15-45x 50mm or 20-60x 60mm - spotting scope (1 Viewer)

• 15-45x with 50mm objective
• 20-60x with a 60mm objective

Kenny08 said:

Hi all:

I'm a relatively new birder and need some direction please - thanks in advance.

I currently have a 7x35 binocular which I want to complement with a spotting scope.

I've been considering either the following:

• 15-45x with 50mm objective
• 20-60x with a 60mm objective

I was going to go for the 15-45x because it's smaller and lighter, but if the 20-60 is more practical, I will go for that at the sacrifice of size / weight.

Thoughts?

Thank yoiu!

Click to expand...

Kenny08 said:

Hi all:

I'm a relatively new birder and need some direction please - thanks in advance.

I currently have a 7x35 binocular which I want to complement with a spotting scope.

I've been considering either the following:

• 15-45x with 50mm objective
• 20-60x with a 60mm objective

I was going to go for the 15-45x because it's smaller and lighter, but if the 20-60 is more practical, I will go for that at the sacrifice of size / weight.

Thoughts?

Thank yoiu!

Click to expand...

Kenny08 said:

Hi all:

I'm a relatively new birder and need some direction please - thanks in advance.

I currently have a 7x35 binocular which I want to complement with a spotting scope.

I've been considering either the following:

• 15-45x with 50mm objective
• 20-60x with a 60mm objective

I was going to go for the 15-45x because it's smaller and lighter, but if the 20-60 is more practical, I will go for that at the sacrifice of size / weight.

Thoughts?

Thank yoiu!

Click to expand...

horukuru said:

I have used the Nikon ED50 with fixed 30x eyepiece. It was great in the dark rainforest plus lighter too allowing me to walked up and down the hill without any problem. When I started to used the Swarovski STX65 scope, the view is more enjoyable because of the bigger aperture.

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

Welcome back! Your insights have been missed.

Agree on both counts, my 60mm Nikon EDIII offers a more comfortable view, but the little ED50 with the 27x wide angle eyepiece is super portable and still performs.

Click to expand...

Kammerdiner said:

Budget is always important, but so is size/weight. If you don't think you'll be carrying scope + tripod very far, then go for aperture. After that think about budget.

A lot depends upon how far afield you want to go. I use a Nikon 50mm ED + 27x wide and I can carry that all day if need be. Not a bother.

On the other hand, my big scope is 82mm with a commensurate tripod and carrying it a few miles is about it for that one. It's better, sure, but you weigh (haha!) the cost and benefit.

Split the difference? Think of a 60-65mm and a nice carbon tripod. It could be 20-60x and the only scope you need. As with most things in life, however, you may have to experiment to find what you like.

PS: good to see you again horukuru. You know what works in the field!!

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

I was speaking to a scope designer recently and he said that the idea that smaller scopes should have a lighter tripod is wrong. He said of course a heavier scope needs a tripod strong enough and so heavier, but he said to remain steady in a strong wind a lightweight small scope also needs a heavy tripod because its lack of weight makes it even more likely to vibrate in the wind or from just touching it to adjust the focus or zoom. The choice of a light tripod with a light scope is valid, he said, to be able to walk long distances with it, but this is putting portability in front of vibration suppression.

Just reporting.

Lee

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

I was speaking to a scope designer recently and he said that the idea that smaller scopes should have a lighter tripod is wrong. He said of course a heavier scope needs a tripod strong enough and so heavier, but he said to remain steady in a strong wind a lightweight small scope also needs a heavy tripod because its lack of weight makes it even more likely to vibrate in the wind or from just touching it to adjust the focus or zoom. The choice of a light tripod with a light scope is valid, he said, to be able to walk long distances with it, but this is putting portability in front of vibration suppression.

Just reporting.

Lee

Click to expand...

Kammerdiner said:

I'd agree with that...but if I'm willing to carry a bigger tripod I'd probably also be willing to carry a bigger scope to go with it, wouldn't I? It's kind of a Catch 22...

Click to expand...

Kammerdiner said:

I'd agree with that...but if I'm willing to carry a bigger tripod I'd probably also be willing to carry a bigger scope to go with it, wouldn't I? It's kind of a Catch 22.

I was on the west coast recently, out on a point by a lighthouse, and the wind rendered my little scope/tripod pretty much useless. No surprise there. No scope would have been much good in that wind. But out of the wind I also got the best views of a little Rock Wren that I've ever had with the scope. So, you do what you can.

At another point in our walk (it was about 10 miles), we watched Northern Elephant Seals with their new pups. The park service had clamped a couple scopes to fence posts for visitors to use. That's the ultimate in stability! But it's not very portable. So there's always a compromise it seems.

Click to expand...

Alexis Powell said:

I agree as well, but I'd point out on more thing to consider. Light weight tripods can be very stable when shortened to kneeling or sitting height, especially if weighted with a bag. Consequently, I prefer a tripod that extends to the maximum height that I prefer when conditions allow, but also works well when shortened (e.g. allows wider leg spread). Many ultralight tripods are both too short _and_ don't work well as a ground pod. My choice for my Nikon ED50 Fieldscope is the Velbon Ultra 455 with a good small ballhead (I use Really Right Stuff BH-25 Pro). It is super fast to set up or adjust, allows variable leg spread, goes nice and tall for my straight scope, and is solid when short.

--AP

Click to expand...