I am in the market for a spotting scope and would like your recommendations as to what I should purchase.
I would like to get a scope power of 60x or more with a lens of 80mm or more. I have been looking at a Vortex Razor HD 27-60 x 85 with angled eye piece.
Is there loss of sharpness with an angled eye piece compared to a straight? I have only been able to try one with an angle which belongs to my colleague.

Any advice appreciated.

No loss with angled.
That Razor is a good one.
I have a Pentax 65mm and it is decent but a 80mm will be better.
My next one will be larger.

I compared the Razor and Swarovski ATX side by side. I chose the ATX, but the Vortex was also very nice considering the price difference.

I have the older (angled) Razor HD 20-60x85. It is extraordinarily clear and sharp. It's a great spotting scope. I can only assume that the new version is at least as good.

Anyone have experience with Zeiss Victory DiaScope 85 T* FL? It is 20-75x 85mm.

This is the scope to which I am leaning.

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
Anyone have experience with Zeiss Victory DiaScope 85 T* FL? It is 20-75x 85mm.

I have a Zeiss Diascope 85 T* FL, with a 20-60x angled eyepiece. I don't recall its being in the Victory line, but I bought it 12 years ago. It is a wonderful scope for wildlife watching, which is what I use it for. The angled eyepiece is much easier to use on a tripod. The lens is crystal clear over the entire surface. I hardly every use anything above 40x, though, as the field of view gets too small. I doubt I would benefit from having 75x vs 60x.
 

I am very happy with my Kowa TSN-82SV spotter with a 20-60x eyepiece

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by arlen:
Anyone have experience with Zeiss Victory DiaScope 85 T* FL? It is 20-75x 85mm.

I have a Zeiss Diascope 85 T* FL, with a 20-60x angled eyepiece. I don't recall its being in the Victory line, but I bought it 12 years ago. It is a wonderful scope for wildlife watching, which is what I use it for. The angled eyepiece is much easier to use on a tripod. The lens is crystal clear over the entire surface. I hardly every use anything above 40x, though, as the field of view gets too small. I doubt I would benefit from having 75x vs 60x.
 

Thanks for the input. The reason that I am considering 20-75x 85mm is my poor eyesight (because of age) and I shoot at 400-600 yds. My rifle scopes are barely adequate at this distance but before upgrading them I am going to get good glass to spot.

I have a Kowa TSN-82Sv with a couple of eyepieces. In a spotting scope, the eyepiece is the important item.

I have the 27X LER (Long Eye Relief,) which I use when shooting from position. From position means from prone behind my F-TR rifle when I try to move as little as possible. The LER of the Kowa is, if not unique, at least uncommon in spotting scopes. This allows me to peer through the eyepiece without having to remove my glasses or get really close to the eyepiece. That eyepiece was the main reason I got a Kowa and that particular model. 27X is plenty sufficient for my spotting scope needs in 1000 yard competition. It allows me to discern the mirage, when it's there and to see the results on my competitors' targets. I do not use it to spot bullet holes except at maybe 100 or 200 yards.

I also have the 20-60 eyepiece, which I use for all other occasions beside shooting. The eye relief is ordinary and even though this eyepiece is more expensive than the LER, it is darker, but it does have a 3X zoom to its 20X magnification. I use it also for digiscoping with my Nikon DSLR.

There is a third eyepiece, a wide angle 30X model, I'm just not sure what it would bring me that my current two do not provide. It does have a little wider field of view compared to my 27X LER, but it's not a big difference. Also, it does not have a long eye relief.

My eyes are not what they used to be but for the sort of precision required form long range shooting, I spend my money on the riflescope; quality magnification, (34mm tube, ED glass, etc...) There are better spotting scopes that the 82SV, but they get into ED glass and such. Maybe one day Kowa will release an eyepiece for the 82SV with an ED element, but for now, since I don't aim with the spotting scope and I am not a birder or a professional photographer, I'm extremely satisfied with the 82SV and my eyepieces.

I would suggest to arlen that he spend money on the riflescope he uses for mid-range and not think a high quality spotting scope will make up for a poor or ordinary riflescope.

But then again, that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:


I would suggest to arlen that he spend money on the riflescope he uses for mid-range and not think a high quality spotting scope will make up for a poor or ordinary riflescope.

As a long range shooter, my suggestion as well. If I can't see/read conditions through my rilfescope, no point in having a spotter.

OP, shooting at paper or steel?

offgrid, I guess we shoot a little differently as I don't use my riflescope to see the conditions, except maybe for a final confirmation at the target. At 40X, the image in the riflescope is my target at 1000 yards, with one and a half targets on either side. If there's mirage, that's how much I'll see.

I use my Kowa to monitor the conditions and figure out a hold on target or a scope setting and hold combination. If I'm calling wind for the team, I feed that information in real time and call for the shot when I think I have it down. If I'm shooting, I quickly transition to my riflescope and apply the hold or knob/hold combo and then cut loose as fast as possible. In the riflescope, if I can see the mirage, it will be at the target only because that's where my riflescope is focused. In my spotting scope, I may have the focus set to 5-600 yards so I can watch the mirage there, where it is more important for the shot in my estimation. I would hate to more the focus and the magnification on the riflescope all the time to replicate what I do with my spotting scope.

My reasoning for having a high quality riflescope over a high quality spotting scope is that, to me, being able to surgically place the reticle exactly where I want on target it more critical than having the same quality image in the spotting scope. In the spotting scope, I discern trends in the conditions and interpret what I see. I do not need superb visual acuity to achieve that. But when I am repeating the same trajectory on target, I need the very best magnified image in the riflescope I can get and that's in a high priced riflescope. There is no substitute for quality optics.

The spotting scope is actually secondary when I call wind for the team, especially in the absence of mirage. At the recently concluded Nationals in Lodi, I actually didn't even use my spotting scope to call wind on either LR or MR. There was no mirage to see and since we used ETs, there was no indication of the shots on my competitors targets. I did everything by flags.

On the other hand, I had my spotting scope on the line next to me every time I shot the individual relays and I kept it focused on the two flags that I had determined were important to me. I would watch the flags over the rifle and when everything was lining up as I wanted, I would get on the rifle and take final glances through the spotting scope before breaking the shot.

I must say, it's much easier to call wind and for the shot as compared to calling wind and then getting behind the rifle and taking the shot inside of 1 second or so.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
I would suggest to arlen that he spend money on the riflescope he uses for mid-range and not think a high quality spotting scope will make up for a poor or ordinary riflescope.

As a long range shooter, my suggestion as well. If I can't see/read conditions through my rilfescope, no point in having a spotter.

OP, shooting at paper or steel?

+1 for a quality scope over a spotting scope. Most of time I have to spot my own shots while I'm shooting. As a result the quality of the rifle scope is more important than the spotting scope -- and I do have a spotting scope.

As for offgrid's paper vs. steel question:
OP -- at 400 to 600 yards, it will be really hard to you to see your own impacts on traditional paper targets, regardless of spotting scope quality. Shoot-N-See targets are a different matter, as impacts can be seen from a long ways out.

If you're shooting steel, you don't need Hubble telescope magnification to see impacts on freshly painted steel. Clear rifle scope glass of moderate power will tell you you hit location, while you're shooting, before the wind changes.

I agree with a quality rifle scope. QUALITY.

If you already have one of those, and still want a spotter (ROing a match, etc), this is a REALLY good deal.

Sale ends in 15 hours..


https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...th-pro-gt-tripod-kit


ETA: DVOR has the 20-60x85 angled Razor HD spotter on sale for $999 right now. No tripod with this one though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: exx1976,

Bump. Starting my search, I'm liking the 22-48x65mm Vortex Razor HD for $1199.

My budget is more $500 to $1000 and primarily for wildlife viewing.

I do like the thought of the extended eye relief of the Kowa that NikonUser has.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Riley,

Don't forget about Konus. You can get a lot of scope for your dollar with their 20-60 x80 spotting scope.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Riley:
Bump. Starting my search, I'm liking the 22-48x65mm Vortex Razor HD for $1199.

My budget is more $500 to $1000 and primarily for wildlife viewing.

I do like the thought of the extended eye relief of the Kowa that NikonUser has.

If this is for wildlife shooting, you might want to consult birding sites.

http://www.birdwatching-bliss....spotting-scopes.html

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/...se-a-spotting-scope/

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics.html

http://www.optics4birding.com/scopes.aspx

Remember, the purpose is a little different but they have lots of great reviews and information. These folks lives are for the birds.

Thanks! It will be used for shooting as well but spend more time looking at wildlife, birds and big game mostly. The 8x binoculars aren't cutting it.

quote:

Originally posted by Riley:
Thanks! It will be used for shooting as well but spend more time looking at wildlife, birds and big game mostly. The 8x binoculars aren't cutting it.

If you've got the coin, the Swaro spotters are EASILY the best I've looked through.

They also have an adapter that turns them into "binoculars". Still a single objective lens, but creates an ocular lens for each eye. I've never tried the adapter, but if Swaro made it, it's likely good stuff.

If I had the cash, Swarovski would be my main glass for most things.

How is Pentax glass? I've found one to rent, Pentax 80 ED Spotting Scope, so I'm going to try it for a few days.