Spotting Scope Research: Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica (1 Viewer)

[Bill Atwood]

I actually had a very brief look through a Kowa 99 today, and I was rather impressed. The view and build quality was, to my eyes, actually superior to the Harpia and ATX models I tested the other day.

That is quite suprising.

The two 99As I've tried were not the equal of the ATX 95 all. At 65-70x even the Meopta S2 was better. The Kowas, perhaps have a certain clarity that is at first, appealing, but at distance and poor light the 99 faded. Many others been disappointed in the 99 series as well. Perhaps you had access to a "cherry" copy. Also, the Swaros seem much more robustly built than the Kowas. Just to be clear I don't have a grudge against Kowa and would perhaps consider a new 88 series Kowa down the road I'm waiting for some reviews to be posted before I make that decision.

 

[wllmspd]

I have an optical collector friend who loves his big Kowa. Don’t see many at bird sites, but that maybe as Swaro seems to spend more on advertising.
Peter

 

[Will K]

Yes, I'm surprised, too. If anything, I had a slight prejudice in favour of the Swaro and Zeiss going into this. The way that certain scopes and brands are interacting with my pre-existing expectations might be impacting the impressions I'm getting from them.

Not that my tests with any of these scopes were that authoritative, of course. I was looking through a window on each occasion, and I didn't do any star tests. Its not easy 'wow' someone by looking at street signs on a cloudy day in London (ATX/Harpia), and the view was certainly better at RSPB Pulborough Brooks this afternoon (Kowa).

I plan to go back on a clear and sunny day to do a direct outdoor comparison with the Kowa 99, 88, and whatever else they might have there.

 

[Hermann]

Not that my tests with any of these scopes were that authoritative, of course. I was looking through a window on each occasion, and I didn't do any star tests. Its not easy 'wow' someone by looking at street signs on a cloudy day in London (ATX/Harpia), and the view was certainly better at RSPB Pulborough Brooks this afternoon (Kowa).

You need to see all these scopes in the field. Views through windows won't allow you a proper assessment of any scope. Try to meet people who use these scopes in the field, e.g. on a twitch.

Hermann

 

[Will K]

You need to see all these scopes in the field

Absolutely. Easier said than done, of course.

I saw about 20 different scopes being used and carried around by folk at my local area today. I don't like to bother people by asking to take a look, but I know that most would be more than happy to indulge me. The trouble then is finding someone who is carrying around a scope I'm particularly interested to see. These ones I'm looking at are pretty rare. Didn't see any out in the field today.

The most anyone can tell from indoor comparisons and tests are very superficial aspects of performance (AFOV, build quality, ergonomics, and a general idea of brightness, edge distortion, etc.) That's certainly not all there is to judge, but its enough to satisfy my curiosity, a lot of the time.

 

[William Lewis]

Good to read about your endeavours Will - I'll check back with interest to see what you end up with.

I'm afraid I can't add a huge amount of assistance with these big scopes other than to say the best one is the one you have with you, that you don't leave at home or in the car and that you can set up promptly and point and focus quickly enough not to miss an opportunity.

I gather you live near the coast from your trip to London though so for sea watching a big meaty thug of a scope and tripod will almost always be your best bet if that's what it's mostly going to be used for - and you can always take the vortex the rest of the time.

An interesting thought might be whether you've missed a bird with the vortex that you think you may have got with some of the other scopes you've tried?

The tripod doesn't have to cost a great deal as long as it's big and heavy enough not to have to use the centre column for coastal birding- it's not like your going to be climbing mountains with that type of scope anyway. A very good video head will help though so that might be assigned a decent bit of budget.

good luck!

will

 

[Will K]

Thanks, Will.

I’ll probably keep the Razor no matter which “upgrade” I end up going with, too. I like it a lot, and It’s more portable than a lot of the options I’m looking at, but I’m still chasing that bigger, brighter, more NL-like view at higher magnification. I know smaller options might be more convenient (an ATC, for example). Who knows what will catch my eye next?

This won’t be a quick selection process 🙂

 

[William Lewis]

Thanks, Will.

I’ll probably keep the Razor no matter which “upgrade” I end up going with, too. I like it a lot, and It’s more portable than a lot of the options I’m looking at, but I’m still chasing that bigger, brighter, more NL-like view at higher magnification. I know smaller options might be more convenient (an ATC, for example). Who knows what will catch my eye next?

This won’t be a quick selection process 🙂

It sounds like you've tried a few of the most likely options to deliver that.

I've found fixed magnification eye pieces usually helps with fov and the quality of the view, zooms are rare in astro for a reason but so are prisms. I used a zoom for years but once I started using fixed I haven't gone back to the zoom. Might be a good way to get your NL in a scope experience.

Alternatively you could have a glance at an apm 120 and a couple of wide field eye pieces and really have an NL max.

 

[wllmspd]

I got chided recently for suggesting the 70mm APM would be practical for birdwatching ;-) … the 120mm would be on another level.
Looks like APM do sell a 120mm kit with wooden tripod and fork mount as video heads won’t take kindly to 9.6kg.
You’re not going to want to carry these about, so a wheeled super duty pelicase would be ideal (plenty of space for eyepiece pairs).
The 45degree models are best in the daytime. Using ultra wide eyepieces you’d be working between 38-100x ish, minimum mag of 28). (Baader Morpheus range or apm hi-fw 12.5mm) To find stuff I’d pop one of these modded red dot riders on the centre rail, I made one recently with a rather high power scope, worked a treat.
Prism modified RDF for ergonomic aiming angled spotting scopes
These big binoculars do have individual eyepiece focussing, so there is a little practice to tweak them to get focus, you can then twist both eyepieces together to change focus, but it’s not ideal if you want to rack the focus around a lot, though for long distance viewing this isn’t an issue..

They do make a 150mm model if you wanted to go “all the way”, for backpacking the 82mm would probably be the largest that any sane person would contemplate.

Peter

 

[Will K]

I got chided recently for suggesting the 70mm APM would be practical for birdwatching ;-) … the 120mm would be on another level.

I'd certainly be interested to see what kind of view they'd provide of birds, but yes, I think the ATX 115 would probably be the most portable option for anything with that kind of size objective.

I can easily manage a securely padded 85mm in a cabin-bag sized rucksack for planes, trains, etc. Might need to consider an alternative if I went 95+. It would not leave much room in the bag for sandwiches, that's for sure!

 

[corvid-8]

Will, PLEASE Correct me if I am wrong but from what I have read you are quite new to this "birding" lark ! The lure of wanting what you read sometimes out ways the actual need itself. (green grass over the fence etc). Optics and birding are a compromise , never will you really find a "Holy Grail" that excels in all you need. Notice I say NEED not WANT !
We now live in this digital world where that super duper TV (sorry multi media screen) you have in your home conditions one self to acquire views like that TV screen gives you. Digital camera push the format to get sharper, cleaner, blemish free pictures that any character left in the photo has vanished.
Modern Scopes are akin to this trend, they strive to give the viewer a sharper, cleaner blemish free image worthy of capturing it on o' yes a Digital Camera be it Camera or Phone. Kowa especially prides itself on this and rightly so it has put a lot into combining taking pictures with and looking through their scopes. A bigger front end gives more light so helps perfectly with capturing pictures. Swarovski too do this, I saw recently two photographers not with large white lenses but STX 115 straight coupled with very high end Digital cameras. They said they use nothing else.
The point I am trying to make is, DO YOU NEED THAT SIZE OF SCOPE. The weight to carry, the usage on shimmering days (summer & winter), the cost £3000+ of vulnerability in dodgy areas and the "TOP OF THE RANGE" is only the "TOP" until a better one appears.
I love Kowa Scopes, I have three, 823m Baaader IV + 30 w, 663 30w + EXT, (grey) & 553 (an investment for my very old age). Nothing I have looked through would make me want to change, not because they are not better they obviously are- they are newer, better R&D, up to date, materials used etc.
As I have said before they are "tools not jewels" they do the job well and newer is not necessarily better when it comes to out in the field usage.
I can choose which to use for specific days ie topography, weather (haze especially) , habitat, distance carrying, species looking at etc etc.
They are all top glass in their time, old but faithful.
New top end glass is in my option not only designed for looking through but NOW has to accommodate digital picture taking.
DO YOU NEED THAT, if it is great go for it, if not look a little "left field" (as our US cousins say) there are plenty of good honest older top end scopes around that would not let you down.
Remember, what is out there now has not changed since the Kowa 823m was a top dog; only what we have been told to expect how we see what is out there now is the change.

 

[Will K]

Will, PLEASE Correct me if I am wrong..

No, you're absolutely right! This hobby is still pretty new to me, and I feel as though I am just exploring the world of optics and seeing what it has to offer. My lack of experience does mean that I gravitate toward the latest models being sold and marketed, just because they are there in the places I tend to look, and, if I'm honest, I don't have any long-term perspective on things yet.

I do dabble with digiscoping, so those kinds of optimisations will be attractive to me. (I do it as a way of sharing what I see with family and friends, although my primary purpose is personal viewing - that direct connection with what one is seeing through an optic, which, to my irrational mind, you don't really get in the same way with a camera).

All the stats I'm tossing around in these conversations are basically a way of getting my thoughts and expectations in order until I can sit in front of a scope and say: "Ok, wow. This is the one for me." That will be, of course, because I'm looking at a very bright and crystal clear image with minimal distortions, very wide AFOV, and excellent performance across an impressive zoom range. There are certain scopes (typically, the bigger and more modern ones) which I can expect to provide that, and some others which its probably worth taking as read; although I certainly enjoy being surprised!

On top of that, I would need to enjoy the physical properties of the instrument itself. I totally agree that these are 'tools': carefully designed instruments made for a very specific purpose. But, as a lot of folks here will agree, optics are also works of art - in the sense of being something that enriches your life through the impression it makes upon you every time you see it, pick it up, and care for it. I sometimes sit my binos on the desk in front of me as a kind of ornament; I like having them around, and not just because I can quickly pick them up and see what's on the feeder outside the window.

Thanks very much for sharing your experience!

 

[MiddleRiver]

This thread seems to have stayed true to the search for the ultimate powerhouse scope. But the occasional hints suggesting some restraint in terms of size etc. are good advice methinks. Some of the >100mm rigs are stupendous and would be appropriate at a seldom moved viewing station (deck, lodge, cliff or seaside location), but I'd hate to travel or worse yet, hike with them. I also find - in MY typical situation - that I'm constantly moving when out birding. I find it difficult to use any scope, let alone a beast.
Not surprisingly, I think in scopes, as in binos, there's some current movement to super high quality devices that are smaller and lighter...

 

[nickw_]

Greetings Will,

I replied to your thread on your Swarovski ATX and Zeiss Harpia thoughts. I now see this thread so I thought I would reply here, and share some of my thoughts.

For context, I am also relatively new to optics. It is only in the last year in which I finally upgraded to a set of alpha binoculars and added a scope (the Swarovski ATC).

Since you are also new to optics, please allow me to share a few general few ideas. I suspect you already know of few of these, if so, please forgive me for repeating. This is going to get little bit longer, but as someone who seems to appreciate information and has made a spreadsheet of data to help analysis the options, I suspect you will not mind.

There are three ideas I want to share:

1. I know you already have a scope, but I think it is worth repeating, a scope is not the ideal tool for extended observation sessions. Since you are only using one eye for viewing, eye fatigue will start to set in with prolonged use. When observing for longer durations some high power binoculars, or something like the Swarovski BTX will be far more comfortable.
   
   
   
2. You mention using a teleconverter to achieve higher amounts of magnification, but have you considered the exit pupil size (EP) at those zoom levels? While I know it depends on lighting conditions and personal tolerance, I find anything less than a 2mm EP can start to cause eye strain for me. In bright sun I can use a smaller EP (down around 1.5mm), but I still do not like it for more than a few minutes. I'm not sure how small of EP you can tolerate before eye strain sets in, but with the teleconverters mentioned you would in the sub 1mm range. I highly doubt you will find this comfortable.
   
   Keep in mind, a little bit of eye fatigue in the store will translate into a lot of fatigue in the field over an afternoon.
   
   It is also worth noting, the eye fatigue from using a small exit pupil is different from eye fatigue caused by only using one eye. Using a scope with small a EP you will have to contend with both.
   
   
   
3. I also appreciate a large apparent field of view, but there is a trade off here which is almost never talked about. To get a large sharp peripheral view (on a curved piece of glass), field flatteners are used. But the trade off is, as a scene is flattened, objects will start to loose their sense of depth.
   
   While the overall scene still has depth, the individual objects within the scene start to look flatter and flatter. Taken to an extreme, the object in view can be so compressed in depth it can look entirely 2D, like a cardboard cutout. Tree trunks and branches are a place where this become obvious. They start to look flat depth wise, even paper thin. Like chromatic aberration, not everyone notices this depth compression, or cares, but some of us do.
   
   There are other factors which contribute to this compression as well, such as viewing distance, magnification/zoom level, and prism type. But field flatteners do as they say, they flatten the field. I say all this, so people will hopefully start to understand there is a trade off when using them. You trade: a sharper edge/periphery for 3D/depth in the view. Not such a big deal in a spotting scope, but in binoculars it can start to matter. The closer something is, and the higher zoom you use, the bigger difference it makes.
   
   It is also worth noting, field flattening can be employed in various amounts. I sometimes think of them as field compressors, and different amounts of compression can be applied when designing an optic. So it is not a case of having to choose one or the other, the designers can choose the balance they wish to strike.
   
   Now, you mention Leica often has a smaller AFoV and you are right. But you might also note that Leica is known for having a more 3D view. While Swarovski and Zeiss are pushing for increased FoV/AFoV with sharp edges, I think Leica is trying to maintain some 3D qualities, thus the smaller AFoV. This is the trade off. However, even Leica is getting pulled into the fight, as the newer Noctivid is flatter in field than the older Ultravid.
   
   Now with all that said, I think a scope is a great place to use field flatteners. As you are typically looking at far away objects, along with using higher amounts of magnification. There really is not any 3D perspective left to be had. Thus flattening the field, in order to have a sharp peripheral view is a good idea here. It also makes perfect sense with optics designed for astronomy.
   
   So I think this is why you see Leica posting larger AFoV with their scopes, compared to their binoculars. Trading a sharp peripheral view (for a more 3D view) make sense when designing a scope, given their use case. Again, I could be wrong, but this is my current understanding. I am still learning here.

I hope this helps.
Nick.

 

[wllmspd]

Looking outside with some flat field binoculars and closing one eye, still looks nicely 3D, objects at different distances are out of focus, leading to the depth perception. This is due to the depth of field of the binoculars that depends on the optical design, I have an old pair that I hardly have to adjust focus over a large range of distances, also lovely 3D views from the widely spaced objectives allowing my brain to see in stereo further away.

However the difference between the two binoculars is that the older one gives distinctly fuzzy views towards the edge, whereas the other remains in sharp focus to close to the edges due to the newer one having a field flattener. Focus on a nice bright star and then move it to the edge of the field… you may end up wanting a better pair!

However if you only look at the centre of the field then the edge blur is invisible as your eyes are only in focus in a tiny part of your field of view, but if you go looking round the field (easier with a scope than with binoculars) then you’ll appreciate the photo quality of a flat field.

Peter

 

[Will K]

Greetings Will,

Thanks, Nick, for that very thoughtful comment!

I agree with a lot of your points. I’m definitely someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too, so there will be no obvious choice for me.

I love the idea of the BTX, but two or three things are putting me off that: limited and fixed magnification, chunky size, and build quality.

As for field flattening, I’ve got very used to the view provided by the NL Pure, so that’s certainly become a benchmark for what I expect in optics, both the good and the bad. Glare and a more 2D image, for instance, are perhaps things I take for granted.

In the field, I occasionally find myself moving my head around behind a static pair of binos simply in order to appreciate the wide and sharp edges. That’s a bit weird, I admit. But In the process, I will typically spot something I hadn’t noticed before.

I’ve always considered Leica views to require a more refined taste. I don’t appreciate it, as yet, but I’m very willing to discover what I’m missing.

 

[lmans66]

When is 'enough is enough'...? Given physics, heat waves....light etc.... How large can one really go before the scope size either is immaterial or is so close to other lesser designs that is makes little difference?

 

[corvid-8]

Keep in mind, a little bit of eye fatigue in the store will translate into a lot of fatigue in the field over an afternoon.

It is also worth noting, the eye fatigue from using a small exit pupil is different from eye fatigue caused by only using one eye. Using a scope with small a EP you will have to contend with both.

As an answer to this "eye fatigue".
When looking through a Spotting Scope you should ALWAYS keep BOTH eyes open; NOT shut the other eye. This comes with practice and prevent "eye fatigue"
The brain compensates for this and you do not get that tremor of the other eye.
Try it and keep trying it until it becomes second nature.

 

[Hermann]

When is 'enough is enough'...? Given physics, heat waves....light etc.... How large can one really go before the scope size either is immaterial or is so close to other lesser designs that is makes little difference?

Good questions. And the answer is, as always, it depends. For terrestrial viewing the most important limiting factor are the viewing conditions, and these depend greatly on where you live. That's pretty obvious. Even in the temperate northern climate where I live magnifications are severely limited by atmospheric conditions on most days. So much so that I find I rarely benefit from magnifications above ~40-50x. I think I only used 75x, the maximum magnfication of my ED82, twice last year, on days with truly exceptional viewing conditions. Given that I find I can easily work with an exit pupil of 1mm (although I prefer to have a slightly larger exit pupil, say 1.5mm), I think the biggest scope size for my needs would be a 90-100mm scope. That would give be a nice big exit pupil at the high magnifications I most use, around 40-50x, with plenty of reserves.

However, I'm not sure I would like to use such a monster. I certainly wouldn't like to carry it around with the large (and heavy) tripod+head such a scope needs. I'm not getting any younger, and I can live with the knowledge that I might miss a bird I could have gotten with a larger scope. Birding needs to be fun, not hard work.

Last point: No matter how large the scope is, the quality is always paramount. Why get a big scope if the optics aren't perfect?

Hermann

 

[nickw_]

As an answer to this "eye fatigue".
When looking through a Spotting Scope you should ALWAYS keep BOTH eyes open; NOT shut the other eye. This comes with practice and prevent "eye fatigue"
The brain compensates for this and you do not get that tremor of the other eye.
Try it and keep trying it until it becomes second nature.

I have tried to learn how to keep both eyes open, but my mind doesn't seem to do the trick. Inevitably I end up gently closing one eye.

Good questions. And the answer is, as always, it depends. For terrestrial viewing the most important limiting factor are the viewing conditions, and these depend greatly on where you live. That's pretty obvious. Even in the temperate northern climate where I live magnifications are severely limited by atmospheric conditions on most days. So much so that I find I rarely benefit from magnifications above ~40-50x. I think I only used 75x, the maximum magnfication of my ED82, twice last year, on days with truly exceptional viewing conditions. Given that I find I can easily work with an exit pupil of 1mm (although I prefer to have a slightly larger exit pupil, say 1.5mm), I think the biggest scope size for my needs would be a 90-100mm scope. That would give be a nice big exit pupil at the high magnifications I most use, around 40-50x, with plenty of reserves.

However, I'm not sure I would like to use such a monster. I certainly wouldn't like to carry it around with the large (and heavy) tripod+head such a scope needs. I'm not getting any younger, and I can live with the knowledge that I might miss a bird I could have gotten with a larger scope. Birding needs to be fun, not hard work.

Last point: No matter how large the scope is, the quality is always paramount. Why get a big scope if the optics aren't perfect?

Hermann

Good point regarding the atmospheric distortion and maximum zoom level. That is a major factor which should also be taken into account.