Don't forget about the different recommended torque settings for elevation and windage turrets.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
ZEISS Presents All-New LRP S5 - FFP Riflescopes for Long-Range Precision Shooting and Hunting
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Wasn’t gonna post. But decided I couldn’t let it go. I normally try everything mid-high end glass wise And I just sold my TT 3-15M which I now regret, to get this For more mag range on top end. any way, I got this One Ordered in 3.6-18 and got it in quick. Started to compare it to what I had left here and planed to use this on my shorty 308. And elevation knob was ok, going up, but felt different going down. mTC mil clicks felt decent but .1 mil clicks were a bit mushy, Very Meh… Not what I was expecting for this amount of money. And the numbers,tic didn’t matchup quite right. The glass was great, but a little harder to get focused in as good as my Minox ZP5 3-15. Great eye box, but took longer to get the great picture as compared to the ZP5. Looked great once you got it there, but you had to work much harder to get it perfect. The wind age knob wasnt as good as the elevation, And already was a bit underwhelmed by the elevation. Marks didn’t line up, and the Torx set screws were unreachable to try to
fix it, or zero the turret. you could pull it out or push it in as far as it would go
either way and the holes wouldn’t line up remotely close enough to get the torx in there to loosen or tighten. That’s a problem. Mag ring was nice with a great feel.
Diopter setting was also very nice, not to loose or to tight. Parallax on this one
was also a bit of a disappointment. It wasn’t as nice and linear as the mag ring.
Had a weird feel to it, not gritty, but not what you’ll expect either. And seems to be
a much longer throw and more finicky to get set right. I should’ve taken pics and video of the issues, but called up where I got it, explained the issues, got a return tag
immediately and sent it back so they could return it to Zeiss. Was asked if I wanted a refund or another sent out and got the refund. I Hope that Maybe what I’d got was just
a fluke, and others have better luck with theirs, but I won’t be trying another. The retailer took great care of me as always and I’m sure I’ll have something else
sent out from them shortly.
Like I said, I’m hoping I just got the bad egg , which I have a Murphys Law luck with
most mechanical things, but from the one I got, IMHO Zeiss has some work to do.
Also, the reticle is great for the higher mag ranges, but if someone is thinking of this (3.6-18)as a crossover scope for plinking, hunting, etc, as I was…It’s not. Reticle was pretty much as useless on lowest power as the 3-18 XTR III Burris reticle, which is Useless Down at the bottom.
Guess it depends on what you wanna use it for. Crossover FFP scopes for hunting and
target/comps are hard to get right. With weight, mag ranges, and the reticle being useful at all power ranges, most scopes I’ve tried fail miserably at getting all of it right, and succeed at only getting a few. Now if I can get a TT 3.5-18M with the MR2 reticle of my Minox, with weight whittled down to 21-22 oz for 2k………….
fix it, or zero the turret. you could pull it out or push it in as far as it would go
either way and the holes wouldn’t line up remotely close enough to get the torx in there to loosen or tighten. That’s a problem. Mag ring was nice with a great feel.
Diopter setting was also very nice, not to loose or to tight. Parallax on this one
was also a bit of a disappointment. It wasn’t as nice and linear as the mag ring.
Had a weird feel to it, not gritty, but not what you’ll expect either. And seems to be
a much longer throw and more finicky to get set right. I should’ve taken pics and video of the issues, but called up where I got it, explained the issues, got a return tag
immediately and sent it back so they could return it to Zeiss. Was asked if I wanted a refund or another sent out and got the refund. I Hope that Maybe what I’d got was just
a fluke, and others have better luck with theirs, but I won’t be trying another. The retailer took great care of me as always and I’m sure I’ll have something else
sent out from them shortly.
Like I said, I’m hoping I just got the bad egg , which I have a Murphys Law luck with
most mechanical things, but from the one I got, IMHO Zeiss has some work to do.
Also, the reticle is great for the higher mag ranges, but if someone is thinking of this (3.6-18)as a crossover scope for plinking, hunting, etc, as I was…It’s not. Reticle was pretty much as useless on lowest power as the 3-18 XTR III Burris reticle, which is Useless Down at the bottom.
Guess it depends on what you wanna use it for. Crossover FFP scopes for hunting and
target/comps are hard to get right. With weight, mag ranges, and the reticle being useful at all power ranges, most scopes I’ve tried fail miserably at getting all of it right, and succeed at only getting a few. Now if I can get a TT 3.5-18M with the MR2 reticle of my Minox, with weight whittled down to 21-22 oz for 2k………….
Last edited:
^7WSM, you think if you had given it some time? Sometimes you just like what you're used to. Just wondering
Setting the turrets is almost as counterintuitive as the toolless re-zero on my TT (I can't use them, every time I do I get lost and lose all my zeros LOL). With the Zeiss you have to get that oddball Torx, and the manual says *unscrew both of them a full revolution*. That releases the turret from the Zero Stop mechanism below it. I messed this up once before consulting the owner's manual. It makes a world of difference, and I wonder if some of the guys having problems with the turrets are failing to unscrew both screws a full revolution like the manual says. Of course, this is on Zeiss too, when they make a scope with a ZS feature that is pretty much unlike the vast majority of the mechanisms on the market. I have not had problems getting my turret marks getting lined up either when I started doing it properly.
I have the TT on my smaller SRS, but the LRP on my HTI, where it replaced an ATACR SFP scope and it is a major upgrade from that scope. And compared to the TT it's $1500 or 1/3rd cheaper, which I personally think is about the right price; however it requires some major deliberation between the LRP and ZCO, which may be the next scope I get.
Setting the turrets is almost as counterintuitive as the toolless re-zero on my TT (I can't use them, every time I do I get lost and lose all my zeros LOL). With the Zeiss you have to get that oddball Torx, and the manual says *unscrew both of them a full revolution*. That releases the turret from the Zero Stop mechanism below it. I messed this up once before consulting the owner's manual. It makes a world of difference, and I wonder if some of the guys having problems with the turrets are failing to unscrew both screws a full revolution like the manual says. Of course, this is on Zeiss too, when they make a scope with a ZS feature that is pretty much unlike the vast majority of the mechanisms on the market. I have not had problems getting my turret marks getting lined up either when I started doing it properly.
I have the TT on my smaller SRS, but the LRP on my HTI, where it replaced an ATACR SFP scope and it is a major upgrade from that scope. And compared to the TT it's $1500 or 1/3rd cheaper, which I personally think is about the right price; however it requires some major deliberation between the LRP and ZCO, which may be the next scope I get.
Secondofangle2….
I couldn’t give it any more time as i couldn’t mount it and get a full refund.
There was a manufacturing defect that once found, it needed to be returned
immediately, and also requested by the seller.
That being said, I did spend hours with it out of the box checking it out,
adjusting Windage, elevation, parallax, looking at the reticle,
going over and over and comparing it to everything I have here,
and I’ve got a bit of everything. Wasn’t happy, and never would have been after
what I found. And I wanted this scope to be my next go to for multiple rifles And that comparing it to scopes that cost as much, More, and scopes that cost considerable less. Wasn’t happy about it, and I was ready to replace quite a few scopes with it, I have no brand loyalty at all to anyone. If it works for me I use it,
if it breaks, how was I taken care of etc. And I’m not a Fanboy shill for NF, S&B, TT,
or anybody. I just don’t normally get on here and tell it like it is with my experiences
becuase of just that. People have to feel good about the 2,3, 4 K they spent on something and ride that shit to the ground. I’ve only had damn near every mid -high end scope manufacturers break or fail or have a manufacturing defect and I honestly think at this point, they send me the broke shit for comedic effect. Ive had people send me scopes with issues here that weren’t reported and I’ll deal with those as the situation needs. Had a used TT come in that had an elevation knob issue and I wasn’t happy about the illumination. Called them up, got a return tag, the fixed the knob issue quickly and to perfection. The illumination was working to “spec” but they knew I wasn’t pleased with it, so they completely replaced that as well. I have never had CS
take care of something so quick and be so completely thorough with any hardware failure from any manufacturer for any part. So even though their expensive scope broke, they fixed that shit quick, and made It like new And was great through the entire process. I’ve had other manufacturers that I was set up for as a dealer back in the day send me brand new broke scopes and fuck with me for six to seven months
to get multiple scopes fixed. Every man made thing is going to wear out or break and some point and it’s how it gets handled after the fact that matters. But when you buy
a brand new 3k+ scope and it has multiple issues I don’t like from the get go,
and a manufacturer defect or quality control control issue whichever may be the case, normally now I don’t give them a second chance to waste my time. All of my scopes
are paid for by me, and I vote with my dollars.
Sorry for the rant, pissed with my other job and I’m on prednisone. So I’m a whiny chatty bitch today
I couldn’t give it any more time as i couldn’t mount it and get a full refund.
There was a manufacturing defect that once found, it needed to be returned
immediately, and also requested by the seller.
That being said, I did spend hours with it out of the box checking it out,
adjusting Windage, elevation, parallax, looking at the reticle,
going over and over and comparing it to everything I have here,
and I’ve got a bit of everything. Wasn’t happy, and never would have been after
what I found. And I wanted this scope to be my next go to for multiple rifles And that comparing it to scopes that cost as much, More, and scopes that cost considerable less. Wasn’t happy about it, and I was ready to replace quite a few scopes with it, I have no brand loyalty at all to anyone. If it works for me I use it,
if it breaks, how was I taken care of etc. And I’m not a Fanboy shill for NF, S&B, TT,
or anybody. I just don’t normally get on here and tell it like it is with my experiences
becuase of just that. People have to feel good about the 2,3, 4 K they spent on something and ride that shit to the ground. I’ve only had damn near every mid -high end scope manufacturers break or fail or have a manufacturing defect and I honestly think at this point, they send me the broke shit for comedic effect. Ive had people send me scopes with issues here that weren’t reported and I’ll deal with those as the situation needs. Had a used TT come in that had an elevation knob issue and I wasn’t happy about the illumination. Called them up, got a return tag, the fixed the knob issue quickly and to perfection. The illumination was working to “spec” but they knew I wasn’t pleased with it, so they completely replaced that as well. I have never had CS
take care of something so quick and be so completely thorough with any hardware failure from any manufacturer for any part. So even though their expensive scope broke, they fixed that shit quick, and made It like new And was great through the entire process. I’ve had other manufacturers that I was set up for as a dealer back in the day send me brand new broke scopes and fuck with me for six to seven months
to get multiple scopes fixed. Every man made thing is going to wear out or break and some point and it’s how it gets handled after the fact that matters. But when you buy
a brand new 3k+ scope and it has multiple issues I don’t like from the get go,
and a manufacturer defect or quality control control issue whichever may be the case, normally now I don’t give them a second chance to waste my time. All of my scopes
are paid for by me, and I vote with my dollars.
Sorry for the rant, pissed with my other job and I’m on prednisone. So I’m a whiny chatty bitch today
I've had my LRP out in the desert with both 375 and 50 BMG barrels half a dozen times now and I'm loving it and no regrets. Awesome scope.
No problem with turrets, I think those with problems may not be reading the directions for zero setting and alignment (it's not intuitive).
Mine tracks with only 0.6% error (too short, so correction factor 1.006.) Great eyebox, easy sight picture.
No problem with turrets, I think those with problems may not be reading the directions for zero setting and alignment (it's not intuitive).
Mine tracks with only 0.6% error (too short, so correction factor 1.006.) Great eyebox, easy sight picture.
Do yourself a favor and get the ZCO if the MPCT3X reticle works for you.
I opted for lower profile turrets, better knurling on turrets, ability to go below the zero stop, ease of resetting turrets and shorter throw with the parallax knob. I was afforded the opportunity for a full refund instead chasing down Zeiss warranty and bought the ZCO instead.
You will be paying about $1,000 more for the ZCO. I had a ZCO and hated the stubby little turrets. This shit about knurling on the turret, the turrets on the Zeiss feel better.
Eyebox was better on the ZCO, but the Zeiss glass was more clear at a distance and the Zeiss illumination in daytime is one of brightest you can buy. I prefer the original ZCO MPCT3 reticle with the vag V. But I don't mind Zeiss's LRP reticle at all.
I ended up ordering the LRP after a couple of additional conversations. The little I have played with it I like it. Going to get it on range this weekend.
Appreciate your feedback 7WSM.
Few seem to fully comprehend the MPVO and crossover market. Traditionally for the hunting crowd it has been "SFP or go home" and "moa or go home" then when FFP scopes and proper mil hash reticles began to take hold, the realization that you can have a reticle that is always properly setup regardless of magnification that allows you to hold over began to catch the eye of some within the hunting community really became something of interest. Whether it's hunters who's eyes are opened to the benefits of FFP or long range shooters/competitors who start to get the itch for hunting, there seems to be a market niche that is relatively untapped due to the lack of understanding of what would make this type of scope appealing to this community.
Exactly my point. The proper magnification range and the proper reticle, if feel, is the key to getting this right. Burris has had a missed opportunity IMO. Their 3.3-18x50 is a surprisingly good scope with enormous FOV and great edge to edge clarity but putting a competition reticle into a lower magnification scope... well I'm just not sure that is the right choice, how many are using the 3.3-18 for comp use vs. the 5.5-30? But I get there are some who will want this, but why not offer a crossover oriented reticle? The XTR III 3.3-18 with the "right" reticle could be a huge seller.
This is why I've been advocating for the GSO designed Blaser Infinity 4-20x58 to be taken up by sister company Minox and given some good turrets with a good reticle like MR2 (love that reticle) and MR4.
Can you point me to the vendor who is selling these for $3k? I would love to save myself some money.
Was my thought exactly. The LRP 3-18 is $3299 ZCO420 $3740, LRP 525 $3699 ZCO527 $3980. But there probably are some vendors who can discount the Zeiss where ZCO doesn't really get discounted.
Last edited:
Yep, I mean if you know where to look you can get the new Vortex 6-36 Razor Gen III for $2399 versus MAP at $2,999.
As is there is about a $1000 price difference between the Zeiss LRP in either model and the ZCO offerings.
So I've been thinking about this release from Zeiss, it is effectively their first foray into the FFP long range market having established themselves as a premier SFP scope manufacturer. For some reason the big 3 German outfits have been nervous about FFP options - Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski. Leica came out with their PRS scope two years ago, Swarovski still has no FFP options (some could argue Kahles fills that role but I still see Kahles as a separate entity from Swaro) and then Zeiss finally introduces these, but in 2021 they introduce as 5-25x56 and a 3.6-18x50. So the 5-25 designs have been around for a long time and are quite established by other manufacturers, I guess they expect to compete on their name? It just seems like Zeiss should have tried harder to differentiate themselves from what is already readily available and from very top companies.
We have 3-18/4-20 designs from multiple companies, I think what would have differentiated Zeiss would have been a 3.6-18x56, for a crossover scope I would have found this much more appealing, but a 3.6-18x50, well I might as well just pick the ZCO 4-20, or the Schmidt 3-20 or the Kahles 3.5-18x50, but a 3.6-18x56 would change all that and I would pick the Zeiss simply for that feature alone.
As it stands, too many good 5-25x56 options and too many good 3-18/4-20x50 options so why choose Zeiss when there are other well established alternatives. And what the heck with the water tower on top of the scope, maybe the Swarovski X5 engineer moved over to Zeiss? Would have preferred the turrets to be wider and not taller. All that being said, these are "Zeiss" scopes and they will sell simply for brand loyalists and those hoping these might offer something "better" than the current alpha class but it appears so far this is not the case.
We have 3-18/4-20 designs from multiple companies, I think what would have differentiated Zeiss would have been a 3.6-18x56, for a crossover scope I would have found this much more appealing, but a 3.6-18x50, well I might as well just pick the ZCO 4-20, or the Schmidt 3-20 or the Kahles 3.5-18x50, but a 3.6-18x56 would change all that and I would pick the Zeiss simply for that feature alone.
As it stands, too many good 5-25x56 options and too many good 3-18/4-20x50 options so why choose Zeiss when there are other well established alternatives. And what the heck with the water tower on top of the scope, maybe the Swarovski X5 engineer moved over to Zeiss? Would have preferred the turrets to be wider and not taller. All that being said, these are "Zeiss" scopes and they will sell simply for brand loyalists and those hoping these might offer something "better" than the current alpha class but it appears so far this is not the case.
Not one LRP model is over $3,600, with the 3-18 being $3,300
Zeiss: LRP S5 3-18x50, FFP, ZF-MRi
The Zeiss LRP S5 318-50 riflescope. An FFP scope with a ZF-MRi smart reticle with excellent color-contrast; designed for competition and hunting.
www.milehighshooting.com
Zeiss - Rifle Scope - LRP S5 - 3.6-18x50
The ZEISS LRP S5 318-50 is a first focal plane riflescope with a 34 mm main tube, and provides a massive amount of total elevation travel out-of-the-box, which allows the shooter to engage targets to 1,500 yards and beyond.
redhawkrifles.com
So TLDR: you hate the size of the turrets, you gripe about your desire for a "crossover scope" (Vortex LHT line already exists) which by the way this wasn't designed for, and that only Zeiss "loyalists" would buy the scope? What a stupid conclusion.
Funny the similarities between the LRP and the Henny https://www.eurooptic.com/hensoldt-zf-35-26x56-sand-riflescope.aspx
Same could have been and was said about ZCO, nothing wrong with more options even if they don't appeal to everyone.
Maybe political but both scopes are marketed as hunting scopes with only the 5-25 including 'target shooting', not sure how they are being marketed in the US but I'm not sure who is the target audience looking at Zeiss advertisements.
Last edited:
Nope, never said hate, just prefer wider not taller
Gripe? I supposed you could call it a gripe, but I still feel there is a gap.
My "gripe" with the Vortex LHT is that it doesn't go low enough in magnification and FOV, so I consider it a limited crossover design, also doesn't have 56mm objective.
Never said it was, simply stated what I wish it was and that it'd be more appealing to me had they differentiated themselves a bit more.
Hmmm, never said "only" Zeiss loyalists.
Yes, it would be a stupid conclusion if I had said the things you claimed I said. Something tells me you completely missed my point, you might want to read what I read again without the preconceived notion that you seem to think I have toward these scopes.
I read your post(s) just fine, we don't need to litigate your meaning or your intent sentence by sentence. In lieu of that I will go ahead and just skip the part where I quote each sentence of your previous post back to you.
In short, I agree there are definitely some glaring weaknesses of this product. But the idea that: it will sell to only/mostly/uniquely to etc Zeiss loyalists is just that.
If we were to go off script here and bitch for a moment: I personally would like to see more manufacturers bring forward integrated technology like Revic has from the other players in this space. I couldn't care less about a crossover scope since frankly my personal hunting philosophy of use is a lighter weight and shorter range shot. But that aside is all fairly irrelevant to this thread, yes.
Personally, I’d like to see the revics electronics in the Zeiss scope.
The glass in the Revic is so-so, not horrible but not outstanding. The glass is really great, certainly comparable to the Schmidt & Bender, ZCO, etc.
The glass in the Revic is so-so, not horrible but not outstanding. The glass is really great, certainly comparable to the Schmidt & Bender, ZCO, etc.
Last edited:
I think you meant “in the Zeiss” instead of “and the ice”
my stupid phone does the same stuff. I’ve been on the fence with the Zeiss, some have said LRP S5 on par with Schmidt but not ZCO, but then a few others (like you) have said comparable.
100% agree.
I also have a PMR 428, like the reticle but the glass is not what I want. It would be fantastic if you could link say an AB enabled RF Binocular to it and set up internally shots and ranges.
But I hear we all need to turn in our Zeiss products now so ....
Actually the ballistic calculator built into the Revic is really good. Simply that one thing alone would make any scope with excellent glass a fantastic piece of equipment.
My understanding is that ZCO glass and schmidt glass are on par, but that the eye box on the ZCO is nicer.
Eyebox on the S5 is slightly different than the S&Bs I was comparing it to. Though the eye relief specs are identical…
My understanding is that ZCO glass and schmidt glass are on par, but that the eye box on the ZCO is nicer.
Eyebox on the S5 is slightly different than the S&Bs I was comparing it to. Though the eye relief specs are identical…
How are you liking your S5 so far? One of the few people that actually has one.
Maybe the Schmidt 5-25 vs ZCO 4-20, but the ZCO 4-20 has "better" glass than the Schmidt 3-20 US in the ones I have seen and used. ILya did a high end video of the top alpha glass and gives his opinion on ranking based on optical characteristics
It's funny you should say that, and I'm sure I posted that as well: The 5-20US I've got has pretty distinctive CA-purple around the edges compared to either the Zeiss or S&B.
I love those scopes, but it was a bit of a surprise.
I love those scopes, but it was a bit of a surprise.
Actually, I like it.
It's a great scope.
I *may* part with it as everything else is a T3 reticle, and the rifle I had it on I sold. (Purely a matter of I'm not using it at the moment...)
I do like the glass. I've not reset the zero on the turrets, so haven't had issues with that. Heh. Unlike others, the turrets don't bother me at all.
I DO like the new DT-II turrets on my two latest Schmidts... so I'll probably get rid of the outlayer.
a lot of people here mentioned FOV this, FOV that... where is better...
but how many people measured exactly and REAL FOV at REAL magnification?
a lot of people say that kahles has narrow FOW, but guess what...:
precisionrifleblog.com
maybe you dont know shit about riflescopes and their real magnification and real FOV ?
precisionrifleblog.com
but how many people measured exactly and REAL FOV at REAL magnification?
a lot of people say that kahles has narrow FOW, but guess what...:
Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 2
In the previous post, I reviewed the overall optical performance scores, and the details of the opti...
precisionrifleblog.com
maybe you dont know shit about riflescopes and their real magnification and real FOV ?
How To Measure the Apparent Magnification of a Scope
How would you go about testing if a scope really did provide 25x magnification, or finding the exact...
precisionrifleblog.com
Clearly you don't either. You're just regurgitating other people's measurements.a lot of people here mentioned FOV this, FOV that... where is better...
but how many people measured exactly and REAL FOV at REAL magnification?
a lot of people say that kahles has narrow FOW, but guess what...:
Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 2
In the previous post, I reviewed the overall optical performance scores, and the details of the opti...
maybe you dont know shit about riflescopes and their real magnification and real FOV ?
How To Measure the Apparent Magnification of a Scope
How would you go about testing if a scope really did provide 25x magnification, or finding the exact...
The very same guy who told the owner of Zero Compromise where his scopes weren't made.
I noticed that @MarkyMark007 chose an older design March scope, the 3-24X42 as the lone entry from March in his comparison. For some reason, he eschewed the March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM, which has a very respectable FOV of 7.3ft @ 100yards when set at 18X.
The undisputed FOV champion is the March-FX 5-42X56HM at 9.1 feet @ 100yards.
The undisputed FOV champion is the March-FX 5-42X56HM at 9.1 feet @ 100yards.
Where what?
I see your point, most go by the manufacturers markings and "trust" that it is accurate, but it is accurate to the tolerance level the manufacturer has deemed, so is it really 18x or is it 17.5 or 18.5 or some other value, we try to get close enough. Even Cal's method of taking an image and comparing to other images and calibrating in Photoshop has its flaws, was Cal calibrating his camera/lens behind each scope making sure the distance from the sensor panel was exactly the same to the rear ocular of each scope, each and every time - if not then it's possible his difference in magnification was thrown off by his own error behind the scope.
The below review is from 2014 and hence includes only the Kahles K624i, I have not heard anyone complain of the FOV with the 6-24 model, it is the K525i model that had the issue with limited FOV which is why Kahles responded with the DLR version with a wide angle eyepiece that significantly increases FOV in that version.
And I would also say that most people can't... Manufacturer's only list FOV values at top and bottom but never in between and most of us use our scopes in between, I do wish mfr's would list values in between using their own calibrated instruments because without calibrated and tested instruments there is no absolute guarantee, I try to point out in my reviews where this is the case but will add additional notes to the FOV tests as such.
Just ignore him. He’s missing some chromosomes. Arguing with him is like competing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
I see your point, but I think magnification can't change so much if your camera or eye is 70mm or 90mm behind the scope?
than you could change magnification just by changing distance from eye to ocular ?
That is very correct observation. Then again, if they were to list the FOV at various magnifications, you would still have people complaining that their preferred magnification is not listed. Or you would have a very long list.
I use the formula FOV(X) = FOV(LM) * LM * X where X is the magnification you want, LM is the lowest magnification of the riflescope and FOV(LM) is the FOV listed for that magnification. Since they list the FOV at the highest magnification, I verify that the value listed is what I get from the formula. This gives me some measure of confidence that what I calculate for an intermediate magnification is correct. Of course, it's always possible the actual FOV at the intermediate magnifications somehow does not follow the formula.
Depending on the lens used even a slight shift left - right - up - down could alter the "image" with regard to perspective, as an obvious example think of what a wide angle lens does when you shift slightly off center, it begins to distort, all lenses do this to some degree and get a camera/lens behind a scope and it introduces more potential for off axis alignment without some kind of mechanical device to keep it aligned. I applaud Cal for bringing this to light and trying his best to correct for it in his tests, he had some other errors from that test to that were discussed at length back when he first posted, no need to rehash all that stuff, but we all learn and grow as we begin to understand different and/or better ways to measure. If Cal repeated the tests from 2014 today I'm sure he would do some things differently.
I think ILya covered this with his video on apparent field of view, unfortunately it is not a linear formula but I agree this probably gets you close. A good example of a scope that doesn't fit the formula well is many NF ATACR scopes, they have fairly pathetic FOV numbers at the bottom of their magnification due to their design, but as you increase magnification the FOV increases quite significantly to the point where it will have sometimes greater FOV vs. other scopes with same magnification with higher low mag FOV.
a lot of people here mentioned FOV this, FOV that... where is better...
but how many people measured exactly and REAL FOV at REAL magnification?
a lot of people say that kahles has narrow FOW, but guess what...:
Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Part 2
In the previous post, I reviewed the overall optical performance scores, and the details of the opti...
maybe you dont know shit about riflescopes and their real magnification and real FOV ?
How To Measure the Apparent Magnification of a Scope
How would you go about testing if a scope really did provide 25x magnification, or finding the exact...
Wrong yet again. No one complains about the 624 kahles FoV. It’s the 525 people complain about.
This isn't for the folks that do know, it's for the folks that may not be into this. If it's already been covered then ignore.
For those not into the technical macaroni behind distortion, there's a "dead giveaway" in any pic of how "cockeyed" the camera/lens/cellphone is in relation to being lined up correctly behind a scope.
Take a look at any of the cell phone images taken behind these scopes in these discussions; The rear of the scope in these photographs appear as a black/dark "ring".
When an object is at angle to a lens, you can call it "foreshortened"; that alone doesn't make distortion apparent if it's a pic of an object from a distance. If an object is @ an angle (foreshortened), and close enough/very close to a lens. the closest part of the object will distort in size in relation to the part farther away.
When you see a cellphone pic of the back of a scope (along w/the image coming through the scope), the cellphone being "cockeyed"/at an angle
to the back of the scope, it will distort/make part of the "black ring" THICKER on one side than the other, rather than even/symmetrical all the way around.
The section of the black ring that appears THICKER is closer to the lens of the cellphone than the opposite side of the ring which is farther away, which will appear SKINNY.
So look at the ring, when you look at these pics, the black ring around the image coming through the back of the scope should be even in thickness all the way around; how thick the ring is on one side as opposed to the other side will tell you how "cockeyed" the cellphone is in relation to the back of the scope.
The effort/amount of work in producing these pics is by all means to be applauded, and yes, it's difficult to get it right.
For those not into the technical macaroni behind distortion, there's a "dead giveaway" in any pic of how "cockeyed" the camera/lens/cellphone is in relation to being lined up correctly behind a scope.
Take a look at any of the cell phone images taken behind these scopes in these discussions; The rear of the scope in these photographs appear as a black/dark "ring".
When an object is at angle to a lens, you can call it "foreshortened"; that alone doesn't make distortion apparent if it's a pic of an object from a distance. If an object is @ an angle (foreshortened), and close enough/very close to a lens. the closest part of the object will distort in size in relation to the part farther away.
When you see a cellphone pic of the back of a scope (along w/the image coming through the scope), the cellphone being "cockeyed"/at an angle
to the back of the scope, it will distort/make part of the "black ring" THICKER on one side than the other, rather than even/symmetrical all the way around.
The section of the black ring that appears THICKER is closer to the lens of the cellphone than the opposite side of the ring which is farther away, which will appear SKINNY.
So look at the ring, when you look at these pics, the black ring around the image coming through the back of the scope should be even in thickness all the way around; how thick the ring is on one side as opposed to the other side will tell you how "cockeyed" the cellphone is in relation to the back of the scope.
The effort/amount of work in producing these pics is by all means to be applauded, and yes, it's difficult to get it right.
Last edited:
Similar threads
