65 or 80mm Telescope (1 Viewer)

[Yealm]

Hi,
I'm thinking of getting a Swarosvki ATS 65mm or 80mm.
Grateful for some advice...

1) Is the smaller size too much of a compromise for typical UK conditions, eg overcast ?
2) What proportion of average birders would go for the smaller size ?
3) Is the angled eyepiece challenging to use in the average UK bird hide ?

Many thanks

 

[Mono]

If weight and price isn't an option then I would go for the 80 as the extra light gathering power is useful. But it you are going to be carrying it for long distances, particular over the shoulder in a "quick draw" configuration it can make things more uncomfortable.

There is no standard bird hide window and no standard birder either. I have used both straight and angled scopes in various hides and found good and bad combinations in almost equal measure. Where angled scopes shine is in use out of hides. The whole set up has to be a lot lower making it less prone to wind and giving you more leeway in the precision of your height adjustment. If you are tall you may indeed struggle to get a straight scope at eye level without extra long columns at full stretch. Angled scopes also make sharing scopes between viewers much easier. Overall you will find the majority of birders with an angled set-up but the split between objective sizes is more difficult to judge as many birders may have more than one. Go to an overcast seawatch next to the carpark and every will have 80s or more. A woodland hide 5km walk from the road and you might find the opposite.

 

[dogbreath]

I agree with Mono.

Let me declare my position. My own scope is an 88mm angled scope. I also have access to and regularly use angled 65 and 80mm Swarowski scopes. In good conditions the brightness of each is fine. In overcast conditions the 65 keeps up most of the time. All of that said, I find looking through the 65 a bit like looking through a tube and I find the bigger scopes much more comfortable. So answer (i) - "No"

When in a hide, if need be, I twist the scope through 90 degrees and look into that way so that I am not looking down into the scope. You get used to it. Answer (iii) "I don't think so"

If you are going to be carrying scope and tripod over distance get a Scopac or Mulepack - they are fabulous.

One use that has been pointed out here where an angled scope doesn't do well is looking down from a cliff top - not looking out to sea but fairly straight down. Not something I do but I can see why/how that would be awkward. Overall, I think the benefits of an angled scope outweigh the disadvantages but you pays your money...................

 

[jring]

Hi,

this depends quite a bit on what magnifications you are going to use... at 30 or 40x a 65mm will be fine in most cases... near top end of the zoom range for most models, a 65mm can be a bit dark in bad light.

As for looking down a cliff, an angled scope is way better than a straight one - if it has a rotating collar (most do) and you take it out of the stay-on-case, so you can use it...

Joachim

 

[Tringa45]

Hi,

I was faced with a similar decision about ten years ago: ATM 65HD or ATM 80HD? The ATMs were at that time Swarovski's premium scopes with a magnesium alloy body, about 100 g lighter, but optically identical to the current ATS.
A comparison at my dealer revealed no significant differences in good lighting at 50x, so I bought the cheaper and lighter 65 with the excellent but since discontinued 30x wide-angle eyepiece.
I should mention that the same focal length of both scopes results in an unusually "slow" focal ratio of f/7 for the 65s and this allows excellent correction of spherical and chromatic aberration. The ATM/ATS 65s are probably unsurpassed by any birding scope of this size, but as Joachim points out, the smaller exit pupils will limit their usability at high magnifications or in poor lighting.
Some years ago viewing a distant Ringed Plover, a much younger birder was able to identify it through my scope as a Lesser RP by the yellow eye ring, which I could not see. This was an excuse for more magnification and aperture and I bought a Kowa 883, a truly excellent scope, but basically it only does at 40x what the ATM 65 does at 30x.
Observations on inland locations are at seldom more than 250 m so if lighting conditions are good or if I am going to be carrying the scope for a distance I still take the ATM 65 with me. Even on the tripod, the 500 g weight saving is for me noticeable.
Finally, on another thread on the ATS 80, I pointed out that a Meostar S2 would provide similar performance at lower cost, and a Kowa 883 better performance for a similar outlay. It was also mentioned though that Swarovski's service and resale value are factors to consider.
A difficult choice maybe, but whichever way you go, you are unlikely to have deep regrets.

John

 

[Steve Babbs]

I presently have all options covered with 50mm, 65mm and 82mm. Most my life I've gone for 60/65 and would always go for that being the best compromise. My 82mm is great to look through but doesn't get used much.

 

[GeorgeL]

I have Pentax scopes in both 65 and 80. Frequency of use is 10:1 in favor of the 65, purely from ease of carrying and handling.

 

[Yealm]

Thank you so much to all for fantastic advice !
I'm gravitating towards 65, particularly as I'll realistically use it 10x or so a year...

 

[Steve Babbs]

I maybe miss quoting slightly but I remember a review from a long while ago of scopes saying something like there's no point in having the best scope in the world if it stays in the boot of your car because it's too heavy to lug around.

 

[Tringa45]

Thank you so much to all for fantastic advice !
I'm gravitating towards 65, particularly as I'll realistically use it 10x or so a year...

Well, if you go that way you will have the reassurance that you have the best 65 mm scope available.
My Kowa 883 was intended as a replacement, but in the end I couldn't part with the ATM 65HD.
Some would assert that the ATX 65 is the best, but I think that is more of a travel scope alternative for those who already own an 85 mm or 95 mm objective module. The ATX 65 is almost as heavy as an ATS 80 and even slightly more expensive.

John

 

[Hermann]

I presently have all options covered with 50mm, 65mm and 82mm. Most my life I've gone for 60/65 and would always go for that being the best compromise. My 82mm is great to look through but doesn't get used much.

Almost the same here: 50mm, 60mm and 82mm. My most used scope by far is the 60mm even though I recently began using the 50mm more on long walks. I'm not getting any younger ...

Which one ... The Swaro ATS 65mm is IMO opinion probably the best scope in that size class. If I were to replace my aging Nikon EDIIIA I'd get the Swaro no questions asked. NOT the ATX, that's too heavy for a 65mm scope.

Hermann