which spotting scope?

[dog caller]

grit,
Midway has the Nikon Earth and Sky on sale right now for $200
I won't go so far as to say that it is better than the Leupold, Zeiss or other afor mentioned scopes but it IS a good scope ata agood price.
dc

 

[Ian M]

I am fortunate to get to use a wide variety of spotters, usually prefer to play with the high dollar ones when I can. Bottom line, Grouper is correct, there is a difference in favor of the big buck glass. There should be, you **** well pay for it. But that difference may mainly be seen at extreme distance or during really crappy light conditions. Or when you accidentally drop or bang your scope real hard. You pay big bucks to have the enjoyment of looking through the big, wide eyepiece of a Swaro, after a while that eyepiece becomes a standard you will compare others to. But for the money, I believe the Nikons are superb value, well built, sharp to the outer edges and very good spotters. Have used Bushnells that did a good job also, same with a Brunton that was a solid, bright scope. Suggest you check Brunton's home page since they have great deals on stuff they want to move.

http://www.brunton.com/webdeals.php

Check out the compact scope, it is a nice spotter.

Nikon has some deals where you can get a pretty good tripod and window mount in a package, and a carrying case. Excellent value and very good optics.

I have used the Leupold line also, good but not super optics, solid scopes. I find ergononics becomes an issue with the focusing wheel, knob, ring on some scopes being handier and easier to use with precision. Some Leupies are awkward for my use, but a person can get used to a scope quickly.

My buds all use Nikons, they are completely happy with them. Know some guys with Swaros and they would not switch. You pays your money and takes your chances.

If you find a really solid ground tripod, please let us know. I am amazed that there is no reasonably priced tripod for prone use. Hate using junk, but most of the smaller tripods are just that. Quick detach is good, we need a small, sturdy, easily and accurately adjusted tripod for prone use that does not cost 350 dollars.

 

[lerch]

Given the fact that me and BJ get to sell a few of these things i will kick in my opinion.

Buying these things suck, PERIOD!!!!! For good quality product you are gonna spend a lot of money and if your tight like me you aint gonna like it. But the simple fact is that you pay for what you get. If you take Nikon, Leup, and Swaro out and compare them in good bright conditions the difference is still there but it is minimal. You would mainly notice differnece in color rendition i think. If you take them out in low light conditions you will see why the money makes the difference.

The swaro line is the end all in my opinion. With our swaro 20-60 80mm HD i was able to spot 6mm bullet holes in milk jugs at 940yds!!! Now granted it was early morining with great lighting but either way I was amazed and every time we take out the big swaro it amazes me over and over.

Now the money to get that SOB will **** near give ya hemmoroihds but in the long run you will only spend the money once.

If you dont think you are gonna do really long range stuff you can be very happy with something in the cheaper range, check out the Nikon line, they are **** nice. But if you are really gonna reach out there spend the money and eat some noodles like GG said. You wont be dissapointed.

good luck
steve

 

[Eaglet]

Man, Lerch, I did never like noodles!!!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[jwp475]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the fact that me and BJ get to sell a few of these things i will kick in my opinion.

Buying these things suck, PERIOD!!!!! For good quality product you are gonna spend a lot of money and if your tight like me you aint gonna like it. But the simple fact is that you pay for what you get. If you take Nikon, Leup, and Swaro out and compare them in good bright conditions the difference is still there but it is minimal. You would mainly notice differnece in color rendition i think. If you take them out in low light conditions you will see why the money makes the difference.

The swaro line is the end all in my opinion. With our swaro 20-60 80mm HD i was able to spot 6mm bullet holes in milk jugs at 940yds!!! Now granted it was early morining with great lighting but either way I was amazed and every time we take out the big swaro it amazes me over and over.

Now the money to get that SOB will **** near give ya hemmoroihds but in the long run you will only spend the money once.

If you dont think you are gonna do really long range stuff you can be very happy with something in the cheaper range, check out the Nikon line, they are **** nice. But if you are really gonna reach out there spend the money and eat some noodles like GG said. You wont be dissapointed.

good luck
steve

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not agree more!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif I have gone the inexpensive route and was not satisfied,so I eventualy bought the Swarovski 20X60X80 and I am no pleased could have saved some time and money with a top end purchase in the first place.When practicing long range shooting and you can not spot your bullet holes is not only frustrating,but also time consuming when you have to go down range just to see what is going on.
In less than ideal light is when the top of the line optics shine

 

[4ked Horn]

This post is a field report on a spotting scope I bought after this long discussion. I still reccomend it for a great mid price range spotter. I would very much like to try it with the optional 22x wide angle lens.

 

[grit]

Thanks for the post Ian. Very simply put, yet exactly the information I'm looking for.

Lerch, 6mm holes in a milk carton at 940? Holy ^%$#@!! That's glass! Why didn't they splash?

Ok, this isn't a matter of not liking $1k plus pricing. This is a matter of not paying $1k plus. I will be carrying Nikon binos, rifle scope, and spotter instead of swaros. Next year when I'm in Africa spending the money I saved, I'll ask myself if it was worth it.

 

[JD]

Ian,
for a decent, relatively inexpensive tripod, you may want to try the Slick Mini. It weighs less than 2 pounds and can be used at only 9" or so off the ground and extends to around 40". Its $60.

JimD

 

[bailey1474]

They were white laundry detergent jugs. I guess those 105 Bergers out of my 6-250 just didn't have enough left @ that range to open up!!!

We were looking to the west and the early morning sun was directly behind us. Don't think we could have seen them if the conditions had been diffent.

 

[Ernie]

Ok, I have been readinf with great interest.
If you guys were to chose between The Sawro & The Kowa which would be on the top in your opinion?

 

[Buffalobob]

I am not familiar with the Swaro but here is what the Kowa costs just so we get apples an apples comparison.


Straight Kowa 82mm tube $549.00
32 WA eyepeice $235.00 (other fixed eyepieces for about the same price)
Carrying case $55.00 (non kowa case for 35.00 on ebay)


One other consideration is the ability to get a second Kowa and have a pair of Bigeyes made.

 

[jwp475]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I have been readinf with great interest.
If you guys were to chose between The Sawro & The Kowa which would be on the top in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to use a variable eye piece then the Swarovski is the best on the market hands down.For a single power eye piece the selection of quality top end spotters is wider,as the Kowa's,Liecas,Zeiss and probeble a few others deserve consideration

 

[goodgrouper]

Agreed. You need to buy the best you can afford and buy what you need to equal your seriousness of the sport. It's all about priorities. Keeping kids fed and gas in the wife's tank are (and should be) high priorities. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes there are ways to still meet responsibilies and get what you want. A lot of people I talk to say they want a Swaro but are on a Bushnell budget. THen you walk out to their car with them and they are driving an H3 hummer and just ate out at Ruby River steakhouse. RIght off you know where their true priorities are and they aint in looking through first rate glass!

Even on a small scale, you can choose not to supersize your value meal for a few months and "enjoy" some cardboard noodles if you are real serious about getting a little higher priced glass. Everyone can do simple things like that if they want it bad enough.

I only urge people to buy the best they can afford and what makes them happy and encourage them to find ways to get it because part of the extra expense associated with high dollar glass is not only quality but durability. Durability is one thing you can't see when shopping. It takes years to see how well something is going to last before it needs to be replaced. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU that high dollar optics use methods of construction that low end or middle grade optics don't use.

Take for instance something as simple as cement. All lenses are held in place by glass cement. Swarovski's cement is formulated to not break down or degrade in any hot or cold conditions for at least 25 years. The (I guess you could call it) half life of their epoxy will hold that lens in place in any condition for 3 times longer than regular old glass glue which is much cheaper thus the lower cost of low end glass.

So, you can buy low end or mid grade optics several times over the course of 25 years or just buy high end once and be good for the same amount of time.

So I guess it all depends on how many times over the years you would like to ask permission to buy something (other than gas for her tank) for your hobbies. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Hope this helps.