Swarovski ATX 115 Review (1 Viewer)

[dwever]

The Swarovski ATX, 115 spotting scope comes with a crystal-clear view. Outstanding snap-to focusing reminiscent of the NL Pure binocular, and very high brightness for this kind of magnification. First time viewers so far have all been pretty awe-struck by the image in this scope.

Loves:

• Focus. Wow, snaps into place like an NL Pure binocular. You can see the ridiculously good level of detail come in to focus, and that assists fast precise focusing.
• Image. The 65mm has a great image, The 95mm breath-taking. Canip said on this sub-forum, "I found the difference in contrast and brightness between the 95 and the 115 quite substantial." That not only seems to be the consensus, but it is amazing given the awesome image produced by the 95! From a Swiss reviewer "Apollo", [Begin Quote] Still, in a brief comparative review side-by-side, the difference between the BTX 95 and the BTX 115 is considerable; in fact, the difference is much bigger than expected. Tested with the extender, i.e. using both BTXs at 60x magnification, the image in the 115 is not only clearly brighter, but contrast and apparent sharpness are also much higher. Some surface structures on the moon which are barely or not at all discernible in the 95 become easily visible in the 115. CA is virtually non-existent in both. Using the 95 without the extender side-by-side with the 115 (the latter still with the extender), the image in the 115 at 60x appears virtually as bright as the image in the 95 at 35x. Against the 115, the 95 feels almost a bit "stretched" when both are used with the extender. At 35x, the 95 is great, so the conclusion for me is that I would use the 95 at 35x and the 115 at 60x (I have not tested the 115 with 2 extenders, i.e. at 100x magnification, since I fear the 115 would then feel as "stretched" as the 95 at 60x)." [End Quote]
• Ease of Image - Just an easy image, remarkably even so at 70X.
• Industrial Design & Engineering : The design, build, and materials inspire a lot of confidence that this optic was intended and built for a very very long service life. Everything is precise, smooth, robust, even the stay-on case has a precise fit.
• NL Pure Binocular: Same color temperature and edge to edge focus of the NL. Very much from the same image family.
• Stay-on Case. Did not expect the stay-on case to be so useful. Sooo many times in the field I'd need to set the optic down whilst I collapsed the tripod legs or whatever. I would not want to set the optic down on it's armor, but with the stay-on case no problem. It fits very well, and the focus and zoom are easy to use with it on. Mine just stays on. The objective cover that is part of the stay-on case system is brilliantly magnet based so your not fussing with snaps.
• Transport. There's really no set-up. I drop three carbon fiber legs on the tripod, then sit the plate in the receiver and secure in a few turns. Move the eyepiece cover out of the way, overcome the magnetic hold at the objective, and in one minute I'm viewing.

Niggles:

• Mass. If there is one characteristic that may turn people away it is perceived size and weight. I've made the determination that the extra weight is soundly justified by the image. Some may not agree. Either way, it has not been a big deal for me and it will be going with me in to the remote wilderness of Alaska in September.
• Zoom ring could be just a little easier to turn. I have checked other samples, and they all seem to have the same stout turn.
• Mounting. When you mount the eyepiece to the objective, be ready for a firm turn. Not open a Vlassic pickle jar turn firm, but firm.
• Eye relief. I'd have to check with an eyeglass wearer, but it seem to need a hair more eye relief?
• Digiscoping - that is much harder than anticipated. I've had very few pictures from my iPhone 11 that have not had motion blur. On the other hand, I need tobuy an adapter and stop hand-holding over the eye-piece as with the eagle below.
• The barrel of the objective has a built in shade that does not deploy easily with the stay-on case in place.

Not tested:

My kit came with the 1.7X Swarovski magnifier that you mount between the focus and zoom ring (individual street price $400). I have yet to use it. Have yet to think at 70X, "boy, going to 120X would be nice". However, people who've use it on this forum swear by it; and, the commenter above who said the 115 with the 1.7X extender is virtually as bright as the 95 without the extender; if that is true, it is a remarkable achievement by Swarovski. The extender is seen mounted in the picture before the dog. The last picture is from the internet, not taken by me.

Judgement Calls:

I did not buy a tripod with a center column, and I darn sure didn't buy aluminum. I bought a 4.5 lbs. carbon fiber Gitzo GT3533LS with a 55 lbs. capacity. Awesome decision. I just flip out the bottom 1/3 legs and it is perfect for standing, or collapse them if I have seating. Supremely stable and I never miss the center column.

 

[DRodrigues]

...
Niggles:

• ...
• Eye relief. I'd have to check with an eyeglass wearer, but it seem to need a hair more eye relief?
• ...

I use a STX 95 with eye-glasses and have no problems with the eye-relief. Those that have problems can purchase a more eye-glass friendly eye-cup version.

 

[Bobalob]

I read Dwever's excellent review before purchase and I completely agree regarding image quality. First time scope user after trying the BTX on a Gitzo tripod with Wimberley Head .
Agree it's heavy but definitely worth it for the clear, bright, rock steady, detailed views you get with fatigue free viewing . I tried the balance rail but it wasn't necessary on my rig and seems somewhat over engineered with no safety stops possible . I also thought the Stay On Cases don't add much in the way of protection against impact so I've gone for a padded Marsupial case

 

[Allen]

The only thing I find doesn't work well on the stay on case is the eyepiece part. Not easy to release for viewing whilst keeping it connected. Anyone else feel the same?

 

[Tom Brereton]

The Swarovski ATX, 115 spotting scope comes with a crystal-clear view. Outstanding snap-to focusing reminiscent of the NL Pure binocular, and very high brightness for this kind of magnification. First time viewers so far have all been pretty awe-struck by the image in this scope.

Loves:

• Focus. Wow, snaps into place like an NL Pure binocular. You can see the ridiculously good level of detail come in to focus, and that assists fast precise focusing.
• Image. The 65mm has a great image, The 95mm breath-taking. Canip said on this sub-forum, "I found the difference in contrast and brightness between the 95 and the 115 quite substantial." That not only seems to be the consensus, but it is amazing given the awesome image produced by the 95! From a Swiss reviewer "Apollo", [Begin Quote] Still, in a brief comparative review side-by-side, the difference between the BTX 95 and the BTX 115 is considerable; in fact, the difference is much bigger than expected. Tested with the extender, i.e. using both BTXs at 60x magnification, the image in the 115 is not only clearly brighter, but contrast and apparent sharpness are also much higher. Some surface structures on the moon which are barely or not at all discernible in the 95 become easily visible in the 115. CA is virtually non-existent in both. Using the 95 without the extender side-by-side with the 115 (the latter still with the extender), the image in the 115 at 60x appears virtually as bright as the image in the 95 at 35x. Against the 115, the 95 feels almost a bit "stretched" when both are used with the extender. At 35x, the 95 is great, so the conclusion for me is that I would use the 95 at 35x and the 115 at 60x (I have not tested the 115 with 2 extenders, i.e. at 100x magnification, since I fear the 115 would then feel as "stretched" as the 95 at 60x)." [End Quote]
• Ease of Image - Just an easy image, remarkably even so at 70X.
• Industrial Design & Engineering : The design, build, and materials inspire a lot of confidence that this optic was intended and built for a very very long service life. Everything is precise, smooth, robust, even the stay-on case has a precise fit.
• NL Pure Binocular: Same color temperature and edge to edge focus of the NL. Very much from the same image family.
• Stay-on Case. Did not expect the stay-on case to be so useful. Sooo many times in the field I'd need to set the optic down whilst I collapsed the tripod legs or whatever. I would not want to set the optic down on it's armor, but with the stay-on case no problem. It fits very well, and the focus and zoom are easy to use with it on. Mine just stays on. The objective cover that is part of the stay-on case system is brilliantly magnet based so your not fussing with snaps.
• Transport. There's really no set-up. I drop three carbon fiber legs on the tripod, then sit the plate in the receiver and secure in a few turns. Move the eyepiece cover out of the way, overcome the magnetic hold at the objective, and in one minute I'm viewing.

Niggles:

• Mass. If there is one characteristic that may turn people away it is perceived size and weight. I've made the determination that the extra weight is soundly justified by the image. Some may not agree. Either way, it has not been a big deal for me and it will be going with me in to the remote wilderness of Alaska in September.
• Zoom ring could be just a little easier to turn. I have checked other samples, and they all seem to have the same stout turn.
• Mounting. When you mount the eyepiece to the objective, be ready for a firm turn. Not open a Vlassic pickle jar turn firm, but firm.
• Eye relief. I'd have to check with an eyeglass wearer, but it seem to need a hair more eye relief?
• Digiscoping - that is much harder than anticipated. I've had very few pictures from my iPhone 11 that have not had motion blur. On the other hand, I need tobuy an adapter and stop hand-holding over the eye-piece as with the eagle below.
• The barrel of the objective has a built in shade that does not deploy easily with the stay-on case in place.

Not tested:

My kit came with the 1.7X Swarovski magnifier that you mount between the focus and zoom ring (individual street price $400). I have yet to use it. Have yet to think at 70X, "boy, going to 120X would be nice". However, people who've use it on this forum swear by it; and, the commenter above who said the 115 with the 1.7X extender is virtually as bright as the 95 without the extender; if that is true, it is a remarkable achievement by Swarovski. The extender is seen mounted in the picture before the dog. The last picture is from the internet, not taken by me.

Judgement Calls:

I did not buy a tripod with a center column, and I darn sure didn't buy aluminum. I bought a 4.5 lbs. carbon fiber Gitzo GT3533LS with a 55 lbs. capacity. Awesome decision. I just flip out the bottom 1/3 legs and it is perfect for standing, or collapse them if I have seating. Supremely stable and I never miss the center column.
View attachment 1386209View attachment 1386211View attachment 1386212View attachment 1386213View attachment 1386216View attachment 1386217View attachment 1386221View attachment 1386223

Hi, What head are you using with the tripod?

 

[dwever]

On the carbon fiber Gitzo a Swarovski compact I believe called a CTH as can be seen in the 3rd picture. I also use a Swarovski branded but made for Swarovski wooden tripod - it is very nice, primarily indoors.

About 5 months ago I pivoted from the 115mm objective to an 85mm for the 25X starting point and smaller size as the size and weight did become an issue after formerly convincing myself it would not. As Amazing as the 115 is, for me it was too massive to be practical. I also moved from the NL Pure to an EL Range TA for the more robust build but very slight loss in image - but hey, the focuser feel isn’t changing every six weeks. I’ll own an NL again when Swarovski does a little better industrial engineering in the same way Leica addressed the roll-the-dice focuser and occasional water leaking in their UVHD line with the solid Noctivid.

 

[Tot]

The Swarovski ATX, 115 spotting scope comes with a crystal-clear view. Outstanding snap-to focusing reminiscent of the NL Pure binocular, and very high brightness for this kind of magnification. First time viewers so far have all been pretty awe-struck by the image in this scope.

Loves:

• Focus. Wow, snaps into place like an NL Pure binocular. You can see the ridiculously good level of detail come in to focus, and that assists fast precise focusing.
• Image. The 65mm has a great image, The 95mm breath-taking. Canip said on this sub-forum, "I found the difference in contrast and brightness between the 95 and the 115 quite substantial." That not only seems to be the consensus, but it is amazing given the awesome image produced by the 95! From a Swiss reviewer "Apollo", [Begin Quote] Still, in a brief comparative review side-by-side, the difference between the BTX 95 and the BTX 115 is considerable; in fact, the difference is much bigger than expected. Tested with the extender, i.e. using both BTXs at 60x magnification, the image in the 115 is not only clearly brighter, but contrast and apparent sharpness are also much higher. Some surface structures on the moon which are barely or not at all discernible in the 95 become easily visible in the 115. CA is virtually non-existent in both. Using the 95 without the extender side-by-side with the 115 (the latter still with the extender), the image in the 115 at 60x appears virtually as bright as the image in the 95 at 35x. Against the 115, the 95 feels almost a bit "stretched" when both are used with the extender. At 35x, the 95 is great, so the conclusion for me is that I would use the 95 at 35x and the 115 at 60x (I have not tested the 115 with 2 extenders, i.e. at 100x magnification, since I fear the 115 would then feel as "stretched" as the 95 at 60x)." [End Quote]
• Ease of Image - Just an easy image, remarkably even so at 70X.
• Industrial Design & Engineering : The design, build, and materials inspire a lot of confidence that this optic was intended and built for a very very long service life. Everything is precise, smooth, robust, even the stay-on case has a precise fit.
• NL Pure Binocular: Same color temperature and edge to edge focus of the NL. Very much from the same image family.
• Stay-on Case. Did not expect the stay-on case to be so useful. Sooo many times in the field I'd need to set the optic down whilst I collapsed the tripod legs or whatever. I would not want to set the optic down on it's armor, but with the stay-on case no problem. It fits very well, and the focus and zoom are easy to use with it on. Mine just stays on. The objective cover that is part of the stay-on case system is brilliantly magnet based so your not fussing with snaps.
• Transport. There's really no set-up. I drop three carbon fiber legs on the tripod, then sit the plate in the receiver and secure in a few turns. Move the eyepiece cover out of the way, overcome the magnetic hold at the objective, and in one minute I'm viewing.

Niggles:

• Mass. If there is one characteristic that may turn people away it is perceived size and weight. I've made the determination that the extra weight is soundly justified by the image. Some may not agree. Either way, it has not been a big deal for me and it will be going with me in to the remote wilderness of Alaska in September.
• Zoom ring could be just a little easier to turn. I have checked other samples, and they all seem to have the same stout turn.
• Mounting. When you mount the eyepiece to the objective, be ready for a firm turn. Not open a Vlassic pickle jar turn firm, but firm.
• Eye relief. I'd have to check with an eyeglass wearer, but it seem to need a hair more eye relief?
• Digiscoping - that is much harder than anticipated. I've had very few pictures from my iPhone 11 that have not had motion blur. On the other hand, I need tobuy an adapter and stop hand-holding over the eye-piece as with the eagle below.
• The barrel of the objective has a built in shade that does not deploy easily with the stay-on case in place.

Not tested:

My kit came with the 1.7X Swarovski magnifier that you mount between the focus and zoom ring (individual street price $400). I have yet to use it. Have yet to think at 70X, "boy, going to 120X would be nice". However, people who've use it on this forum swear by it; and, the commenter above who said the 115 with the 1.7X extender is virtually as bright as the 95 without the extender; if that is true, it is a remarkable achievement by Swarovski. The extender is seen mounted in the picture before the dog. The last picture is from the internet, not taken by me.

Judgement Calls:

I did not buy a tripod with a center column, and I darn sure didn't buy aluminum. I bought a 4.5 lbs. carbon fiber Gitzo GT3533LS with a 55 lbs. capacity. Awesome decision. I just flip out the bottom 1/3 legs and it is perfect for standing, or collapse them if I have seating. Supremely stable and I never miss the center column.
View attachment 1386209View attachment 1386211View attachment 1386212View attachment 1386213View attachment 1386216View attachment 1386217View attachment 1386221View attachment 1386223

Got rid of my 115 no contrast un sharp 95 much better

 

[Will K]

It is strange to see some reports of the 115 being out-classed by the smaller objective modules. I suppose the likelihood of aberrations is higher with the larger glass construct, given its unprecedented dimensions. Similar issues have been noted with the Kowa 99, I recall.

 

[henry link]

"Tot" must have had a particularly poor 115. The one I tested in the link below was not very good, but it still managed to resolve line pairs on the USAF 1951 as well as a diffraction limited 105mm scope.

Swarovski ATX-115: Star-test and Resolution Measurements

I recently borrowed a Swarovski ATX-115 to conduct a few basic tests. The PDF below was assembled from one of the three artificial star-tests I conducted (indoors and outdoors night and day). This one was done outside at about 30 meters using a glitter point of the sun reflecting from a...

www.birdforum.net

Just another example of why brand prestige and high price should be ignored when evaluating spotting scopes.

 

[DRodrigues]

Got rid of my 115 no contrast un sharp 95 much bet

Did you compared them, side by side?
You had both the 95 and the 115? If so, why you didn't sent the 115 to Swaro to be verified? There is a story here at BF, of someone that sent his 115 to be verified and returned much better...
Also, did you tried to swap the eyepiece modules between them to see if something improved?

 

[Tot]

Did you compared them, side by side?
You had both the 95 and the 115? If so, why you didn't sent the 115 to Swaro to be verified? There is a story here at BF, of someone that sent his 115 to be verified and returned much better...
Also, did you tried to swap the eyepiece modules between them to see if something improved?

Yes I tried 3 115 against my 95 side by side there brighter but the image isn't as sharp or as contrasty

 

[Hermann]

It is strange to see some reports of the 115 being out-classed by the smaller objective modules. I suppose the likelihood of aberrations is higher with the larger glass construct, given its unprecedented dimensions. Similar issues have been noted with the Kowa 99, I recall.

It's not strange at all. The bigger the objective the more difficult it becomes to make and align the elements correctly. So you're likely to get more lemons.

Hermann

 

[DRodrigues]

It's not strange at all. The bigger the objective the more difficult it becomes to make and align the elements correctly. So you're likely to get more lemons.

Hermann

Yes, but I expected more from Swarovski that is known to have good quality control...
I expected that all X115 should be at least as good as most X95, and that seems to hasn't been the case.
I have some possible explanations for this but we will see in the future...
I still haven't seen a star test from a BTX115 that could clarify one of my ideas - the X115 might be tuned to work with the BTX...
At least my X115 is as good as my previous X95 in resolution (and with more light and less CA...), but will see if any cheery X115 will be found...