I finally got back from Israel last night. Once I am past the usual jetlag, it is back to business as usual. In the meantime, I got an interesting question via a PM. Looking at it, I do not think there is anything in there to identify the sender, so it is pretty safe to answer it openly. To be perfectly blunt, a significant number of good but long questions like this one was the original reason I started this website.
What is really interesting and it happens all the time is that people ask me for a question about optics in a PM and say that they will not repeat it in an open thread. I always found that perplexing. Barring some occasional personal or professional detail, there isn't a damned thing I can tell you about riflescope that can not be shared in an open forum
The question is italicised. My comments are in bold.
I do have a couple questions for you, but I will share briefly my experience with optics has been more with APO telescopes from Astro-physics out of Illinois designed by Roland Christensen. Many of his scopes have a five to seven year waiting list for them. In astrophotography as you may know the cameras must be chilled to the -40F range due to the long exposure times which heat up the CCD chip and if not chilled, will introduce visual artifacts in the form of white discs which looks like amother star, not good for Astro-images! In astrophotography it is about capturing few photons, thus long exposures. If only we could keep our eyes open for three or four minutes we could see so much more in the night sky.
I do not do a whole lot of astrophotography, but I used to work on astronomy FPAs for both land-based and space-based telescopes. When you chill those large format CCDs, you are suppressing dark current, the spurious self-generated signal that can look like celestial objects that are not there. Professionally speaking, image sensors specifically and electro-optical imaging systems more generally, is my field of expertise. Riflescopes is more of a hobby.
One other comment, in conventional photography, superb prime lenses from Zeiss or Leica can really make a difference in gaining the final bits of performance for commercial photographers that are actually selling their images.
Now comes the perplexing area of riflescopes which I see as having a very narrow utilitarian purpose: can you see the target clearly and is the tracking accurate so that the system is repeatable under sometimes severe recoil over and over? Many people would really be annoyed at my simplification, but it is foundationally accurate.
I am perplexed when people on here get fixated on the accuracy of the color image and even CA, as you are not capturing a photograph wherein CA or color inaccuracy would be wholly unacceptable.
There is a fundamental difference between capturing images with a camera and perceiving them with your eye. Human vision gets a lot from color details, so color accuracy does play a role. As far as CA goes, some people pay more attention to it than others. Depending on what type of CA it is, it also serves as an indication of other design/assembly problems in the optical system. As far as commercial photography goes, how much difference Zeiss or Leica lenses really make is somewhat arguable since I have seen all sorts of lenses used for commercial purposes with great success. It is a bit disingenuous for me to say since I use a Leica camera myself, but some optical issues are much easier to deal with when you have a digital image and a processor.
With all that I would like to ask you a question and I won’t repeat your answer in a thread, but after you have made an exhaustive evaluation and comparison of say these three scopes the TT 7-35, SB 6-36 and the Zeiss LRP S3 6-36 and you conclude the winners to be TT, SB and finally Zeiss. Does if bother you going forward to look through the Zeiss S3 6-36? Can you not be satisfied any longer with the Zeiss as you been ruined by the TT and/or SB? I ask because the US culture is based on marketing and creating discontenment. “Oh you only own a NF, you cannot comprehend what you are missing comparing it to a TT.” Do you see what I am getting at?
I have been travelling for a bit and only got back home last night. I have not yet spent enought time with the TT to confidently say how it compares with the S&B. I do like the S&B and if you can get a good deal on it, you are likely to be happy with it. P5 is a good reticle. The question of if you can be satisfied with something less expensive once you have tried the fanciest stuff is very personal. When not testing scopes, I use a broad range of design from mid-range on upwards and I am happy with all of them for different reasons. YMMV.
When I look at an iPhone with an OLED display I can say it is a clearer display, but when I use an iPhone without OLED, I conclude it’s alright and soon forget the OLED. Now if you move that OLED screen from a 6” phone to a 65” OLED TV - then it is a must have difference.
This is not really an apples-to-apples comparison, since you use your phone and TV for different purposes that are yet very different from DVO optics. The differences between displays mostly pertian to the color gamut they can cover along with consistency and dynamic range of the contrast. If you primarly use your phone for texting, e-mail, calendar, other text based apps and occasional social media, the type of the display is not super critical. If you were doing more image critical things, it would make a bigger difference. With a 65" TV, you are looking at images all the time, although video is somewhat more forgiving than stills.
So to end I want to ask you a couple of questions. I have an opportunity to buy new a Zeiss LRP S5 6-36x56 {details of the discount withheld} I have the opportunity to buy the SB 6-36 with the P5 reticle also significantly discounted (I won’t say how much) and the TT 7-35 would be no discount.
I’ve read your posts recently that you really like the SB 6-36. Also that you would be soon acquiring the TT 7-35. If you have both the SB and TT now. Just your snap evaluation optically which of the two do you like the best? In a couple of sentences optically which do you like better and why? And with your trained eyes are the differences very subtle such that in a double blind test you may not be able to tell the difference? Lastly, is the Zeiss S3 so much more inferior than the SB and TT?
Knowing what you‘ve seen in the SB, TT and Zeiss S3, has the SB and TT wrecked you from being able to enjoy the Zeiss S3?
Once I have spent more time with these scopes, I will have detailed impressions. I can tell you right offhand that Zeiss is a perfectly respectable scope. If you have a good deal in front of you and you like the reticle, you'll probbaly be quite happy with it. S&B is indeed a better scope, but whether the price difference is worth the performance difference is very personal. I can not make that decision for you. As I have said many times in the past, if I were spending my own money on a current production Japanese 6-36x56 scope, on balance, I still think Razor Gen3 is the best one overall, while Element Theos has the best turrets.
I will say that "wrecked from being able to enjoy..." would require levels of conceit even I am not quite capable of. I greatly enjoy my high end scopes, but there are other considerations that matter as well. I have two Tangents that I consider to be the best within their applicable range of applications, but there are other applications where they are not ideal and I use something else.
