65 - 80? HD - non HD? (1 Viewer)

decathlon · Nov 23, 2009

So I went to "outdoor world" aka "bass pro shop" in Los Angeles today and compared the 65, 65hd, 80, and 80hd, together looking at the same objects from 500 yards to a mile away, and i HONESTLY could not see much difference between ANY of them... they all seemed top notch to me.

Apparently I should have been observing something during sunset with less light, but mid-day at all various distances, all 4 scopes seemed pretty much identical. The small differences I noticed were negligible in my opinion...

SO - on that note - am I missing something? Everyone says the HD is SO much better and always go with the HD... I am in the market for one of these, but as of right now I am tempted to go with the non-hd 65 because its the cheapest...

BUT - with the prices dropping right now because of the M's coming out, with all the hype about the HD versions, its hard not to spend a couple extra hundred and get the "best"...

Thanks!

JJ

RJM · Nov 23, 2009

If you want real value you should look through a Kowa or a Nikon. And you use the stack of $100s you'll save for other toys.

Rick

dalat · Nov 23, 2009

Hi,
I myself have no experience with either, I just can quote from another (German) forum. There some contributers, including the optics dealer who runs the forum, have stated that for the 65 mm scopes the HD makes only a very slight difference, whereas with the 80 mm version it's noticable.
Florian

fugl · Nov 23, 2009

decathlon said:
So I went to "outdoor world" aka "bass pro shop" in Los Angeles today and compared the 65, 65hd, 80, and 80hd, together looking at the same objects from 500 yards to a mile away, and i HONESTLY could not see much difference between ANY of them... they all seemed top notch to me.

Apparently I should have been observing something during sunset with less light, but mid-day at all various distances, all 4 scopes seemed pretty much identical. The small differences I noticed were negligible in my opinion...

SO - on that note - am I missing something? Everyone says the HD is SO much better and always go with the HD... I am in the market for one of these, but as of right now I am tempted to go with the non-hd 65 because its the cheapest...

BUT - with the prices dropping right now because of the M's coming out, with all the hype about the HD versions, its hard not to spend a couple extra hundred and get the "best"...

That’s what I’d do—get the HD. As you say, if you’re going to lay out all that money for an alpha brand anyway why not spend the little extra it takes to get the best it has to offer? In my experience, where HD/ED/APO type glass comes into its own is not in ordinary viewing but in challenging situations: back-lighting, strong glare, deep shadow.

jdlittle58 · Nov 23, 2009

It's easy to say 'spend the extra money and get the best' and I do agree with that if the 'extra' is not making a difference elsewhere, but for many it does make a difference----I have both and cannot easily see a difference----

karmantra · Nov 23, 2009

I have a non-HD ATS 65 & a ATS 80 HD--I have compared the non-HD 65 against an ATS 65 HD and found a very slight gain in resolution for the HD, but in bright sunlight, the HD had much less CA than the non-HD model, the difference was quite noticeable at higher magnifications. If you don't see CA, then the non-HD may be best for you. Have you checked online retailers such as Eagle Optics for pricing? It used to be that the price differences between non-HD & HD glass was a +$600 difference between the models--now the pricing is approximately $360 difference in the Swaro 80s & $430 difference in the Swaro 65s. Also be aware that what you looked through at Bass may be old stock without the latest lens coatings by Swarovski--the newest ATS-STS models will have updated coatings. In regards to zoom eyepieces, both the 25-50x & 20-60x are great--however, I tried the new 25-50x zoom and had to take it back because of constant blackouts while looking through it, no problem with blackouts with the 20-60x.

decathlon · Nov 23, 2009

karmantra said:
I have a non-HD ATS 65 & a ATS 80 HD--I have compared the non-HD 65 against an ATS 65 HD and found a very slight gain in resolution for the HD, but in bright sunlight, the HD had much less CA than the non-HD model, the difference was quite noticeable at higher magnifications. If you don't see CA, then the non-HD may be best for you. Have you checked online retailers such as Eagle Optics for pricing? It used to be that the price differences between non-HD & HD glass was a +$600 difference between the models--now the pricing is approximately $360 difference in the Swaro 80s & $430 difference in the Swaro 65s. Also be aware that what you looked through at Bass may be old stock without the latest lens coatings by Swarovski--the newest ATS-STS models will have updated coatings. In regards to zoom eyepieces, both the 25-50x & 20-60x are great--however, I tried the new 25-50x zoom and had to take it back because of constant blackouts while looking through it, no problem with blackouts with the 20-60x.

What is "CA"? Sorry - Newbie here... at bass pro they were selling the Swaro 65 non-HD for 899. That was the best price on that model, but for other models I think eagle optics has the best prices...

Not sure what coatings the glass had on them... They were new from the store so I assume they were the latest stock from Swaro but who knows?...

karmantra · Nov 24, 2009

CA stands for chromatic abberation--it is where fringes of color, usually green, blue or purple, will show along the edges of where a dark object is next to a bright light, say a blackbird against a bright blue sky. Wikipedia, under the term chromatic abberation, shows a good photo of it. HD glass minimizes CA to a large extent to where very little if any will show at high magnification, non-HD glass will tend to show it more at the higher mags, say 40-60x. I use a 30x fixed lens on my non-HD ATS 65 and do not notice it--I certainly do notice it when I have my 20-60x zoom at higher mags mounted on it. $899 is a great price for a non-HD ATS 65 (body only?). However, if you are looking to put a zoom on your Swaro, I would probably go with the HD version--you might want to go back to Bass & compare the non-HD & HD outside with a dark object against a bright sky & see if CA might be an issue with you before buying.

decathlon · Nov 24, 2009

I looked up chromatic abberation on wiki and read about it. I have seen that before but didnt know what it was called. I didnt notice it on the non-HD swaros but I was not looking at a darker object with a bright background...

I ended up buying the non hd 65 for 899 because of the price - but I will be also using it more than once a week in the next several months and will look out for CA distortion. Maybe Ill end up selling it on ebay and buy an HD. The eagle optics price is VERY good. It makes it easy to justify buying a new one compared to a used one on ebay...

I also bought a tripod today. I ended up getting a SLIK 614CF.. at the local camera shop for about 240. SUPERLIGHT and can go very short and normal height. I will be hiking/backpacking with it mostly so I am excited to use it! The head I bought was a small (lightweight) manfrotto 234rc (or something like it) simple head to keep it less bulky an light weight for backpacking...

thanks to all of you for the information and opinions!

JJ

karmantra · Nov 24, 2009

Decathlon: You bought a great scope at a great price! You will enjoy it!

kristoffer · Nov 24, 2009

Yes, i am sure you will enjoy it. the 65/80mm ats got the best ergonomics of all scopes with its rubber body and heliocentric focus (wont get stuck on stuff like the focuser on kowa/leica etc). ALso the optics is world class.

65 - 80? HD - non HD? (1 Viewer)

More options

decathlon

Member

RJM

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

dalat

...

fugl

Well-known member

jdlittle58

Active member

karmantra

Well-known member

decathlon

Member

karmantra

Well-known member

decathlon

Member

karmantra

Well-known member

kristoffer

Used Register

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread