..
?
?
for duty use ？ SB PM2 it is，go see what real pro use in real word. the USMC，SAS，and I believe most of “the longest kill ”. thay all use SB PM2
NF has a track record of great internals and mechanical reliability. That would be my choice on a duty gun.
Just because a particular military branch uses it does not mean it is the best of the most durable. It does make for good marketing.
Tangent Theta, Nightforce, S&B, Steiner, Minox, Leupold, Kahles, Vortex, Sig, Hensoldt all have military contracts with some military out there. That has very little bearing on whether the scope will work well for you.
ILya
Tangent Theta, Nightforce, S&B, Steiner, Minox, Leupold, Kahles, Vortex, Sig, Hensoldt all have military contracts with some military out there. That has very little bearing on whether the scope will work well for you.
ILya
This has turned into a dumpster fire...and to think I wasted time to take pics today...shake my head...ill be along shortly with my thoughts and crappy pics
K525i has not been out long enough for me to answer that question. Generally, the mechanics in Kahles scopes seem to work well.
In terms of optomechanical quality, I am sorta on the record that I think Tangent Theta is the best scope out here that I have seen. However, preferences and needs differ, so it sorta depends on what you like. If close focus is important S&B and Nightforce are good options. Same for the Vortex AMG 6-24x50.
ILya
Hi Ilya,
Thank you for your considerate explanation on this, appreciated.
If it is not an imposition and you if you feel comfortable doing so, would you mind elaborating on the subject of lens coatings and their effect on CA ? I understand the basic reasons for the existance of CA, but I am interested in details about coatings, their types and measures taken to mitigate CA. As a side note, my high end scopes are ZP5's and I shoot Fuji cameras and in particular, their lenses. I find both the Minox and Fuji lenses to be first class and I believe that to be because of the glass, particularly their coatings and their extensive efforts to minimize CA.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
Finally, I get an easy question.
For the most part, lens coatings have nothing to do with CA whatsoever. Coatings are important for a variety of reasons, but CA is not one of them.
ILya
Its hard to take the OP seriously when they write like a 12 year old.
but you can not argue the SB PM2 is the most used one. Including the most longest kill.
Probably the most used, but it also has been around the longest.
I am not up to speed on the which scope has the longest kill, but I do not see how this is relevant for anything. Longest kill is really an attribute to the shooter's skill. He could probably outshoot most of us here with a finger gun.
ILya
My guess is the shot could’ve been pulled off with a TT525P, S&B, NF, hell even a vortex. That’s all about the shooter, rifle, ammo, etc. pretty much nothing to do with the brand of scope.
what's the point of your statement?
You are colorblind, you can't see CA in the scope so the CA is not exist?
K525/k624 is colorblind people specialist?
Hooo boy, didn’t take long for this thread to take a turn for the worse.
My point is. I would be more pissed about the perimeter distortion in that TT scope than a slightly out of focus Kahles.
This guys bought a NF atacr7-35 and beast 5-25, it will be interesting when he release the picture this weekend
I agree, nor does any group or organizations selection of gear indicate it is the end all be all, depending on the organization it might be a good indicator of quality/reliability, but many other decisions go into choosing an item vs. whether or not it is the best of the best.
OP - nice collection of scope boxes in your closet. You own a lot of scopes, yes, but does that make you the only voice that counts when it comes to having an opinion about any particular scope? I bet Mike at CS Tactical can show you a much larger picture of scope boxes, but what does that prove? I'm sorry but your responses thus far show you have an impressive selection of glass but a lack of maturity. It may very well be that the Kahles K525i struggles optically against the likes of TT and Schmidt, but does that mean their scopes suck? I don't think so, and before you go off on another tangent or send me a picture of your shoe collection, I am not a Kahles fanboy, I was one of the early naysayers of the CA in the K624i, but just because it struggled with CA doesn't mean it sucked as a scope overall. My point with the fact that Kahles is popular on the PRS circuit was not to prove to you or anyone else that quantity means quality, but simply to point out that shooters are winning using Kahles scopes, so whether you or anyone else think they suck certainly doesn't impact the ability for someone else to be successful with one.
I still don't understand this way of thinking. If I post some through the scope shots of a TT, Schmidt and NF all with terrible IQ and then post an image of Barska that looks amazing, would you venture to say the Barska has better glass than TT and the others? It is a mistake to judge the quality of the scope based on an image taken by another device, the only way to truly judge the quality of a scope is to look through it for yourself, with your own eyes. Images can be deceiving because we do not know all the particulars behind them, this is why when I do my scope reviews I always clarify any through the scope images noting that you should not use them for judging IQ, I usually take them to show the reticle, but never as a basis for IQ as there are just too many things that can go wrong to get that "perfect" image. Go back and look at the OP's original images again, notice that in the shots with the Schmidt the reticle is slightly out of focus and yet with the Kahles the reticle appears to be very much in focus, in my own through the lens test shots I often notice that to get a perfectly crisp reticle the background image ends up looking a bit fuzzy, but when I look through the scope with my naked eye both the background and reticle are brilliantly sharp. Instead of going off the images, you should rely more on what the individual says they saw or experienced when looking through the scope, in this case the OP was using both, attempting to explain that what the images portrayed was equivalent to what he actually saw. I do not doubt that what he saw through his Kahles was disappointing compared to his Schmidt and TT, etc. but I'd rather read that vs. an image that may or may not have some issues due to the variables involved when he took the shots.
Do you think his photography device can result the CA in his picture? That's all I want ask, thx
This thread never even really started. The OP could have been way more effective in the delivery of his message. Instead, he decided to fan the flames and stoke emotions by representing him like a 12 year old on Call of Duty.
I hate to be an ass here as I agree with what you’re trying to say I think but you’re argument is self-defeating.
You’re saying that: [(through the scope pictures are anecdotal evidence) + (anecdotal evidence is of little to no value in evaluating optics)] = Therefore, through the scope picture are of little to no evidence in evaluating optics.
You can’t then use then use anecdotal evidence to bolster the opinion about an optic’s performance if anecdotal evidence means little to nothing.
People don’t have to have Ph.D’s in stats and don’t have to be a SME in optics to post here for fucks sake. It’s the internet, I assume everyone is posting from their mom’s basement naked using their tiny Cheeto dust encrusted fingers to type unless I’ve met them before.
I certainly get the point that we want to encourage as many manufacturers and industry insiders to participate but I don’t think blindly taking up for manufacturers benefits anyone in the long run unless the goal is to end up like the older gun rags once they became obvious shills for the manufacturers and lacked any real substance.
In my opinion, the above is what opened the door for a place like this in the first place. To me, what I like aboit it is, there’s a a group of knowledgeable people to use as a resource for field type precision rifle stuff or comp stuff. And, that group of
In my opinion, that is the reason this place grew on the first place, their certainly weren’t shitloads of people buying S&B’s and custom precision rifles 15 years ago like they are now and I think this place has a lot to do with it for the fact that there are posts exactly like this where people that actually buy shit and use their shit give their opinion about it and everyone else is free to infer whatever the hell they want from that.
I certainly agree with people being able to say they haven’t had the same experience as the op but I couldn’t Help being a dick with the invalid argument structure above as I’ve had a full day of dealing with the most annoying mouth breathers and haven’t had enough alcohol yet to be pleasant again but my apologies if I was rude, boring, too boring, or all the above haha.
First, I do not make money by selling scopes. Second, I find you mentioned "Mike" "CS Tactical" many times. LOL, no wonder you will be so mad because I speak my experience with K525. Third, I have been work with a lot of optic dealers but you and "mike" "CS tactical" just pushed the marketing to another level. You won! the K525 is the best nothing wrong with it. Are you happy now?
Meh, Leupold was all over the place in military and still is on many LE rifles.
Doesn’t mean they are that great.
One of you guys that has a 525i and hates it, trade me for my Schmidt.
Also, gonna need some cash on top since the K25i is so shitty.
Also, gonna need some cash on top since the K25i is so shitty.
Similar threads
