• 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.

Rugged scopes? (1 Viewer)

Fedster

Well-known member
Finland
Hi All,

some scopes might be better than others in terms of optics, but they might be more fragile. I hike in reasonably rugged terrain and thus durability matters to me. I admit I did not consider the issue when I got my scope (a swaro ats 80 HD) but should I ever upgrade I think I would like to know more about how rugged a scope is. I know I can find how submersible scopes are (assuming they actually are -- who is taking the risk on purpose?) but I am not planning to submerge my scope anytime soon. I would much prefer having some idea of how many accidental bumps a scope can take and still keep all its internals aligned etc.
 
Owning a Swaro is a vote of confidence that Swaro will fix any disasters impacting your scope!
Better a robust warranty than a robust scope, at least imho.

More to the point is the perspective offered by Bill Cook, who often graces this forum with insights from his decades of optics equipment servicing.
Bill noted that he's seen a glass fall down a couple of decks unscathed, while a similar glass was knocked awry falling over at the mess table. I take that to mean optical equipment robustness is pretty much a chimera.
There are surely exceptions, the old Zeiss Jena 7x40 EDF acceptance tests were brutal, but afaik, no modern civilian glass is truly robust.
 
I think there are two issues here. The first obviously is what the body is made of (for instance the Kowa 883 is some form of magnesium, and i've known three of these to crack on rapid descent, and would still like to know why Swaro stopped production of the ATM magnesium-bodied range).
The second is that of remembering that a scope is just a tube containing precision-aligned glass, and that while the body might survive, the 'precision' and 'glass' aspects may not.
Recently, i followed a bit of advice from elsewhere on this forum and cable-tied bubble-wrap round my 883 as a little extra protection, but i still try to treat it with kid gloves.
I also own an ATS65HD for travel and hiking, and tend to be a little more blase with that - it's been over several times, with nary a mark.
I mentioned on another thread here about the comparison with DSLR cameras. If the strap broke and it fell from your neck, how do you think that would turn out?
 
As an ex-fellwalker I would look at scopes aimed at the hunting fraternity for both transportability and ruggedness.
I have a Swarovski 30x75 drawtube with SOC which I use with a robust Gitzo tripod. Me-opta also produce similar models.These tend to be relatively light weight and don't require tripods for support.
However I would seriously consider the Zeiss 18-45 x 65 Dialyt which is specifically designed to be rugged and more water resistant than draw tubes. Used with a decent monopod this would be very portable.
I think in the Zeiss telescope section this model has been discussed if not evaluated.
 
As an ex-fellwalker I would look at scopes aimed at the hunting fraternity for both transportability and ruggedness.
I have a Swarovski 30x75 drawtube with SOC which I use with a robust Gitzo tripod. Me-opta also produce similar models.These tend to be relatively light weight and don't require tripods for support.
However I would seriously consider the Zeiss 18-45 x 65 Dialyt which is specifically designed to be rugged and more water resistant than draw tubes. Used with a decent monopod this would be very portable.
I think in the Zeiss telescope section this model has been discussed if not evaluated.

The folding scopes are not waterproof and there is at least one report on BF of people sucking gnats in -- the Zeiss Dialyt is nice in theory, but it has too much of a 'tube' effect for me, I like wide angle objectives (and I also prefer higher magnification). But I fully agree the Dialyt is incredibly compact and practical package, as the drawscopes are.
 
The folding scopes are not waterproof and there is at least one report on BF of people sucking gnats in -- the Zeiss Dialyt is nice in theory, but it has too much of a 'tube' effect for me, I like wide angle objectives (and I also prefer higher magnification). But I fully agree the Dialyt is incredibly compact and practical package, as the drawscopes are.

If the folding scopes were somewhat over pressurized, they could be sealed more aggressively. Seen that most modern optics are argon purged, it should be easy to just pump them up to the desired level. That should at least eliminate the gnats. ;)
 
If the folding scopes were somewhat over pressurized, they could be sealed more aggressively. Seen that most modern optics are argon purged, it should be easy to just pump them up to the desired level.

Perhaps. But it would be a little difficult to fold them afterwards ;)
 
Perhaps. But it would be a little difficult to fold them afterwards ;)

Even a modest over pressure at full extension, maybe 2-3 psi, should be enough. The peak pressure in folding might be 30 pounds, not prohibitive imho.
The main concern would be the durability of the seals.
 
The folding scopes are not waterproof and there is at least one report on BF of people sucking gnats in -- the Zeiss Dialyt is nice in theory, but it has too much of a 'tube' effect for me, I like wide angle objectives (and I also prefer higher magnification). But I fully agree the Dialyt is incredibly compact and practical package, as the drawscopes are.

The recent Dialyt is not a drawtube scope and very tough. Don't like the optics though. Too much CA.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
I dont know that any scope would be more rugged than the Swaro ATS ...And I dont think You will ever have a practical need to upgrade and HD unit of this series either..at least based on ruggedness or image quality
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top