I watch for used and it gets you more optic for the money. Ive had lot of scopes 3 now.Scope I grab the most for size and convenience is Leo 12-40x60,mine was about $600 new you can still find for this price on used market.Good scope for the money compact only 32 oz.
Spotting Scopes, What Price Range For Acceptable Quality
- Thread starter ltrmc02
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I'm now leaning towards the Vortex Razor HD line as some have previously suggested.
I think I'd like the size of the smallest version 11-33x50 but wondering how much further I could see bullet holes with more power such as their next step up in a 16-48x65. Any thoughts on upper end power ranges?
I think I'd like the size of the smallest version 11-33x50 but wondering how much further I could see bullet holes with more power such as their next step up in a 16-48x65. Any thoughts on upper end power ranges?
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
I've had a chance to play with all three scopes at different times. Optically, all three have similar on-axis (center of the field of view) performance owing to all of them using ED glass. Differences in optical performance are minor.
The Pentax is the only one of the three that has a metal body. Metal is far more rigid than polycarbonate and spreads heat more evenly when used in direct sunlight (hot spots are not good for optics).
The Pentax fixed focal length eyepieces are outstanding. The Pentax zoom eyepieces are good but not great. Pentax uses a standard eyepiece design so you can upgrade to a third party zoom eyepiece if you want to.
The Vortex eyepieces are OK but not great. Mechanically the Vortex is not as rigid as the Pentax. This becomes apparent in windy conditions or when handling the scope to adjust zoom or focus. In my opinion, Vortex quality control is not very good. About 25% of the Viper spotting scopes I inspected at the 2013 SHOT show were defective in some way. The warranty and customer service are great - and there's a decent chance you'll need it.
The Bushnell Legend HD scopes have very good optical performance for the price. They are big though. The focus mechanism has more hysteresis than the other two scopes. Mechanically, they are similar to the Vortex scopes. Polycarbonate does not produce a very rigid scope body, especially with a rotating mounting ring.
In the ~$1,000 category, the Pentax is a very stable scope. The optical performance is quite good, especially with a fixed focal length eyepiece.
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
I'll second that. I use the HD version a lot for work. It has a metal body. I attach a digital camera to the eyepiece and it makes a fantastic long range camera. The camera attachment ring is solid. The on-axis resolution is excellent. It's also got a generous eye relief. The focus shifts when I change the zoom and the zoom and focus adjustments are a bit stiff, but those are nits that I willingly accept in this otherwise excellent compact scope.
I've tried everything from a Leupold 400 dollar spotter to a Zeiss 2500.00 spotter, and ended up keeping the Leopold for close target stuff out to 200 yards, and invested in a camera system for everything else out to 700 yards.
Theres not an affordable spotting scope made that can get thru mirage or resolve bullet holes worth a **** out past about 300-400 yards or so IMO. When you get to the big expensive spotters they resolve better, but you are still fighting mirage out past a certain point.
But for 500 bucks...my target camera systems kicks butt. I have about 4 people at my range who have since sold their Zeiss and Swarvo spotters and bought camera systems.
Of course the camera systems come with their own set of issues, but for the money I can live with them.
Theres not an affordable spotting scope made that can get thru mirage or resolve bullet holes worth a **** out past about 300-400 yards or so IMO. When you get to the big expensive spotters they resolve better, but you are still fighting mirage out past a certain point.
But for 500 bucks...my target camera systems kicks butt. I have about 4 people at my range who have since sold their Zeiss and Swarvo spotters and bought camera systems.
Of course the camera systems come with their own set of issues, but for the money I can live with them.
Sully2
Well-Known Member
Thats the exact same model as I one I presently own
Yeah due to my inexperience with spotting scopes I was seeing these Pentax in the $550 range so thinking it was a lower end scope than yours as you said it was around $1000 but now I realize for that price it doesn't come with an eyepiece which can cost close to that much more, I'm learning
Finally got some time off work so I'm about to head out now to go look at some at Bass Pro and maybe some Camera shops if I can find some near by that carry Spotters.Thanks for the replies guys.
deadidarren
Well-Known Member
sorry for the hijack but to save rehashing this in another thread is the
Bushnell 15-45X60 Legend Ultra HD good enough to spot hit on the ground
near my gong with damp ground not dusty , i can see them through a Leupold
6.5-20x50 but the spotter and a pod is just a lot more comfortable the range
will be at 800 .
cheers Darren
Bushnell 15-45X60 Legend Ultra HD good enough to spot hit on the ground
near my gong with damp ground not dusty , i can see them through a Leupold
6.5-20x50 but the spotter and a pod is just a lot more comfortable the range
will be at 800 .
cheers Darren
Sully2
Well-Known Member
Yeah due to my inexperience with spotting scopes I was seeing these Pentax in the $550 range so thinking it was a lower end scope than yours as you said it was around $1000 but now I realize for that price it doesn't come with an eyepiece which can cost close to that much more, I'm learning
Thanks for the replies guys.
And they talk about their 20-60X eyepiece. YA DONT WANT IT!.....Get a fixed power eyepiece and they are 100% clearer.
Spotting Scopes must not sell around my area near Raleigh NC. I went by Bass Pro Shop, Gander Mountain then Field and Stream and the only nice scope was a Meopta MeoPro 80HD at Field and Stream, Gander didn't even have a spotting scope and Bass Pro's best looking scope was a $360 Oculus.
Sully2, what eyepiece do you have and or recommend? I just ordered the Pentax PF-65EDAII without an eyepiece. I'm thinking of either the Pentax XW14 or XW10 the XW14 would be 28X and 132' FOV at 1000yds if I'm converting from meters right. The XW10 would be 39X with 93' FOV at 1000yds.
I'm wanting to see bullet holes in targets as far as possible but I'm sure I'd find many other uses for this scope so what power range would you guys recommend for all around use?
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
I would get the XW14. 39X is too high for general use with a 65 mm objective. The exit pupil is only 1.7 mm. It will be dim in anything but full daylight, and you will be constantly struggling to keep your eye aligned.
To see bullet holes in paper at long range I recommend.
1. Get your spotting scope as high as possible above the ground, especially if you are looking over flat terrain. Turbulence-induced blur is worse the closer you get to the ground.
2. There should be female thread on the input side of the eyepiece that accepts a standard astronomy filter. Install at yellow filter in the eyepiece. Turbulence-induced blur is worse for shorter wavelengths. By cutting out violet and blue colors, you will have less blur.
3. Make sure the backstop behind your target is in direct sunlight, not shadow. Use a dark target to get as much contrast as possible between the target and the bullet holes. You will be able to see bullet holes at crazy long ranges this way.
To see bullet holes in paper at long range I recommend.
1. Get your spotting scope as high as possible above the ground, especially if you are looking over flat terrain. Turbulence-induced blur is worse the closer you get to the ground.
2. There should be female thread on the input side of the eyepiece that accepts a standard astronomy filter. Install at yellow filter in the eyepiece. Turbulence-induced blur is worse for shorter wavelengths. By cutting out violet and blue colors, you will have less blur.
3. Make sure the backstop behind your target is in direct sunlight, not shadow. Use a dark target to get as much contrast as possible between the target and the bullet holes. You will be able to see bullet holes at crazy long ranges this way.
Senderofan
Well-Known Member
I was in your exact spot a number of years ago. Started off with a really cheap Russian spotter that was horrible. Next was a Nikon Earth and Sky...that was better...then the Vortex and finally my Meopta. The Nikon was very serviceable and the Vortex could have been a scope I used for a very long time. With aging eyes and an amazing opportunity to move into a top tier scope....I moved to the Meopta and have really taken a shine to it.
Before getting the Vortex....I had read a fair amount of positive reports about the larger Pentax scope and thus my posting about that. Perhaps the mid level Leupold's would be worth serious consideration....I've never had an opportunity to look through any Leupold spotter.
It's unfortunate that we can't experience many of these scopes before we purchase them. We end up relying on our internet friends for advice. As with most advice from the internet....take mine with two grains of salt. I'm no optics expert...just sharing my experiences with spotters.
Wayne
Sully2
Well-Known Member
I have the PF65ED and a 20-60 pwr eyepiece. Whether its the scope or the eyepiece...the combo is definately "lacking".
I just wanted to sum up this thread with what I ended up getting and my review of it thus far.
I got the chance Wednesday to try out my new Pentax PF-65EDAII with the Pentax XF10 eyepiece and was able to see my 22-250 holes in white paper and cardboard out at the furthest distance of my shooting range 515 yards. Certainly there was no mirage, had over cast weather so no glares and lighting was good so ideal conditions. To see the .22 cal holes the viewer would need to know they were there and in what general area to make them out but .308 holes were much more noticeable at that range and not hard to pick out on the white and cardboard brown back ground. This setup will do what I wanted so I'm pleased with it. I was surprised at how large the XW eyepiece was. I ordered it sight unseen and was expecting it to be half the size it is. It looks a bit odd on this more compact scope but I actually felt better about the price paid when I got twice as much eyepiece as I was expecting to get
I don't have the experience with scopes to speak about chromatic aberration and fringing of this scope yet but for my first spotting scope I think I'll enjoy it for awhile. The focus is a little stiff and hopefully it'll loosen up some with use but other than that I have nothing negative to say about this setup.
I started this post with the only sure thing was wanting a straight scope and not an angled but ended up going with angled. My initial thoughts were that it would be very hard to locate the object for view in the angled scope but after borrowing and playing around with a cheap angled scope I found that it's not too bad after a little use. I feel I would opt for a straight in a 50mm compact unit but for a heavier spotter I now lean towards the angled style but without field experience with both I can't give good reasons for my preference at this time.
I got the chance Wednesday to try out my new Pentax PF-65EDAII with the Pentax XF10 eyepiece and was able to see my 22-250 holes in white paper and cardboard out at the furthest distance of my shooting range 515 yards. Certainly there was no mirage, had over cast weather so no glares and lighting was good so ideal conditions. To see the .22 cal holes the viewer would need to know they were there and in what general area to make them out but .308 holes were much more noticeable at that range and not hard to pick out on the white and cardboard brown back ground. This setup will do what I wanted so I'm pleased with it. I was surprised at how large the XW eyepiece was. I ordered it sight unseen and was expecting it to be half the size it is. It looks a bit odd on this more compact scope but I actually felt better about the price paid when I got twice as much eyepiece as I was expecting to get
I don't have the experience with scopes to speak about chromatic aberration and fringing of this scope yet but for my first spotting scope I think I'll enjoy it for awhile. The focus is a little stiff and hopefully it'll loosen up some with use but other than that I have nothing negative to say about this setup.
I started this post with the only sure thing was wanting a straight scope and not an angled but ended up going with angled. My initial thoughts were that it would be very hard to locate the object for view in the angled scope but after borrowing and playing around with a cheap angled scope I found that it's not too bad after a little use. I feel I would opt for a straight in a 50mm compact unit but for a heavier spotter I now lean towards the angled style but without field experience with both I can't give good reasons for my preference at this time.
