• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Athlon Ares G2 UHD 65mm spotter a pleasing surprise (1 Viewer)

glennd

Active member
United States
Hi Bird Forum folks,
My serious birding days were over about 45 years ago. I’m nibbling on the edges again, having decided to point optics at the earth for the first time in ages after taking up astronomy 30 years ago. With this background I wanted to offer a less than fully informed opinion of the Athlon Ares G2 UHD 65mm spotter with 15-45x zoom eyepiece.

As a long time user of high end apochromatic refractors on the night sky I thought I would start at the top of the food chain and began looking at the usual suspects. I got superb advice from many BF members after posting a question on spotter selection. Aperture got smaller and smaller as the budget became increasingly realistic. I began to wonder if some of the well regarded lower cost offerings would suit my needs, especially considering that the hot birding scope of my early days was the B&L Zoom 60. I tried an Svbony SV406P which I thought had astonishingly good optics for the money but the mechanics seemed a bit vulnerable to me so it was returned. My preference in this type of application is a barrel focuser and the Athlon Ares 65mm angled spotter caught my eye. They come equipped with a 15-45x zoom producing about 3.2 degree TFOV at 15x, dropping down to about half that at 45x. I was not too worried about a cap at 45x as we rarely cranked the Zoom 60 all the way up back then due to seeing conditions and dimness of view - more on this later. While the prospect of such a wide field of view was enticing, I was concerned that such a short focal length scope would display significant false color but as it turned out I needn’t have worried.

I ordered the scope and was initially pleased with its performance. Monitoring a Pileated working at the edge of the woods near my house or the foxes and turkeys in the pasture provided wonderful views. I was surprised how often I had the scope dialed up to 45x and how easy acquiring objects was at 15x. Trips to the river revealed a wonderful array of waterfowl. A quick view of a centered star showed concentric diffraction rings on either side of focus. Edge performance is better than I anticipated. The little bit of pincushion distortion was quite tolerable and panning with the scope was easy on the eye. Most importantly, the scope is sharp. So far, so good!

The scope initially lived on a Manfrotto 3011 tripod that outweighed the scope by a considerable margin. Coming from an astronomy background, at first I thought this was fine but the merits of a lighter tripod began to make themselves clear. I went back to the vendor site and saw that this scope was offered as a package with the absurdly small and lightweight Sirui T-004S aluminum tripod. When the tripod arrived I thought it was a joke. The smallest leg extension was tiny. This turned out to be another learning opportunity though as the little spotter is well supported by this 1kg tripod. The Sirui head is well built with a very convenient shoe. Altitude adjustment is easily damped to my liking. Azimuth damping adjustment is less sensitive but adequate. Most importantly, the package is very easy to hike with!

There is an unexpected quirk of the scopes clothing that turns out to be quite convenient. The eyepiece cover forms a bucket when removed. The eyepiece cap comes off with it nearly every time and the bucket forms an easy to use receptacle for the objective cap. The objective cap is retained by spring loaded edge clips that do the job but can be dislodged unintentionally. In transit I’ve taken to retracting the glare/dew shield and pulling the neoprene jacket past the objective end. The neoprene contracts a bit and captures the lens cap more securely. Another happy wardrobe adaptation is that the tripod bag holds the scope nicely while the bag handle can secure the tripod itself. In terms of other mechanical considerations, the eyecup is continuously adjustable and moved very smoothly. The focuser and zoom are also especially smooth. Mechanics are very pleasing. I don’t know if it will stiffen up when it gets very cold here but I guess I’ll find out.

My only knock on this scope isn’t really the scope’s fault at all. Waterfowl in a small bay or on the river are easily viewed. The scope is a little out of its depth on low contrast birds at distance on the dark ocean water. If I wasn’t 100 miles inland, I might have chosen a different scope. Someday I might spring for a bright and beautiful 80mm spotter that can operate at higher than 45x but for now, this little 65mm scope is serving me just fine. My opinion is based on limited experience but I think this package performs exceptionally well for its price point. My larger fluorite telescope put up a sharper image with more saturated colors but doesn't embarrass the Athlon scope and its compactness makes it hard not to take along.
 

Attachments

  • 20220701_115009.jpg
    20220701_115009.jpg
    157 KB · Views: 25
  • 20220701_114936.jpg
    20220701_114936.jpg
    121.6 KB · Views: 25
  • 20220701_114858.jpg
    20220701_114858.jpg
    154.4 KB · Views: 25
  • 20220807_121130.jpg
    20220807_121130.jpg
    200.4 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Thanks for reporting on your 65mm Ares! I have not see any other reviews on it from people that have access to other proven scopes, interest in astronomy, star test, etc. All the reviews that I have seen thus far have been by beginners, which is fine, but it becomes hard for the reader to understand how good the instrument is with no baseline.

Anyway, my friend is interested in the 65mm Ares and I am interested in the 406P. Did you happen to own those scopes at the same time? Or do you have a sense of how they compare for sharpness at max magnification?

I tried a 65mm CX Pro, which I believe is the same/similar to the 65mm Ares, but was not able to achieve sharp focus at 45x. It seems that your sample is a good one.

Regarding the mechanics of the 406P, was it the focuser knobs that you thought would be vulnerable perhaps in a rucksack? I had a Nikon Prostaff5 with focuser knob that seemed that way. It extended far out from the scope body and did not seem robust.

Any thoughts on the image quality between the Ares and 406P would be greatly appreciated, especially since most reviews of the 406P are for the 80mm.

Thanks,

Jason
 
Hi Glenn,

seems you got a good example - congratulations!
And thank your for the data point on a rare brand.

Enjoy the view!

Joachim
 
Thanks for reporting on your 65mm Ares! I have not see any other reviews on it from people that have access to other proven scopes, interest in astronomy, star test, etc. All the reviews that I have seen thus far have been by beginners, which is fine, but it becomes hard for the reader to understand how good the instrument is with no baseline.

Anyway, my friend is interested in the 65mm Ares and I am interested in the 406P. Did you happen to own those scopes at the same time? Or do you have a sense of how they compare for sharpness at max magnification?

I tried a 65mm CX Pro, which I believe is the same/similar to the 65mm Ares, but was not able to achieve sharp focus at 45x. It seems that your sample is a good one.

Regarding the mechanics of the 406P, was it the focuser knobs that you thought would be vulnerable perhaps in a rucksack? I had a Nikon Prostaff5 with focuser knob that seemed that way. It extended far out from the scope body and did not seem robust.

Any thoughts on the image quality between the Ares and 406P would be greatly appreciated, especially since most reviews of the 406P are for the 80mm.

Thanks,

Jason
hi jason,
thank you for your feedback. i did not own them at the same time and it's been a while since i looked through the 406P. i do remember being impressed with the glass. i examined a star image on that scope too and found it well collimated. i was not impressed with the focuser - it was not as smooth as i would have liked and as you say, the shape seems vulnerable when materials might not be top notch. i would worry less about kowa's execution of a similar design.

i can't really make a comparison of the optical quality of the 2 scopes, but for distant, low contrast objects i don't think it would be a fair fight. if i didn't value ease of low anxiety transport i might well have stuck with the 406P. then again, i really am enjoying the 3 degree field of the little ares.

i don't know if this helps or puts things in context but on a recent trip to the ocean , i brought along the little ares and a tripod mounted pair of nikon 18x 70 astroluxe binoculars. i vastly preferred the astroluxe almost regardless of magnification. they just showed more out in the dim dark ocean. but that's not a fair fight either. i spent all my time with the astroluxes, but they totally fail on the low anxiety transport score.

thanks,
glenn
 
Last edited:
i don't know if this helps or puts things in context but on a recent trip to the ocean , i brought along the little ares and a tripod mounted pair of nikon 18x 70 astroluxe binoculars. i vastly preferred the astroluxe almost regardless of magnification. they just showed more out in the dim dark ocean. but that's not a fair fight either. i spent all my time with the astroluxes, but they totally fail on the low anxiety transport score.

Hi,

yes, that is a quite unfair fight for the spotter... more aperture for more light and resolution, binocular vision lets you see more detail in bad light due to the brain merging two images - same goes for bad viewing due to two cones of light. And if that's not enough, the bins have wide angle EPs with 65 deg afov for that immersive view vs 48 deg for the zoom at 15x - more like tunnel vision.
Plus they're made in Japan for Nikon, so probably every single example is as good as yours... which might or might not be the case for the Ares - but yours seems good.

Keep those Nikons for enjoying a stationary view alone... an angled scope is much nicer for a birding outing with others - less tripod height needed and it does not have to be exactly right, no fiddling with IPD and diopter when somebody else wants a look...

Joachim, who gets to enjoy APM big bins from time to time in the astro club...
 
Thanks Glenn, that is great information on the 406p star test and focuser. I appreciate it.

I've been really enjoying 15x50 Canon IS binoculars and can only imagine how nice 18x70 would be!

Jason

PS - I think that I incorrectly assumed that you had the 65mm SVBONY, but it sounds like you had the 80mm.
 
Hi,

yes, that is a quite unfair fight for the spotter... more aperture for more light and resolution, binocular vision lets you see more detail in bad light due to the brain merging two images - same goes for bad viewing due to two cones of light. And if that's not enough, the bins have wide angle EPs with 65 deg afov for that immersive view vs 48 deg for the zoom at 15x - more like tunnel vision.
Plus they're made in Japan for Nikon, so probably every single example is as good as yours... which might or might not be the case for the Ares - but yours seems good.

Keep those Nikons for enjoying a stationary view alone... an angled scope is much nicer for a birding outing with others - less tripod height needed and it does not have to be exactly right, no fiddling with IPD and diopter when somebody else wants a look...

Joachim, who gets to enjoy APM big bins from time to time in the astro club...
agreed! and an even more unfair fight would be with my fluorite kowa highlanders! but they don't go on the road often. for what it does do well, the little ares has its place. and you're so right about the simplicity of sharing the view with it.
 
yes, i had the 80. how odd that svbony uses the same designation for both the 80 and 65. sorry for the confusion.
i briefly had the 15x 50 is but could not get along with the diameter of the eyecups. i almost hung on to them - the view was so good, but in the end comfort won out. i have no idea how much variation there is in collimation with these scopes but so far so good for me.
 
Thanks again, Glenn. The confusion on the 406p was on my part but it is weird that SVBONY uses the same designation for 65mm and 80mm.

I had to trim the rubber eyecups on the Canon 15x50. Still not ideal but certainly better.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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