055xv with 128rc Swarovski ATS 80 HD (1 Viewer)

Would the above combination be ok with an Swarovski ats 80 hd scope? I'm pretty confident the head will be fine but not sure what would be the lightest manfrotto tripod I could get away with before it could become an issue with a large scope. The 055xv seems a decent bet as not sure the 190xv would be up to the job. Also potentially looking to add digiscoping into the mix at some point in the future too which should be a consideration. Any comments would be appreciated.

That will work.

I use a 190 with a 128RC or a 701RC2 (with a scope back pack) with 65mm scopes in the field which works fine though it could be more rigid. Not used this combo much with my 85FL. I know a good local who uses a 190+128RC with a Zeiss 85FL in the field for mostly observing plus handheld P&S digiscoping.

The 055 is more rigid but it's heavier too. I have one (and the not quite as good "copy": the Vortex STX70). If you are series about digiscoping and don't need to walk far then it's better.

But if you've shelled out on a decent scope can you push for a CF tripod on your budget?

Kevin Purcell said:

That will work.

I use a 190 with a 128RC or a 701RC2 (with a scope back pack) with 65mm scopes in the field which works fine though it could be more rigid. Not used this combo much with my 85FL. I know a good local who uses a 190+128RC with a Zeiss 85FL in the field for mostly observing plus handheld P&S digiscoping.

The 055 is more rigid but it's heavier too. I have one (and the not quite as good "copy": the Vortex STX70). If you are series about digiscoping and don't need to walk far then it's better.

But if you've shelled out on a decent scope can you push for a CF tripod on your budget?

Click to expand...

Thanks Kevin, tbh I don't notice much difference in weight between CF and Aluminium. I held a 190CXpro4 and it didn't feel a whole lot lighter than a 190XB. Certainly not £100 plus more lighter.

The CF is a bit lighter but it's also a lot stiffer and will damp out impulse vibrations much more quickly (and shake rather less in the wind). So it's a gain in two parameters rather than just one.

That stiffness might make all the difference if you are digiscoping.

Another (heavier) alternative is the Burlebach (spelling?) wooden tripods. Heavy but well damped. Useful if you digiscope but don't move to far from a car.

There are also other choices for CF tripods that are a bit cheaper than Manfrotto CF tripods.

The other way to save weight is to go for a lighter head.

The 701HDV is also popular here and would be a good match to an 80mm scope. It's spring balanced (the 128RC isn't) and can take a long plate (with a solid mounting) so you can get the balance right when you point it away from horizontal.

One consideration is (unless you break it) a tripod will outlast the scope on top of it so it's worth getting a good one. And the quality of the image (not bouncing around) does depend on the quality of the tripod.

nature elvis said:

Would the above combination be ok with an Swarovski ats 80 hd scope? I'm pretty confident the head will be fine but not sure what would be the lightest manfrotto tripod I could get away with before it could become an issue with a large scope. The 055xv seems a decent bet as not sure the 190xv would be up to the job. Also potentially looking to add digiscoping into the mix at some point in the future too which should be a consideration. Any comments would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I tried the 190 with my nikon 82ED but it was too short - I'm 5'10". I needed the tripod almost fully extended and this made it seem very unstable, I certainly didn't want to risk it so stick with a 055 (with 128RC). The 055 is heavy but stable.

Thanks guys, I think the 055 and the 128rc will be the way forward. Thanks again and happy birding!