Here are the new modular Swarovski scopes (1 Viewer)

[John Barber]

Many thanks to dipped and Henry Link for your advice.

I only bought my first spotting scope three years ago when I first started birding, and at that stage I was almost entirely new to the world of optics.

The opportunity had arisen to try friends equipment at the time and I found the Zeiss Diascope 85 particularly impressive, so I bought a new one, unseen, over the internet – working on the naive assumption that all scopes of the same brand are created equal.

I was initially very impressed with the Zeiss but unfortunately, only a few weeks after purchase, a managed to accidentally knock the scope over, leaving it with “no sight through” as the dealers describe it. So off it went to Germany. Eventually Zeiss decided they couldn’t make a repair, so the whole scope and eye piece were replaced. So in effect I had two scopes, neither of which I examined prior to taking ownership.

I’m not sure at what point I became unhappy with the performance of the Zeiss and it’s 20 x 60 zoom, but it was probably when comparing views against my friends equivalent Zeiss. His scope just seemed to give a better sharper view at higher magnification, but I must be honest, I’m only talking fractions. But enough non-the-less to annoy me.

I’ve continued to solider on with Zeiss, but in the meantime, along the way, I somehow managed to acquire a Leica Apo Televid 65. By the time I purchased this scope I had a better, if still limited understanding of optics and decided to buy after directly comparing with scopes of similar size and quality. I’m extremely impressed with the Leica, it seems optically perfect to me, but conversely, it made me less happy still with the Zeiss.

So I’ve been looking around for a replacement for the Zeiss for sometime. I like to have a small portable scope and something larger and more powerful when the need arises.

I was very impressed with the new Swarovski ATX 95 at Birdfair and decided this was probably the replacement for the Zeiss that I had been looking for. Unfortunately, after reading information on threads like this, I now realise that all scopes of the same type and brand are not necessarily created equal.

And that presents something of a dilemma when setting out to potentially spend £3k. How will I know that I haven’t bought a ‘lemon’ ( as I think Henry put it ) if I don’t have the expertise.

Time to search the net !

 

[dipped]

John - some of Henry's excellent testing here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=125302&highlight=star+test

 

[John Barber]

Thanks again dipped.

Henry’s excellent report serves to illustrate the difficulty a none technical expert like me – and probably the majority of optic uses generally – would have in measuring true optic excellence in any particular piece of kit.

As Henry points out, the first Kowa scope image might be described as stunning or awesome ( by someone like me perhaps ) but in reality if fell short of it’s optical potential. The second scope performed much better and closer to that potential.

So that begs the question: where does that leave people like me when it comes to choosing an expensive new scope ? Obviously armed with the proper information, I would want to buy scope B and not scope A.

At this point in time it can only be a case of “I like what I see, therefore I’ll buy it” but I now realise that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m getting the best available performance for that product. Maybe people with optical expertise could offer a test service. I for one would be happy to pay a fee to ensure my valuable acquisition was as good as it should be. And perhaps if manufactures Knew their products were likely to be independently and rigorously tested by prospective purchasers, they might do more to ensure a higher standard of overall optical excellence in the first place.

 

[henry link]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys.

If I were buying a $4000 scope I would want the absolute cherry of cherries; no optical assembly defects like astigmatism at all and wave front error no worse than 1/8 wave (maybe 1/6 if everything else is right). It would be a miracle if the first one that came along met those criteria.

John,

You may not have experience, but you have eyes. You can see what the star test looks like and if you can describe it to us we may be able to help you interpret what you see.

Here are a couple of more links that include star-test photos.

The first is a review of a Zen-Ray scope. If a specimen of the Swaro has significant problems you will probably have a sense of difficulty in reaching a completely sharp focus at high magnification similar to my experience with the Zen at 60x or yours with the Diascope at 60x. The star-test then functions as a diagnostic tool to explain what’s wrong.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=202943

This one shows the pattern of out of focus diffraction rings that you would like to see (except for the spurious color). Very few birding scopes will look this good at full aperture.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2070124&postcount=101

Henry

 

[dipped]

Minsmere had an 85mm scope so of course I had to have a look.

These are just my initial impressions.

I managed to find a glitter point and was pleasantly relieved to see at least a good to v.good sample. I don't think my corrected eyesight allows me to see perfectly at close range (and in the excitement I forgot to put my reading glasses on), but what I saw showed a good diffraction pattern of circles either side of focus with no de-centreing or astigmatism. So far so good but I think personally I need a camera or booster to see properly the pattern.

Weight wise it seemed no heavier than my Nikon ED82. Assembling requires a certain knack as there is a bit of preesure to overcome from the release pin I think. However once done it seems very secure.

On to the tripod for first impressions. Focussing was fairly typical Swaro, quite smooth little resistance not too fast or slow. At least it didn't draw attention to itself.

The zoom ring was a fair bit heavier/stiffer with a slightly coarse feel. Hard to say whether it would stay like that.

The view, wow. What impressed me most was the apparent field of view maintained throughout the range even more so than the 25-50 zoom. I haven't checked the specs and I didn't have the smaller zoom on hand. Also there was no issue with eye placement. It was a bright morning so hard to judge how the image would hold up at 60x as the light fades but there was no apparent dimming on my test.

The scope appeared perfctly balanced holding it upside down from the tripod plate. My friend thought the lens hood was a bit loose and awkward trying to retract it.

I later went round the reserve with my Nikon and used my zoom up to about 70x at times and realised that it would be nice if the Swaro zoom went higher (I know the 95mm does).

I think these new scopes do what they do exceedingly well and would be brilliant for seawatching having the wide field and flexibility of zooming. Otherwise I can't see a need for upgrading at present (even if I could!).

 

[John Barber]

Thanks dipped, interesting to read your impressions of the ATX85. It's the fact that these scopes seem to hold their image so well at high magnification that really impressed me.

 

[arran]

atx 95 first impression

I had the opportunity to have a short test of the new Swaro atx 95.:eat:
Weather was cloudy and rainy.
First thing what surprised me was that the scope is not that big than I first had in my mind.Total length is also very acceptable.
I was mostly interested in the performance of the zoom at 70 X.

Broad and nice overall view , sharp to the edge and even quite bright impression with this rainy weather.

Resolution and contrast are just wow!!Just one minor is that you will discover some small CA if you look at objects against the sky , if seen in the edge of the view.Nothing to worry about too much.Just don't get pschychdelic on this please !
Very important however to realize is that at this magnification , you defintely need a very stable tripod. Secondly at 70 x you're much more susceptible toatmospheric
instability due to temperature and air movements.
I tried to read some small words at about 130 m , which was easy , but nevertheless, extra effort is needed at these mags.
Ergonomics : just perfect , also a small aiming pole is supplied to be applied o the body , in order to aim more easily.
I just want to compare this one with the 85x scope and just my decision is made for sure.:t:

 

[squidge]

I posted this small review in the 'delivery time' thread by mistake. I cant seem to delete the same post there.

Had a look at the ATX 85 today. First impressions are it is more compact than my own atm80hd. It did feel slightly heavier but not by much than the ATM. The rubber armouring felt softer and more tactile than the atm but that could have been just me. It was very easy to connect the two pieces together much the same as connecting an eyepiece to my current scope. The pullout sun shade was much easier than my atm which is a little stiff although I hardly ever use this.

Outside in the street looking down towards some scaffolding on top of a building it took a couple of goes to remember the zoom and focus where in the one area. I felt the zoom slightly stiff but that could have been because it was new out of the box or because it was beside the focuser which was silky smooth and thus gave the impression of being stiff. I zoomed and focused with one hand easily enough. The image was very quick to focus no matter which part of the scaffolding or building I zoomed on.

The image was outstanding which was what I expected. It was bright, clear with vivid colours. It was clear to the edge with no CA. What I wasnt expecting was how wide the view was when I zoomed out to 60x. The image was still very bright and clear with plenty to see in the view. Throughout the zoom range the image was excellent with nice wide views.

Sadly no birds to look at but it was a nice surprise that the shop had one of these scopes to test out. The pros for me were its compactness ease of use with the focuser and zoom plus its wide view out to 60x. The only negative would be probably its weight although negligible when compared to the atm. I've a dodgy neck and back so weight is a big consideration when buying equipment.

Will I sell my own atm scope and buy one of the atx scopes, the answer would be no as I'm happy with my atm. If I was in the market looking for a new scope then this would definitely be a contender.

Gerard.

 

[John Barber]

Very short report from my phone.

Tested the new ATX95 against my Zeiss Diascope 85 at Titchwell yesterday.I'm shocked to report there was very little to choose between them, so I didn't buy the Swarovski.

More in a few days when I get back from Norfolk.

 

[John Barber]

Had two opportunities to look at the new ATX95 at RSPB Titchwell.

Unfortunately, on my arrival last Wednesday viewing conditions were not ideal. Heavy rain and a very limited viewing area of 20 yds to bird feeders and a small gap through the surrounding trees to some distant bales of hay were not ideal to properly assess a prospective £3,000 purchase. Having an attendant Viking salesman didn’t help either.

However, it was almost immediately apparent when compared side by side with my three year old Diascope 85T*FL that performance was very similar. The Swarovski was slightly brighter, but the Zeiss had the advantage of being able to go down to 20x, compared to the minimum 30x on the 95 ATX. Giving a 43 mtr FOV @ 1000 mtrs compared to 35 mtrs @ 1000 mtrs for the 95.

At high end magnification, image sharpness and clarity looked similar, and this really surprised me. At Birdfair I seemed to remember the Swarovski being much better, but with this particular scope, that didn’t seem to be the case.

I have to say, at this point I was very disappointed. I expected the Swarovski to be significantly better and that just didn’t seem to be the case. So it was with more hope than expectation, I agreed to come back the next morning for a second look in better conditions.

Unfortunately, by the following morning, we had bright sunshine at the time the shop opened at 10am, again not ideal for an objective assessment. This time the staff kindly agreed to let me take the scope onto the west side path to allow a better view of the surrounding area. Unfortunately, the results were the same, not enough difference to justify the expenditure and so the ATX went back to the showroom.

Perhaps the particular ATX95 I looked at wasn’t the best example, or perhaps my Diascope is better than I gave it credit for, perhaps it’s a bit of both. My local dealer hopes to have their own 95 sometime next week. When it arrives I will be going to have a look at it. It will be interesting to make a second comparison with another scope.

 

[Mark Batten]

Compared a five year old ATS 65 with 25 - 50 lens alongside the new 65 scope. Light was a little better than the birdfair. The new scope was a little brighter, but that was about it. Price 2200 pounds. Improvement so tiny not worth the extra money. Will Swaro sell the new scope, yes by the bucketload. Anyone looking for a bargain save your cash and buy a used ATS.

 

[John Barber]

Received a phone call from my local Swarovski dealer at 10.30 this morning to say their new ATX95 had arrived, and was being unpacked, and would I like to come over and have a look.

Keen to compare another 95 to my Diascope I arrived about 45 minutes later. Unfortunately, by the time I arrived, an elderly gentlemen was already comparing his current Swarovski 80mm to the new 95 and quickly decided to buy not only the complete ATX95 but also the ATX65mm objective lens. That’s some purchasing power !

I have to say, I wasn’t unduly upset by this unexpected turn of events because I knew I was unlikely to buy the 95 myself; in fact I was pleased for both the purchaser and the dealer.

I asked the purchaser if he intended to sell his current 80mm, but he said not, he would use all three. The ATX combination would be used when traveling.

Looks like Swarovski are on to a winner with this new modular design.

 

[kwikstaart]

I have tried the new ATX95 for a very short time: first imperession? It's a hell of scope with perfect edge-sharpness and that really does it. But..... when I returned to my Kowa TSN 883 Í saw a very similar view :t:

So, what adds to the great impression on the ATX? I think it's a combination of A) the brand, you just know very rationally that you have the best of the best and that puts a very subjective perspective to my view. B) Great design, it looks very good and feels brand new. C) The zoom gives a great view with overal perfect edge-sharpness.

But... I noticed a sort white fog in the lower part of my view but maybe that's just lack of experience with viewing through the ATX. Another but: I like the double focusknobs of the Kowa better and I had to get used to the zoom ring.

As I use my 30x WA eye piece 99% of the time any other zoom wouldn't give me a lot of advantage so I'm happily sticking to my Kowa (which was a lot cheaper) and change the WA for the zoom just now and then.

But Swarovski will dominate the market the coming years: a lot of secondhand AT's, ATS's and ATM's will flow on the market and will be sold for less or almost equeal to the price of a new Kowa, Leica etc. I think many customers will then choose for a Swaro. So they dominate the market for prices up to about USD 2200 AND above! In The NEtherlands the new buyers also buy the 95 AND the 65 objective together (crisis? What crisis?).

According to a scope sales man the ATX is the ultimate proposal as to what the naked eye is able to see with traditional optics. Next, and it is already available for the army there will be scopes with infrared and thermics combines with traditional optics.

Personally though I travel happily with my Kowa but in these alpha markets money doesn't count but having the lates of the latest does.....

Happy birding!
Marijn

 

[Neil]

I have tried the new ATX95 for a very short time: first imperession? It's a hell of scope with perfect edge-sharpness and that really does it. But..... when I returned to my Kowa TSN 883 Í saw a very similar view :t:

So, what adds to the great impression on the ATX? I think it's a combination of A) the brand, you just know very rationally that you have the best of the best and that puts a very subjective perspective to my view. B) Great design, it looks very good and feels brand new. C) The zoom gives a great view with overal perfect edge-sharpness.

But... I noticed a sort white fog in the lower part of my view but maybe that's just lack of experience with viewing through the ATX. Another but: I like the double focusknobs of the Kowa better and I had to get used to the zoom ring.

As I use my 30x WA eye piece 99% of the time any other zoom wouldn't give me a lot of advantage so I'm happily sticking to my Kowa (which was a lot cheaper) and change the WA for the zoom just now and then.

But Swarovski will dominate the market the coming years: a lot of secondhand AT's, ATS's and ATM's will flow on the market and will be sold for less or almost equeal to the price of a new Kowa, Leica etc. I think many customers will then choose for a Swaro. So they dominate the market for prices up to about USD 2200 AND above! In The NEtherlands the new buyers also buy the 95 AND the 65 objective together (crisis? What crisis?).

According to a scope sales man the ATX is the ultimate proposal as to what the naked eye is able to see with traditional optics. Next, and it is already available for the army there will be scopes with infrared and thermics combines with traditional optics.

Personally though I travel happily with my Kowa but in these alpha markets money doesn't count but having the lates of the latest does.....

Happy birding!
Marijn

Marijn,
The Kowa 88 mm and Zeiss 85 mm users should not see as big a difference as those with older scopes I would expect.
But there still is money around for people and their hobbies. Have you been into an Apple store recently?
Neil

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

I have tried the new ATX95 for a very short time: first imperession? It's a hell of scope with perfect edge-sharpness and that really does it. But..... when I returned to my Kowa TSN 883 Í saw a very similar view :t:

One thing that was very obvious to me, comparing the ATX95 with the TSN883 side by side was the color rendition. The colors in the Swarovski were much colder, while the colors in the Kowa were much warmer and more yellowish in the tone. Whether the warmer or colder colors are better might be a matter of taste...

 

[arran]

atx compared to Kowa 883

Kwikstaart ,

I have the Kowa 20-60 zoom in use for 2 years now , and can compare withe atx 95 recently.
The kowa zoom is much more of small tunneling zoom and not edge to edge sharp.The 30 X eyepiece is much better , which I use the most.
But what disturbs me the most is that the kowa is not colour true.
My wife , who is a "non birding species" , gave me a clear pro for the Swaro , as she wears glasses. The first things she remarked was that the swaro 95 gave a much brighter and open impression.

One thing that was very obvious to me, comparing the ATX95 with the TSN883 side by side was the color rendition. The colors in the Swarovski were much colder, while the colors in the Kowa were much warmer and more yellowish in the tone. Whether the warmer or colder colors are better might be a matter of taste...

 

[kwikstaart]

Kwikstaart ,

I have the Kowa 20-60 zoom in use for 2 years now , and can compare withe atx 95 recently.
The kowa zoom is much more of small tunneling zoom and not edge to edge sharp.The 30 X eyepiece is much better , which I use the most.
But what disturbs me the most is that the kowa is not colour true.
My wife , who is a "non birding species" , gave me a clear pro for the Swaro , as she wears glasses. The first things she remarked was that the swaro 95 gave a much brighter and open impression.

Hi Arran,

This, with the post above proves to me that the design of the image is not better or worse in either scope but it's a personal opinion of whether you like true better than warm colors etc.

So, there are differences in the facts but the way one experiences it is of personal taste.

 

[kabsetz]

The other essential difference, one which is being pushed to background here, is for me the more important one. Kowa 883, due to Kowa's choice of eyepieces, has never allowed the scope to really take full advantage of the resolving power its excellent optics would provide. 60x is simply not enough magnification for that. The ATX 95 offers ca 8% better resolution due to its larger entrance pupil, and lets us see it better with its ca 72X maximum magnification. I know there are many who do not believe magnifications over 60x are useful, and they may do what they wish with their own scopes, but as one who has had 75x available on my day-to-day scope for 15 years, this factor is crucial.

Better light transmission and truer colors are nice, but better resolving power is what is essential.

Kimmo

 

[John Russell]

I know there are many who do not believe magnifications over 60x are useful, and they may do what they wish with their own scopes, but as one who has had 75x available on my day-to-day scope for 15 years, this factor is crucial.

Kimmo,

Perhaps you could elaborate. I struggle to see colours with a 2,2 mm exit pupil (30x on an ATM 65HD) in overcast conditions so don't you need lots of light (sunshine) with a 1,1 mm exit pupil?
Then however mirage would be a problem at distances requiring 75x, unless of course you're observing across water.

John

 

[henry link]

I'm sure Kimmo will be coming along to elaborate, but in the meantime I'd like agree with his basic position.

60x as a maximum magnification goes back to the days of 60mm achromatic Spacemasters. It was certainly plenty for those scopes, but for high quality 88mm or 95mm APO's 60x is not enough to bring the smallest resolved details up to a size that most people can easily see. Certainly air turbulence will not always allow those details to be resolved by any scope, but I've found that when a +/- 90mm scope is really good there are many opportunities to profitably push magnification up to 80-90x, sometimes even 100x or more. At my 20/15 eyesight acuity even 72x is still not quite enough magnification to easily see the full 1.22 arc second resolution of a diffraction limited 95mm scope.