BEST spotting scope?
- Thread starter patgblue
- Start date
Forum Boss
Administrator
The ultimate resolution would come from one of the big Meade Astronomy type scopes,90mm or 125mm). With a good eyepiece, these will resolve bullet holes at 1000.
For something compact, the best I've looked through is the Zeiss 85mm, but you're talking $1300+ just for the body.
For the price, the Pentax series 80ED offers great performance and the best eyepieces in the price range.
Link: http://www.6mmbr.com/SpotterReview.html
Kowa just released a new series of spotters that will run with the fine European stuff. Check out review in our bulletin: http://www.6mmbr.com/bulletin.html
If I was limited to under $1000 for a compact scope with eyepiece, I'd go with the Pentax. If price is no limit, go Zeiss.
If you want the ultimate in longrange resolution for half-off retail, look for a Meade ATX125 on eBay. I've seen them go for under $500 with factory tripod and motor unit.
For something compact, the best I've looked through is the Zeiss 85mm, but you're talking $1300+ just for the body.
For the price, the Pentax series 80ED offers great performance and the best eyepieces in the price range.
Link: http://www.6mmbr.com/SpotterReview.html
Kowa just released a new series of spotters that will run with the fine European stuff. Check out review in our bulletin: http://www.6mmbr.com/bulletin.html
If I was limited to under $1000 for a compact scope with eyepiece, I'd go with the Pentax. If price is no limit, go Zeiss.
If you want the ultimate in longrange resolution for half-off retail, look for a Meade ATX125 on eBay. I've seen them go for under $500 with factory tripod and motor unit.
Just compared my 20-60x80 to a nikon ED 25-75x85 this past weekend at Williamsport.
Mirage was horrible, so resolution testing was impossible, but the nikon had a touch better and brighter color than my swaro,non-HD)
I'd look real hard at that new Nikon...
The Pentax in the MOd's pic is also a dandy for the $$ as well.
All will see 6mm holes in the white at 500yds in similar conditions.
JB
Mirage was horrible, so resolution testing was impossible, but the nikon had a touch better and brighter color than my swaro,non-HD)
I'd look real hard at that new Nikon...
The Pentax in the MOd's pic is also a dandy for the $$ as well.
All will see 6mm holes in the white at 500yds in similar conditions.
JB
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Re Paul's post,Moderator)
The Dawes Limit of resolution at 1000 yards is 0.225in,0.0215 MOA) for the ETX-90 and 0.162in,0.0155 MOA) for the ETX-125 so it is possible to see a bullet hole under good conditions,clear air low wind & mirage) and high contrast of bullet hole to target.
We use ETX-90s post mounted at our range for the shooters. In our experience, most shooters need 104x,12mm eyepiece) at 300 yards to resolve two 6mm holes just touching. That would suggest needing >300x at 1000 yards and a quick test at 208x,6mm eyepiece) confirmed my needing at least that with 62 year old eyes. A 4mm eyepiece,310x) would be better for the ETX-90 but a 6mm eyepiece,316x) would be good for the ETX-125 when used at 1000 yards.
For eyeglass wearers, you will find the Long Eye Relief Vixen Lanthanum LV eyepieces,4mm at $140 and 6mm at $130 ea) or even better the Tele Vue Radian eyepieces with fixed 20mm eye relief,$250 ea) to be far easier to use.
P.S. The Celestron C90 MAK,$180 typical) is rubber-covered, water resistant and better suited for field use than the ETX-90.
While it would be theoretically possible to use even larger aperture astronomical telescopes for higher resolution,smaller bullet holes) and with their longer focal length, even higher magnification. That becomes very impractical. I have used my Meade 7 inch,178mm) Maksutov with a 6mm Radian at 0.0109 MOA,0.114 inch at 1000 yard) resolution and 445x magnification. To do that I needed almost perfect conditions: no mirage, no haze or pollution, near zero wind and a resolution test target that was flat black on bright white,USAF resolution test target) well illuminated.
Based on practical experience with normal atmospheric pollution, haze and mirage plus the limited contrast of bullet holes on paper targets,hole in the "white" - forget hole in the "black") you will find a useful limit of about 350x magnification in very good conditions and 200x in typical conditions. Also apertures over 5 inch,127mm) are not worth the cost or weight penalty to haul around.
The Dawes Limit of resolution at 1000 yards is 0.225in,0.0215 MOA) for the ETX-90 and 0.162in,0.0155 MOA) for the ETX-125 so it is possible to see a bullet hole under good conditions,clear air low wind & mirage) and high contrast of bullet hole to target.
We use ETX-90s post mounted at our range for the shooters. In our experience, most shooters need 104x,12mm eyepiece) at 300 yards to resolve two 6mm holes just touching. That would suggest needing >300x at 1000 yards and a quick test at 208x,6mm eyepiece) confirmed my needing at least that with 62 year old eyes. A 4mm eyepiece,310x) would be better for the ETX-90 but a 6mm eyepiece,316x) would be good for the ETX-125 when used at 1000 yards.
For eyeglass wearers, you will find the Long Eye Relief Vixen Lanthanum LV eyepieces,4mm at $140 and 6mm at $130 ea) or even better the Tele Vue Radian eyepieces with fixed 20mm eye relief,$250 ea) to be far easier to use.
P.S. The Celestron C90 MAK,$180 typical) is rubber-covered, water resistant and better suited for field use than the ETX-90.
While it would be theoretically possible to use even larger aperture astronomical telescopes for higher resolution,smaller bullet holes) and with their longer focal length, even higher magnification. That becomes very impractical. I have used my Meade 7 inch,178mm) Maksutov with a 6mm Radian at 0.0109 MOA,0.114 inch at 1000 yard) resolution and 445x magnification. To do that I needed almost perfect conditions: no mirage, no haze or pollution, near zero wind and a resolution test target that was flat black on bright white,USAF resolution test target) well illuminated.
Based on practical experience with normal atmospheric pollution, haze and mirage plus the limited contrast of bullet holes on paper targets,hole in the "white" - forget hole in the "black") you will find a useful limit of about 350x magnification in very good conditions and 200x in typical conditions. Also apertures over 5 inch,127mm) are not worth the cost or weight penalty to haul around.
Lot of very good information.To boil this all down to your #1 pick considering normal conditions, 58yr.OLD eye. 6mm holes out to lets say 600yd.Which spotter would you recommend and what eye piece.We will not concider price in your decision.Sound like you have a lot of on hand exsperience.Thanks
Forum Boss
Administrator
Keep in mind that in good conditions I can see 6mm bullet holes in the white with a 12-42x Nightforce,at least well enough to be able to plot the shot). Lou Murdica reports that with his 40X March he could see bullet holes at 600 yards relatively easily at the 600yd Nationals until the mirage came up in the afternoon.
The point being--it may be better to invest in a really good scope on your rifle.
I don't have the Astronomy experience that Fred does, so when he talks about "resolving" something at 300 and 600 yards that may mean seeing it sharp and clear with no distortion or he may be talking about "in the black". But pretty much any quality 25+ power scope will let you see bullet holes in the white at 300--enough to aim at or plot at least. They may just look like tiny fuzzy raisins, but you can see 'em.
In this photo below, on a clear morning at 600 yards, I was definitely able to distinguish the diamond in the center of the orange marker, enough that I could use that as an aiming point. That's with an 8-25X Leupold. After the group formed up, I could only see,barely) the double hole and the one low left--but the latter was "iffy". My friend with a NF 12-42x could see all three singles and the double--but we didn't know it was a double until we went to pull the target. We both figured on of the bullets had blown up or I'd put one in the dirt.
Fred--What power would it take with an astronomy telescope to definitely know the bigger hole was a two-in-one.
The point being--it may be better to invest in a really good scope on your rifle.
I don't have the Astronomy experience that Fred does, so when he talks about "resolving" something at 300 and 600 yards that may mean seeing it sharp and clear with no distortion or he may be talking about "in the black". But pretty much any quality 25+ power scope will let you see bullet holes in the white at 300--enough to aim at or plot at least. They may just look like tiny fuzzy raisins, but you can see 'em.
In this photo below, on a clear morning at 600 yards, I was definitely able to distinguish the diamond in the center of the orange marker, enough that I could use that as an aiming point. That's with an 8-25X Leupold. After the group formed up, I could only see,barely) the double hole and the one low left--but the latter was "iffy". My friend with a NF 12-42x could see all three singles and the double--but we didn't know it was a double until we went to pull the target. We both figured on of the bullets had blown up or I'd put one in the dirt.
Fred--What power would it take with an astronomy telescope to definitely know the bigger hole was a two-in-one.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Pat,
With the equipment available today my Ideal package would be:
Celestron C130MAK spotting scope ------ Maksutov Catadioptric 130 mm aperture, 2000 mm focal length
General use eyepiece = TeleVue Click Zoom DCZ -2408 ----- 24-8 mm,83x - 250x with above scope)
Long range eyepiece = TeleVue Radian ERD-5.0 ----- 5 mm,400x with above scope)
NOTE: you will need a sturdy scope stand and/or tripod as either lens on the scope will weigh about 10 pounds.,Sinclair International 06-3200 clamp to bench or Ray-Vin Fstand free standing).
With the equipment available today my Ideal package would be:
Celestron C130MAK spotting scope ------ Maksutov Catadioptric 130 mm aperture, 2000 mm focal length
General use eyepiece = TeleVue Click Zoom DCZ -2408 ----- 24-8 mm,83x - 250x with above scope)
Long range eyepiece = TeleVue Radian ERD-5.0 ----- 5 mm,400x with above scope)
NOTE: you will need a sturdy scope stand and/or tripod as either lens on the scope will weigh about 10 pounds.,Sinclair International 06-3200 clamp to bench or Ray-Vin Fstand free standing).
Last edited:
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Paul,esteemed Moderator),
To be able to distinguish the two shoot hole from the rest and recognize it as such you would need to be able to first resolve it. As Shown at 610 yards you would be at the resolution limit for a 90 mm objective lens,or mirror size) of 0.0215 MOA,0.135 inch at 610 yards)and probably would only see it at >300x and under near perfect seeing conditions.
You would really need the 125 mm objective/mirror with its resolution limit of 0.0155 MOA,0.097 inch at 610 yards)and most would probably need >300x and good seeing conditions.
All of us need the resolution do to the physics of optics and lenses. The required magnification is much more a function of individual visual acuity,old guys need more).
To be able to distinguish the two shoot hole from the rest and recognize it as such you would need to be able to first resolve it. As Shown at 610 yards you would be at the resolution limit for a 90 mm objective lens,or mirror size) of 0.0215 MOA,0.135 inch at 610 yards)and probably would only see it at >300x and under near perfect seeing conditions.
You would really need the 125 mm objective/mirror with its resolution limit of 0.0155 MOA,0.097 inch at 610 yards)and most would probably need >300x and good seeing conditions.
All of us need the resolution do to the physics of optics and lenses. The required magnification is much more a function of individual visual acuity,old guys need more).
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
To provide a real perspective on these resolution and magnification questions ---- to achieve the view of Paul's target as shown in his post above from the shooting position you would need:
Conditions - no pollution, no haze, no mirage, no wind and bright but overcast day,aka PERFECT SEEING)
Resolution - 0.006 MOA,0.039 inch at 610 yards) = 300 mm,12 inch) objective.
Magnification - about 600x
Conditions - no pollution, no haze, no mirage, no wind and bright but overcast day,aka PERFECT SEEING)
Resolution - 0.006 MOA,0.039 inch at 610 yards) = 300 mm,12 inch) objective.
Magnification - about 600x
Forum Boss
Administrator
Fred makes a good point about visual acuity. I'm 52 and wear contact lenses. My friend John, who was shooting with me when that target was shot is around 40 and is 20/20. Spotting my group while looking through a 12-42x NF on max power he was able to see the group form up--enough to conclude it was pretty good and that we had lost one shot,which turned out to be the double). Looking through his scope it took some effort for me to see some tiny smudges on the target through his scope and they disappeared when a cloud pass over the target. As Fred says--you need bright light and good contrast.
I was surprised, however, that there is no question that, with my 8-25X Leupy, I was able to pick out the diamond as a dark spot in the middle of the orange circle and use that as an aim point. Aim small, Miss small.
I was surprised, however, that there is no question that, with my 8-25X Leupy, I was able to pick out the diamond as a dark spot in the middle of the orange circle and use that as an aim point. Aim small, Miss small.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Paul,very esteemed Moderator)
Re your abilities with your 8-25x to "pick out the diamond as a dark spot in the middle of the orange circle and use that as an aim point" ---- I think you are experiencing your brain's ability at pattern recognition,to find a learned pattern within a complex visual field). This is similar to finding a familiar face in a crowd of strangers at an airport or stadium. This case is much less complex and therefore can be done at much greater distances in a lower resolution data field.
You knew what your target spot looks like, have looked at them at multiple ranges before, and expected to see it. As you brought your cross hairs to bear on your expected target your brain is able to concentrate it's vast image processing capability and filter out the noise and clutter in data stream from your eyes. I firmly believe that you need to practice target acquisition and recognition just as all other aspects of the shooting sequence. Those that do will always be able to demonstrate far better working acuity on familiar targets than those that don't practice.
You will have much less trouble if you practice using the same optics and targets as you will shoot in matches. It also helps to practice target acquisition and recognition under a wide variety of atmospheric and illumination conditions. These stored images ease the burden on the brain's image analysis system to find your desired POA among the noise and clutter. This provides for an enhanced "effective acuity".
Older but practiced eyes can often demonstrate better working acuity than younger but not practiced eyes. The older experienced prairie dog shooters are usually shooting them at long range before the young newcomers have even seen the shorter range ones.
Re your abilities with your 8-25x to "pick out the diamond as a dark spot in the middle of the orange circle and use that as an aim point" ---- I think you are experiencing your brain's ability at pattern recognition,to find a learned pattern within a complex visual field). This is similar to finding a familiar face in a crowd of strangers at an airport or stadium. This case is much less complex and therefore can be done at much greater distances in a lower resolution data field.
You knew what your target spot looks like, have looked at them at multiple ranges before, and expected to see it. As you brought your cross hairs to bear on your expected target your brain is able to concentrate it's vast image processing capability and filter out the noise and clutter in data stream from your eyes. I firmly believe that you need to practice target acquisition and recognition just as all other aspects of the shooting sequence. Those that do will always be able to demonstrate far better working acuity on familiar targets than those that don't practice.
You will have much less trouble if you practice using the same optics and targets as you will shoot in matches. It also helps to practice target acquisition and recognition under a wide variety of atmospheric and illumination conditions. These stored images ease the burden on the brain's image analysis system to find your desired POA among the noise and clutter. This provides for an enhanced "effective acuity".
Older but practiced eyes can often demonstrate better working acuity than younger but not practiced eyes. The older experienced prairie dog shooters are usually shooting them at long range before the young newcomers have even seen the shorter range ones.
Fred, I took your advice and picked up the C130MAK. So far so good. But the eyepiece you’ve suggested is only $55 less than the whole spotter. How much of an improvement is it over the 63X that came with the Celestron? Any decent lower priced alternatives to the $240 zoom Televue eyepiece for 200- 600 yd bullet hole viewing?
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks,
Bill
Forum Boss
Administrator
Fred, I'm not sure I'm smart enough to fully understand your last point. But on that day in those conditions,3300' altitude, no pollution, no haze), I could definitely see a dark point in the orange field. Not sharp mind you, but it was there and it helped me hold center. And as noted, my shooting partner, John, looking through his 12-42x Nightforce could see the group forming up,though he couldn't call the 2 in 1).
As Lou Murdica and others have observed, in very good conditions, the best scopes are able to "reveal" 6mm holes in the white at 600. I say "reveal" as opposed to resolve--what you are basically seeing is a fuzzy dark area--the anomoly in the field of white. That's enough.
On other days when there is humidity and mirage I can't come close to seeing a 6mm bullet hole at 600, so conditions certainly make a difference.
The other thing to remember about "day-glo" inks. True fluorescent pigments actually do convert non-visible UV light energy into visible wavelengths. Therefor an orange marker like this can appear "brighter" than plain paper. Presumably this enhances contrast too.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Bill,tipcrow)
Yes there are very good lower priced alternatives to the TeleVue eyepieces. For the zoom: Meade 8-24mm Series 4000 Zoom 1.25" Eyepiece [ME-07199-2] at about $220; Vixen - 8-24mm Zoom Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3777] at about $150; or even the Celestron - 8 - 24mm 1.25" Zoom Eyepiece [CE-93230] at about $60,not recommended).
I suggested the TeleVues based on my own testing and recommend them highly. However I also use Vixen eyepieces and the VX -3777 above together with a Vixen - 5mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1,25" [VX-3716] at about $100 would be about half the cost of the TeleVue eyepieces that I had suggested as part of my "Ideal" package and should serve nearly as well.
NOTE - prices above are current at http://www.optcorp.com/
Paul,Moderator - who has seen the light)
It seems that you have understood the optics problem quite well. Even with the best scopes, high but even target illumination and high contrast targets we are still at the mercy of the atmosphere between the objective and the target. That air and its contained particulates and there movement can and do cause havoc. As we say in astronomy "bad seeing conditions trump great equipment".
It is like the rig that will shoot in the "zeros" in the test tunnel but you struggle to shoot in the "teens" on the range with even a little wind.
Yes there are very good lower priced alternatives to the TeleVue eyepieces. For the zoom: Meade 8-24mm Series 4000 Zoom 1.25" Eyepiece [ME-07199-2] at about $220; Vixen - 8-24mm Zoom Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3777] at about $150; or even the Celestron - 8 - 24mm 1.25" Zoom Eyepiece [CE-93230] at about $60,not recommended).
I suggested the TeleVues based on my own testing and recommend them highly. However I also use Vixen eyepieces and the VX -3777 above together with a Vixen - 5mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1,25" [VX-3716] at about $100 would be about half the cost of the TeleVue eyepieces that I had suggested as part of my "Ideal" package and should serve nearly as well.
NOTE - prices above are current at http://www.optcorp.com/
Paul,Moderator - who has seen the light)
It seems that you have understood the optics problem quite well. Even with the best scopes, high but even target illumination and high contrast targets we are still at the mercy of the atmosphere between the objective and the target. That air and its contained particulates and there movement can and do cause havoc. As we say in astronomy "bad seeing conditions trump great equipment".
It is like the rig that will shoot in the "zeros" in the test tunnel but you struggle to shoot in the "teens" on the range with even a little wind.
As far as aiming points go, I've found that the NBRSA 600 yard target with it's blue center circle with a white X circle for an aiming point is hard to beat in any conditions. The downside is in medium to heavy mirage it's almost impossible to see the hits in the blue, whereas a white background you might be able to pick them up.
As far as the ideal scope for viewing bullet holes I'd have to disagree. If the Meade or the Celestron were the hot setup you'd see more of them at Matches, which you don't. Zeiss,Pentax,Swaroski,Leica,etc. are what you see. I would think that the guys shelling out close to two grand for some of these would jump at being able to get something better for $600.
Sorry, you get what you pay for in optics.
Paul's 100% right most guys would be better off investing in a Nightforce or a March for the rifle. Their scores would thank them for it. In fact I'd suggest to any new guy wanting to jump into the Custom rifle classes to invest FIRST in the best scope you can afford and then build the rifle under it. That goes for factory rifles also. You won't believe how your scores will jump just by replacing that brand X scope with a 12-42 Nightforce. Again you get what you pay for in optics.
Danny
As far as the ideal scope for viewing bullet holes I'd have to disagree. If the Meade or the Celestron were the hot setup you'd see more of them at Matches, which you don't. Zeiss,Pentax,Swaroski,Leica,etc. are what you see. I would think that the guys shelling out close to two grand for some of these would jump at being able to get something better for $600.
Sorry, you get what you pay for in optics.
Paul's 100% right most guys would be better off investing in a Nightforce or a March for the rifle. Their scores would thank them for it. In fact I'd suggest to any new guy wanting to jump into the Custom rifle classes to invest FIRST in the best scope you can afford and then build the rifle under it. That goes for factory rifles also. You won't believe how your scores will jump just by replacing that brand X scope with a 12-42 Nightforce. Again you get what you pay for in optics.
Danny
Fred touched on the most important feature about a spotting scope, and it seems to get bypassed more often than not. The TRIPOD! You can have the best or worst scope, but if it isn't stable, you can't see anything.
I tell everyone that asks to spend at least $200 of your budget for a spotting scope in a tripod. Gauge the remaining money for the best scpoe you can afford, but without a stable tripod, you have nothing.
I made mine out of a converted surveyor's tripod. Bogden makes a great tripod for cameras, if you get the top of their line.
I tell everyone that asks to spend at least $200 of your budget for a spotting scope in a tripod. Gauge the remaining money for the best scpoe you can afford, but without a stable tripod, you have nothing.
I made mine out of a converted surveyor's tripod. Bogden makes a great tripod for cameras, if you get the top of their line.
Forum Boss
Administrator
Wayne is right, and Danny Reever also made this point in his orignal spotting scope review.
But... you don't need to spend $200. For $20-$40 on eBay, look for a Star-D pro by Davidson. This is a rugged tripod that was stable enough for movie cameras in its day. You can hang a sandbag or water jug from the center post if it's really windy.
Look for the ones with rotary,collet) leg locks and all machined metal heads.
The all-Metal Star-D was based on a Leitz design.
Here's a nice one for sale right now on eBay, item 250129072548
You WILL want a bigger and heavier tripod for something like a Meade ATX-125 with Motor drive, but often these telescopes sell on eBay with factory tripod included.
But... you don't need to spend $200. For $20-$40 on eBay, look for a Star-D pro by Davidson. This is a rugged tripod that was stable enough for movie cameras in its day. You can hang a sandbag or water jug from the center post if it's really windy.
Look for the ones with rotary,collet) leg locks and all machined metal heads.
The all-Metal Star-D was based on a Leitz design.
Here's a nice one for sale right now on eBay, item 250129072548
You WILL want a bigger and heavier tripod for something like a Meade ATX-125 with Motor drive, but often these telescopes sell on eBay with factory tripod included.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Danny
I completely agree with you and Paul that we all should put the best scope we can afford on our rifles. For 200 yards or less and 36x our more power you should not need a spotting scope. For 300, 500 and 600 yard and particularly during practice and load development a spotting scope is almost a necessity.
Your review article was very well done and I was particularly impressed by your initial selection of the lower priced Pentax 80ED among the first three. Your subsequent upgrade to the Pentax 100ED and your tests proved the advantage of the larger objective and more magnification.
Since you already have a suitable tripod please try to borrow a Celestron C130MAK for another comparison. I think you will find that the Maksutov design with its large clear aperture and long focal length,lots of light and resolution and higher magnification with the same eyepiece) is better suited to target analysis.
The spotting scopes you have reviewed are design optimized for bird watching that requires an emphasis on color rendition, waterproofing and weight minimization for field use. None of these are necessary for target spotting. You may always "get what you pat for in optics", but you should try to pay for what you really need to get the most bang for your bucks.
I completely agree with you and Paul that we all should put the best scope we can afford on our rifles. For 200 yards or less and 36x our more power you should not need a spotting scope. For 300, 500 and 600 yard and particularly during practice and load development a spotting scope is almost a necessity.
Your review article was very well done and I was particularly impressed by your initial selection of the lower priced Pentax 80ED among the first three. Your subsequent upgrade to the Pentax 100ED and your tests proved the advantage of the larger objective and more magnification.
Since you already have a suitable tripod please try to borrow a Celestron C130MAK for another comparison. I think you will find that the Maksutov design with its large clear aperture and long focal length,lots of light and resolution and higher magnification with the same eyepiece) is better suited to target analysis.
The spotting scopes you have reviewed are design optimized for bird watching that requires an emphasis on color rendition, waterproofing and weight minimization for field use. None of these are necessary for target spotting. You may always "get what you pat for in optics", but you should try to pay for what you really need to get the most bang for your bucks.
Fred,
Tripcrow has one of the Celestron's, I'll have my Pentax 100, There will be a Pentax 80 there, a Kowa 80 and perhaps a Zeiss 85,If you can get out of bed Charlie! LOL!) so perhaps this Thursday at our regular fun shoot we can do a side by side at 500 meters.
One difference will be eyepieces which I'm sure will factor in. Good eyepieces are expensive. Pentax XW fixed eyepieces go for $300+ which sort of effects the "I think I'll try a _____ and see how it does" line of thought. You mentioned the Teleview Radian which is a fine eyepiece, again in the $300 range. My thoughts are you can buy biggest and best spotting scope but if you scrimp on the eyepiece you're defeating the purpose.
I feel, like I said before, you have to consider the whole package. Scope, Eyepiece, Tripod, and Tripod Head. Each component has an effect on the others so if ones sub par then it's performance degrades the others.
Another thing in regard to eyepieces, no two are exactly the same. Even identical part numbers you'll find some are better than others. For example If I could take six of any given brand of top quality eyepiece and try each one on my scope and then pick the best one that would be nice. Unfortunately that's not possible. So it's the luck of the draw when you buy that eyepiece.
As far as the Ultimate Scope goes, In my opinion if Zeiss made a 100+MM Diascope that was better than their 85MM or my Pentax 100MM, I would take out the loan to buy it.,It would be expensive!) To me that would be the Ultimate Spotting Scope!
Danny
Tripcrow has one of the Celestron's, I'll have my Pentax 100, There will be a Pentax 80 there, a Kowa 80 and perhaps a Zeiss 85,If you can get out of bed Charlie! LOL!) so perhaps this Thursday at our regular fun shoot we can do a side by side at 500 meters.
One difference will be eyepieces which I'm sure will factor in. Good eyepieces are expensive. Pentax XW fixed eyepieces go for $300+ which sort of effects the "I think I'll try a _____ and see how it does" line of thought. You mentioned the Teleview Radian which is a fine eyepiece, again in the $300 range. My thoughts are you can buy biggest and best spotting scope but if you scrimp on the eyepiece you're defeating the purpose.
I feel, like I said before, you have to consider the whole package. Scope, Eyepiece, Tripod, and Tripod Head. Each component has an effect on the others so if ones sub par then it's performance degrades the others.
Another thing in regard to eyepieces, no two are exactly the same. Even identical part numbers you'll find some are better than others. For example If I could take six of any given brand of top quality eyepiece and try each one on my scope and then pick the best one that would be nice. Unfortunately that's not possible. So it's the luck of the draw when you buy that eyepiece.
As far as the Ultimate Scope goes, In my opinion if Zeiss made a 100+MM Diascope that was better than their 85MM or my Pentax 100MM, I would take out the loan to buy it.,It would be expensive!) To me that would be the Ultimate Spotting Scope!
Danny
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Danny
I can hardly wait for your comparison of Bill's,tipcrow) Celestron C180MAK to the others and particularly to your Pentax 100ED.
Your right about the eyepiece quality being critical to sharpness, brightness and user comfort,eye relief for those wearing glasses particularly). I prefer the TeleVue eyepieces I first recommended do in part to the fact that they accept the TeleVue Dioptrx astigmatism corrector which I use instead of my glasses,works great).
Another comparison problem will be magnification as they all should be the same. The ones you listed all include 50x capability,with the zoom eyepieces) but for Bill's C180MAK that would require a 40mm eyepiece,Vixen - 40mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3799] = 50x)for its 2000mm focal length.
A fair maximum capability comparison to your Pentax 100ED at 78x would be the C130MAK with a 25mm eyepiece,Vixen - 25mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3758] = 80x).
If Bill has acquired one of the zoom eyepieces I suggested,Vixen - 8-24mm Zoom Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3777])that would give a range of 250x to 83.3x and be over most of the zoom range of all units. It would also be a fairer quality match,zoom to Zoom) versus normally better fixed to zoom. That would also allow you lucky guys to explore the high power realm of the C130MAK. Sorry for the edit - fingers got ahead of brain or old timers attack.
I can hardly wait for your comparison of Bill's,tipcrow) Celestron C180MAK to the others and particularly to your Pentax 100ED.
Your right about the eyepiece quality being critical to sharpness, brightness and user comfort,eye relief for those wearing glasses particularly). I prefer the TeleVue eyepieces I first recommended do in part to the fact that they accept the TeleVue Dioptrx astigmatism corrector which I use instead of my glasses,works great).
Another comparison problem will be magnification as they all should be the same. The ones you listed all include 50x capability,with the zoom eyepieces) but for Bill's C180MAK that would require a 40mm eyepiece,Vixen - 40mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3799] = 50x)for its 2000mm focal length.
A fair maximum capability comparison to your Pentax 100ED at 78x would be the C130MAK with a 25mm eyepiece,Vixen - 25mm Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3758] = 80x).
If Bill has acquired one of the zoom eyepieces I suggested,Vixen - 8-24mm Zoom Lanthanum LV Eyepiece - 1.25" [VX-3777])that would give a range of 250x to 83.3x and be over most of the zoom range of all units. It would also be a fairer quality match,zoom to Zoom) versus normally better fixed to zoom. That would also allow you lucky guys to explore the high power realm of the C130MAK. Sorry for the edit - fingers got ahead of brain or old timers attack.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.