UTA 2x on spotting scopes? (4 Viewers)

[DRodrigues]

Anyone is using the UTA 2x with a spotting scope?
I have the 2.5x UTA, that I lent to someone that can improve CR resighting performance using it, but felt the 2.5x increase factor is not the best for my use UTA 2.5x test - have to update with several barlow cells I have presently...
Meanwhile I remembered that the 2x UTA might be more usable for me and I'm interested on user experiences with spotting scopes...

 

[pete_gamby]

Hi David

The UTA 2x is much better than the 2.5x. Higher light transmission means it copes well at higher resolutions for example.

HTH

Pete

 

[Gzoladz74]

Anyone is using the UTA 2x with a spotting scope?
I have the 2.5x UTA, that I lent to someone that can improve CR resighting performance using it, but felt the 2.5x increase factor is not the best for my use UTA 2.5x test - have to update with several barlow cells I have presently...
Meanwhile I remembered that the 2x UTA might be more usable for me and I'm interested on user experiences with spotting scopes...

Test it before you spend any money...the additional reach comes at a cost of a significant reduction in field of view and light gathering.

If you cannot find any to test it, put your scope at full resolution and imagine that with the UTA you will get half the light and half the field of view. Then decide.

This typically applies to all extenders of any brand, even Alphas.

 

[DRodrigues]

Test it before you spend any money...the additional reach comes at a cost of a significant reduction in field of view and light gathering.

If you cannot find any to test it, put your scope at full resolution and imagine that with the UTA you will get half the light and half the field of view. Then decide.

This typically applies to all extenders of any brand, even Alphas.

Thanks, I know all you said - that's the laws of physics and with the UTA the FOV reduction should be even higher, since the AFOV of the UTA is more reduced than the AFOV of most zooms, at least at their higher zoom positions. That's one of the reasons why I prefer extenders and the barlow cells.
The exception is a "special UTA" I developed WTX 115 - is the reason that made me want to try the UTA 2x when I crossed casually with a reference to it on the web...

 

[Gzoladz74]

Thanks, I know all you said - that's the laws of physics and with the UTA the FOV reduction should be even higher, since the AFOV of the UTA is more reduced than the AFOV of most zooms, at least at their higher zoom positions. That's one of the reasons why I prefer extenders and the barlow cells.
The exception is a "special UTA" I developed WTX 115 - is the reason that made me want to try the UTA 2x when I crossed casually with a reference to it on the web...

Wow that looks impressive!

It's all about physics, agreed...and that is why I keep asking maufacturers (many of them do) to provide data driven evidence to substantiate claimed improvements / performance in their instruments (as opposed to "best performer ever", "wider than the previous one", "most succesfull ever", "acclaimed by the critics!").

We are not in a book club discussing the intepretation of the latest book...