• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Spotting scope very light?? (1 Viewer)

wachipilotes

Well-known member
Hello,
I'm thinking of acquiring a very light equipment, a spotting scope of about 65 or 80mm, but very very little weight, this is essential since I could use it with a very light tripod ...
thanks for your comments.
Wachi
 
Well I hope I’m not laughed out of the forums for this one,,,,but.....

I have an Alpen 20x50 mini spotting scope that is about the size of a dollar bill. It only weighs 11 ounces. It received a lot of glowing magazine reviews. So for under a hundred bucks I figured I try it. It definitely performs above its price range.

Alpen is no longer in business but there is some new inventory left over and you can find them on eBay
 
I suppose a lot depends on your budget and what you're intending to do, but i can recommend the Swaro ATX65HD on perhaps a Manfrotto 700RC2 or Gitzo 1720QR fluid head, atop a set of CF legs for a good warm-weather, long-walk set-up that wouldn't let you down in almost all circumstances.
 
I suppose a lot depends on your budget and what you're intending to do, but i can recommend the Swaro ATX65HD on perhaps a Manfrotto 700RC2 or Gitzo 1720QR fluid head, atop a set of CF legs for a good warm-weather, long-walk set-up that wouldn't let you down in almost all circumstances.

Paddy,

IMHO the ATX 65 is not a good choice unless one is later going to acquire an 85 or 95 mm objective module. It's 140 g heavier and MUCH more expensive than an ATS 65HD with 25-50x ocular (or did you mean this, as I know you have one?).
Even an ATS 80HD only weighs 90 g more than the ATX 65, costs about the same, and might be all one would ever want.

John
 
Sorry - that was a mistype i didn't notice, what with the X and S being so close on the keyboard. I of course meant the ATS65HD. I think the ATX only offers the advantage of adaptability for the 95mm objective module, but if looking for a lightweight set-up, would go for the ATS every time.
 
That edge to edge quality is fairly easy to reach with with such a narrow field of view at the low mag end...

Sure. However, I'm usually not too worried about the field of view. Kimmo's cable-tie trick makes finding stuff even with a small field of view quite easy IME. I personally find the optical quality at high magnifications far more important. I'd hate to miss an ID because the scope goes all mushy at 40x ...

But then I'm used to small field of view at low magnifications with my Nikon Fieldscopes.

Hermann
 
Hi Hermann,

like you I love a sharp image at 40x plus - but I think it can be had for less money than with the 550.

You are right, the zoom EPs for the Nikon fieldscopes might be even a bit narrower than the EP at the 550 - but there you can use the glorious fixed EPs...

Did you notice a mushy image at 40x with an ED50?

Joachim
 
TSN-550 has an AFOV in the 40° range. Quite narrow for the price range.
I also saw a bit more CA in it than I expected in a fluorite scope.
 
Last edited:
Did you notice a mushy image at 40x with an ED50?

No, not really. But the exit pupil is pretty small, and the image gets a bit dark. Not mushy, but dark. In other words: 40x works, but I'd much rather use a 60mm scope at 40x.

That said, I looked though several scopes, 60 mm and larger, even some made by renowned manufacturers, that went mushy at 40x. Sample variation. Lemons. That's why I wouldn't buy a scope without carefully checking the optical quality. And that's where Henry's and Kimmo's tips on how to test a scope are really, really useful. Because you can't really judge the quality of a scope without doing some thorough side-by-side comparisons with a scope of known quality or, even better, a star test.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
If you want a really light scope in the 82 mm class,an old kowa 823 would be about the lighter rig you can get ..my 823 scope ,with hyperion zoom ,manfrotto 441 carbón trípode and a light ball head weights 3.3 kg... more or less..
Kowa 663 also seems a light scope..or kowa 603 ,super light....or 613 even lighter... ...heck the 550 is too expensive to be considered " light"!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
My MM4-60 is clear and sharp at 40x, and with the v2 also with a >60°-field; I can compare it with my DiaScope 85. But in not so favourite conditions (very cloudy, near dawn) it's noticable dimmer than the Zeiss due to the size of the exit pupil, that's physics.
The Kowas (e.g. the 663) seems to join with the Opticron v2-zoom - this is very narrow at the lower end, but I need 15x only for the exit pupil, the field at 20x is exactly the same.

I think, too light doesn't make to much sense - in weak wind it leads to a shaky picture, I upsized the opticron tripod with a 2532 systematic which have also a wider leg-angle (23° vs. 20°) for more stability. (But you don't need a gitzo to be happy…) If it has to be a light setup, take a tripod (+fluid head + height of the ocular) that matches your height of your eyes without the center column ejected - otherwise you'll loose much stability.

good decision
Manfred
 
I have a Minox MD62, diameter 62mm, 20x EP. Got higher-magnification eyepieces, but returned them, as digiscoping results were disappointing. When given the chance to look through a top Swarovski scope, it was a difference like night and day. Thus I am tempted, like the OP here, to get a 80mm scope... but weight and costs are a limit.

Is something terribly wrong with the Chinese Svbony SV46 scope? Its BaK-4 glass may not be "European quality", it may suffer from chromatic aberration, but is there something in the data that shouts "avoid!" to the scope experts? There are a couple of mixed reviews on amazon.com of their less expensive SV13 model.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top