What are the drawbacks of using astronomical telescopes? (1 Viewer)

[Terry O'Nolley]

I'm curious as to the pluses and minuses for using medium-large sized astornomical telescopes in birding. I have a 700mm focal length Bushnell scope with a 20mm eyepiece and a tripod.

I realize the nifty way for the well-equipped birder to go is with a $2,000 Zeiss spotting scope. But from a purely visual standpoint, how do the images compare?

I concede my telescope is quite clunky for serious field-work but is actually quite portable when taken off its tripod and the tripod and telescope are placed in a backpack.

Does anyone have actual experience with the image quality and magnification of both spotting scopes and telescopes?

 

[Alastair Rae]

I believe that spotting scopes are more robust. Astro scopes are not usually built to be lugged around or taken out in the rain. Also birds are not always off at infinity (except when you're trying to take their picture || .)

 

[steve johnson]

Some astronomy scopes (see the Televue Ranger) are designed with the idea that they might be used for things like birding. Most are not. This does not mean they won't work, but it does mean that they don't mount on typical tripods easily, are not at all rain or weather proof, do not have rugged exteriors, and perhaps most importantly, they give a reversed image that takes some getting used to (and no, you should not use an image erector unless you are willing to sacrafice some optical quality). They do allow the entire range astronomical eyepieces and it is the eyepiece that makes almost all of the image difference talked about on these pages. The one birding scope that uses these is the Pentax and that is why many here love it so.

 

[colin mm]

my friend has a sky watcher 80,its actualy quit good for spotting,but as you say its not water proof and the erecting prism doesnt take much away from the view,but then i suppose the mighty midget isnt water proof either,and the 80 skywatcher is similer in price but comes with 2 eyepieces,its also small and light and if your carefull it can travel aswell, my freind took his to holy isle and carried it on a velbon pod all round the island all day with no trouble,i think its horses for courses,i would prefer a very compact scope,ie mighty midget,but if you want to dabble in the sky watching side,i think these startravel types are a good alternative

 

[Hugh Clayton]

Scope boycott

I shan't buy another birding scope for birding until manufacturers fall into line with makers of astro scopes in two ways: 1) adopt a universal fitting so that any make of eyepiece can be used with any telescope brand 2) state the exact type and configuration of their eyepieces and stop fobbing people off with meaningless expressions such as high grade, high definition etc. I use a Televue TV76 for astronomy and birding despite its drawbacks of heavy weight and lack of waterproofing (I also have an excellent Spacemaster clone lthat is et down by a miserable eyepiece).

QUOTE=colin,windale]my friend has a sky watcher 80,its actualy quit good for spotting,but as you say its not water proof and the erecting prism doesnt take much away from the view,but then i suppose the mighty midget isnt water proof either,and the 80 skywatcher is similer in price but comes with 2 eyepieces,its also small and light and if your carefull it can travel aswell, my freind took his to holy isle and carried it on a velbon pod all round the island all day with no trouble,i think its horses for courses,i would prefer a very compact scope,ie mighty midget,but if you want to dabble in the sky watching side,i think these startravel types are a good alternative[/QUOTE]

 

[jpoyner]

I shan't buy another birding scope for birding until manufacturers fall into line with makers of astro scopes in two ways: 1) adopt a universal fitting so that any make of eyepiece can be used with any telescope brand 2) state the exact type and configuration of their eyepieces and stop fobbing people off with meaningless expressions such as high grade, high definition etc. I use a Televue TV76 for astronomy and birding despite its drawbacks of heavy weight and lack of waterproofing (I also have an excellent Spacemaster clone lthat is et down by a miserable eyepiece).

Then afraid you'll have to wait a lifetime!

 

[AlanFrench]

[SNIP]
Does anyone have actual experience with the image quality and magnification of both spotting scopes and telescopes?

Terry,

I have been using a 90mm APO of 450mm focal length for birding since March of 1997. It is not something I carry around - I set it up on my back deck, on the shore at our camp, or some other locale that is likely to provide some good birds to view. On most days I use it at 64x with a 7mm eyepiece, but I often use 94x with a 5.2mm eyepiece, and the image holds up well at even higher powers when the air is steady. The views are brighter and, at higher powers, more detailed than with my more traditional birding scope (a 65mm using ED glass). For wandering about in the field, I take the smaller, lighter, more robust "real" birding scope.

I have had some very memorable views through the 90mm - a mature male Bald Eagle, Pileated Woodpecker working a tree, Loons preening in the Sun, and so on.

Before the 90mm I had used a 3.5" Questar for birding for about 8 years. (I only bought it because someone offered it at a price I just couldn't pass up.) It was very convenient and extremely compact, but it simply did not provide the views the 90mm APO provides. The 90mm APO is also much more versatile. Personally, I think the modern APO astronomical scopes really shine in the smaller sizes, where they can provide fine nature views, low power wide-field views of the sky, and work about as well as possible for the aperture at high powers. Having said that, the modern ED birding scopes are pretty darn good.

I have also played with a couple of modest achromats designed for astronomy. For my taste, they just have too much obvious color error on bright sunny days.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[colin mm]

:bounce: yeah i tend to agree alan,the astro small scopes arnt as sturdy,they might get damaged easier than a "proper birding scope if they are dropped,but then who wants to drop their scope anyway,if money wasnt an issue i would get a "proper bird scope" but alas , it is an issue with most of us,i actualy bought the 80 mil astro scope off my friend as he wanted to upgrade on his big reflector,and iv found it very good for spotting,even with an erecting prism ,you only notice the degrading light when you try to go too high with the mag.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

1) adopt a universal fitting so that any make of eyepiece can be used with any telescope brand 2) state the exact type and configuration of their eyepieces and stop fobbing people off with meaningless expressions such as high grade, high definition etc.

Swarovski made a 1-1/4" astro eyepiece adapter for their scopes. It was intended for the older AT80 scope, not the current series, but it works on the new ones. I have the Swaro ATS65HD. I bought the adapter so I could use a 26 mm William Optics eyepiece (threaded for my Nikon 4500 camera) for digiscoping. Otherwise, the adapter wouldn't have much use, because the Swaro eyepieces are at least as sharp, center and edge, as any comparable astro eyepieces.

 

[colin mm]

i think eyepieces from both types of scope ,have the good and bad,its just a personal point of view that i think with the right eyepiece,in most any scope your gonna get a decent view,as long as you dont try to go too high in mag,and the prevailing light also plays a part.

 

[henry link]

...... the Swaro eyepieces are at least as sharp, center and edge, as any comparable astro eyepieces.

I agree with Curtis about this. I've adapted the 30XW Swarovski eyepiece for use on astronomical scopes because it is BETTER than any comparable astro eyepiece.

 

[colin mm]

i dont mean to sound like i dissagree, i dont, but have you tried all eyepieces out there,,theres some very good ones for both types of scope,again you get wot you pay for.you mention a swarovfski,a very high quality eyepiece.i think other s in a similar price range will be just as good,its not so black and white i think,lots of pros and cons,

 

[henry link]

I'm sure I've left some stone unturned, but my obsession with good eyepieces is such that I actually have tried every wide field astronomical eyepiece in the 14-17mm range that came to my attention and promised to be really good, including the usual suspects like Televue Panoptic and Nagler, and Pentax XW. So far I have found that the Swarovski 30XW (15.4mm EFL, 70 degree AFOV) really does have an extraordinary set of characteristics that I don't believe are matched by any similar wide field astro eyepiece at any price. It has higher light transmission and contrast than the Televues and Pentax, combined with superior edge sharpness that is somehow accomplished without the pronounced pincushion distortion of other wide field eyepieces with good edge sharpness, and it has very long and comfortable eye relief. Ordinarily I share your view that competing products usually just have different mixes of strengths and weaknesses with no clear winner. You're quite right to be skeptical of statements like the one I made.

 

[Humboldt Jim]

everybody is right!

I'm sure I've left some stone unturned, but my obsession with good eyepieces is such that I actually have tried every wide field astronomical eyepiece in the 14-17mm range that came to my attention and promised to be really good, including the usual suspects like Televue Panoptic and Nagler, and Pentax XW. So far I have found that the Swarovski 30XW (15.4mm EFL, 70 degree AFOV) really does have an extraordinary set of characteristics that I don't believe are matched by any similar wide field astro eyepiece at any price. It has higher light transmission and contrast than the Televues and Pentax, combined with superior edge sharpness that is somehow accomplished without the pronounced pincushion distortion of other wide field eyepieces with good edge sharpness, and it has very long and comfortable eye relief. Ordinarily I share your view that competing products usually just have different mixes of strengths and weaknesses with no clear winner. You're quite right to be skeptical of statements like the one I made.

You all have good points.

I was using a Celestron C 90 for a few years then my eyepiece fell out. Ouch! The C 90 is now reserved for astonomy and good weather on a deck. My Pentax 65-ED now serves me well in the field and I can use all my eyepieces (one at a time).

I'd pay a price for a really good erecting prizm. But I don't think a hybrid .96" to 1.25" exists.

 

[colin mm]

I'm sure I've left some stone unturned, but my obsession with good eyepieces is such that I actually have tried every wide field astronomical eyepiece in the 14-17mm range that came to my attention and promised to be really good, including the usual suspects like Televue Panoptic and Nagler, and Pentax XW. So far I have found that the Swarovski 30XW (15.4mm EFL, 70 degree AFOV) really does have an extraordinary set of characteristics that I don't believe are matched by any similar wide field astro eyepiece at any price. It has higher light transmission and contrast than the Televues and Pentax, combined with superior edge sharpness that is somehow accomplished without the pronounced pincushion distortion of other wide field eyepieces with good edge sharpness, and it has very long and comfortable eye relief. Ordinarily I share your view that competing products usually just have different mixes of strengths and weaknesses with no clear winner. You're quite right to be skeptical of statements like the one I made.

by the sound of it you have done a pretty good job of trying different eyepieces,my own experience isnt so wide reaching,i suppose it depends on the quality of resolution you require,and how deep your pocket is,cos i think you will agree ,the cost of some of those eyepieces can be quite shocking,if i could i would go for a top one ,but i make do with the budget models,sometimes thinking how can there be such a difference ,for the extra cost? :h?: