SURVEY OF 50mm-66mm SCOPES

[Johnny1]

In the September issue of "Bird watching" magazine there is a survey of 20 scopes in the 50-66mm range. I thought this article might be of use to anyone who is considering buying a scope in this size range.

[PhilM]

Do you know if this article is available on-line?

[steverowe]

I'd like to see this article too but I live in Saudi Arabia and Birdwatching magazine isn't available here. I don't think it will be available online. If publishers put all their stuff online nobody would buy their magazines.

[PhilW]

Hi there! Got the mag infront of me. No suprises really - Leica APO Televid 62 & Swarvo(HD model) voted best optically but also most expensive. Optically both got 9.5 out of 10. Zeiss got 9/10.

Next two highest rated optically were ........

Swarvo ATS 65 & Leica Televid 62 straight. Both got 9/10.

Nearest to these optically wasOpticron HR66 GA ED A with 8/10

Opticron IS50A looks good budget buy with 7.5/10, mid range was Kowa Prominar TSN 663 ED with 7/10.

I've only listed optical marks as I think this is most important.

My advice (forwhat its worth) - go 2nd hand! I use Swarvo ATS 80HD (old model) & Leica 10 x 50 BN bot hbought second hand. Mind you I'd been birding 35 years before saving enough pennys.

Try London Camera exchange website for second hand equipment. Got BN's @ 50% less than new price delivered with in two days.

[steverowe]

Thanks for the info. I think I'll be buying the Swaro HD 65. I've looked at second-hand stuff on the net but it seems very expensive to me. I wouldn't want to pay much more than 1/2 price for 2nd hand stuff but often the price is 2/3 or even more.

I'm thinking of buying the 65 rather than the 80 because it's smaller and weighs less. Many people think that a lighter and smaller scope ultimately is used more. What are your thoughts on this?

[steverowe]

Buy the way Phil. I notice that you are from Chester. Have you ever been to the RSPB reserve at Conway (actually Llandudno Junction)? I live near there and it's that reserve that first got mer interested in birding.

[Andy Bright]

Shock, horror Leica optics comes top in a Birdwatching mag optics review ;)
The Leica 62 is a very fine scope but the Swarovski 65 is a spectacular scope.

[Paul Rule]

Andy

They actualy rated both scopes =, except for one catagory which was value for money. It was the same for the ED (Non HD) version of these scopes. Bearing in mind that the HD Lieca is about the same price as the Swaro ED, version I dont think there can be much argument in the VFM stakes.

Just for the record I own the Swaro (ED version) and it is a cracking scope, as per the review it is optically very good.

Paul

[scampo]

I'm a bit cross because my son left the mag in the hide at Rutland Water at the weekend, having only just paid out my £3-20 (a bit much for a small mag!) and had the chance to merely glance at the survey of small scopes.

I thought the survey was a typical modern magazine job - lightweight and very subjective. Their "optical performance" ratings are a touch misleading, too, surely? The new Kowa 60 Prominar, for example, provides any normal viewer with stunning images - yet it rates a 'mere' 7 or so in the survey with the Swaro at, if I remember, just 8.5/10. Hmm?

My son, Nick, has the Swaro 65ED - and it is undoubtedly a very fine piece of birding kit with the entirely useable 20-60x zoom; but at such a high price.

I've just bought a second-hand Kowa TSN3 Fluorite 30x (via this forum - a 100% fine experience: thanks Graham, you were a delight to do business with!). It will replace my much-loved Kowa TS601 with its TSN20xWW - a lovely, clear and light scope. I'm impressed that the TSN3 is similarly light on the shoulder.

You'd struggle to tell the difference at 30x between the TSN and the Swarovski, except the colour cast in the Swaro is all but neutral, with the Kowa a very slight yellow (the TS601 with the 20xWW gives a fine image, too - so easy to view, and what a wide field). Sharpness of both the Swarovski and the TSN are unquestionably of the highest order and in yesterday's cloudy early evening light, both scopes were impressively useable providing quite amazingly bright, wide images.

Was there an important difference? Hmm... I suppose the Swaro picked out fine detail on the far shore a tiny bit better. Well - I told myself it did, after all, I had bought the thing for my son. And yes, I am jealous, no way can we afford two.

The contrast in both was extremely good, and again, perhaps the Swarovski had the edge - but not very noticeably. Both Swaro and Kowa are lightweights, too - anyone carrying a Leica TA80 around for a day would be a touch envious, I feel sure.

If you're going for the Swarovski, you'll not, in any way at all, be disappointed - and I would imagine that in 99% of situations the 65 will perform as well as needed against the Swarovski 80 model (your shoulder will thank you, too!).

Pound for pound, though, I'm not sure you'll be 'knocked out' by the Swarovski - except by the initial and quite amazing thrill of admiring its appearance before you put it in its case (to do this objectively, though, be sure to place the scope on a tripod with the £1100+ receipt blue-tacked just below it!).

Let's face it, the Swaro truly is a modern design masterpiece combining form and function with the latest technology in a quite incredible way - full marks to their technical and aesthetic designers. But, again, that price?

Of course, what finally disappoints about both of these scopes is the missing feature of a magnet on the end to attract our feathered friends to you (you'd think Swaro would include one of these for the price they charge!). At our local res. yesterday we espied a mere single common sand and 2 greenshanks. But then a Hobby flew over and made the evening worthwhile!

Steve Campsall

PS BTW what a great birding forum this is - glad I found it at last, even if so belatedly.

[PhilW]

Steve
Not been to Conway yet but intend to. Only just made it as far as Gronant this year to Little Tern colony! There are so many good sites within 20 minute drive of my house that I rarely venture further afield unless work takes me some where near a good spot.

Incidentally, I went for Swarvo 80, despite weight, because a lot of my birding is done on salt marshes and I appreciate the extra light gathering powers - especially when watching raptors or little egrets coming to roost.

The weight is a penalty but I'm quite used to that. What I can't get my head around is the best way to carry the tripod. I have a 2nd hand Manfrotti 200 which is fantastic but built like the Forth Bridge.

[Grousemore]

Thanks for posting the survey results and I must say they largely agree with my experience when testing the Leica 62 and Swaro 65 side by side.

I recently replied to a thread and described my experience and subsequent purchase and this survey,to me,makes the Leica 62 (non APO) the best value for money.

If anyone is interested the Thread was 'Kowa 663' and my reply was on 29 August; (can't see how to provide a link to another posting)

[Wine Man]

I tried out a selection of the scopes tested in the Birdwatching review and was a little surprised by the results, though less so after reading Andy's post ;)

To my eyes the Swarovski 65hd gave a noticably superior image to that of the Leica, in fact the image from the 65mm Zeiss Diascope seemed every bit as good as the Leica.

Wine Man

[steverowe]

Thanks for all your input. My choice is narrowed down to a Leica APO Televid 77 with 20-60x zoom or a Swarovski ATS65 HD with 20-60x zoom. The online discount prices are similar, (I couldn't run to the 80mm Swaro). The choice is down to whether I want the extra light gathering of the Leica or the compact size and weight of the Swaro. I cab't make my mind up :-(

[Paul Rule]

Steve Rowe

Have you checked your PM's lately?

Paul

[Grousemore]

Can't see any logic in your choice process from what has been posted here;the Leica 77 and Swar 65 are not comparable by any of the criteria of this Thread.

[scampo]

I've always felt that the Leica is such a heavy scope to carry around, especially compared to the Swarovski 65 which is a very bright and light optic.

Here is a fine article on big scopes - it followed a really good article on smaller scopes:

http://betterviewdesired.com/bigscopes/index.html

I suppose you have already seen it, though!


Steve

[Art Thorn]

ANyone out there with a Swaro ST 80? I've just purchased second hand at about 60% of new but it hasn't arrived yet. I'm thinking that if every air-glass surface presents some issues, then the ST might be a touch better than the angle version. Opinions????

[mak]

Art.

Why should the straight be any different to the angle as far as air-glass surface? The only difference is that the prism has been rotated. Mirror surface, pechan prism, same prism.

[scampo]

Lucky you getting a Swaro 80 for a bargain price - hope it arrives soon.

Re light transmission, what you say about lens to air surfaces sounds spot on but I think that it would only be in older design scopes that this would apply.

All modern scopes use prisms and mirrors, presumably to fold the light in order to keep their physical length down. On that basis, straight and angled would be identical in light transmission.

I would choose angled every time - easier on the neck!

[Art Thorn]

The Swaro website has a poor image of a cut through an At 80, and there seems to be an additional section that is devoted to bending the light again to get that angle. I can't really make it out. Maybe someone has a better image of that??

[mak]

The light transmission in older scopes, might differ depending on the lens coatings used at the time. Some manufacturers now have special coatings on the prism mirror surface in order to eliminate the amount of light lost through the prism. I agree that straight and angled models should have the same light transmission.

[Bob D]

Did Birdwatching Magazine test the 60 mm Nikon Fieldscope III scopes?

A reason for asking is that the ED version of the Nikon is approximately $300 to $400 less expensive than the Leica 62 apo and the Swarovski 65 mm HD. At lease in the USA.

Alula tested the Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss small scopes. The Nikon fared very well. After you follow the link below click on "optic" at the bottom of the main page .

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

Note: I'm probably biased as I have used Nikon Fieldscope 60 mm III ED for a number of years. It's major drawback is the 20 x 60 zoom is not eyeglass friendly.

I've also used Leica's zoom ( the one introduced about two years ago) on a Televue 85 asto scope and can only admire the zoom. Also have viewed a number of times thru the "older" Swarovski 80 mm HD and non HD scopes and they are excellent--to say the least.

Bob

[Paul Rule]

Bob

Yes it did, If you want to see a copy I can email a scanned copy of it. Just drop me a PM.

Paul

[CDK]

A bit naughty to ask, but. Does one of the scope reviewers in the magazine have a connection with Leica?
I ask because I have a Leica brochure, showing known users who use Leica, and one picture looks like one of the reviewers!!

[Bob D]

Paul, that is a much appreciated offer. Yes it would be great.

Please send to:

bobd555@earthlink.net

Thanks

[steverowe]

Well Grousemore, the Leica and the Swaro are comparable to me in the sense that they are both very good optically, and I ought not to be disappointed if I buy either of them. But the Leica, by virtue of its bigger objective will have the edge in resolution and performance in poorer light. The Swaro is more portable but is still good optically in most light situations. Prices are much the same for the 77 Leica and the 65 Swaro if I buy online.

[Grousemore]

The Thread was about 50mm-66mm scopes and so the logical comparison would be between the Leica 62 and Swaro 65,which are both lightweight scopes.

The Leica is as good (at least) and slightly cheaper.

[Sandy Martin]

Originally posted by CDK
A bit naughty to ask, but. Does one of the scope reviewers in the magazine have a connection with Leica?
I ask because I have a Leica brochure, showing known users who use Leica, and one picture looks like one of the reviewers!!

Hi CDK,
Could this be Steve Dudley? Birdwatching's main optics reviewer who has worked for Leica and is still acts as a 'consultant' for them. He can be seen advertising Leica digiscoping equipment in Warehouse Express (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/) adverts although I am assured that he uses a Nikon camera outside when not appearing for Leica.

I concur with several other members in that the Swarovski 65 provided the best view when compared to the Leica 62.

From what I have heard from several sources, a milk bottle with a Leica badge on it would have come out on top against the other spotting scopes.

Sandy

[PhilW]

Preferably a glass milk bottle.........

[steverowe]

The Leica 62 zoom is 16-48 (I think) but the Swaro 65 has a 20-60x zoom. That's why I chose the Swaro over the Leica

[Tannin]

Actually, I'd regard that (15-45X zoom rather than 20-60) as a good reason to chose the Leica! The reality is that in practical use, I find myself wanting to zoom out (less than 20) far, far more often than I want to zoom in (more than 60). Despite having an ATS80HD (and thus a little more light to use than with a 65 or even 77mm scope), anything much past about 40 or 45X is really pushing it.

This is particularly applicable to digiscoping, but also for general use. I've been pondering the purchase of a 20X wide-angle E/P for my Swaro. If they had, say, a 12-40 zoom E/P, I'd order one tommorow.

[PhilW]

Steve
I find image deteriorates above 40 x mag with Swarvo zoom. Same article had (I think) bit of science concerning optimum zoom in relation to size of objective lense. It made sense to me and probably explains why Leica has 16-48 zoom as objective smaller. Optimum probably around 30 -35 x zoom before image deteriorates.

You won't be missing North Wales today. The weathers appaling.

[scampo]

Odd how we vary.

I was looking at a distant perched peregrine with my son yesterday evening just before sunset using both his Swarovski 65 20-60 and my TSN3 30x.

I found the 60x very useful indeed. It was very sharp and bright - we could easily discern beak and feather detail, for example, despite the extreme distance. The Kowa was marvellous for its bright, sharp and wide view, of course, but its 30x was a truly limiting issue, not for id but for detail.

Surely, then, a max of 45x would not have given as good a view? I'd choose the Swaro 65HD any day if funds permitted.

[Tannin]

The 60X zoom is indeed a wonderful thing, Steve. I still marvel at the ability of the big Swarovski to bring detail in from a long, long way away. But I could live without that - would happily live without that - in exchange for being able to get better pictures of a reasonably close-to bird in marginal light conditions. And there are times when the situation constrains me to be where I am and the bird is just too close for the shot I want - such as the Powerful Owl I took pictures of the other day. (Oh happy day!) I wanted to back off but copuldn't do that without losing sight of the bird. The end result was good pictures (albeit at a horriblly slow shutter speed that left me terrified they wouldn't come out) but rather cramped. They look as though I over-cropped them but they are not cropped at all. And if a lower zoom meant a faster shutter speed .....

But perhaps that view of mine is conditioned by two factors: (a) digiscoping rather than just looking (though I do both, of course). (b) It's winter here and bad light is my perennial enemy. Come the long, bright days of summer and the perfect light of a clear summer morning, maybe I'll change my tune and want an 80X zoom!

In a perfect world, I'd buy a digital SLR, a 500mm zoom lens, and some top-knotch 10X50 bins to add to my existing scope and Coolpix. That would deal with the situation nicely and leave me well-equipped to cope with all contingincies. Anyone got AU$20,000 going spare?

[scampo]

Hmm, I see your point - I haven't entered the world of digiscoping yet, even though I have been a keen photographer since I was a young teenager (I can remember my first attempt at developing and printing in my mate's garden shed - oh the memories!!).

BTW have you seen the new Canon digital SLR which is on sale in the UK for a mere (!) £850-00? Seems a snip for such an advanced piece of kit.

...The long, bright days of an Australian summer - aah! Lucky, lucky you. Mind you, we've had an amazingly dry and sunny summer over here but in landlocked Leicestershire, the birds are few and far between.

[Tannin]

Yes, Steve. Or at least I've heard about the new Canon. A friend of mine nearly bought one the other day, but (wisely in my view) noticed that the existing (metal body) Canon was only a few hundred dollars more. (I think his was ex-demo or shopsoiled or some such, but it still has full factory warranty.)

I have not looked at it yet, but he and I plan to find a spare day sometime soon so that he can learn about my scope & CP4500 while I learn about his DSLR and lens - a 400mm, I think it is. Genuine Canon, as I recall.

But not this year: between scope, tripod, head, camera, and various accessories, I've spent quite enough already this year! Besides, they (digital SLRs) will only get better and cheaper.

All of which reminds me: I haven't posted my Powerful Owl in the gallery yet.

I heard about your summer. Rather too much of a good thing, I gather. We had the same last year: hottest summer on record, and massive bushfires. Anyone who still doesn't believe in the reality of global climate change needs to look out the window now and then. Or possibly a brain reformat.

[Paul Rule]

I have the 20-60 on a the Swaro 65, and a fine lens it is too, but in practice I very rarely go above 40X, You may get a bit bigger image but that is off set by the fact that the image will be darker and hence resolution is reduced and and shake will be amplified.

I think the top end of these zooms only really come into there own on the 77/80mm scopes.

I think I am correct in saying that in the case of the Lieca the same zoom is used on the 62 & 77mm scopes and that the zoom range is reduced due to the design of the scope body.


Paul

[mak]

No.
Focal lengths would have determined the change in the magnification range between the 62mm & 77mm.

[Paul Rule]

Mak

That is true, but that does not make my statement incorrect FL is determined by the design of the scope.

Paul

[mak]

Paul Rule.
In a way, but the Swarovski 65 & 80 I believe have the same FL, and that is why their vario eyepiece have the same 20x-60x when fitted to both bodies.
There are a number of positives and negatives with magnifications, but in optics there are always trade offs.

[Leif]

I too get the impression that Bird Watching magazine tend to favour Leica. They always seem to rate their bins higher relative to the competition than I would do. (But then again, what do I know?)

I think as always you have to take reviews from any source as a rough guide. If lots of reviews agree then chances are they are on the mark. I have seen at least one review in Bird Watching that was well off the mark.

As they say, buy Leica and you are safe in the knowledge that you've bought the best advertising money can buy. Or something like that.

[martinow]

I think at the top end choice is subjective and differences minimal.

When I got my scope I went out with the expectation of buying a Swaro 65 with 20-60 zoom. But I did try it alongside the Leica APO 62, 16-48 zoom, before buying.

I ended up buying the Lieca, the image just seemed much brighter and sharper to me, but hey, my eyes aren't what they were!!

So as Lief says above I reckon you should take reviews as a rough guide only. Try the options out and go with what you think is best for you.


Martin

[Tannin]

That's why I bought my Swarovski, Lief. Not so much lots of reviews agreeing but lots of Bird Forum members. Figured it was hard to go too far wrong with such a well-recommended scope.

Now that I've had some experience with that one, I'd feel a lot more confident about trying different ones out and backing my own judgement. If I were buying a second one now and liked something that wasn't quite as universally recommended - a Kowa or a Nikon, say, something from the second rank - and it seemed to my eye just as good or better, I'd go with it (and save a small fortune).

But for first-time buyers (as I was), there is confidence in numbers.

(Memo to self: given an opportunity to try different scopes in a field situation, jump at the chance!)

[Grousemore]

I had a similar experience to Martin.

The differences of opinion on this Thread can only lead to the conclusion that different scopes suit different folks,so try before buying.

[Leif]

There are some interesting scope reviews on this site:

Scopes Reviews (http://www.alula.fi/gb/)

Worryingly the writers observed considerable sample variation.

[steverowe]

They are interesting reviews. They reinforce the need to go to a good optical retailer to choose a scope. The choice also depends on how the scope is going to be used. I was hoping to order a scope to be delivered at my UK address ready for me to use immediately on coming home for vacation. I think it will be prudent to try them out first.

[crackadee]

In the May issue of Bird Watching magazine, it says that Steve Dudley (who's a consultant for Leica and helped design their scopes) is the compiler of the survey (not a tester) and wrote the buying advice at the start. The testers are Graham Catley, Mike Weedon and Katie Fuller (plus Kit Moss for the scope survey).

I don't think Steve has done any optics reviews recently. Graham Catley seems to do the majority of them.

On Steve's website (http://www.toadsnatcher.com) it says he uses a Nikon Coolpix 995 for digiscoping.

Crackadee

[Doug]

I have a sneaking suspicion as to who Crackadee could be... and if I am right they would be correct on identifying the team in the mag.

[Paul Rule]

I'm not sure what your point is here Doug. Anyone who has access to a copy of the magazine could provide you with the info that crackadee gave.

I think you may be putting 2 & 2 together and come up with 5.
Not everyone living in Peterborough works for EMAP.

Paul

[Sandy Martin]

Originally posted by crackadee
In the May issue of Bird Watching magazine, it says that Steve Dudley (who's a consultant for Leica and helped design their scopes) is the compiler of the survey (not a tester) and wrote the buying advice at the start. The testers are Graham Catley, Mike Weedon and Katie Fuller (plus Kit Moss for the scope survey).

I don't think Steve has done any optics reviews recently. Graham Catley seems to do the majority of them.

On Steve's website (http://www.toadsnatcher.com) it says he uses a Nikon Coolpix 995 for digiscoping.

Crackadee

Leica's man at Birdwatching magazine more than Birdwatching magazine's man at Leica, some would say. A very nice guy, it has to be said.

The red spot disease is rather contagious so let us hope that not too many of the Birdwatching team have been infected over the years.

Get well soon,
Sandy

[Sandy Martin]

Originally posted by Leif

As they say, buy Leica and you are safe in the knowledge that you've bought the best advertising money can buy. Or something like that.

Funny that you should mention that. I have heard that Leica will be reigning-in their advertising expenditure in the not too distant future. This could be bad news for a few 'celebs' and also publications that have alienated other manufacturers.

Sandy

[Paul Rule]

There seems a nasty case of Swaro Snob disease, breaking out on this thread.

Leica are a fine maker of high quality optics (as are Swarovski), and this childish sniping at them (and Leica owners) is unjustified.

Paul

[Sandy Martin]

Originally posted by Paul Rule
There seems a nasty case of Swaro Snob disease, breaking out on this thread.

Leica are a fine maker of high quality optics (as are Swarovski), and this childish sniping at them (and Leica owners) is unjustified.

Paul

None of my posts have been aimed at the general Leica user, only Birdwatching magazine's staff involved with optics reviews in recent years. I represent no specific manufacturer but I am reflecting a view held by many in the birding optics trade.

Sandy

[Paul Rule]

Sandy

I accept that, you were not aiming you comments at Leica users, although your wording can certainly be taken that way, but I still feel that sniping at Leica in thead started by someone asking for advice on bying a scope, is out of place

Paul

[Andy Bright]

I think this thread was started by Johnny1 to highlight the fact that Birdwatching mag had done a review of scopes, so it's not entirely inappropriate to discuss this magazines reputation for bino/scope reviews... though it's unlikely to have been the direction that Johnny had in mind.

In all fairness, as Crackadee has already pointed out, I think they (Birdwatching mag) have gone some way to address some of the problems regarding any conflict of interest that may arise from staff having close associations with specific manufacturers.

Andy