Spotting scopes input????

[whirlwindjml]

So I watched some King of the 2 mile vids and there were a lot of vortex spotter and swaroski on the line. There was also one big set of high lander Kowa's which looks like 2 spotting scopes side by side. I never heard too much about kowa until everyone started posting on here. Sounds like they put up some good glass. Also the Long range pursuit group use the swaroski and the vortex as well in there hunting vids. I know there is a lot of sponsor ship that goes on with that but they must work pretty good or they would not use them. Also another thing I don't think the big 80's is what people are using for packing. Looks like the next step down is getting the job done.

Kowa has been around along time but dont seem to drop the same coin on marketing that vortex and swaro do and many people make puchases off what the cabelas guy show them in the case (havnt seen kowa there)....you also need to have your kids all moved out and your wife still working to afford one. My work peer just dropper 2600 on one. I bought the kenai 2 hd leopold on sale @ m#dw@y and am happy with it. The reviews sketched me out but im not a fussy optic whiner so im happy with mine for the price.

I Read one of lens' articles he packs the 11-33 compact vortex in his pack. I was strongly considering that one but i need power for some of the hunts im planning soon.

Would be nice to go to a prs match or something and ask around maby people would let a guy peak through a few befor the major wallet dump.

 

[Buck Fever]

Spotting scopes are telescopes. If you think of them that way, you can cut through a lot of the B.S.

Most spotters are refractor telescopes and most of them are considered achromatic and use a two element objective lens. The two elements allow for the image to perfectly focus two wavelengths of light at the same time. Every other wavelength is out of focus a bit so you get chromatic aberration if the optical system is faster than about f15.

Expensive spotters usually use ED glass to improve the performance and use faster optical designs with reduced chromatic aberration.

Very expensive spotters use an apochromatic refractor design with a three element objective lens. This can correct for three wavelengths which means the wavelengths between those three create less chromatic aberration and will work in even faster optical designs.

The result of using one of these three designs is that spotters with large objectives are very long, very expensive or have lots of chromatic aberration. Some designs fold the optical path with mirrors to reduce the physical length of the scope.

The alternative is to look for different optical designs. I use a Maksutov Cassegrain design that has only one lens, a curved mirror and a slivered spot on the inside of the objective lens to fold the light path. Luckily the focal length of the objective lens is so long that chromatic aberration is not an issue and mirrors just don't have that issue. Since most people don't think to look at these telescopes, when you can find them, they are pretty cheap.

The rest of the story is that telescope resolution is determined by two things: the objective diameter and how precisely the glass is ground. Bigger is better for objectives but glass quality is measured by how much the surfaces deviate from the optical perscription and it is measured in fractions of a wavelength of visible light. As a telescope adds more elements to the optical path, each lens needs to be ground more precisely to realize the same resolution which is why Apochromatic refractors are so expensive. A Maksutov Cassegrain only has the two sides of the objective lens and one side of a mirror to grind and easy alignment to colimate the scope while an Apochromatic design requires 6 sides of three lenses to be very very accurately ground and spaced or cemented.

Once you get your basic optical design sorted out, then it's time to look at the eyepiece and in most cases it doesn't matter to the eyepiece which optical design is in front of it. Basic eyepiece designs are really cheap, new is under $20 but you get a narrow field of view, short eye relief and various types of distortion as you look away from the optical center. Fancy eyepieces can be really expensive with many lens elements, flouride glass and in some cases reticles but usually they boast wide viewing angles, long eye relief and less distortion. In between you can get good field of view, good eye relief and fairly low distortion. There are also zooms but I prefer fixed.

My spotter is an $80 90mm Celestron Maksutov Cassegrain with a 500mm focal length and a $60 eyepiece.

To make it better I have added a nicer erecting prism 45° diagonal, a Chinese Binoviewer and a pair of reticle eyepieces. My next upgrade might be a nicer Barlow lens than the one that came with the Binoviewer.

I think of it as a poor man's Swarovski BTX. It's a little more fragile and a bit less sealed against the elements but optically it's not far off. It impressed a man who used a BTX 95 on a big hunt so I know the comparison is valid.

I use it for target shooting more than hunting so I can get away with a slightly less robust scope.

So that should explain what you are spending money on when buying a sporting scope.

I think there is lots of room for someone to ruggedize a scope like mine and undercut Swarovski and Kowa by 50% or more.

 

[matemike]

I never heard too much about kowa until everyone started posting on here.


Also another thing I don't think the big 80's is what people are using for packing. Looks like the next step down is getting the job done.

I had never heard of Kowa either until 2009 when I saw and used on in person on a hunting trip with a guy who goes to specialty stores like camera and astronomy stores...not Bass Pro and Academy for his glass. That's probably where he found out about Kowa. I mistakenly came home from that hunting trip and wanted to look into the Kowa's, but couldn't remember the name and wound up reading all about Kona's...lol.

I still ended up with the Swarovski ATX 65mm because it does fit into a bag better and it does everything I need it to do on a tripod at the range or in a box blind. If I had an 80mm or especially a 90mm it would be too cumbersome for what I do with it. His 88mm Kowa stays on the tripod inside the house looking out of a window at his ranch. It never moves more than 5 ft.

 

[PC Python]

I have two of the Kowa Prominar model scopes, the 66mm and 88mm. The 66mm goes in the pack and the 88mm stays closer to the truck. I absolutely love them and would put them up against anything out there. I originally had an 80mm Swarovski and replaced it with the big Kowa.

 

[yobuck]

Well for the record, the old Bushnell Spacemaster from the 70s 80s and into the 90s had a triplate objective lens, and the first ones i bought new in the 70s cost me about $90 bucks each, and a 20x wide eyepiece was about $25. Today you will pay $100 or more for a used 20 or 22 x used (if) you can find one.
But they can be made up from telescope eyepieces if you know how to do it. But none the less, you wont be getting any $20 eyepieces.
In laymens terms the larger the objective lens, the more light is allowed to enter into the scope, therefore making it brighter to look thru on darker days than a scope having a smaller one.
But there are trade offs, especially from the portability aspect as related to the size of an 80 mm and a 60 mm.
Ive owned large WW2 era binoculars with 120mm objectives that i used for long range hunting.
And still today, there are no finer optics made than those made in that era for the military.
And the Japs made them with 150 and 180mm objectives also. Theres a LR hunter in Pa who has 2 sets of the 180s. But guess what, it takes 2 guys to put them on a very big tripod.
And guess what else, their better for posing for a picture standing next to them then they are for real long range hunting.
Which is why i sold my 120s about 25 years ago.
If your hunting from a fixed location close to a vehicle thats one thing, and thats how much of the Pa long range hunting is done. But if your going to lugging them any type of distance, id be using good 60mm or even 50mm because they will work well for hunters also.
I have a set of old Bushnell Sentry 2 scopes in a bracket having 50mm objectives, and i have very good set of 16x eyepieces in them. I have less than $400 invested in them including the bracket.
If you would like to bring your 15x56 Swaros to sit next to them and compare, bring them, and i guarantee you will be sweating after you do because weve done that. Note im not saying better, just saying you will be sweating, and maybe even a little ****ed off.
You can buy those old Sentry 2 50mm scopes on Ebay all the time for about $75 bucks. And ive bought a few for a whole lot less. The standard 20 x eyepiece many of them have is pretty dammed good, but can be swapped out for any standard threaded one except the zooms which wont work due to focal length.
Mind you now i have 77mm Kowas also in a bracket, and would prefer them over the 50 and 60mm sets i have.
But even though there are differences, they arent huge differences even between the 50s and 77s on most days. Ideal is having multible sets, which i do. Like a gun its a piece of necessary equipment, with one size not fitting all type situations.

 

[sp6x6]

You will see the leupold 15-45x60,at KO2.And lots of outdoor shows,its compact, the 15 is really nice for scanning.Can find used for really good deal.Mine is non HD,and Ive had 20 years? My baby Kowa,at twice the cost is more packable and thats it,the 554,flourite