Scopes: 65mm vs 80mm could use some advice. (1 Viewer)

Hi all. I have been saving for a long time and am close to looking into purchasing a scope. At the time, I am not sure if 80mm is too much scope for me or not. Could someone please offer some advice as to if I should commit to an 800mm and exactly what are the differences between a 65mm scope and 80 mm scope. Thanks!

Wedge said:

Hi all. I have been saving for a long time and am close to looking into purchasing a scope. At the time, I am not sure if 80mm is too much scope for me or not. Could someone please offer some advice as to if I should commit to an 800mm and exactly what are the differences between a 65mm scope and 80 mm scope. Thanks!

Click to expand...

An good quality 80mm scope gives you much more light and therefore a better view of the bird!
Sue

SueBryan said:

An good quality 80mm scope gives you much more light and therefore a better view of the bird!
Sue

Click to expand...

Sue, thanks. I was leaning towards investing in the 80mm Sawor ATS, but some reviews I've read say that 65 is fine. I appreciate your input. So, the biggest difference is the amount of light let in?

Wedge said:

Hi all. I have been saving for a long time and am close to looking into purchasing a scope. At the time, I am not sure if 80mm is too much scope for me or not. Could someone please offer some advice as to if I should commit to an 800mm and exactly what are the differences between a 65mm scope and 80 mm scope. Thanks!

Click to expand...

A lot can also depend on the type of birding you do. If you'll be carrying the scope a lot then a 65 is lighter. An 80 may need a heavier tripod/head as well to stabilise it. If you'll be digiscoping then an 80 is better due to its light gathering, although you can still get very good results from a 65. If most of your birding is done in good light conditions then a 65 can be just as good as an 80 (much like 32/42 bins). If you'll be using very high magnifications a lot (which most birders don't very much) then an 80 will give a brighter image and better resolution. Both have pros and cons. Some birders prefer as light a kit as possible (32 bins and 65 scope) and rarely, if ever, wish for something bigger, nor need it for ID purposes. Bigger is not always better. But it all depends on your personal needs.

Most reviews suggest that in practical use there's very little difference in brightness at all; what is certainly different is weight! However, if you intend digiscoping, the larger scope will give more light - but you'll also need an ED/fluorite design, too. Even here, the new super-fast digicams such as the Fuji F30 even make that much less of a consideration.

Many birders are now using the new Nikon ED50 which, despite its diminutive size and weight, is outstandingly sharp and bright; the Nikon EDIII with 30x or zoom is also an excellent compromise. I have to say that my Zeiss 85 is a superb scope with its ultra-wide zoom eyepiece, yet I often find myself taking out my tiny ED50, wondering in awe at how Nikon have managed it!

The truth is that a full size scope plus decent tripod is a hefty weight of kit to carry - so the answer to your question is... it depends on your own tastes and abilities!

In addition, the zooms on some smaller scopes (e.g. Leica 62 & Zeiss 65) have a top mag of x45, whereas on their larger versions (Leica 77 & Zeiss 85) they reach x60. Both versions of the Swaro (65 & 80) and Nikon (60 & 82) can reach x60. But the times that one may need over x45 are pretty minimal for most birders, and are only of any quality on a top scope.

i know its an old article but this may interest http://betterviewdesired.com/HowScope.html

Kimmo (kabsetz) would disagree no doubt.

I'd agree with Sue that an 80mm gives a better image but personally I prefer a 60mm scope I'd rather less weight. and I don't think the advantages are that significant in 95% of cases. best scope is one you are carrying.

If you're considering a Swaro 80 I'd look at an ED82/ED50 Combo cheaper as well.

Mike the Nikon ED82 zoom reaches 75x, 60x on EDIII

I think it would be a shame to spend so much money on a scope with conventional glass. The ATS-80 costs about the same as the Zeiss 85mm Diascope and more than the Nikon 82ED and it is seriously inferior to either of those. The ATS-80HD can reasonably be compared to the Nikon and Zeiss, but not the ATS-80. IMO Swarovski shouldn't offer the temptation of non-ED, but still very expensive versions of their scopes. With a zoom eyepiece the ATS-80 costs about $2000, but the optical quality is about the same as a good $500 scope.

These are really great responses. I really appreciate it.