ATS 65 v's 80 (1 Viewer)

Andrew.Buckley · Aug 30, 2004

Has anyone made a proper comparison between the performance qualities of the ATS 65 and 80 HD models?

The 80 should obviously have better light gathering abilities, but I would be interested to hear whether anyone has carried out a detailed comparison e.g. in poor weather, dawn and dusk etc.

The 80 should be the one to go for, but with the 65 being significantly lighter, it is very tempting to opt for that instead if the performance difference between the two is very marginal.

jiminlondon99 · Aug 30, 2004

I had the benefit of being able to ask Andy Bright the difference in shutter speed between the 2 scopes in a like for like aperture priority shot. His tests indicated that a 1/120sec shot on th 65mm would be 1/180sec with the 80mm, which to me in photographic terms is 1/2 a stop difference. IMHO not enough of a difference to justify the additional cost and size of the 80mm, for the digiscoping I do. I have just purchased a 65HD and I am really pleased with the results I get. Having spent some time thinking about the same for and against arguments as you, I reached the conclusion that, in low light situations the lack of vibrant colours in the subject preclude really good pictures anyway? Yes the 65mm is a compromise but a popular one at that. Good luck in your deliberations and you may find the link below helpful.
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/scopes_advisor.html

scampo · Aug 30, 2004

We used to have a 65HD. I doubt in daytime you'd be aware of any difference, whatever the light. It's a lovely scope. There is a good report here that discusses your question:

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

photo1 · Aug 30, 2004

Andrew:
I originally purchased an 80 non-HD. I had been given some bad information that said the HD wasn't worth the extra money which I now disagree with. After carrying it several times over the course of a month, I just didn't like the weight. I returned it to the store where I bought it and compared it side to side with the 65 HD. The 65 HD was clearly sharper at higher magnification. It was a cloudy day and I could see a little difference in brightness but not enough to make me want to carry the extra weight. I then compared the 65 HD and the 80 HD side by side. The 80 HD was sharper even yet but again, not to the degree that made it worth the extra weight. The 65 is still very bright and very sharp. I've now carried it several times of the last month and really appreciate the lighter weight. I wouldn't consider the 80 again as long as I have to carry it quite a bit throughout the day. If I were stationary and not carrying it a great deal, I would probably go ahead and opt for the 80HD
Jerry

rogerscoth · Aug 30, 2004

scampo said:
We used to have a 65HD. I doubt in daytime you'd be aware of any difference, whatever the light. It's a lovely scope. There is a good report here that discusses your question:

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

An interesting report Steve, now that I have bought my Swaro. ATS80HD

My reason for choosing the 80mm 'scope in favour of the 65mm version was for that little extra that may(?) help when used for digiscoping.
I did notice that the reviewer is also named Steve (Ingraham), and he is also a schoolteacher.

Roger

Bill Atwood · Aug 31, 2004

You would probably see the biggest difference at 45x and higher magnification. Initially I wanted the lighter and cheaper 65mm, however the difference over 45x was enough to push me towards the 80mm.

Bob D · Aug 31, 2004

I think part of the decision on whether to purchase the 65mm or 80 mm ATS HD relates to how you will use the scope. Most of my scope use is for shorebird and gull identification. It happens that my primary area for shorebirds is a reservoir which some of the best cover is a distance aways and can only be approached via boat. Therefore, a lot of scanning occurs at 45-60X. In addition, birding late in the evening in the last hour of light is an advantage as atmospheric conditions are often more ideal. And, at times the differences in feather patterns can help one find the rare migrant. It is for these reasons that I prefer a scope with a large objective. The extra bit of light, resolution and contrast help. Although, for four years I did use a 60 mm scope (Fieldscope IIIED). Now use a Swarovski ATS 80 HD. But kept the Nikon.

For gulls some of my best spots are at locks and dams on the Mississippi River. Some of these are protected by fencing or guards and again it is often long range birding. Again I'm trying to pick out the unusual gull which for some requires careful examination of feather patterns.

By the way, my Fieldscope with a stay on case, a Monfratto 3211 tripod with a 3130 head weighs about 4 oz more than my Swarovski with a Gitzo carbon fiber 1227 tripod with a 3130 head.

scampo · Aug 31, 2004

rogerscoth said:
An interesting report Steve, now that I have bought my Swaro. ATS80HD
My reason for choosing the 80mm 'scope in favour of the 65mm version was for that little extra that may(?) help when used for digiscoping.
I did notice that the reviewer is also named Steve (Ingraham), and he is also a schoolteacher.

Roger

Ah - us schoolteachers, eh!

BTW - you must try out the Swaro 30xW - it's a revelation of an eyepiece for your 80HD. I think the zoom is fine, but prefer the extra fov of the Zeiss; but with the 30xW, now you're talking of an eyepiece.

Kevin Mac · Sep 4, 2004

The only advantage the 80 has over the 65 is that extra "to the limit" of optics for a long distance I.D. that may come along every 5 years or so. I don't want to miss out on that chance. I'll lug around the extra pounds (and size) just for that possible encounter. Better safe than sorry.

Ragna · Sep 4, 2004

Andrew as Scampo states the 30x is a superb eyepiece and if considering the 65 Swarovski would IMHO give you as good light gathering as the zoom on the 80 and a much better field of view.

scampo · Sep 4, 2004

Afflicted as I am with pretty awful sleep patterns, I'm early to bed as a rule. Which post was it I posted late?

Have you seen anything special of late, btw?

rogerscoth · Sep 8, 2004

scampo said:
Afflicted as I am with pretty awful sleep patterns, I'm early to bed as a rule. Which post was it I posted late?
Have you seen anything special of late, btw?

I know the feeling Steve, my CFS/ME causes all sorts of similar problems.|=(|
It was post #8.

scampo said:
BTW - you must try out the Swaro 30xW - it's a revelation of an eyepiece for your 80HD. I think the zoom is fine, but prefer the extra fov of the Zeiss; but with the 30xW, now you're talking of an eyepiece.

Steve, I have been seriously considering another eye-piece - maybe the 30xW or the 45xW, preferably both if the spouse concurs!

Roger

photo1 · Sep 11, 2004

I took the advice of several posters here and took a look at the 30 W eye-piece. It's a WOW when you look through it for the first time. I bought it and promptly replaced my zoom with it. It is very sharp and bright and I love the extra field of view. I'll keep my zoom just in case but I'm sure the 30 W will be on my scope the vast majority of the time.

scampo · Sep 11, 2004

photo1 said:
I took the advice of several posters here and took a look at the 30 W eye-piece. It's a WOW when you look through it for the first time. I bought it and promptly replaced my zoom with it. It is very sharp and bright and I love the extra field of view. I'll keep my zoom just in case but I'm sure the 30 W will be on my scope the vast majority of the time.

Historically, the 30xW has been the birder's choice, I would guess. Although modern zooms are superior in every way to older designs, the extra field of view is what gives these 30xW that wow! factor, don't you think? And that is a good description of the feeling you get when you first look through your scope if you are used only to a zoom. One of the disappointing aspects of my Zeiss (very perversely, I know!) is that the 30xW I automatically bought to accompany the zoom it came with is that there is not such a wow! factor... the zoom is already exceptionally wide!

photo1 · Sep 11, 2004

Steve: I birded today with a friend who has an 80 non HD and the zoom eye-piece. He was sick after he looked through my 65 HD and the 30 W!! He'll be making the swap to the 30 W as soon as he can get to the store. We put my eye-piece on his scope and it still wasn't as sharp as my 65 HD. I really think it's work the extra money for the HD glass as well.
Jerry

rogerscoth · Sep 11, 2004

scampo said:
Historically, the 30xW has been the birder's choice, I would guess. Although modern zooms are superior in every way to older designs, the extra field of view is what gives these 30xW that wow! factor, don't you think? And that is a good description of the feeling you get when you first look through your scope if you are used only to a zoom. One of the disappointing aspects of my Zeiss (very perversely, I know!) is that the 30xW I automatically bought to accompany the zoom it came with is that there is not such a wow! factor... the zoom is already exceptionally wide!

Steve,
Going slightly off on a tangent, one of the plus points of 'scopes such as my new Swarovski, is the quick-change removal and fitting of an eye-piece feature (well, it will be when I get another eye-piece). The screw-thread eye-pieces of my previous Opticron 'scope were (if you will excuse the pun!) a turn-off, as well as time consuming to change. I bought just the zoom eye-piece with my 'scope initially, because, as you know the Swarovski prices are somewhat wince-inducing, and the zoom has had a generally good review ( I am very pleased with it).

Roger

henry link · Sep 11, 2004

photo1 said:
We put my eye-piece on his scope and it still wasn't as sharp as my 65 HD. I really think it's work the extra money for the HD glass as well.
Jerry

I've seen the same thing comparing the 65HD to the 80 non HD. The 65HD is sharper partly because of the glass, but also because it has a higher focal ratio (f/7) compared to either of the 80's (f/5.8). The latter is really what makes it the optical over-achiever among the Swarovskis, much closer in optical quality to the 80HD than the difference in aperture would suggest.

I really like the 30W eyepiece too. So much that I've adapted it for use on astronomical refractors. On any scope it is one of the very best wide field eyepieces I've seen.

scampo · Sep 11, 2004

photo1 said:
Steve: I birded today with a friend who has an 80 non HD and the zoom eye-piece. He was sick after he looked through my 65 HD and the 30 W!! He'll be making the swap to the 30 W as soon as he can get to the store. We put my eye-piece on his scope and it still wasn't as sharp as my 65 HD. I really think it's work the extra money for the HD glass as well.
Jerry

It's interesting to read what you have found. Thanks for reporting it - I'm sure many here will be interested to read what you say as it's often asked whether ED lenses are worth the extra and the replies are sometimes based on thin evidence. There's no doubt that ED or fluorite lenses are a real improvement but it's surely wrong that they cost so much to buy? You're a very satisfied birder, anyway! Let's hope you're rewarded with good sightings.

rogerscoth · Sep 11, 2004

henry link said:
I've seen the same thing comparing the 65HD to the 80 non HD. The 65HD is sharper partly because of the glass, but also because it has a higher focal ratio (f/7) compared to either of the 80's (f/5.8). The latter is really what makes it the optical over-achiever among the Swarovskis, much closer in optical quality to the 80HD than the difference in aperture would suggest.

I really like the 30W eyepiece too. So much that I've adapted it for use on astronomical refractors. On any scope it is one of the very best wide field eyepieces I've seen.

Henry,
This probably expains why so many people with the 65HD 'scope are very happy with it. Your experience with the 30W eye-piece is another example of how far optical excellence has reached nowadays.

Roger

scampo · Sep 12, 2004

rogerscoth said:
Steve,
Going slightly off on a tangent, one of the plus points of 'scopes such as my new Swarovski, is the quick-change removal and fitting of an eye-piece feature (well, it will be when I get another eye-piece). The screw-thread eye-pieces of my previous Opticron 'scope were (if you will excuse the pun!) a turn-off, as well as time consuming to change. I bought just the zoom eye-piece with my 'scope initially, because, as you know the Swarovski prices are somewhat wince-inducing, and the zoom has had a generally good review ( I am very pleased with it).

Roger

Now, against what I've said, I met a long-time birder acquaintance yesterday. After experiences viewing our local red-rumped swallow in the early spring, he bought a 30xW for his Swaro and, when I saw him a while back said he thought it excellent - certainly for locating a flying bird, he was convinced it was far easier to use; but yesterday... as good as he still though it, he said he was now hardly ever using it. He thinks the zoom is as good as he needs (and, let's face it, they don't come much better, it's true).

The moral? Try before you buy, I suppose. If you want, the next time I see him, I could ask if he wants to sell it.

I was looking at a lovely Temminck's stint yesterday with both my zoom and my 30xW (at a windy Eyebrook reservoir during which time TWO other birders' tripods blew over, one with a Leica + zoom!). Anyway, overall, I preferred my 30xW over the zoom and the Zeiss zoom already gives a stunningly wide view. Later, at Rutland Water, it was a pleasant surprise to find a little stint, too; and again, the 30xW provided the more satisfying view, despite the zoom bringing the bird that bit (but only a little bit...) closer. It's difficult to express the difference between zoom and wide angle, and the difference between the Zeiss zoom and wide angle is far less than with other makes, but it's surely worth trying it for yourself.

Btw, my son's Nikon has a screw thread, not bayonet, and that is as quick and easy as the bayonet to change eyepieces - maybe the Opticron has a longer thread?

ATS 65 v's 80 (1 Viewer)

New member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Just sleeping

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Member

Steve Campsall

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread