ZEISS Presents All-New LRP S5 - FFP Riflescopes for Long-Range Precision Shooting and Hunting

Hi,

What is pretty funny is that pretty much nobody said a whisper about the BEAST turrets way back when it came out.......you know...because of the NF worshipping back then.

And as soon as Zeiss would have put a locking elevation turret someone would have complained about having to take the extra 1.763 seconds to unlock it.

Sincerely,
Theis
 
Last edited:
Mood board...at Zeiss HQ

W1siZiIsIjMwMzE5OSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcXVhbGl0eSA5MCAtcmVzaXplIDEyODB4OTYwXHUwMDNlIl1d.jpg
 
All joking aside, I like the negative space elements
that they have in the first 2mill off centre.

Here we have a floating dot .5 mil mark,

less prominent in some ways than a big(ger) hash marks
but a classic aiming point still prominant visually/mentally

let see if it work in practice.
 
Hi,

What is pretty funny is that pretty much nobody said a whisper about the BEAST turrets way back when it came out.......you know...because of the NF worshipping back then.

And as soon as Zeiss would have put a locking elevation turret someone would have complained about having to take the extra 1.763 seconds to unlock it.

Sincerely,
Theis
I have to correct you there. I got in many a internet scuffle here over how stupid the beast turret was.

Never had a scuffle in person though. Just never ran into one of the five people that bought one. Most came to their senses and bought an ATACR.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: kthomas and THEIS
Just curious, what decision criteria did you use to switch from a ZCO? What is compelling enough to favor the Zeiss scope at this early stage of their product release?

people waited so long for zeiss FFP scope because nobody liked hensoldt reticles, but were all fascinated of their famous quality, best glass and 'get it behind the scope'.
zeiss is producing hensoldt riflescopes, so you cant say that this is early stage of their FFP product
 
  • Like
Reactions: Concrete shooter
That looks exactly like a Meopta Meotac

That's an interesting observation and it would explain why Meopta has not really been pushing their MeoTac product line.

However, the 3-12x50 MeoTac is a 4x erector. These are 5x erector systems, so the scope design is clearly different. There is some visual resemblance and, honestly, if Zeiss had Meopta build this for them, it would not be a bad thing at all. Meopta is capable of making exceptionally nice stuff and at this price a Meopta built product would be absolutely world class.

That having been said, the product page for these rather explicitly says "designed, engineered and manufactured in Germany", if memory serves me right. There is some leeway in terms of terminology, but it sounds pretty specific.

I will reach out to Zeiss and see if they have a 3-18x50 I can borrow for the new 50mm High End comparison I am working on.

ILya
 
That's an interesting observation and it would explain why Meopta has not really been pushing their MeoTac product line.

However, the 3-12x50 MeoTac is a 4x erector. These are 5x erector systems, so the scope design is clearly different. There is some visual resemblance and, honestly, if Zeiss had Meopta build this for them, it would not be a bad thing at all. Meopta is capable of making exceptionally nice stuff and at this price a Meopta built product would be absolutely world class.

That having been said, the product page for these rather explicitly says "designed, engineered and manufactured in Germany", if memory serves me right. There is some leeway in terms of terminology, but it sounds pretty specific.

I will reach out to Zeiss and see if they have a 3-18x50 I can borrow for the new 50mm High End comparison I am working on.

ILya

What other 50mm high end scopes are you including in that review ILya?
 
people waited so long for zeiss FFP scope because nobody liked hensoldt reticles, but were all fascinated of their famous quality, best glass and 'get it behind the scope'.
zeiss is producing hensoldt riflescopes, so you cant say that this is early stage of their FFP product

Hensoldt was sold to Airbus quite a few years ago and then spun off as a separate company. I do not think Zeiss has much to do with Hensoldt at this stage and riflescopes is a miniscule part of what Hensoldt does.

ILya
 

That's an ongoing discussion, sort of. I have ZCO 4-20x50, TT315M, S&B 5-20x50 Ultra Short and US Optics 3.2-17x50 here. I have a couple of good quality $1500-ish scopes to use for background: Razor HD-LHT 4.5-22x50 and Element Nexus 5-20x50.

Ideally, it would be good to get my hands on the Kahles 3-18x50, but it is unlikely given that reaching out to Kahles has been consistently unsuccessful in the past. and I do not think they are itching to rekindle this relationship.

Same for the 4-20x50 ATACR, I liked the scope when I saw it at CompExpo, but I have not been able to get anyone from Nightforce to reply to me for a couple of years at least.

This new 3-18x50 Zeiss would fit right in if I can get my hands on one. I do not have any sort of a relationship with Zeiss, so I am going to get a contact from a friend of mine and see if this is a possibility.

I am also going to ping Steiner to see if they have a M7Xi 2.9-20x50 I can borrow.

ILya
 
Looks interesting and I would love to try one, but gotta sell something first. MY constructive criticism: Why the fuck does it seem everyone uses non 10 mil turrets?! Especially those built in countries that use the metric system. You would think they would understand the intuitiveness that a base 10 system provides. Plus it makes the turrets super simple to read. Rant off
 
Looks interesting and I would love to try one, but gotta sell something first. MY constructive criticism: Why the fuck does it seem everyone uses non 10 mil turrets?! Especially those built in countries that use the metric system. You would think they would understand the intuitiveness that a base 10 system provides. Plus it makes the turrets super simple to read. Rant off
Because there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.

So instead of the one aspect of wider click spacing for easier viewing, we made our turret as wide as we could, spaced the clicks out as much as we could, used a 15 mil/turn, and ended up with two rows of numbers around the perimeter (which we could then make pretty large for easier viewing) and we put the final 5 mils of elevation up top. We kept our turret very low profile as a result and it doesn't move upward as you add elevation.

Those are more of the design aspects that we need to take into account from an engineering side of things. Hopefully that makes sense why some manufacturers, and specifically here at ZCO (I know this is a Zeiss thread but might help to answer "why" they didn't also), haven't used 10 mil / turn turrets. There's a lot going on to think about for the overall design.
 
Because there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.

So instead of the one aspect of wider click spacing for easier viewing, we made our turret as wide as we could, spaced the clicks out as much as we could, used a 15 mil/turn, and ended up with two rows of numbers around the perimeter (which we could then make pretty large for easier viewing) and we put the final 5 mils of elevation up top. We kept our turret very low profile as a result and it doesn't move upward as you add elevation.

Those are more of the design aspects that we need to take into account from an engineering side of things. Hopefully that makes sense why some manufacturers, and specifically here at ZCO (I know this is a Zeiss thread but might help to answer "why" they didn't also), haven't used 10 mil / turn turrets. There's a lot going on to think about for the overall design.
hadn't thought about it that way, but makes a helluva lot of sense
 
Just curious, what decision criteria did you use to switch from a ZCO? What is compelling enough to favor the Zeiss scope at this early stage of their product release? I too am getting ready to pull the trigger on a couple of scopes. Ive decided on one ZCO for sure, but the selection of the second optic is still up in the air. I’d really like to get my eyes on one for an hour.

Researching the ZCO has taken me down some amazing rabbit holes! If you spend any time obsessing about optics, you really need to spend a couple of hours (minimum) on the Schott Glass AG website. It’s amazing to understand the different attributes of optical glass, and the choices that manufactures make for their product lines. BTW…the tier-1 glass typically comes from the upper right quadrant. I’m curious if Zeiss (and others) uses Schott glass for “all“ of the elements in the scope?
View attachment 7722389
i've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs, though i could live with their #2 if i had to. I'll wait till milehigh gets these in stock , then make a decision, it has delayed my decision for a ZCO for now though. Spending this much , i don't need to get in a hurry
 
i've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs, though i could live with their #2 if i had to. I'll wait till milehigh gets these in stock , then make a decision, it has delayed my decision for a ZCO for now though. Spending this much , i don't need to get in a hurry
FYI, Mile high has 5-27’s in stock with MPCT2, 3, & 3x, and 4-20 with MPCT1.
 
i've never been a fan of any of ZCO's reticle designs
Please join the discussion and the reasoning behind your (wrong) opinion
 
Hensoldt was sold to Airbus quite a few years ago and then spun off as a separate company. I do not think Zeiss has much to do with Hensoldt at this stage and riflescopes is a miniscule part of what Hensoldt does.

ILya

not sure but i think they are still in the same place; zeiss and hensoldt. same building, same factory. just 2 different owners, different floors. to hensoldt you are not allowed to go, zeiss yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graywolf.260
Hensoldt was sold to KKR and went public on the stock exchange in 2020, they are now geared up as a high-tech optronics company in the defense / aerospace industrial complex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrhyne
There is definitely a huge design resemblance between a hensoldt 4-16 LT and a zeiss diavari. Zeiss definitely helped design that scope when when hensoldt was owned by Zeiss. I assume the 3.5-26x was also heavily influenced by Zeiss. if this LRP is anything like my hensoldt 4-16 LT CCW ill have to get one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graywolf.260
Because there is a LOT more to designing a turret than the one aspect of click spacing for easier visibility. Let me explain a bit from our perspective. We (ZCO) have 35 Mils of internal travel. Our turret wasn't designed to move upward as you crank on more and more elevation. So to get 35 Mils of elevation travel, if we had 10 mil turrets, we would then need 3.5 rotations of the turret. Our chosen design uses an elevating rotation indicator pin on top of the turret, so then we'd need to engineer in even more room for a taller pin to extend up three different heights. This would lead to a taller elevation turret, which we didn't want to have. Also, is the engraving. If we (ZCO) used 10 mil turrets, we'd have over three rows of numbers engraved on the turret itself, which would then necessitate smaller numbering to fit them all on there.

So instead of the one aspect of wider click spacing for easier viewing, we made our turret as wide as we could, spaced the clicks out as much as we could, used a 15 mil/turn, and ended up with two rows of numbers around the perimeter (which we could then make pretty large for easier viewing) and we put the final 5 mils of elevation up top. We kept our turret very low profile as a result and it doesn't move upward as you add elevation.

Those are more of the design aspects that we need to take into account from an engineering side of things. Hopefully that makes sense why some manufacturers, and specifically here at ZCO (I know this is a Zeiss thread but might help to answer "why" they didn't also), haven't used 10 mil / turn turrets. There's a lot going on to think about for the overall design.
I appreciate the behind the scenes perspective. I am shooting a ZCO right now, and the turret is one of the few things I would change. The gen 2 razor has multiple turns w/ a rev indicator, but you certainly have better glass. The need for multiple rows of numbers is moot on a 10 mil turret, a base 10 is extremely intuitive and no calculations are required like a 12+ turret. Plus if you're dialed much beyond 10 mils there isn't much need for speed, you're most likely shooting ELR and aren't rushed for time like you are under 10 mils at a PRS/NRL event. I appreciate your contribution to my favorite hobby/addiction, so please don't take this as an argumentative post. I am just throwing out my redneck opinion/feedback. Keep on keeping on
 
I appreciate the behind the scenes perspective. I am shooting a ZCO right now, and the turret is one of the few things I would change. The gen 2 razor has multiple turns w/ a rev indicator, but you certainly have better glass. The need for multiple rows of numbers is moot on a 10 mil turret, a base 10 is extremely intuitive and no calculations are required like a 12+ turret. Plus if you're dialed much beyond 10 mils there isn't much need for speed, you're most likely shooting ELR and aren't rushed for time like you are under 10 mils at a PRS/NRL event. I appreciate your contribution to my favorite hobby/addiction, so please don't take this as an argumentative post. I am just throwing out my redneck opinion/feedback. Keep on keeping on
Yeah honestly a 10 mil turret doesn’t need extra numbers, just a second rev indicator. If you’re in the second rev and can’t figure out what 4 mils equals you’ve got bigger issues. Not to mention how rarely people even go beyond 10 mils.
 
I've been looking at the ZCO line and just starting looking at this new Zeiss with fluorite coating. One thing that kind of bothers me is the center only illumination, and that is probably because of my newbie status. I don't know if fluorite is used as a coating on ZCO, but for telescopes, it can be easily damaged with the wrong cleaning procedures.
I also don't want to be the beta tester for something that will not hit the market for awhile. I lean toward the ZCO due to the length of time it has been out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gebhardt02
Good call. With a startup company like Zeiss, you are really rolling the dice.
Now now. No needed to get snarkey and snippy. I wasn't referring to Zeiss as something new, but so far as this new scope, yeah I'll wait for the in the field reviews here on the Hide. Been down the road of buying the latest and greatest, only to find out that it ain't so great.
 
I've been looking at the ZCO line and just starting looking at this new Zeiss with fluorite coating. One thing that kind of bothers me is the center only illumination, and that is probably because of my newbie status. I don't know if fluorite is used as a coating on ZCO, but for telescopes, it can be easily damaged with the wrong cleaning procedures.
I also don't want to be the beta tester for something that will not hit the market for awhile. I lean toward the ZCO due to the length of time it has been out there.

Zeiss has used these coating on a variety of scopes and binoculars in the past. They add a hard scratch resistant coating on top.

ILya