Barska Spotting Scope (2 Viewers)

[Michael Varn]

The highest magnification I have ever seen on a spotting scope is 25X-125X.

This includes all spotting scopes regardless of class, price, or brand.

This spotting scope I am referring to is actually a low end Barska model that retailed for a little over $200.00.

All of the top brands like Ziess, Leica, Kowa, and VisionKing that I have seen only go up to 25X-80X.

But these models cost thousands of dollars.

I know there is more to a spotting scope than just magnification, and the lenses on this low end Barska are generic, nothing fancy like diamond coated lenses.

But could someone please explain to me how a spotting scope with a magnification of 25X-125X can be so cheap?

 

[Michael Varn]

Here are the specs on this Barska spotting scope:

 

[Mono]

You can add as much magnification as you want. It doesn't mean that magnification will yield useful results.

 

[etudiant]

The highest magnification I have ever seen on a spotting scope is 25X-125X.

This includes all spotting scopes regardless of class, price, or brand.

This spotting scope I am referring to is actually a low end Barska model that retailed for a little over $200.00.

All of the top brands like Ziess, Leica, Kowa, and VisionKing that I have seen only go up to 25X-80X.

But these models cost thousands of dollars.

I know there is more to a spotting scope than just magnification, and the lenses on this low end Barska are generic, nothing fancy like diamond coated lenses.

But could someone please explain to me how a spotting scope with a magnification of 25X-125X can be so cheap?

As Mono has pointed out, image quality is what matters.
If the scope provides a sloppy image at 40x, boosting the magnification to 125x will not make things better.

 

[Michael Varn]

With most of the online merchants who sell spotting scopes, the very first specification that they advertise, and it's in bold type, is the magnification.

So why is this the main selling point if image quality is more important?

To find all of the other specifications like image quality, focusing technology, and overall feild of vision in terms of width (mm), you just have to dig a little deeper into the product description which has all of the specifications in fine print.

But yes, when I set my Barska to the maximum setting of 125X, the image leaves alot to be desired, but I can still make out the image though.

 

[4 The Birds1]

Whatever sells the product will be emphasized as main selling point.
This is a cheap scope. Target audience: buyer who hasn't a clue. Sees bigger numbers for magnification and buys this one because it has to be the more powerful ergo better instrument

 

[Michael Varn]

Whatever sells the product will be emphasized as main selling point.
This is a cheap scope. Target audience: buyer who hasn't a clue. Sees bigger numbers for magnification and buys this one because it has to be the more powerful ergo better instrument

Yes, you are correct, there is alot about spotting scopes that I simply do not know.

I got this Barska on Ebay brand new and factory sealed for $125.00.

I like to take this thing to the beach to get close ups of seagulls, and boats that are barely visible on the horizon.

 

[Binastro]

The Barlow effect of the eyepiece means you could go to 1000x if you wanted, but this is empty magnification, both because of the cheap construction and the limits to resolution provided by the nature of light.

I had two quite reasonable Japanese 30-120x80 straight spotters.
120x was quite good on Saturn.
The problem was they were poorly collimated and had unpainted metal interior, so numerous ghosts etc in the day.
I should have painted the interior matt black but never bothered.
Available in red, blue and beige.
They cost £60, admittedly years ago.

I have a well aligned 25x-135x80 Japanese binocular.
It is good up to 80x. Above that is empty magnification.

The problem with Barska and the like is they are rather average or poor scopes with simple glass, and fairly fast.
So 125x is poor.

My Pentax 100mm f/12 was essentially perfect and at night could be used at 300x, and 400x for testing, with no image breakdown.

My 120mm refractor was used at 3a.m. at 250x to view a clock tower at 4.7 miles and it would resolve 1 arcsecond black markings on the lit clock face.

The cheap spotters can easily produce 100x plus magnification but the images are poor.

An old Japanese 80mm f/15 astro refractor would be much better at high magnification, because the focal length is greater and the optical quality better, and it has no inbuilt prism.
Maybe £50 good secondhand.

Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov Cassegains are available for £50 good secondhand.

Mine was new and very good. Something over £100.

The best magnification during the day here is 135x, but it is still O.K. at 190x.

Regards,
B.

 

[4John]

Yes, you are correct, there is alot about spotting scopes that I simply do not know.

I got this Barska on Ebay brand new and factory sealed for $125.00.

I like to take this thing to the beach to get close ups of seagulls, and boats that are barely visible on the horizon.

Scopes where high magnification is the main selling point are aimed at astronomers, not bird watchers. Astronomical scopes are typically used at night and are aimed well above the horizon, when and where atmospheric conditions are better They are also typically used from a sheltered and static location so the weight of the tripod, or other static mount, heavy and rigid enough not to vibrate is not an issue. A telescope aimed at bird watchers will have a typical maximum magnification of 60-70x. This is because most of the time the day time image quality at any higher magnification will be too poor to use due to atmospheric conditions below and up to the horizon. Scope vibration due to wind and handling also limit the usable magnfication. The useable magnification is also linked to how heavy a tripod the user is prepared to carry around. I had a 20-60x zoom on my Swarovski scope. Atmospheric conditions e.g. heat haze were rarely good enough to use the 60X magnification. Many times I wound it up to 60X only to wind it down again to 40-50x to get a useable view at the highest magnification. I suggest that most bird watchers most of the time are limited to a maximum useable magnification of 30-40X.

I suggest you take your scope to a dealer with viewing facilities and set it up side by side with a "birding" scope and see what the difference in quality is for yourself.

 

[Michael Varn]

Do any spotting scopes have an image stabilization feature like Canon Binoculars?

If you use a tripod, I guess you wouldn't need that feature, but some birdwatching scopes are handheld, and the image stabilizer would certainly come in handy.

 

[Richard D]

Do any spotting scopes have an image stabilization feature like Canon Binoculars?

If you use a tripod, I guess you wouldn't need that feature, but some birdwatching scopes are handheld, and the image stabilizer would certainly come in handy.

Nikon did one a few years back but it wasn't a great success. There are a few stabilized monoculars available, but stabilizing anything at high magnifications (over 20x) is difficult.

 

[wllmspd]

For stability you want a decent tripod and fluid head, which adds to the weight you carry. For my small scope I have a light tripod and accept that if it’s windy I will have trouble, the advantage being the ease of carrying and use. You’ll find that an exit pupil much less than 1.25mm (aperture divided by magnification) will be dim and less only useful when you have a lot of light. If you want to use that magnification then you need a scope with a bigger aperture, but these are harder to find, cost more and are heavier to carry. As mentioned above, I often dial back the magnification so I get a nice bright image that gives me better contrast. 30-50x seems a common range, but even I get times that the “more (magnification) better” urge is strong.

Peter

 

[Michael Varn]

When it comes to the image quality of high end spotting scopes, is it equivalent to like 4k or 8k resolution?

I guess you can apply this question to binoculars also.

 

[wllmspd]

As you increase the image scale you end up with a softer result as you start running up against the resolution of the optical system. Maybe a bit like watching a compressed YouTube video on a 4k TV. Whereas at lower powers the view will be much crispier and sharp as you’re not zooming in so much, the view will also be brighter. I tend to observe at the lower end where I have a bright and sharp view, but keep higher power options available in case I feel I need them.

Peter

 

[Binastro]

The resolution of a photograph or screen image is quite different to the resolution through a scope, or indeed unaided eyes.

The Barska 25-125x88 scope will have sample variation and one may need to test three or six to get a good one.
It seems to have a Porroprism erector, which are usually better than others.

But there is still the problem of probably a doublet objective of short focal length, which will have false colour unless made of ED glass, which it doesn't seem to have.

Additionally 5x zoom eyepieces are usually compromised compared to 3x zoom eyepieces.

One could try a Baader fringe killer or semi Apo filter, although I don't know how it could fit the eyepiece.

A good example may be O.K. if one accepts the aberrations.

I have no problem with 0.7mm exit pupils in bright light, but a 125mm or 150mm scope would do better.

I have an excellent 30-120x70mm Mirador Maksutov spotting scope that is exceptionally good. It also takes 1.25 inch astro eyepieces.

My usual terrestrial scope was a 95x 150mm custom Maksutov on a massive ex gov mount able to support 75 kg easily.
But only used when set up outside my car.

The limiting factor with the Barska scope will usually be the steadiness of the atmosphere, but this is usually good over water.
Ideally the water, air and land temperature should be 16C or 61F.
I have had superb views over two miles, although distance ships at say 15 miles often have mirage images of the ship upside down on top of the real ship.

The Barska scope may be O.K. if a good example and one accepts the limitations, but 125x may be too high normally and 75x may give a better view.

Also it probably needs a 3kg tripod.

Regards,
B.

 

[jring]

Hi,

the Barska is a very fast (probably about f5.5) plain glass refractor - this means that due to an effect called longitudial chromatic aberration the image is going to get soft beyond 45x or thereabouts. Everything beyond that is just empty magnification.

Also the 5x zoom EP (125=25x5) offers an extremely narrow field of view aside from the usually not so great optical quality - 18m/1000m on the low mag side - the Kowa 883 (an equally fast refractor but with a fluorite crystal element in order to significantly lower chromatic abberation - very good examples are known to actually deliver a usable image at 150x with two 1.6x extenders) with the wide angle zoom (25x-60x) offers 42m/1000m at 25x and still 23m/1000m at 60x.

If I had to buy a scope for 125 USD, I would try to find a used scope (fast spotting or better slow astro) that can take 1.25" astro EPs. The astro kind often tend to come with some fixed EPs.
For the spotters (often with a 20-60x zoom - narrower than a premium wide angle zoom but a lot wider than the Barska), putting in a wide angle astro EP with 15-17mm focal length will deliver a nice, bright and wide image around 30x, or you can go up to 40 or 45x (assuming a plain glass scope of around 500mm focal length) with 11 or 12mm...

Joachim