• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Vortex Razor 85 HD (1 Viewer)

M

Martin Fagg

Guest
Hi,

has anyone got any experience of this scope?

I have searched here and on the net but there is no new opinion since last time I looked some months or even a year ago or more.

Not many people had seen the scope at that time but some were saying it was near top gun performance at half the price, others were less willing to believe this but hadn't tried the scope out.

Has anyone got any direct experience of it yet?

Best wishes
Martin
 
Martin,

I was just recently looking at scope reviews and found a very favorable one of the Razor. I think it was birdwatching.com where they compared several of the new top scopes as well as the Razor, the Celestron Regal and a few others. From what I remember reading they thought the Razor was a superb performer just a tick behind the Swaro/Leicas and noticeably ahead of most of the others in its price range.

Haven't seen one myself but wouldn't mind taking a peek through one if the opportunity presents itself.
 
That review is what got me interested. It sounds too good to be true. I looked around for more opinions but there is very little out there.

There's a shop not too far away that stocks it. I'll have to have a look see next time I'm out that way.
 
The Porters seem to be making a genuine effort to improve their telescope reviews, but there are still basic problems in their methods and reporting that should be pointed out to anyone relying on them.

I would ignore the resolution numbers in the test which have been so dumbed down that they're useless. Why did they go to the trouble to measure resolution and then not report the actual measurements in the chart? Is the numbering system they use weighted to allow for resolution differences related to aperture or is it simply based on raw resolution? In some cases it appears to understate and in others to exaggerate the probable measurement differences among the scopes. Why not just give us the measurements? Then there is the anomalously poor resolution number for the Nikon EDG (whether weighted or not). Almost certainly this specimen was defective and shouldn't have been tested alongside non-defective scopes. Before any comparison test like this all the scopes should be star tested for sample defects.

The "lowest eye relief" measurement for the zooms was done at the highest magnification. That's the wrong place to measure because the shortest eye relief usually occurs in the middle of the zoom range.
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
The Porters seem to be making a genuine effort to improve their telescope reviews, but there are still basic problems in their methods and reporting that should be pointed out to anyone relying on them.

I would ignore the resolution numbers in the test which have been so dumbed down that they're useless. Why did they go to the trouble to measure resolution and then not report the actual measurements in the chart? Is the numbering system they use weighted to allow for resolution differences related to aperture or is it simply based on raw resolution? In some cases it appears to understate and in others to exaggerate the probable measurement differences among the scopes. Why not just give us the measurements? Then there is the anomalously poor resolution number for the Nikon EDG (whether weighted or not). Almost certainly this specimen was defective and shouldn't have been tested alongside non-defective scopes. Before any comparison test like this all the scopes should be star tested for sample defects.

The "lowest eye relief" measurement for the zooms was done at the highest magnification. That's the wrong place to measure because the shortest eye relief usually occurs in the middle of the zoom range.
Click to expand...

I always try to remember to take everything I read about optics with a pinch of salt.
Reviews are good to point you in the right direction but you've got to believe in your own eyes and common sense and try them out. If they're no good for you, it doesn't matter how highly others rate them.
 
I had the opportunity to evaluate one of these scopes earlier this year and found the view to be exceptionally sharp and bright. I made a point to look for edge softness, and found nothing disconcerting. Chromatic abberation was also not a problem, even on high contrast areas like white siding and blue skies. For the price its an excellent scope and an excellent buy. I'd certainly recommend it!
 
jourdaj said:
I had the opportunity to evaluate one of these scopes earlier this year and found the view to be exceptionally sharp and bright. I made a point to look for edge softness, and found nothing disconcerting. Chromatic abberation was also not a problem, even on high contrast areas like white siding and blue skies. For the price its an excellent scope and an excellent buy. I'd certainly recommend it!
Click to expand...

Thanks Jerry. It seems you are one of the few with direct experience. Thanks for your input.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

roch
Share my excitement for new Vortex Razor 85 HD
Replies
5
Views
1K
roch
roch
P
Vortex Razor HD 13-39 x 56 - first impressions
Replies
8
Views
4K
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs
Owlbarred
Vortex Razor HD country of manufacture
Replies
3
Views
2K
jgraider
J
M
Vortex Razor HD 50 : any other eyepieces? (from Vortex or other brand, Swarovski, Opticron, ...)
Replies
9
Views
3K
mbb
M
C
which 10x42 : Nikon HG / GPO Passion HD / Maven B1.2 / Vortex Razor HD ?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Ratal
Ratal

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top