I'm looking to purchase a high end spotting scope. I'm kind of torn between the swarovski 80mm or the 65 mm. I was just wondering if the weight difference was really noticeable and whether or not the low light capability was that much better with the 80mm. I was also wondering if the HD glass was that much better then the non HD? Any insight on these spotting scopes would be very helpful, because this is going to be a once in a life time investment. I will be using the scope for hunting.. sometimes packing out a couple miles and sometimes just spotting out of the truck.
What to get for Swarovski Spotting scope 65mm vs 80mm
- Thread starter Murf45
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
moombaskier
Well-Known Member
I've been really happy with my STS65. I use it for pack in and target practice. It is the non HD model and I can easily see 7mm holes in white painted plywood at 850yds. Make sure you get a good tripod too.
How does the 65 perform in the low light situations? Also is there much of a difference between the HD and non-HD and if so where are you going to see it?... I just got a manfrotto carbon fiber tripod so I'm thinking that should do the trick. What do you use for a tripod?
One can never have too good of an optic, get to the 80mm Swaro. Unless you want sone a tad better and if so then get the Kowa TSN883. The top of the line Kowa with the Promenade lens is a tad better than the Swarovswki in resolution at the longer distances. I tried them side by side and I sold my swarovski 80mm and kept the Kowa 88mm
Size definately makes difference and bigger is better just like she said
Size definately makes difference and bigger is better just like she said
Toomanytracks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 56
If you plan on packing your scope any distance stick with the 65 HD. Yes you will be giving up a little on the front end but gain the ability to pack it all day. Ie space and weight. Manfratto head is the only head too use, it comes at a cost . Buy it once and your set till something better tickles your fancy.
Toomanytracks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 56
It's all personal preferance. You want a fluid head. I am running 3130 it's 5
years old it works for me because I use an angle spotter. A pistol grip for a striaght spotter . Spending good money on glass and sitting it on a econo tripod is setting your self to use it less. I spend alot of time behind one, it takes some time to get familar with your setup.
years old it works for me because I use an angle spotter. A pistol grip for a striaght spotter . Spending good money on glass and sitting it on a econo tripod is setting your self to use it less. I spend alot of time behind one, it takes some time to get familar with your setup.
Here are the weight diferences between a 65 and the 80 Swarovski spotters
Swarovski ATM80 Angled Spotting Scope Body:
Objective lens (mm): 80
Objective or eyepiece focal length (mm/in): 460 / 18.1
Shortest focusing distance (m/ft): 5 / 16
Dioptric correction at ∞ (dpt): >5
Objective filter thread: M 82x0.75
Length approx. (mm/in): 355 / 14.0
Weight approx. (g/oz): 1230 / 43.4
Swarovski Spotting Scope Body ATM-65 HD 49714:
Weight: 1020 grams
Objective lens diameter: 65 mm
Shortest focusing distance: 10 feet / 3 meters
Dioptric correction: >5
Objective Filter Thread: M 67x0.75
Length, approx.: 12.8 inches / 325 mm
Weight, approx.: 36 ounces / 1020 grams
There is only 7.4 ounces difference in the 2 but at first and last light on the hunt of a lifetime it is more than worht the difference in weight to go with the 60 in my expereince
Swarovski ATM80 Angled Spotting Scope Body:
Objective lens (mm): 80
Objective or eyepiece focal length (mm/in): 460 / 18.1
Shortest focusing distance (m/ft): 5 / 16
Dioptric correction at ∞ (dpt): >5
Objective filter thread: M 82x0.75
Length approx. (mm/in): 355 / 14.0
Weight approx. (g/oz): 1230 / 43.4
Swarovski Spotting Scope Body ATM-65 HD 49714:
Weight: 1020 grams
Objective lens diameter: 65 mm
Shortest focusing distance: 10 feet / 3 meters
Dioptric correction: >5
Objective Filter Thread: M 67x0.75
Length, approx.: 12.8 inches / 325 mm
Weight, approx.: 36 ounces / 1020 grams
There is only 7.4 ounces difference in the 2 but at first and last light on the hunt of a lifetime it is more than worht the difference in weight to go with the 60 in my expereince
Toomanytracks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 56
Your absolutly right it's a half a pound differance in weight. Pack that seven to ten miles a day on your once in a lifetime hunt. Don't forget the night vission scope so you can shoot it when you spot it.
The better the glass the better you are going to be able to see..
I managed to get up the mpontain with a 13 pound rifle and enough gear
Sometimes a beast of burden helps
Light weight is great, but if you can't see then it is dead weight
I looked thru a kowa highlander and could not belive it. It was actually dark where i was standing had a few street lights a few blocks away was all. I was watching tractor trailers on a interstate 4 miles away with only the head lights from on comming cars and could tell what color the truck was. Could actually read the #'s on a planes wing flying over. Good luck on your purchase high end optics are worth it.
mike
mike
Go with the 80mm swaro, or the Kowa. I am a firm believer in the extra weight is worth it. especially when it is only 7 oz. As for the HD I really don't think that is worth it unless you plan to do alot of digiscoping. The HD was really brought out because of the complaints in resolution from the digiscopers.
