New ATC/ STC 17-40x56 Telescope (3 Viewers)

[mbb]

Hello everyone,

I'm also going to write a review.
First of all, I have to say that I read all the posts on this subject (twice, in fact!) before making the purchase, and I also asked questions on this forum about possible alternatives to this ATC. Thank you again for your answers.

Despite taking the time to think about it, it didn't turn out as planned!

What I'm about to say has already been said. This telescope offers excellent image quality. There's no criticism there, I've found pleasure in the occasions when I've been able to observe through an ATX of birdwatching friends (85 or 95). The image is fine, details are present with good contrast.

But with this image quality, you want to magnify more to get more detail. It's so beautiful! I found that x40 was too limited, and it was almost frustrating not to go further. So I thought it would take some time to adapt, you have to accept that there's a limit.

I had chosen the ATC for observation when walking. But I immediately realised that I didn't want to put the spotting scope in my rucksack, plus my foot. It wasn't a problem of weight. No, I realised that this extra object was changing the way I walked. It was taking up space, both in my bag and in my mind. I felt like I was losing the pleasure of walking lightly with a pair of binoculars and a small bridge to identify or document birds. The 'connection' with nature and landscapes was no longer the same.

As I no longer wanted to use the ATC when walking, my choice came into question, also because the x40 was a bit tight.

I have stabilised binoculars (10x30), which are not of course equivalent. But I prefer all the advantages of binoculars up to x20-25 over ATC. After that, ATC is useful, but this is also the area where luminosity decreases (smaller exit pupil).

For these reasons, I didn't keep the ATC. It's a long-term purchase, and I don't want to have any regrets.
However, I thought it would be OK. There are reports here of people saying that they no longer take their big ATX models but this ATC model. However, one person also wrote that it doesn't replace a bigger model.


So I'm thinking about a 65mm model with a 25-50 zoom. I do a lot of birdwatching by bike, and I think the 25-50x 65 models are almost as easy to carry around in a basket on the bike.
The ATC is already very expensive, so I think it would be better for me to spend a bit more money and get a 25-50, hopefully with just as good quality (I'll ask you for advice!).

I can say again that this latest Swarovski is an excellent telescope, and a pretty one too. It's just that it's probably not the best choice for me and my use. Perhaps trying a 25-50 will make me regret this little ATC ?! Stay tuned!


(With the help of an online translator)

Thank you for sharing your hands-on, personal experience!
When it's for just a relaxed walk, alone or with family, I mainly take my binoculars and not my scope. I agree on that.
However, since I have a small 50mm Opticron with a small tripod (gitzo series 1), I do take it more often with me while thinking less about it than my larger scope. Sometimes on walks with the family, but especially when doing a small tour with the bike somewhere nice (e.g. 1-2hour tour by myself)
I just put it attached to the tripod folded backwards in my cycling bag, behind me on the rack. No weight on my shoulders. No extra sweat on my back when it's hot . And the fact it is that small even results in it being located more 'at hand' at home to just grab it before leaving the door. If there is nothing to stop and take it out for, it stays in the bag. But it is easy to quickly take out if there is something nice to see.
(Not necessarily something rare, just something to enjoy watching in more detail, like some beautiful lapwings in the fields last weekend: the view through the little scope at approx.23x was way more impressive/nice to see than through my Zeiss FL 7x42. Light was still good, and thus magnification on tripod trumped my beloved 7x42 due to the distance.)

A larger scope (and tripod) is still better, especially in low light or at higher magnification, or for longer observation, but in OK enough light, the 50mm is really great, optically and for being less 'intrusive' on the experience of walking/cycling.
I have to admit, I think the price also plays a role: I might think a bit more about taking it along everywhere if it had costed me €2000 instead of €500. Actually I take more care of my FL 7x42 than of my 50mm scope. (It is more difficult to find and would probably be more expensive to repair...) If that aspect doesn't count for you, I would try first taking taking that great ATC with you that way on the bike before selling it.

 

[mbb]

Don’t want to contribute to thread drift here, but after downsizing from 95mm to 85mm the main difference between the two that was most noticeable was the difference in size and weight. The 85 was so less cumbersome. But most of the time the big scope stays home while the ATC or Opticron MM4 are with me.

As you have both the MM4 60mm (with which eyepiece?) and the ATC, may I ask how they compare?
Is the ATC noticeably better than the MM4 (except for its price...) and on what fronts, despite its smaller front lens, or are there still situation for which you prefer the MM4?

 

[Dyrlege]

I have an MM3 60mm with the EDF zoom eyepiece and was happy with it until I got the ATC. The difference is astounding! I used the two in parallell for some weeks, but realised that the ATC was the one I mainly used, the MM3, absolutely a good scope and one I was very happy with, paled in comparison. Very much the same experience as with the Zeiss victory and the Curio. In my experience the orange ones rule!

 

[mbb]

I have an MM3 60mm with the EDF zoom eyepiece and was happy with it until I got the ATC. The difference is astounding! I used the two in parallell for some weeks, but realised that the ATC was the one I mainly used, the MM3, absolutely a good scope and one I was very happy with, paled in comparison. Very much the same experience as with the Zeiss victory and the Curio. In my experience the orange ones rule!

That much of a difference?
Is that the non-ED version of the Opticron and at which magnifications do you use the Opticron?
I am using my 50mm MM4 (ED) with a fixed 23x (hard to find) and was surprised at how close it can be in practice to my atx65 (which regularly amazes me) if(!) light conditions are good, and of course if you don't need more than 23-25x They are not on par of course, but still. My main annoyance with the Opticron is sometimes some reflection on the eyepiece glass (not glare,not coming via the objective,but from side light on the eyepiece),the SOC (but the ATC doesn't even have one), and that fixed eyepiece not being well protected (not waterproof and without well fitting tethered cap). My main comments about the ATC are it's round, single-threaded foot, and its price ...
I can't justify owning also an ATC. Thus, if buying an ATC, both the MM4 50mm and the ATX65 would probably need to go (maybe keeping an 80mm to complement).
What I really like about the ATC is the zoom range: very wide real FOV at low magnification, and I'm find with it stopping around 40x for a small scope.
It wouldn't be orange though ;-) . I actually did not bid on a second hand Curio recently because it was orange . I would love to find a black at an 'affordable' second hand price ). I'm wondering: would some animals (birds or other) notice you faster with such an orange scope/binocular?

 

[Dyrlege]

It is a non-ED MM3, HDF T (misspelled EDF in last post) 16-45 X magnification if I remember correctly. It's an excellent "Ford", does the job well, reliable etc.
The ATC is more a Jaguar sports car.

The colour does not seem to affect birds or animals negatively, and movement is what makes them notice you.

 

[pppppvvvv]

The colour does not seem to affect birds or animals negatively, and movement is what makes them notice you.

I wonder how much worse than black or green optics, an orange version actually is.
I mean there is a reason we don't walk around wildlife watching dressed in orange.

I'd see orange optics and assume these are intended for search and rescue, where the aim is to be as visible as possible.

They could actually attract certain species on the other hand!

 

[jb b]

(...)

A larger scope (and tripod) is still better, especially in low light or at higher magnification, or for longer observation, but in OK enough light, the 50mm is really great, optically and for being less 'intrusive' on the experience of walking/cycling.
I have to admit, I think the price also plays a role: I might think a bit more about taking it along everywhere if it had costed me €2000 instead of €500. Actually I take more care of my FL 7x42 than of my 50mm scope. (It is more difficult to find and would probably be more expensive to repair...) If that aspect doesn't count for you, I would try first taking taking that great ATC with you that way on the bike before selling it.

Thank you Mbb for your answer.
The question of money is important too, you're right. There would be no problem at €500. But at over €2,000, it's different. It makes you feel guilty not to take it when you go out on foot. And taking it means a kind of obligation of result that was weighing on me.

So I've redefined my priorities. It's a lot of cycling really. I think there are other possibilities in this case. In any case, I'm giving it some thought. That's why I sent the ATC back.
I really felt like I was making a mistake by spending €2,000 and being limited to x40. It's a purchase for several years. I'm going to think about an ATS 65 (25-50) or why not a Televid 65 (25-50).
I remember that you have two spotting scopes. The ATX 65 allows you to go beyond x40 if necessary. It's the right combination!
More thoughts in another post.

 

[bcskr]

Have you tried a Nikon ED50 ?

Yes, that was the first small travel scope that I owned. As an eyeglass wearer I much prefer the EPs on the Opticon and Swarovski scopes.

 

[bcskr]

As you have both the MM4 60mm (with which eyepiece?) and the ATC, may I ask how they compare?
Is the ATC noticeably better than the MM4 (except for its price...) and on what fronts, despite its smaller front lens, or are there still situation for which you prefer the MM4?

I have the SDLv3 eyepiece on MM4 and find very little difference in acuity in the field compared to ATC. Younger eyes than mine might notice a greater difference. I do like the convenience of having the zoom control next to the focus control on the ATC.

 

[Hermann]

Yes, that was the first small travel scope that I owned. As an eyeglass wearer I much prefer the EPs on the Opticon and Swarovski scopes.

Unless you use the wideangles or the DS eyepieces on the ED50. The DS eyepieces in particular are really good if you use glasses.

Hermann

 

[4John]

I really felt like I was making a mistake by spending €2,000 and being limited to x40.

I had a Swarovski STS 80 for many years with the 20-60 zoom. 9/10 the eyepiece stayed at 20X. On the odd occasion when I wound it up to 60x the image was almost always unusable either because of tripod vibration (and that's with a 1.5kg Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod), or more usually atmospheric conditions, so it got wound back to 30-40X almost immediately. Maybe viewing conditions are better in la belle France .

Then I got fed up with carrying the weight around and went to the opposite extreme and bought an ED50. The Swarovski then stayed in the cupboard unused for 10 years. I recently tried two MM4 60 with the SDLV3 zooms for several months, and I can see the attraction, but I had to send both back for a refund because of chromatic aberration in some circumstances. I never saw any chromatic aberration in any conditions with the Swarovski and I have never seen any with the ED50.

 

[MiddleRiver]

For a 'compact' with no CA (that I can detect) try the Kowa 553 series. Not the brightest, not the highest zoom, but almost always in my daypack (it's that small/light and fabulous IQ.

I had a Swarovski STS 80 for many years with the 20-60 zoom. 9/10 the eyepiece stayed at 20X. On the odd occasion when I wound it up to 60x the image was almost always unusable either because of tripod vibration (and that's with a 1.5kg Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod), or more usually atmospheric conditions, so it got wound back to 30-40X almost immediately. Maybe viewing conditions are better in la belle France .

Then I got fed up with carrying the weight around and went to the opposite extreme and bought an ED50. The Swarovski then stayed in the cupboard unused for 10 years. I recently tried two MM4 60 with the SDLV3 zooms for several months, and I can see the attraction, but I had to send both back for a refund because of chromatic aberration in some circumstances. I never saw any chromatic aberration in any conditions with the Swarovski and I have never seen any with the ED50.

 

[HenChamp]

I tried one of these recently and couldn’t get a good view with glasses. Almost as if my eyes couldn’t get close enough to the eyepiece for the exit pupil. Is this to be expected with most spotting scopes? What are generally considered the best 65 objective lens or less for eyeglass wearers? This was was pretty finicky for me on eye placement, but otherwise liked it.

 

[Hermann]

I tried one of these recently and couldn’t get a good view with glasses. Almost as if my eyes couldn’t get close enough to the eyepiece for the exit pupil. Is this to be expected with most spotting scopes?

No. Most modern scopes work very well with glasses. In fact I'm surprised you didn't get on with the Swarovski. That's quite unusual. Did you try to find the ideal position of the eyecup? The modern Swaros have got quite long eyerelief, maybe you would have needed to screw the eyecups out a bit? Which scope did you actually try?

What are generally considered the best 65 objective lens or less for eyeglass wearers? This was was pretty finicky for me on eye placement, but otherwise liked it.

The 65mm Swaros are generally considered to be very good indeed. BTW, that scopes are a bit "finicky" is to be expected to some extent, you really need to get used to using a scope, especially at higher magnifications. Time and practice ...

Hermann

 

[HenChamp]

That is good to know. I tried the new 17-40 scope. It was good, I just couldn’t really get a good view, even with the eyepiece screwed in all the way. Frustrating because I liked the size and handling otherwise.

 

[DRodrigues]

... I just couldn’t really get a good view, even with the eyepiece screwed in all the way. ...

You don't have problems with binoculars? What model do you use?
I choose my eye-glasses models to minimize distances from their lenses to my eyes and so minimize problems with birding optics...

 

[HenChamp]

Zero issues with any binocular I’ve used (Nikon, ELs, NL Pure’s, Zeiss, etc) with the eyecups screwed down as much as possible.

On the 17-40, it felt as if I could not get my eye close enough to the rear lens on the scope when I tried it. If I removed my glasses, it was fine, but not ideal due to an astigmatism. Wondering if the ATS 65 HD would be any better or not? I suspect the exist pupil had something to do with it, as I what I could see was a smaller circle of light.

 

[Binastro]

It is the eye relief that isn't enough.

Does your other eye have less astigmatism?
If so try using the other eye without glasses.

If the eye lens of the eyepiece doesn't rotate when zooming, then a custom astigmatism correction lens can be placed on the rear of the eye lens.

Televue have these for their eyepieces.

Regards,
B.

 

[Hermann]

That is good to know. I tried the new 17-40 scope. It was good, I just couldn’t really get a good view, even with the eyepiece screwed in all the way. Frustrating because I liked the size and handling otherwise.

Maybe you screwed it in too much.

Hermann

 

[HenChamp]

I did try at a few spots. Just couldn’t get on with it. But I’m willing to try again.