Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
More discoveries. NEW: Zeiss Victory SF 32

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Vortex Razor 85 HD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 1st August 2010, 07:39   #1
Martin Fagg
Registered Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 804
Vortex Razor 85 HD

Hi,

has anyone got any experience of this scope?

I have searched here and on the net but there is no new opinion since last time I looked some months or even a year ago or more.

Not many people had seen the scope at that time but some were saying it was near top gun performance at half the price, others were less willing to believe this but hadn't tried the scope out.

Has anyone got any direct experience of it yet?

Best wishes
Martin
Martin Fagg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 1st August 2010, 20:32   #2
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
Martin,

I was just recently looking at scope reviews and found a very favorable one of the Razor. I think it was birdwatching.com where they compared several of the new top scopes as well as the Razor, the Celestron Regal and a few others. From what I remember reading they thought the Razor was a superb performer just a tick behind the Swaro/Leicas and noticeably ahead of most of the others in its price range.

Haven't seen one myself but wouldn't mind taking a peek through one if the opportunity presents itself.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 1st August 2010, 22:10   #3
michael23
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 1,034
this review here?

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...igh/index.html
michael23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd August 2010, 04:01   #4
FrankD
Registered User
 
FrankD's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 8,421
That would be the one.
FrankD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd August 2010, 12:21   #5
Martin Fagg
Registered Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 804
That review is what got me interested. It sounds too good to be true. I looked around for more opinions but there is very little out there.

There's a shop not too far away that stocks it. I'll have to have a look see next time I'm out that way.
Martin Fagg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd August 2010, 13:41   #6
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,591
The Porters seem to be making a genuine effort to improve their telescope reviews, but there are still basic problems in their methods and reporting that should be pointed out to anyone relying on them.

I would ignore the resolution numbers in the test which have been so dumbed down that they're useless. Why did they go to the trouble to measure resolution and then not report the actual measurements in the chart? Is the numbering system they use weighted to allow for resolution differences related to aperture or is it simply based on raw resolution? In some cases it appears to understate and in others to exaggerate the probable measurement differences among the scopes. Why not just give us the measurements? Then there is the anomalously poor resolution number for the Nikon EDG (whether weighted or not). Almost certainly this specimen was defective and shouldn't have been tested alongside non-defective scopes. Before any comparison test like this all the scopes should be star tested for sample defects.

The "lowest eye relief" measurement for the zooms was done at the highest magnification. That's the wrong place to measure because the shortest eye relief usually occurs in the middle of the zoom range.

Last edited by henry link : Monday 2nd August 2010 at 15:06.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 4th August 2010, 06:44   #7
Martin Fagg
Registered Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
The Porters seem to be making a genuine effort to improve their telescope reviews, but there are still basic problems in their methods and reporting that should be pointed out to anyone relying on them.

I would ignore the resolution numbers in the test which have been so dumbed down that they're useless. Why did they go to the trouble to measure resolution and then not report the actual measurements in the chart? Is the numbering system they use weighted to allow for resolution differences related to aperture or is it simply based on raw resolution? In some cases it appears to understate and in others to exaggerate the probable measurement differences among the scopes. Why not just give us the measurements? Then there is the anomalously poor resolution number for the Nikon EDG (whether weighted or not). Almost certainly this specimen was defective and shouldn't have been tested alongside non-defective scopes. Before any comparison test like this all the scopes should be star tested for sample defects.

The "lowest eye relief" measurement for the zooms was done at the highest magnification. That's the wrong place to measure because the shortest eye relief usually occurs in the middle of the zoom range.
I always try to remember to take everything I read about optics with a pinch of salt.
Reviews are good to point you in the right direction but you've got to believe in your own eyes and common sense and try them out. If they're no good for you, it doesn't matter how highly others rate them.
Martin Fagg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th August 2010, 16:49   #8
jourdaj
Registered User
 
jourdaj's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wyandotte, MI
Posts: 530
I had the opportunity to evaluate one of these scopes earlier this year and found the view to be exceptionally sharp and bright. I made a point to look for edge softness, and found nothing disconcerting. Chromatic abberation was also not a problem, even on high contrast areas like white siding and blue skies. For the price its an excellent scope and an excellent buy. I'd certainly recommend it!
__________________
Jerry Jourdan
http://birdingthroughglass.blogspot.com
jourdaj is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 5th August 2010, 19:51   #9
Martin Fagg
Registered Member

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by jourdaj View Post
I had the opportunity to evaluate one of these scopes earlier this year and found the view to be exceptionally sharp and bright. I made a point to look for edge softness, and found nothing disconcerting. Chromatic abberation was also not a problem, even on high contrast areas like white siding and blue skies. For the price its an excellent scope and an excellent buy. I'd certainly recommend it!
Thanks Jerry. It seems you are one of the few with direct experience. Thanks for your input.
Martin Fagg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Vortex Razor 85 APO albatrosviajero Vortex 23 Tuesday 15th September 2009 19:27
Vortex Viper vs. Razor? Banjovi Vortex 15 Saturday 23rd August 2008 23:41
Vortex Razor djaburg Vortex 10 Thursday 31st May 2007 16:46
Vortex Razor Lewie Binoculars 30 Thursday 1st February 2007 12:51

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.13903189 seconds with 21 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:59.