Gitzo GT2542 (1 Viewer)

[osh]

Hello, I have just joined this forum, which I am finding hugely useful in terms of information, and to which I hope to be able to make a contribution.

I am hoping to purchase my first scope, and am trying to decide on what size to get (55, 65, 80 etc).

I know this shouldn’t be the determining factor, but I already own a Gitzo Mountaineer GT2542 tripod, and would prefer not to have to buy another one at this stage. With this in mind, I’m wondering whether a smaller scope may be better suited? I would be buying a new head (possibly GFH2W) as I currently have an Acratech gv2 ball head which probably wouldn’t be best suited.

As I would be using an angled scope and I am not all that tall, I would only be extending it to three sections (i.e. not the thinnest bottom legs) and probably raising the central column by two or three inches. I don’t know whether this makes a difference.

I would welcome any advice or experience. Many thanks, osh

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Nice tripod… I guess the question is always how far do you need to carry it and how much weight you need to put on it.

Also, what type of use, terrain, locations and lovely things you want to look at?

Also what weight and size scope is likely to go on it.

That tripod and head can handle a decent load but be 3kg without the scope.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

I mean will probably weigh 2.5-3kg without the scope.

 

[osh]

Thanks. Yes, looking at the figures it will weigh around 2.5kg without the scope, so fairly heavy to begin with. My intention would be to use it by the sea, mudflats, WWT/RSPB centres etc, so not walking too far (at least not on hilly terrain).

I suppose the main thing I’m trying to work out is whether it would be robust enough to hold a large scope (e.g. 82mm) steadily, or would be better suited for something smaller (e.g. 65mm).

 

[Ignatius]

Provided your scope has a rotatable foot, the Acratech GV2 can be used because it can be deployed as a 2-way head allowing for panning and tilting.

The Gitzo GT2542 is from the mountaineer series. It is a series two tripod with 4 leg sections. This makes it collapsible to a small size for transport but inherently less stable than tripods with fewer leg sections or a higher series, ie. thicker legs. It also has a center column, which when extended will make it a lot more wobbly. The max. weight rating of 22 kg merely means that it will hold that weight up without any physical damage. It does not mean it will do so steadily or without vibrations. Wind is an especially nasty actor in that respect.
So all in all, the head will work and give you time to experiment whether you might want a different head - like the one you mentioned. The very lightweight travel tripod, not called mountaineer for nothing, will be more suited to a smaller, lighter scope.
For proper testing of tripods and heads you might want to look at this website.

For full disclosure: I use a Gitzo GT5533LS with a Novoflex CB5-TQM head as well as a Gitzo G1312 with a GFH2W head. I also have an Acratech Nomad ballhead on a threelegged thing Winston tripod.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Thanks. Yes, looking at the figures it will weigh around 2.5kg without the scope, so fairly heavy to begin with. My intention would be to use it by the sea, mudflats, WWT/RSPB centres etc, so not walking too far (at least not on hilly terrain).

I suppose the main thing I’m trying to work out is whether it would be robust enough to hold a large scope (e.g. 82mm) steadily, or would be better suited for something smaller (e.g. 65mm).

You already have the tripod one so taking Ignatius’ points I think you should get the scope you are looking for and then see what position etc works and how it performs in the wind etc …then it’s may be just a head change etc

 

[osh]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I hadn't realised that the GV2 could be used as a 2-way head, but looking at it now I can see how that would be possible if the scope foot were rotated. Certainly worth trying it that way before looking at a new head altogether.

Provided your scope has a rotatable foot, the Acratech GV2 can be used because it can be deployed as a 2-way head allowing for panning and tilting.

The Gitzo GT2542 is from the mountaineer series. It is a series two tripod with 4 leg sections. This makes it collapsible to a small size for transport but inherently less stable than tripods with fewer leg sections or a higher series, ie. thicker legs. It also has a center column, which when extended will make it a lot more wobbly. The max. weight rating of 22 kg merely means that it will hold that weight up without any physical damage. It does not mean it will do so steadily or without vibrations. Wind is an especially nasty actor in that respect.
So all in all, the head will work and give you time to experiment whether you might want a different head - like the one you mentioned. The very lightweight travel tripod, not called mountaineer for nothing, will be more suited to a smaller, lighter scope.
For proper testing of tripods and heads you might want to look at this website.

For full disclosure: I use a Gitzo GT5533LS with a Novoflex CB5-TQM head as well as a Gitzo G1312 with a GFH2W head. I also have an Acratech Nomad ballhead on a threelegged thing Winston tripod.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I hadn't realised that the GV2 could be used as a 2-way head, but looking at it now I can see how that would be possible if the scope foot were rotated. Certainly worth trying it that way before looking at a new head altogether. I'm thinking that given it is a fairly lightweight tripod, I would probably be better considering a 65mm scope. I suppose my next decision is which to go for. My initial shortlist would be the Kowa 66a, Swarovksi ATS 65 HD and the Leica Televid 65.

 

[osh]

You already have the tripod one so taking Ignatius’ points I think you should get the scope you are looking for and then see what position etc works and how it performs in the wind etc …then it’s may be just a head change etc

Thanks, yes I agree.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Thanks, yes I agree.

Exciting times…

 

[Hermann]

I've been using the GT2541, the predecessor of the GT2542, for many years. The GT2541 is a bit lighter than the GT2542, 1440 gr with a sturdy tripod strap. I use it with a Gitzo 2180 head, also discontinued but somewhat similar to the GFH2W. The weight of the combination is ~2100 gr. The scope I mainly use it with is a Nikon EDIIIA (60mm scope) weighing about 1600 gr.

For that weight the tripod works perfectly well. I wouldn't use it in a howling gale at a seawatch, but the beauty of the combination is that it's not too heavy. It's plenty stable enough for "normal" birding. Extending the middle column 20cm or so is still OK. Heavier scopes ... Well, it works with the big Nikon ED82 that weighs about 1900 gr., but I personally prefer using a heavier, more stable tripod+head for the ED82.

I would definitely get a video head and not use the Acratech. A decent video head is still the gold standard when it comes to using a scope.

Hermann

 

[Ignatius]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I hadn't realised that the GV2 could be used as a 2-way head, but looking at it now I can see how that would be possible if the scope foot were rotated. Certainly worth trying it that way before looking at a new head altogether.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I hadn't realised that the GV2 could be used as a 2-way head, but looking at it now I can see how that would be possible if the scope foot were rotated. Certainly worth trying it that way before looking at a new head altogether. I'm thinking that given it is a fairly lightweight tripod, I would probably be better considering a 65mm scope. I suppose my next decision is which to go for. My initial shortlist would be the Kowa 66a, Swarovksi ATS 65 HD and the Leica Televid 65.

Since you already have a Swaro in that list I am going to suggest a scope I avoided mentioning earlier due to its cost - the STC/ATC 17-40x56. Their only drawback, if one wishes to call it that, is that they do not have a rotating foot.

 

[osh]

I've been using the GT2541, the predecessor of the GT2542, for many years. The GT2541 is a bit lighter than the GT2542, 1440 gr with a sturdy tripod strap. I use it with a Gitzo 2180 head, also discontinued but somewhat similar to the GFH2W. The weight of the combination is ~2100 gr. The scope I mainly use it with is a Nikon EDIIIA (60mm scope) weighing about 1600 gr.

For that weight the tripod works perfectly well. I wouldn't use it in a howling gale at a seawatch, but the beauty of the combination is that it's not too heavy. It's plenty stable enough for "normal" birding. Extending the middle column 20cm or so is still OK. Heavier scopes ... Well, it works with the big Nikon ED82 that weighs about 1900 gr., but I personally prefer using a heavier, more stable tripod+head for the ED82.

I would definitely get a video head and not use the Acratech. A decent video head is still the gold standard when it comes to using a scope.

Hermann

Thanks, that's helpful. I had been considering a Nikon ED82, but was a bit concerned by the size. I wonder whether I should perhaps add the Nikon Monarch 60ED to my list, perhaps with the MEP-38W eyepiece. It would be significantly cheaper than some of the other options, and from what I have read on this forum could be a good choice?

 

[osh]

Since you already have a Swaro in that list I am going to suggest a scope I avoided mentioning earlier due to its cost - the STC/ATC 17-40x56. Their only drawback, if one wishes to call it that, is that they do not have a rotating foot.

Thanks. Yes, I was also considering the ATC (and the Kowa equivalent). I'm just not sure whether there are too many drawbacks for a 56 scope as compared to a 65? There are so many options that it's a bit overwhelming!

 

[Hermann]

Thanks, that's helpful. I had been considering a Nikon ED82, but was a bit concerned by the size. I wonder whether I should perhaps add the Nikon Monarch 60ED to my list, perhaps with the MEP-38W eyepiece. It would be significantly cheaper than some of the other options, and from what I have read on this forum could be a good choice?

Yes, I think the Monarch is a good scope. Not sure though that it's still made, so you might find it for a good price.

Hermann

 

[Ignatius]

Thanks. Yes, I was also considering the ATC (and the Kowa equivalent). I'm just not sure whether there are too many drawbacks for a 56 scope as compared to a 65? There are so many options that it's a bit overwhelming!

What sort of drawbacks were you thinking of?

 

[osh]

What sort of drawbacks were you thinking of?

This may be ignorance on my part, but my assumption would be that the resolution and low light performance would be better in a larger scope? Or is it just less magnification? If a smaller scope would be almost as good (particularly a 55/56 compared to 65/66) then I suppose it might be a better option, particularly insofar as portability is concerned?

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

This may be ignorance on my part, but my assumption would be that the resolution and low light performance would be better in a larger scope? Or is it just less magnification? If a smaller scope would be almost as good (particularly a 55/56 compared to 65/66) then I suppose it might be a better option, particularly insofar as portability is concerned?

Yes bigger scope will produced better resolution and also if you are planning to use it during dusk and dawn. I have the same tripod and video head per your posting and use it with the Swarovski ATC56 for the rainforest and also on the marshes etc. So far so good up to 40x and I could identify birds with the limitation of the 56mm scope. But my preferred scope for shore and waterbirds would be the 95mm scope and I do take pics and video with 56 and 95mm scopes. 95mm much better overall on the same tripod like yours

 

[Hermann]

This may be ignorance on my part, but my assumption would be that the resolution and low light performance would be better in a larger scope? Or is it just less magnification? If a smaller scope would be almost as good (particularly a 55/56 compared to 65/66) then I suppose it might be a better option, particularly insofar as portability is concerned?

With scopes size does matter. I've got three Nikon scopes of roughly similar optical quality: 50mm, 60mm and 82mm: the 60mm is better than the 50mm, the 82mm is better than the 60mm. Put simply, "better" means more resolution, bigger exit pupil at any given magnification, and you can use higher magnifications.

However, you pay a price, you have to carry a bigger and heavier scope that may also need a bigger and heavier tripod and head. There are therefore often situations where I prefer to carry a smaller, lighter scope than the big ED82. That's why some people use two scopes, a small travel scope and one of the big scopes. The 60/65mm scopes are a sort of "compromise".

What works best for you only you can decide. Depends on your style of birding. If you often walk long distances with your scope, if you expect to use it a lot in "difficult" terrain, you might want to opt for a smaller scope. If you only carry it short distances, a big scope might work for you better.

Hermann

 

[MiddleRiver]

This may be ignorance on my part, but my assumption would be that the resolution and low light performance would be better in a larger scope? Or is it just less magnification?

No. At least not resolution and or sharpness.

Size will affect brightness, which in turn allows higher (useable) magnification.
Different scopes also have diff ER, and ‘eye box’ which will affect viewing comfort (precisely if you wear specs). And of course all the other IQ elements which pertain to optics vary (CA, flatness of field, FOV…).

 

[osh]

Thanks all, it's great to have such a range of helpful views. I'm almost thinking that I should be looking at acquiring two separate scopes in due course - one big and one small. The question I will need to decide on is which to go for first!