Comparison of ATX 95mm and Canon Telephoto lenses (1 Viewer)

Nice review by Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals in the USA of the Swarovski 95mm scope and the new Canon 500mm lens and the 800mm telephoto as well:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...rovski-scopes-pinch-hit-for-a-super-tele-lens

A pretty unfair comparison…

Mostly because of the diffraction (small f-number) scopes have a difficulty in competing with a pure photographic telephoto lens.

The scope solution has a lot more lens elements involved in the light pathway,
probably the significant central longitudinal CA (even at 40x) in the swaro is a result of that,
A bit of TLS APO "optical hybris" I would say, physical laws are hard to overcome, kowas solution I think is a bit more focused on IQ though not as convenient.

But don't forget, the swaro scope is not cheap but still just a third of the canon 500mm lens….
and significantly lighter,
but the main weakness with the swaro solution is not mentions in the article though,
the lack of auto focus,
pretty much like building a house of cards with a stick…

not an unfair comparison - imo...by the way, Roger Cicala is a retired MD and Clay is a representative for Swarovski. Those are the two people who did the test...if it was unfair why would Swarovski have participated on an official level? they knew what they were doing...

people need info to make decisions - this study shows the strengths and weaknesses of digiscoping vs. using a telephoto lens.

rdcny said:

not an unfair comparison - imo...by the way, Roger Cicala is a retired MD and Clay is a representative for Swarovski. Those are the two people who did the test...if it was unfair why would Swarovski have participated on an official level? they knew what they were doing...

people need info to make decisions - this study shows the strengths and weaknesses of digiscoping vs. using a telephoto lens.

Click to expand...

A comparison with Kowa digiscoping equipment would have been more interesting, from the Swaro point of view...

competing with probably the worlds best lenses that costs 3-4 times the price of the scope is pretty unfair.…imo



but one interesting thing is the IQ difference at short and long range comparison,
looking at short range resolution charts doesn't say much about what happens in the real world
observing on long distance

Interesting comparison and a not surprising result. For a birder who takes photographs he is not going to be too swayed by this. But for a photographer who photographs birds and wants to get the best quality possible then this is good to know. Price shouldn't come into this discussion because everyone has different views about how much they want to spend for their hobby and if it's a business ( selling photos) then you most go for the best.
A major difference for me between the two approaches is you get Auto Focus with the lens and you get observing ability with the scope. I wouldn't give up the ability to scan birds out at distance for Auto Focus but I have a friend in India who does both. But he has a car and camera wallah to move his kit around.
Neil.

Thanks Neil - yes for some situations the scope with camera is better...and other situations the camera with telephoto is better.

Overall it is great to see people doing more or less scientific tests (making variables such as distance to subject and lighting) equal - and then comparing results.