Advice on first scope - Vortex vs Kowa? (1 Viewer)

[zonotrichia]

Hello, looking for advice as I research my first scope. Ideally, I am looking for a mid-range angled scope, under $2,000 USD; however, my budget is more a product of long-ingrained frugality than actual financial constraints. I'm willing to go a bit above that for the right scope. I live in Massachusetts, USA, and do not have easy access to scopes to try them out in person.

I mostly bird in the daylight hours (not super early or at dusk) though it is frequently overcast, and we all know that daylight ≠ good light. I do a lot of hiking, though I imagine that a lot of my scope birding would be within a short walk to the car. I would like something versatile and that I won't be looking to replace in a couple of years—because realistically, I won't do that (see above frugality). I'd like to try my hand at digiscoping. I also wear glasses and am a smaller person.

Initially, I had been considering the Vortex Razor 27-60x85mm, based on its solid reviews and reputation in the mid range; it sounds like one of my best options if I want to stick below $2,000. The 85mm objective lens seems like a good choice for the conditions I find myself in, based on what I have read. However, I am unsure if the weight (65.6 oz) would become an issue—especially factoring in tripod, head, and other supplies I tend to carry when in the field. And...will I find myself wishing I had sprung for higher-quality glass at the outset?

So on the other end of the spectrum, I find myself very intrigued by the Kowa TSN-66A, which is currently going for $2,759 USD at B&H for a kit, around $1,000 more than the Vortex. The weight (52.8 oz) is considerably less. It sounds very portable. The reviews are glowing, with some comparing it very favorably to high-end scopes with larger objective lenses. My worry is that it might be less ideal in lower-light situations and I'll wish I'd spent less on a bigger lens (ie, the Razor). For the record, going up to Kowa 88 is beyond my budget, and it doesn't seem like 77m is available anywhere if I want an angled scope.

Can anyone speak to how these two scopes compare, in general and in terms of brightness? It sounds like Kowa is in another league in terms of the quality of the glass, but I'm too much of a newbie to know whether it's even worth it to compare one scope with a 65m lens to another with an 88m lens. Both sound like good scopes, but I'm torn on the size. Any insights very welcome!

As a secondary question, I'd love recommendations on specific tripods/heads for these scopes. I've heard very good things about Manfrotto.

Sam

 

[Binastro]

Opticron Mm4 77mm ?

Regards,
B.

 

[zonotrichia]

Opticron Mm4 77mm ?

Regards,
B.

Ah yes, I've also been considering that scope as well, though haven't read a ton of reviews/comparisons. The 77mm lens with the lighter weight is appealing—essentially on par with the TSN-66A—and the price is certainly right. But I guess my question vis à vis Kowa still stands!

Sam

 

[Tringa45]

Hi Sam, and welcome to birdforum.

Firstly, the Vortex scope is something of an unknown quantity but the Kowa 66A may well be the best medium-sized scope available and, unless you get afflicted with the new acquisition syndrome, could be all you ever need.

Some years ago I bought a Kowa 883 to replace my Swarovski ATM65 HD but thankfully never sold the Swaro. It's just lighter and more comfortable to carry and 95% of the time does all that is required despite a fixed 30x wide angle eyepiece.

Apart from atmospheric conditions, the limiting factor with scopes of this quality will almost always be your own eyesight. To measure the resolution of both scopes I had to use a short focal length astronomical eyepiece for 130x and 140x magnifications respectivly.
Such small exit pupils are very uncomfortable and in practice you may not profit from anything much less than 1,5 mm, i.e 40-45x on the 66A.
However with the Kowa 883 I find situations demanding more than 50x to be very rare. The TE11-WZ 25-60x zoom eyepiece is very good btw.

As regards tripods, this A Tripod Primer is rather old, but most still applies.
Apart from Manfrotto or Gitzo you might like to look at suitable carbon fibre tripods from Feisol, Leofoto or Sirui.
A well-liked head is the Manfrotto MVH500AH, a little heavy maybe, but a good performer and relatively inexpensive.

John

 

[Montereyman]

When I used 8x binoculars a 20-60x spotting scope was advantageous. As I moved to 10x and then 12x and now a stabilized 16x binocular I find I have much less need of a spotting scope and its tripod.

When checking reviews on BH Photo I look at the lowest ratings to see if the problem(s) encountered are relevant for my own uses. I also look for people that have owned similar products and so are in a better position to make a comparison.

On other option is to go to a rifle target range as there will be many people using a scope to check their targets and you can get a feel for the image quality and ease of focusing.

 

[CMB]

Hello, looking for advice as I research my first scope. Ideally, I am looking for a mid-range angled scope, under $2,000 USD; however, my budget is more a product of long-ingrained frugality than actual financial constraints. I'm willing to go a bit above that for the right scope. I live in Massachusetts, USA, and do not have easy access to scopes to try them out in person.

I mostly bird in the daylight hours (not super early or at dusk) though it is frequently overcast, and we all know that daylight ≠ good light. I do a lot of hiking, though I imagine that a lot of my scope birding would be within a short walk to the car. I would like something versatile and that I won't be looking to replace in a couple of years—because realistically, I won't do that (see above frugality). I'd like to try my hand at digiscoping. I also wear glasses and am a smaller person.

Initially, I had been considering the Vortex Razor 27-60x85mm, based on its solid reviews and reputation in the mid range; it sounds like one of my best options if I want to stick below $2,000. The 85mm objective lens seems like a good choice for the conditions I find myself in, based on what I have read. However, I am unsure if the weight (65.6 oz) would become an issue—especially factoring in tripod, head, and other supplies I tend to carry when in the field. And...will I find myself wishing I had sprung for higher-quality glass at the outset?

So on the other end of the spectrum, I find myself very intrigued by the Kowa TSN-66A, which is currently going for $2,759 USD at B&H for a kit, around $1,000 more than the Vortex. The weight (52.8 oz) is considerably less. It sounds very portable. The reviews are glowing, with some comparing it very favorably to high-end scopes with larger objective lenses. My worry is that it might be less ideal in lower-light situations and I'll wish I'd spent less on a bigger lens (ie, the Razor). For the record, going up to Kowa 88 is beyond my budget, and it doesn't seem like 77m is available anywhere if I want an angled scope.

Can anyone speak to how these two scopes compare, in general and in terms of brightness? It sounds like Kowa is in another league in terms of the quality of the glass, but I'm too much of a newbie to know whether it's even worth it to compare one scope with a 65m lens to another with an 88m lens. Both sound like good scopes, but I'm torn on the size. Any insights very welcome!

As a secondary question, I'd love recommendations on specific tripods/heads for these scopes. I've heard very good things about Manfrotto.

Sam

You shared that your budget is based upon frugality rather than actual financial constraints. And you said you don't want to be looking to replace the scope in a couple years... spend the extra and start with a Kowa or Swaro ATS.

In terms of what size, 65 vs 80+ mm... Really think about how you plan to use the scope, and how much weight your are willing to carry. The extra resolution an 80+ mm scope provides is nice, especially on cloudy days, or when looking over larger bodies of water or longer distances. But the weight when moving and carrying 80+ mm scope all day is also very real.

If you are unsure order a Kowa/Swaro and Vortex (or all three) from B&H and do a side by side comparison at your home. Return the one(s) you don't like.

Vortex is popular in the US because of price, ease of ability to purchase, and warranty. They are heavily marketed to hunters and are carried in all the big box hunting/fishing stores (Bass Pro shops, Cabela's, etc.). Personal opinion here, but all the Vortex optics I have owned/used have been heavy, slow to focus, and have not had the greatest optics. There are other brands that do as good, or better, for the same price.

Everybody has their own personal story of why they are using the gear they use. We started with an 80+ mm scope because we knew we would always appreciate the extra resolution. We have never regretted starting with (and having) a larger scope. We've never regretted buying an alpha brand/quality scope.

Large scopes do get heavy. I regularly carry our large scope 2-3 miles. Longer than that and these days I take a smaller and lighter scope, and accept the decreased brightness and resolution as an acceptable trade off. After several years we added an Opticron MM4 60mm specifically for days we knew we would be walking/hiking longer distances, specifically for the combination of weight and size. We have no complaints about the optical quality of the MM4 60mm given the combination of price, weight, and size.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I don’t have any idea what the second hand telescope market is like in your country but, living here in the U.K., I would investigate prices in Swarovski ATS65 or ATS80

 

[Tringa45]

When I used 8x binoculars a 20-60x spotting scope was advantageous. As I moved to 10x and then 12x and now a stabilized 16x binocular I find I have much less need of a spotting scope and its tripod.

The advantages of hand-held 10x or12x vs. 8x are marginal and there are many birding applications, e.g. waders, where 16x would seldom be enough.

The extra resolution an 80+ mm scope provides is nice, especially on cloudy days, or when looking over larger bodies of water or longer distances. But the weight when moving and carrying 80+ mm scope all day is also very real.

Discounting mediocre scopes and the occasional lemon amongst the premium scopes, your observing eye is more likely to be the limiting factor.
Below an exit pupil of 2 mm you not only lose brightness, but the resolution of your observing eye will begin to be impaired by diffraction effects.
For the same exit pupil the larger scope will allow a higher magnification and, for me, the crossover point terrestrially is at about 1,5 mm exit pupil which is reflected approximately by the upper zoom magnifications on many scopes.
I once performed a side by side comparison between the Kowa 883 at 60x and the ATM65 HD also at 60x with a 7,5 mm astro eyepiece.
I observed a license plate at a measured 66 m from an elevated position in direct sunlight and could read 3 mm lettering on a district seal in both.
However, when a few minutes later the target fell into shadow I could still read it with 1,5 mm exit pupil in the larger scope but no longer at 1,1 mm in the smaller scope.

John

 

[zonotrichia]

Thank you, everyone! A lot to chew over.

I am very rarely afflicted with new acquisition syndrome, and it's likely that I'll end up keeping whatever I buy for a very long while—hence my thinking it would be better to spring for the higher-quality glass now. (I have been using the same pair of Nikon Monarch 3 8x42 bins for the past 12 years and only now am considering upgrading...maybe.)

I live inland, though by a river, and we do get an interesting assortment of waterfowl in the winter and shorebirds during migration in the fields. Trips to the coast are limited to 1-2 times per year in general; I don't think seawatching is in my future. At the moment, when shorebirding I have to rely on my aging Canon Powershot SX50 (and no tripod) for ID purposes—a frustrating setup to be sure. So really anything will be an improvement

The objective lens size is my main quandary, at the moment. The extra weight associated with larger lenses is one that I don't want to overlook, particularly as I'm currently dealing with some shoulder issues.

It does look like there is an independent birdwatching supply shop ~2 hours from me on the coast that sells Kowa, Swaro, Opticron, among other scopes; no Vortex, but a Cabela's 1 hour away (in the other direction) has them in stock. So I do have some options to try different models out, if I make a day/weekend of it.

 

[Tringa45]

Sam,

Get one of these USAF-Auflösungstestbild Taschenformat | Edmund Optics.
Set up at as little as 10-15 m it will not only enable you to compare central sharpness and longitudinal CA but will also also reveal astigmatism, field curvature and lateral CA at the field edge. Ensure it is well illuminated.

John

 

[Montereyman]

Check out the email price from BH Photo for Vortex scopes and binoculars. Often the emailed price is 30% lower than the price shown on websites.

 

[zonotrichia]

Check out the email price from BH Photo for Vortex scopes and binoculars. Often the emailed price is 30% lower than the price shown on websites.

Can you explain what you mean by "email price"? Does B&H have deals exclusive to email subscribers, or something else?

 

[zonotrichia]

After doing more research, I discovered that Mass Audubon (the major bird/conservation organization in my state) actually has an optics shop at one of their locations, just a little over an hour from me. And members (of which I am one) get a 15% discount on all scopes, with some models like the ATX having special discounts. So it looks like I will be paying them a visit soon! It will be great to try them out in person, and to also talk to actual birders about the pros/cons of each. Per the person I spoke to, they carry:

Kowa

• Prominar 55, 14-45x
• Prominar 66A, 25-60x
• Prominar 773, 25-60x (I'm particularly interested in this, even without the fluorite lens)
• Prominar 88A, 25-60x
• TSN-82SV 82mm

Swarovski

• ATS 65 mm and 80 mm (both 20-60xz and 25-50 WW)
• ATX modular line, with 85 mm and 95mm objectives in stock

Nikon

• Prostaff 5 60 mm and 82 mm

Vanguard

• VEO HD 60mm, 15-45 lens

I'm very interested to see how the 66A vs 773 end up comparing. They also carry tripods from Manfrotto and Vanguard, but I'll have to see how the stack up compared to online.

 

[zonotrichia]

To circle back, does anyone have opinions/thoughts about the Kowa 773 compared to the new 66A? The 773 does not have the fluorite lens, but I am wondering if the larger objective lens might help compensate for that a bit. The portability of the 66A was what originally piqued my interest, and the 773 seems only marginally heavier. My hope is that it might also be cheaper, being discontinued. (I originally assumed that it wouldn't be available at all anywhere, hence my leaving it out of my previous hypothetical comparisons.)

I know a lot will become clear once I am actually able to try these out for myself, but until that point... here I am

 

[zonotrichia]

I made it out the the optics shop this afternoon and spent almost 3 hours trying out different models (from budget to top-line) with the very helpful salesperson. (Luckily for me, it was a slow afternoon for them.) Surprising myself, I ended up going home with a Swarovski ATS 65mm with 20-60x eyepiece! And saved almost $500 with the member discounts I had, when all was said and done.

In the end, for scopes in my price range, it came down between that and the Kowa 773. I really liked the Kowa (especially the focus knobs), and very much thought I would end up choosing it in the end. I'm hoping that I do not end up regretting going for a smaller objective lense! That said, the weight different felt considerable to my shoulders (tense and tired after too much driving over the past several days). And getting behind both scopes, particularly outside in various locations, I felt myself needing to adjust my eyes/body more to get a good look through the Kowa eyepiece, even after adjusting the eye relief. Whereas with the Swaro, there was less squinting and moving around. Could not tell you why this was the case; maybe my poor eyesight! In any case, my eyes were exhausted by the time I headed back to my car purchase, but in the end I think I'm glad to go with the scope that gave my body the easiest viewing experience.

Also had a chance to try out a couple of different tripods, and it was amazing how much the image quality changed with different set ups. I went with a Manfrotto 290x with 128RC fluid head.

Very excited to try this out in the field!