Zeus Pro 640 50mm vs IRD Mark III or Reap 35mm
- Thread starter Wylie
- Start date
There is no mechanical difference in clarity between the IRD IRH MKII 2.5x and the MKIII 2.5x, but you get a lot more native magnification and better clarity at distance when you bump up to the 4.5x MKIII. So which MKIII are you asking about?
I have a IRD Reap-IR 35mm and will say its totally awesome for several reasons. First, It's one of the smallest/lite weight full function 640 core weapon sights available commercial market right now at around 18oz with weapon mount. It makes a great scope and Monocular!
In fact, I often hang the Reap-IR around my neck on a QR lanyard using it as monocular then release it if I see a hog and have it attached on my rifle in seconds total darkness. I practiced with my eye closed and have become smooth and quick at this action. Sure I have several thermal mono's also ,but it's nice to not have to carry extra devices around when I pack lite for a night out the Reap can do everything I need in one device.
The 2.5X lens has proven to be the best for my use allowing me great FOV for scanning, running targets and enough magnification to shoot out a couple hundred yards when needed. 4X to 5X is a ton of magnification for me plus it seems to put me at a disadvantage up in tighter areas.
The joy stick control is simple to use in the dark after one night of use I mastered it. One cool menu feature on the Reap-IR is it has four quick command ION's screen with you can change/set to your custom preference (I have mine set for NUC, Zoom, Camera and B/W hot). This allows me not to have to access the full menu 95% of the time in the field very simple to use.
Clarity wise I haven't seen anything to match the clarity and contrast of the Reap-IR in the 2X-3X area it's freaking awesome image wise so much I would like to sale my other systems and just have two Reap-IR's and maybe a 1X 640 mono to be fully honest. One thing to note is the Reap-IR uses a special GASIR lens said to give 19% better transmission then the MK II or MKIII scopes.
The draw backs I have found through real field use with the Reap-IR with 2 batteries it seems like I run through a set of batteries on a 4-5 hour hunt using the Reap as both monocular and scope scanning a lot. I would say its just average battery usage wise.
Second, its slower to power up and be ready to shoot vs my Thor and Armasight ZEUS. Around a full 8 seconds and I would say this is my main dislike about the Reap wish it was a little faster.
Last, IRD isn't known for the best video out.
I plan to buy a second Reap-IR I like this system that much!
In fact, I often hang the Reap-IR around my neck on a QR lanyard using it as monocular then release it if I see a hog and have it attached on my rifle in seconds total darkness. I practiced with my eye closed and have become smooth and quick at this action. Sure I have several thermal mono's also ,but it's nice to not have to carry extra devices around when I pack lite for a night out the Reap can do everything I need in one device.
The 2.5X lens has proven to be the best for my use allowing me great FOV for scanning, running targets and enough magnification to shoot out a couple hundred yards when needed. 4X to 5X is a ton of magnification for me plus it seems to put me at a disadvantage up in tighter areas.
The joy stick control is simple to use in the dark after one night of use I mastered it. One cool menu feature on the Reap-IR is it has four quick command ION's screen with you can change/set to your custom preference (I have mine set for NUC, Zoom, Camera and B/W hot). This allows me not to have to access the full menu 95% of the time in the field very simple to use.
Clarity wise I haven't seen anything to match the clarity and contrast of the Reap-IR in the 2X-3X area it's freaking awesome image wise so much I would like to sale my other systems and just have two Reap-IR's and maybe a 1X 640 mono to be fully honest. One thing to note is the Reap-IR uses a special GASIR lens said to give 19% better transmission then the MK II or MKIII scopes.
The draw backs I have found through real field use with the Reap-IR with 2 batteries it seems like I run through a set of batteries on a 4-5 hour hunt using the Reap as both monocular and scope scanning a lot. I would say its just average battery usage wise.
Second, its slower to power up and be ready to shoot vs my Thor and Armasight ZEUS. Around a full 8 seconds and I would say this is my main dislike about the Reap wish it was a little faster.
Last, IRD isn't known for the best video out.
I plan to buy a second Reap-IR I like this system that much!
Last edited:
Mainly wanting to compare IRD 35mm units clarity/definition vs Zeus Pro 640
Which Pro 640?
Wylie, just based of off pure image clarity to your eye I would tend to believe IRD 35mm vs Armasight 50mm the IRD would be more eye pleasing. The difference is in the 12 micron BAE core and high end USA built OLED in IRD systems. They just give lots of contrast and depth to the image.
That said I often find the FLIR core systems to make hot targets stand out brighter to my eye but offer less contrast detail. That's the issue with a head to head match up the different cores/software perform in different ways. I may like more contrast to the image personally while another user may like targets to "pop" more be brighter overall.
A lot of it is personal preference so its hard to say one system has a better image than the other one on a percentage scale.
Both systems will make a great 640 quality image with minor differences in contrast/sharpness etc. etc. It may be better to look at features that matter most to you vs just clarity alone. If you would like to shoot a lot of youtube video I would lean towards the Pro 50mm as video has always been the weak link for IRD they just suffer a bigger loss clarity wise from what you see through the eye piece to saved video.
That said I often find the FLIR core systems to make hot targets stand out brighter to my eye but offer less contrast detail. That's the issue with a head to head match up the different cores/software perform in different ways. I may like more contrast to the image personally while another user may like targets to "pop" more be brighter overall.
A lot of it is personal preference so its hard to say one system has a better image than the other one on a percentage scale.
Both systems will make a great 640 quality image with minor differences in contrast/sharpness etc. etc. It may be better to look at features that matter most to you vs just clarity alone. If you would like to shoot a lot of youtube video I would lean towards the Pro 50mm as video has always been the weak link for IRD they just suffer a bigger loss clarity wise from what you see through the eye piece to saved video.
Last edited:
Pro 640 50mm
When going from the Armasight to the REAP IR, was it an issue getting used to having to manually NUC vs having auto NUC?I have a IRD Reap-IR 35mm and will say its totally awesome for several reasons. First, It's one of the smallest/lite weight full function 640 core weapon sights available commercial market right now at around 18oz with weapon mount. It makes a great scope and Monocular!
In fact, I often hang the Reap-IR around my neck on a QR lanyard using it as monocular then release it if I see a hog and have it attached on my rifle in seconds total darkness. I practiced with my eye closed and have become smooth and quick at this action. Sure I have several thermal mono's also ,but it's nice to not have to carry extra devices around when I pack lite for a night out the Reap can do everything I need in one device.
The 2.5X lens has proven to be the best for my use allowing me great FOV for scanning, running targets and enough magnification to shoot out a couple hundred yards when needed. 4X to 5X is a ton of magnification for me plus it seems to put me at a disadvantage up in tighter areas.
The joy stick control is simple to use in the dark after one night of use I mastered it. One cool menu feature on the Reap-IR is it has four quick command ION's screen with you can change/set to your custom preference (I have mine set for NUC, Zoom, Camera and B/W hot). This allows me not to have to access the full menu 95% of the time in the field very simple to use.
Clarity wise I haven't seen anything to match the clarity and contrast of the Reap-IR in the 2X-3X area it's freaking awesome image wise so much I would like to sale my other systems and just have two Reap-IR's and maybe a 1X 640 mono to be fully honest. One thing to note is the Reap-IR uses a special GASIR lens said to give 19% better transmission then the MK II or MKIII scopes.
The draw backs I have found through real field use with the Reap-IR with 2 batteries it seems like I run through a set of batteries on a 4-5 hour hunt using the Reap as both monocular and scope scanning a lot. I would say its just average battery usage wise.
Second, its slower to power up and be ready to shoot vs my Thor and Armasight ZEUS. Around a full 8 seconds and I would say this is my main dislike about the Reap wish it was a little faster.
Last, IRD isn't known for the best video out.
I plan to buy a second Reap-IR I like this system that much!
Yes, I really like/miss the auto NUC feature on the Armasights. It's just a easier and more convenient process in my opinion not having to cover the lens everytime.
That said, I have several manual NuC thermals it's just something you get to use too and it's by no means a deal breaker.
That said, I have several manual NuC thermals it's just something you get to use too and it's by no means a deal breaker.
TEXASLAWMAN
Lone Star Boars Owner
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
Ive used both both are very good. Before the firmware updates for armasight I would say the IRD had a good edge on the Armasights, but now not so much. You wont go wrong with either thermal, but the lack of a shutter for the NUC and the terrible video out are still enough to keep me away from the IRD. The controls aggravated me on the IRD as well but that is something you can learn with time. I do not like not having a manual focus as well.
Comparing a Zeus 75mm and the Reap 35mm, is there much difference in identification range? The IR is known to be very clear but are you giving up range with the small objective?