ATS 65HD v's ATS 80HD (or STS equivalents.) (2 Viewers)

[Thrupenney Bit]

Hiya,
Just canvassing opinions:
Whilst I appreciate the larger objective will allow more light in, has anyone compared 'like for like' with these two telescopes?
With the same eyepiece would the image be much brighter on the 80?

I hope to be able to view myself at a field day in a few weeks time, but was just wondering what the opinions were.
Looking at the weights listed for the bodies only, there seems to be a 300g difference, which doesn't seem a lot.

 

[ibramr]

Greetings. I am confident that you will receive excellent advice from the erudite Forum members here who tried both sizes. I only have the ATS80 with the 25-50 eyepiece, the older Gitzo 1540GT carbon tripod, and the GHF2W head. I have found this combination to be perfect for hiking/birding activities; and I am talking here about a five mile round trip. Of course, the ATS65 would lighten the load a bit but the difference in weight, 8.2 oz or 238 g, will not be appreciably felt as you are likely also be carrying a bottle of water, an apple with some trail-mix, a pair of binoculars, and possibly a camera too.

I understand that the view with the ATS65 is excellent for most users except in the last few minutes of the day, but with what I see with the ATS80 in all hours of the day, I am confident that in this case, “less is not more.” Enjoy in good health.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

I replaced my ATM65 HD with the ATM80 HD. Comparing them side by side, I was surprised by how much sharper and more user friendly the bigger scope was, particularly when using the two zoom eyepieces. The size and weight difference is negligible, and at long range or low light situations, I'd rather have the bigger scope.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

Thanks both.
I was surprised, when writing this post, I looked up their respective weights on a website. Yes hardly any difference at all.
I think you've both confirmed, you might as well go for the 80 as no great weight difference.
I just need to check the bank balance and keep an eye open for a deal!
Many thanks
Q

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Clifton Cameras has two in stock at present, one which comes with an eyepiece with a little condensation (likely less than £150 for Swaro to repair) and another with some minor blemishes to the OG - a bit for expensive to repair, but probably not visible in use. If you didn't mind a straight scope, this ATM with the 25-50x lens was reduced down to £999 last month, I'm sure LCE would honour the price.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

Thanks Daniel.
Funnily enough, I'd been looking at the one in LCE and wondering.
From earlier browsing on here I suspect it's a reasonably old body, being ATM, so had thought I'd pass.
I glanced at it earlier today after starting this thread and was somewhat surprised it had risen in price. Now I'll definitely pass!

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

It's worth adding ... though I'm gathering opinions, I'm in no hurry.
Plus with an 'Infocus' field day close by within a few weeks, it would be worth curbing my enthusiasm and waiting to see what was on offer, and comparing using my eyes.
It is very useful though canvassing opinions, as then it's comments from real users not sales people, hence my thread here.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Thanks Daniel.
Funnily enough, I'd been looking at the one in LCE and wondering.
From earlier browsing on here I suspect it's a reasonably old body, being ATM, so had thought I'd pass.
I glanced at it earlier today after starting this thread and was somewhat surprised it had risen in price. Now I'll definitely pass!

No problem. I wouldn't discount the ATM - though perhaps I am a bit biased - the weight is closer to the ATS 65, but with all the benefits of the 80mm. I've tested mine against a friends 2020 ATS (mine is a 2016 vintage) and there is no difference optically.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

Thanks, it's worth knowing that older 'scopes seem to hold there own.
Another thought to store away!

 

[4John]

Around 25 years ago, soon after the ATS65 first came out, I tried one at an LCE field day. There was no 80mm version available at the time. I came back later that day to have another look at it and picked up what I thought was an ATS65 off the table. After a few moments using it I realised it wasn't the ATS65. I asked what it was and I was told it was a pre-production ATS80. On the basis that the difference in size and weight was so little, and it had fooled me for a few seconds, and knowing that if I bought the smaller one I would forever be asking myself should I have bought the larger one, I bought an STS80mm version as soon as they appeared on sale.

So yes I agree - there's not much between them in size and weight on paper or in the hand, mainly because everything from the focus ring backwards is the same, so you might as well have an 80mm scope. Try them for yourself at a field day.

The only way to really save weight with a 65mm scope is to go for something around 1kg e.g. the Opticron MM4 range, but even that's not enough weight-saving for me, which is why I got rid of the STS80 and use an ED50.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

Around 25 years ago, soon after the ATS65 first came out, I tried one at an LCE field day. There was no 80mm version available at the time. I came back later that day to have another look at it and picked up what I thought was an ATS65 off the table. After a few moments using it I realised it wasn't the ATS65. I asked what it was and I was told it was a pre-production ATS80. On the basis that the difference in size and weight was so little, and it had fooled me for a few seconds, and knowing that if I bought the smaller one I would forever be asking myself should I have bought the larger one, I bought an STS80mm version as soon as they appeared on sale.

So yes I agree - there's not much between them in size and weight on paper or in the hand, mainly because everything from the focus ring backwards is the same, so you might as well have an 80mm scope. Try them for yourself at a field day.

The only way to really save weight with a 65mm scope is to go for something around 1kg e.g. the Opticron MM4 range, but even that's not enough weight-saving for me, which is why I got rid of the STS80 and use an ED50.

Thanks 4John, your error in picking up the 'wrong' scope emphasises what the given weights show, there's so little in the sizes.
I've just been trying friend's ATS80 and it was nice. He changed the 20-60 eyepiece for a 25-50 and said it gave a better view.
My current scope is an old Optolyth TBG80 and I suspect that's heavier again, and currently the weight doesn't seem to be an issue as I'm not going on massive hikes.

Yes I need a good look around at a field day ( coming soon ) and also set up my current scope against my friends and have a good chance to compare them one against the other.
Might have a nose around the MM4 range. Alsways good to know what people are using and recommend.
Thanks again.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

An old Optolyth 80 (non-flourite) against an ATS/ATM 80 HD will (should) be night and day. I'm sure you will be shocked by the difference in image quality.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

An old Optolyth 80 (non-flourite) against an ATS/ATM 80 HD will (should) be night and day. I'm sure you will be shocked by the difference in image quality.

I will wait with baited breath!
It might take a while as he's using it as part of his working day so I need to time it right so we can meet.
You've got me going now!!!

 

[Peregrine Took]

Looking at the weights listed for the bodies only, there seems to be a 300g difference, which doesn't seem a lot.

The weight of the scope is only part of it. With a bigger scope you'll need a sturdier tripod and head. That almost always means a heavier tripod and head. That also means something like a Mulepack to carry it all. Before you know it you'll be lugging around an extra couple of kilos - the upside is that your wallet will be lighter.

Extra weight might not put you off - and I know you say you're not going on long hikes - but believe me, you will notice it... I've been there...

Over the last few years I've been all over the place with scopes and tripods - mainly because I was new to more serious birding and wasn't sure about two things:

• how much I'd actually use a scope and therefore how much to spend
• exactly where and when I'd use a scope, and therefore how much magnification I needed and how big a scope I was prepared to carry with me.

So I started out with an Opticron MM4 and a small Manfrotto BeFree tripod/head. I should have been happy and left it there, but I got an itch for a bigger scope - as I think we all do. So I upgraded to an Opticron MM4 77, then a Kowa 773, then a Swarovski ATS85 and a Kowa TSN 883 (all pre-owned and all re-sold at no loss). Lots of itches scratched there, but all of them, except the Opticron, represented an overspend for the relatively little use I was actually putting a scope to. Plus, when combined with a beefier tripod/head, the weight soared to a point where I wouldn't even take my scope on a short walk from my Cotswolds doorstep.

Finally (and for now) I've landed on a mint used 2021 Swarovski ATS65HD with a 25-50 eyepiece. It is perfect in every way - optically perfect, a great brand, and I don't need a big tripod, so the package is easy to carry. I'm still not sure I need a scope that cost me around £1,500.00, because 99% of the time it's aimed at a bird feeder... a Hawke Nature Trek would do the job.

To summarise! If I hadn't had such a deprived childhood (violins please! 😂) and the 'need' to buy the best of everything to make up for it, I would probably have stayed with an Opticron 77mm and SDLv3 eyepiece (the 60mm doesn't have a hood, which was a deal-breaker when pointing anywhere near to the sun). That said, I'm still not sure I even want a scope, as I get far more use and enjoyment from my binoculars. Take that as a comment from a casually serious (excuse the oxymoron) birder... more serious birders will throw their arms aloft in horror.

As an aside, in all cases, my decisions involved a desire to avoid a product made principally in China, not because of quality, but for reasons which are probably obvious and don't need to be discussed.

Hope that helps!!!
.

 

[Thrupenney Bit]

The weight of the scope is only part of it. With a bigger scope you'll need a sturdier tripod and head. That almost always means a heavier tripod and head. That also means something like a Mulepack to carry it all. Before you know it you'll be lugging around an extra couple of kilos - the upside is that your wallet will be lighter.

Extra weight might not put you off - and I know you say you're not going on long hikes - but believe me, you will notice it... I've been there...

Over the last few years I've been all over the place with scopes and tripods - mainly because I was new to more serious birding and wasn't sure about two things:

• how much I'd actually use a scope and therefore how much to spend
• exactly where and when I'd use a scope, and therefore how much magnification I needed and how big a scope I was prepared to carry with me.

So I started out with an Opticron MM4 and a small Manfrotto BeFree tripod/head. I should have been happy and left it there, but I got an itch for a bigger scope - as I think we all do. So I upgraded to an Opticron MM4 77, then a Kowa 773, then a Swarovski ATS85 and a Kowa TSN 883 (all pre-owned and all re-sold at no loss). Lots of itches scratched there, but all of them, except the Opticron, represented an overspend for the relatively little use I was actually putting a scope to. Plus, when combined with a beefier tripod/head, the weight soared to a point where I wouldn't even take my scope on a short walk from my Cotswolds doorstep.

Finally (and for now) I've landed on a mint used 2021 Swarovski ATS65HD with a 25-50 eyepiece. It is perfect in every way - optically perfect, a great brand, and I don't need a big tripod, so the package is easy to carry. I'm still not sure I need a scope that cost me around £1,500.00, because 99% of the time it's aimed at a bird feeder... a Hawke Nature Trek would do the job.

To summarise! If I hadn't had such a deprived childhood (violins please! 😂) and the 'need' to buy the best of everything to make up for it, I would probably have stayed with an Opticron 77mm and SDLv3 eyepiece (the 60mm doesn't have a hood, which was a deal-breaker when pointing anywhere near to the sun). That said, I'm still not sure I even want a scope, as I get far more use and enjoyment from my binoculars. Take that as a comment from a casually serious (excuse the oxymoron) birder... more serious birders will throw their arms aloft in horror.

As an aside, in all cases, my decisions involved a desire to avoid a product made principally in China, not because of quality, but for reasons which are probably obvious and don't need to be discussed.

Hope that helps!!!
.

Thank you Peregrine for your thoughts.
My initial reaction is 'oh dear....' you ring so many bells in my head, it's not true!

My ( now old but sturdy ) Manfrotto tripod with a fluid head is coming in at ~ 2.5Kg and scope at 1.8Kg.
I think the tripod is solid, and with current scope doesn't move despite a stiff wind coming down the estuary at times. It's had little use and I think I'll stick with it.
Carrying it seems to vary each time I go out and I'm thinking of heading towards a Mulepack anyway. More carrying is needed to confirm how best to use the kit, but I don't need to instantly deploy it, just casually put it together and do a count.

I'm also new to all this, hence multiple posts canvassing opinions across several forums here as things have considerably changed since my previous involvement.
I bought my scope/tripod ~ 30 years ago and then hardly ever used it at the hide we used to frequent as families came along. I'm now involved in an occasional bird count moving around a wetland where on occasions my x8 bins can't cope so the old scope is used in a few places. It provides a larger image, good enough to tell x from y and I suppose it does the job for now.

I too am unsure where my resurgent interest will take me, but with a new wetland forming within a few miles, it's an opportunity on my doorstep and... just nice to walk around and see what's there. Plus helping with bird counts regularly as a volunteer.

In my working life I have spent months ( maybe years ) of my life using top quality microscopes for the current task in hand, so the pull of quality optics has been built into me ( whether absolutely necessary or not!! ) hence my interest in some excellent optics.
Thanks for replying. Even typing out this ( and previous ) replies helps me sort out things in my head. It helps.
It's all very much appreciated.
cheers
Q