I was recently in the market for a second spotting scope for an upcoming trip, and as a first scope for my daughter when she goes of to college in the fall. Only two scopes fell within the budget set aside for this, the Vanguard and the Celestron Regal 65 F-ED. I ended up ordering both, since there are no reviews of the Vanguard yet. So, I thought I would give some initial impressions after a weekend of use. I was also able to do some quick comparisons to my Zeiss 85mm and a Vortex Viper HD 80mm.
Both the Celestron and Vanguard are sharp and have excellent contrast. The Vanguard is MUCH brighter than the Celestron. There is more difference than I would think the increase in aperture would account for. The coatings on both scopes have a green reflection. The coatings on the Celestron are very dark and the green reflection can be easily seen. The coatings on the Vanguard are almost totally transparent, with just a slight hint of green. Vanguard also states that they use phase coated roof prisms, and very high quality glass. I wonder if these differences provide a higher transmission. In fact, the Vanguard is brighter than the Vortex, and very close to the Zeiss.
Apparent sharpness is about equal up to 30x on both scopes, with the Celestron perhaps taking a slight lead. Above 30x the Vanguard was the clear winner, with a very sharp image up to ~50x, and it was still sharper at 60x than the Celestron is at 48x. I would put the sharpness between the Vanguard and Vortex equal, with a very slight advantage to the Vanguard above 50x. The Zeiss was sharper across the board, but not by much. All the scopes had acceptable "sweet spots" and none appeared soft at the edges during use.
In low light use, the Vanguard beat the Celestron, by a large margin. It was also slightly brighter than the Vortex, and the image was crisper, for lack of a better term. There was no comparison between any of them and the Zeiss, but the Vanguard and Vortex held their own, and both gave perfectly acceptable images.
Chromatic aberrations are well controlled, in fact almost non-existent, in both scopes. The Celestron shows a LOT of internal reflections, the interior is not blackened well in some spots, and looking at the eyepiece end shows a lot of false pupils/stray light. There were also some occurrences of ghost images while using the scope, if eye placement was not dead centered. The Vanguard is well blackened, and there were no internal reflections visible. There were also no false pupils, but above 50x, there is a small ring of light around the edges in the eyepiece, but it does not seem to affect the field of view.
Both scopes had a generous field of view, which appeared equal at equivalent magnifications. They also both appeared to have a wider field of view than the Vortex, even though the specs are the same.
The Vanguard is smaller and lighter than the Celestron, but actually feels better built. The focusing on the Vanguard is super smooth, although with just a touch more resistance that I would like, and both coarse and fine focus work as they should. Vanguard includes a very nice view through case, with carrying strap, and all other accessories are good quality. This scope appears built to last, and comes with a lifetime no-fault warranty. The Celestron is big and heavy, it comes with a case, but it is not view through. The focus, while smooth, is very long. It takes a lot of turns and time to go from close to infinity. The scope feels well made, but only comes with a limited lifetime warranty. The Vanguard is also balanced very well, while the Celestron is very back heavy. I have to really crank down on the tension on the tripod head to keep the Celestron from tipping, while there are no problems with the Vanguard in this area.
The only plus to either the Vortex or Celestron scopes is the availability of fixed eyepieces. I spoke with Vanguard, and there are no plans for a fixed eyepiece at this time. However, the badder 13mm will sit in the Vanguard, and focus to infinity. I believe an adapter can easily be made, and plan on doing so after the trip.
All in all, the Vanguard is a great scope, for a great price. While the image quality is not quite on par with the Zeiss, it is very close (its actually scary how close it really is) for 1/5 of the price. In my opinion, it beats the Vortex which is almost twice as much. I would like a chance to compare it to the 80mm Celestron, but I get the feeling it would still come out the winner, and for less money. To sum it up, the Celestron went to the post office this morning for its return trip! I am very impressed with the Vanguard.
Kevin
Both the Celestron and Vanguard are sharp and have excellent contrast. The Vanguard is MUCH brighter than the Celestron. There is more difference than I would think the increase in aperture would account for. The coatings on both scopes have a green reflection. The coatings on the Celestron are very dark and the green reflection can be easily seen. The coatings on the Vanguard are almost totally transparent, with just a slight hint of green. Vanguard also states that they use phase coated roof prisms, and very high quality glass. I wonder if these differences provide a higher transmission. In fact, the Vanguard is brighter than the Vortex, and very close to the Zeiss.
Apparent sharpness is about equal up to 30x on both scopes, with the Celestron perhaps taking a slight lead. Above 30x the Vanguard was the clear winner, with a very sharp image up to ~50x, and it was still sharper at 60x than the Celestron is at 48x. I would put the sharpness between the Vanguard and Vortex equal, with a very slight advantage to the Vanguard above 50x. The Zeiss was sharper across the board, but not by much. All the scopes had acceptable "sweet spots" and none appeared soft at the edges during use.
In low light use, the Vanguard beat the Celestron, by a large margin. It was also slightly brighter than the Vortex, and the image was crisper, for lack of a better term. There was no comparison between any of them and the Zeiss, but the Vanguard and Vortex held their own, and both gave perfectly acceptable images.
Chromatic aberrations are well controlled, in fact almost non-existent, in both scopes. The Celestron shows a LOT of internal reflections, the interior is not blackened well in some spots, and looking at the eyepiece end shows a lot of false pupils/stray light. There were also some occurrences of ghost images while using the scope, if eye placement was not dead centered. The Vanguard is well blackened, and there were no internal reflections visible. There were also no false pupils, but above 50x, there is a small ring of light around the edges in the eyepiece, but it does not seem to affect the field of view.
Both scopes had a generous field of view, which appeared equal at equivalent magnifications. They also both appeared to have a wider field of view than the Vortex, even though the specs are the same.
The Vanguard is smaller and lighter than the Celestron, but actually feels better built. The focusing on the Vanguard is super smooth, although with just a touch more resistance that I would like, and both coarse and fine focus work as they should. Vanguard includes a very nice view through case, with carrying strap, and all other accessories are good quality. This scope appears built to last, and comes with a lifetime no-fault warranty. The Celestron is big and heavy, it comes with a case, but it is not view through. The focus, while smooth, is very long. It takes a lot of turns and time to go from close to infinity. The scope feels well made, but only comes with a limited lifetime warranty. The Vanguard is also balanced very well, while the Celestron is very back heavy. I have to really crank down on the tension on the tripod head to keep the Celestron from tipping, while there are no problems with the Vanguard in this area.
The only plus to either the Vortex or Celestron scopes is the availability of fixed eyepieces. I spoke with Vanguard, and there are no plans for a fixed eyepiece at this time. However, the badder 13mm will sit in the Vanguard, and focus to infinity. I believe an adapter can easily be made, and plan on doing so after the trip.
All in all, the Vanguard is a great scope, for a great price. While the image quality is not quite on par with the Zeiss, it is very close (its actually scary how close it really is) for 1/5 of the price. In my opinion, it beats the Vortex which is almost twice as much. I would like a chance to compare it to the 80mm Celestron, but I get the feeling it would still come out the winner, and for less money. To sum it up, the Celestron went to the post office this morning for its return trip! I am very impressed with the Vanguard.
Kevin
Last edited:
