• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

New ATC/ STC 17-40x56 Telescope (5 Viewers)

Hermann

Well-known member
Looks a nice bit of kit, and wouldn't say no if someone wanted to buy one for me 😉 but think I’ll stick with my set of 3 Nikon Fieldscopes, which could be obtained, with a couple of eyepieces, for the price of one of these little Swaros!
So will I, at least for the time being. ED82, EDIIIA, EDIII and ED50 with a nice range of eyepieces makes for a very versatile kit.

Hermann
 

WRL

Well-known member
Germany
[...] If the optics are up to scratch, it WILL kill the Kowa: [...]
One will never know unless Kowa stops sales. Sales numbers are generally not public.
Maybe, Kowa plans to facelift the 55x-series as they did with the 88x recently. This could be an opportunity to address (one of the) the most criticized points, FOV. By doing so the 55x will definitely continue to have its buyers.
Anyway, this little scope fills a gap in Swaro's lineup. And it will sell well. However, one has to love the "helical" focus mechanism (ok, Swaro standard). Other than for design aspects I do not understand a possible advantage for the owner/user of such solution (maybe my problem, if somebody can educate me, please). I for my part feel more content with the (as I perceive) perfect Kowa focusing type (focus wheel(s) on top of the case).
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
2nd hand Swaro HD 65 with 25-50 w Eye Piece

It's a nice scope (I have one), but very hard to use other than on a good tripod (too long for monopod).

We'll have to wait to see how the ATC works in practical birding situations.

Does it work using it as in the marketing, is my question.
 
Last edited:

William Lewis

Wishing birdwatching paid the bills.
United Kingdom
Yes all scopes work best on a tripod, no debate. They work adequately on a monopod at shorter extensions and adequately when rested on something solid although this is only really useable at lower mags.

The orange atc's biggest problem that I see is that with the half shell in place it looks just like a sock.
 

Brummie

Well-known member
Tripods come in different sizes...
I have my Nikon ED50 typically mounted on one of these. Weighs about 12oz with a cheap micro ball head attached, and will work in most settings if you’re a bit inventive.

A Sirui T-025x is also only just over a lb with a lightweight ball head and gives you even more versatility.
 
Last edited:

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Hi Will (post #49),

Just to be clear, either the ATC or STC can be mounted directly to a tripod without the half shell
(is that a Tenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reference by someone at Absam? :ninja:),
see the details from the manual in post #15.


John
 

4th_point

Well-known member
United States
I don't know anything about optical design but this ATC/STC seems to offer a lot in terms of short overall length, long eye relief, and wide field of view. Is it an anomaly for this class of scope? If so, what are the potential downsides in terms of optical performance or ease in manufacturing? Or are smaller scopes easier to design and manufacture than bigger ones?

My concern is related to some claims that the Swarovski 115mm has a short body for that configuration which is supposedly not easy to execute properly. Along with some mediocre at-home and lab test results. In my mind, it sounds like a "complex" optical design that is difficult to assure a quality product. Perhaps I am way off base though. However, as a consumer I don't have much to go off of and get leery when lemons are allowed to escape even with extremely high sales prices.
 

Brummie

Well-known member
I wouldn’t say the ATC is a short scope. It’s a large complex ocular, which is mainly responsible for the good FOV and eye relief, wedded to a small objective. I don’t think the objective lens assembly is particularly short for a 56mm - it’s a lot longer than a 56mm SLC.
 

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
I don't know anything about optical design but this ATC/STC seems to offer a lot in terms of short overall length, long eye relief, and wide field of view. Is it an anomaly for this class of scope? If so, what are the potential downsides in terms of optical performance or ease in manufacturing? Or are smaller scopes easier to design and manufacture than bigger ones?

My concern is related to some claims that the Swarovski 115mm has a short body for that configuration which is supposedly not easy to execute properly. Along with some mediocre at-home and lab test results. In my mind, it sounds like a "complex" optical design that is difficult to assure a quality product. Perhaps I am way off base though. However, as a consumer I don't have much to go off of and get leery when lemons are allowed to escape even with extremely high sales prices.

Focal ratio ATC (straight version) seems to be a bit faster (285/56 ≈ f/5?) than both ATS65 (≈f/7*) and ATS80 (≈f/5.75*).
But slower than ATX 115 at f4.8**.

Faster focal ration can be harder to correct for CA. I see less CA in the ATS65 compared to the ATS80 for example.

* ATS65 vs ATS 80
** Swarovski ATX-115: Star-test and Resolution Measurements
 
Last edited:

mbb

Well-known member
In fact if, as has been claimed, this is basically the ATX eyepiece assembly with a 56mm lens on front, it’s a bargain by Swaro standards, because it’s cheaper than the ATX module by itself.
If this is using the ATX eyepiece, it is kind of contradicting their sales pitch about the modularity-advantage of the ATX range: now selling this as fixed objective+eyepiece combination instead of a separate objective-only. If it is the case, apart from purely sales driven, the choice might have been made to save weight for such a compact scope, by avoiding to need extra material for the bayonnet-coupling.
Yet, I would have been much more happy if they rather had made a small and lightweight (50-55mm) ATM body, much cheaper to buy body-only, that could be used with their 25-50x eyepiece (ideally becoming a 20-40x on that smaller body, using a different focal length). That would have been the ideal addition for people having already an ATS80 with the 25-50x eyepiece.
I assume their sales-team has considered the different options and made a business decision…
 

rodneyAB

Well-known member
United States
From my read of marketing, and a pre-emptive reviewer, the only thing that is 'ATX eyepiece' is the screw-out ocular cup. it is the same size cup as what is on the ATX/STX, and that makes it easy to use existing smart phone adaptors, etc..
 

Brummie

Well-known member
From my read of marketing, and a pre-emptive reviewer, the only thing that is 'ATX eyepiece' is the screw-out ocular cup.
What’s that conclusion based on?

Given the size of the ocular assembly and the fact that it has identical FOV and ER stats, and the same 2.35x zoom range, it seems likely to me that they’ve basically retained the same optical design as the ATX. They may have adjusted some components (e.g. reduced the size of the prisms?).

And they’ve declared that it is a “Swarovision” product, so hopefully that means the glass and coatings are the same quality.
 

rodneyAB

Well-known member
United States
What’s that conclusion based on?

Given the size of the ocular assembly and the fact that it has identical FOV and ER stats, and the same 2.35x zoom range, it seems likely to me that they’ve basically retained the same optical design as the ATX. They may have adjusted some components (e.g. reduced the size of the prisms?).

And they’ve declared that it is a “Swarovision” product, so hopefully that means the glass and coatings are the same quality.
agree likely retained optical design, just not same optical components, so not the STX/ATX module, which is a hefty (and bulky) 28 ounces, while the STC is a swelte 34 ounces complete. I'm probably reading incorrectly between the lines. maybe all that bulk and weight of the ATX module is due to the bayonet mounting components not the glass.
 

Brummie

Well-known member
agree likely retained optical design, just not same optical components, so not the STX/ATX module, which is a hefty (and bulky) 28 ounces, while the STC is a swelte 34 ounces complete. I'm probably reading incorrectly between the lines. maybe all that bulk and weight of the ATX module is due to the bayonet mounting components not the glass.
Gotcha.

But my guess would be that the ocular lenses aren't much different from the ATX (otherwise why have such a wide ocular assembly?). They are more likely to have shaved some weight by shrinking the prisms (probably the heaviest glass components), having the zoom control on the ocular arm, and not having the bayonet mounting. It seems perfectly possible that the weight of the entire ocular and prism assemblies might be in the order of 25oz, with the objective lens assembly accounting for the remaining 10oz or so.

All pure speculation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top