Spotter Power / How Much is Too Much??

[10Dogs]

Hunt Talkers.........,

I am trying to make an informed investment in a spotter.
For the sake of argument, I am deciding between 20-60X85 and 15-45X65.
Besides a few hundred $$$'s there is a pound more in the bigger optic.
This spotter will be in addition to my Vortex Viper HD 10X42's
The assignment will primarily be Elk/Deer in AZ and Elk in ID/MT.

Looking for some insight from experienced Western Hunters.

Thank you in advance,

10Dogs

 

[NYSKIER]

It all depends on how you will be using it. The higher power glass will always be better but if you are packing in or will be hiking a lot you may not want that extra weight and/or will not want a larger item in you pack. Another think to consider is are you going to be using it to count points/looking for specific trophy worthy animals or are you just looking for meat. Basically the best way to go about it would be to see what your needs are, how you will be using it, and then decide from there.

Hope this helps

 

[BrentD]

I hate to say it, but only you can really decide. In the end, you might want both. Every trip will be different. personally, I think packing an 85mm and the bigger tripod it will require, is a bit much. But then for AZ deer in the right place, that might be exactly what I want.

One thing I don't seem discussed much is whether you would prefer a 45 degree angle to your occular lens or a "straight" scope? I prefer the latter, but others do not. I think the straight is easier to find a specific target that I might have located by eye or with binoculars.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think it depends a lot of which spotter and on your tripod. A swaro spotter on a rock solid tripod early in the morning (with limited wind) will be crisp and clear at 60x a cheap spotter is going to be a blurry mess. I have a $200 spotter and my brother-n-law has a swaro... for determining if it's buck or doe pronghorn a longways off mine gets it done... but to count tines on an elk way way out there you need the swaro 20-60.

Basically, you get what you pay for with spotters.

 

[BrentD]

I think it depends a lot of which spotter and on your tripod. A swaro spotter on a rock solid tripod early in the morning (with limited wind) will be crisp and clear at 60x a cheap spotter is going to be a blurry mess. I have a $200 spotter and my brother-n-law has a swaro... for determining if it's buck or doe pronghorn a longways off mine gets it done... but to count tines on an elk way way out there you need the swaro 20-60.

Basically, you get what you pay for with spotters.

Yeah, what he said. With one caveat. Used spotters are a great way to save a few nickles if you can be patient. There are several for sale on this forum's classifieds, including these two
https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...Field-Scope-ED78-w-20-60-zoom-Angled-Eyepiece
https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...tex-Razor-HD-Spotting-scope-16x48-65-Straight

One of which is mine.

 

[Bambistew]

The higher power spotter will be brighter/more clear at the same power as the lower power, e.g. 65mm scope at 45x vs a 80mm scope at 45x is much better.

I had a 15-45 eye piece on my 65mm Zeiss, and have since upgraded to the 15-56 and have seen very little difference in clarity between the two at both high power, but enjoy the higher power .

 

[10Dogs]

Thank you BrentD for the links.
Thank you to all the replies above.
I am leaning towards the lower power glass for sure.
Most trips will require air transportation from East Coast until I relocate.
Both of the attached spotters look like fair prices.

 

[BrentD]

I'll knock $50 off the Nikon.

 

[joelweb]

I think that unless you can afford to buy alpha glass, there is little reason to go higher than 50x magnification. From my experience, most spotters are unable to present a clear picture above that magnification. That doesn't mean you won't want more power - it just gets really expensive if you want usable magnification that goes beyond 50x.

 

[RobG]

All else equal, higher power means a smaller field of view.

 

[BrentD]

I think that unless you can afford to buy alpha glass, there is little reason to go higher than 50x magnification. From my experience, most spotters are unable to present a clear picture above that magnification. That doesn't mean you won't want more power - it just gets really expensive if you want usable magnification that goes beyond 50x.

Yes indeed. And even with the best glass, it gets dicey if there is low light, mist, mirage, or a host of other things.

 

[ssssnake529]

Most people that I know that own 85mm spotters end up carrying something else on their mountain hunts. Bigger spotter means a bigger tripod too, so the weight penalty multiplies.

I bought one of the new 15-45x Kowa 554 spotters. It's light enough that I can use an ultralight tripod. Optics are superb. It's the only spotter I carry in the mountains now.

 

[joelweb]

Most people that I know that own 85mm spotters end up carrying something else on their mountain hunts. Bigger spotter means a bigger tripod too, so the weight penalty multiplies.

I bought one of the new 15-45x Kowa 554 spotters. It's light enough that I can use an ultralight tripod. Optics are superb. It's the only spotter I carry in the mountains now.

Small spotters are best to carry, but you'll be missing the big eye when trying to size up a buck across a canyon. I always pack the largest spotter I can carry. Otherwise, I'm pissed that I can't see what I want to see.

 

[Coyot-n]

I carry the Bushnell Elite 15-45 straight scope with an ultralight short tri pod when back packing Wyoming/Montana it’s very lite and works great out west, my big Swarovski stays in the truck or razor just in case I spot something while driving and gets used at home in Iowa.

 

[Ben Nicholson]

I'm going to toss out an alternative option. Skip the spotter, sell the vipers, and upgrade your binos. Run some alpha binos off a tripod instead. Just a thought. Good luck!

 

[hank4elk]

I have a Alpen 65 straight & light Manfrotto tripod. Went thru this years ago for high country deer hunting.85's were way too heavy with the tripod required too.
My setup is very light(3.5lb) & only thing I would change is better glass when I can afford it. Maybe.
If I see a buck or a bull across a canyon or 2 mi away now I do know already if I am after it regardless of how many extras or whatever I cannot see, like it is right in front of me....
That said I use 10x50 Alpen binos on the tripod a lot. The 10x40's stay at home or in truck as back up now,same with the Steiner 8x30's for dense stuff. I would like to get Zeiss or Swaro binos,but the Alpens are the best I have found for $ by far.
I did upgrade my rifle scope a few years back & that is night & day change for me.Leupold for Zeiss Conquest.

 

[GAbearclaw]

I have a Alpen 65 straight & light Manfrotto tripod. Went thru this years ago for high country deer hunting.85's were way too heavy with the tripod required too.
My setup is very light(3.5lb) & only thing I would change is better glass when I can afford it. Maybe.
If I see a buck or a bull across a canyon or 2 mi away now I do know already if I am after it regardless of how many extras or whatever I cannot see, like it is right in front of me....
That said I use 10x50 Alpen binos on the tripod a lot. The 10x40's stay at home or in truck as back up now,same with the Steiner 8x30's for dense stuff. I would like to get Zeiss or Swaro binos,but the Alpens are the best I have found for $ by far.
I did upgrade my rifle scope a few years back & that is night & day change for me.Leupold for Zeiss Conquest.

To or from the Conquest Hank? I love my ED50mm. I am not a trophy hunter but from 2 miles out I can confirm the frame of any buck and know if I care or not. I also think many folks that carry a spotter would find it isn't necessary very often if they kept their binos on a tripod initially.

 

[hank4elk]

To or from the Conquest Hank? I love my ED50mm. I am not a trophy hunter but from 2 miles out I can confirm the frame of any buck and know if I care or not. I also think many folks that carry a spotter would find it isn't necessary very often if they kept their binos on a tripod initially.

Took the old Leupold 3x9x40 off & put the Zeiss 3x10.5x44on.
Like those ED's too,looked at a 85 for a while also.

 

[Huntkook]

I have a Leupold 15-45×60. I think a little more magnification would have been better. Get the best you can afford that way you'll have no regrets.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Saw this thread and thought about a recent experience with a 102X eye piece on my spotting scope. Yes I said 102x. I was at my house in Laramie and able to glass meadows 10 miles away very clearly with the biggest issue being holding still even with the tripod.

Here is a quote that was a breakthrough moment in my understanding of spotting scopes. At the end of the day zoom eye pieces do not give the best performance, something I have never even seen hunters discuss and had no clue of as a hunter. Also had no idea that eye pieces on spotting scopes could be swapped. After looking through many I believe many hunters would find improved performance with a fixed 30x-40x wide angle eye piece instead of the zoom as it's a much wider view and better in low light conditions. Also note that these eye pieces are not sold by magnification as that changes depending on the scope you are using, instead they are in MM. lower number being higher magnification, higher number being lower magnification.



I have a unique perspective on the Pentax perhaps. I have been an amateur astronomer for the last 25 years and a birder for 15 years. As am astronomer, I have been an avid user of Pentax eyepieces for years. They are simply magnificent eyepieces. Many believe Pentax and TeleVue produce the best of the best. Eyepieces in the astronomy world are all standardized to 1.25" barrels which permits direct comparisons of telescope optics simply by moving the same eyepiece from scope to scope and comparing the results. Over the years, I have owned a number of excellent apochromatic telescopes including ones by Takahashi, TeleVue, Stellarvue, and AP. One thing I have learned is that the really good companies all make great objective lenses and optical tubes. More often the limiting factor of a great astronomical telescope's performance is the eyepiece - seemingly a much more complex packaging of optics as compared to the simpler objective assembly. I also believe that the astronomy world has gotton optics right - that is, they have standardized eyepiece barrel size to allow for transfer of great eyepieces from scope to scope. Additionally, the objective lenses used in astronomical telescopes have to continually stand up to star-test scrutiny. This is a high magnification test which allows a fairly quantifiable assessment of optical quality in rapid fashion. I believe this test will tell one much more about optical quality that even the use of a resolution chart with spotting scopes. The birding world, by comparison has entered the land of high quality optics only recently in terms of spotting scopes. I remember the days when I would bird with an old SpaceMaster(?) spotting scope. By astronomical standards just a miserable performer. Of course later things began to change. It all started with Kowa's introduction of a "great" zoom. Well, the "great" zoom was simply a modified version of the Vixen Zoom, well known to astronomers for years. After that things began to improve more quickly. A few really usable zooms emerged and we began to see some wonderful wide angle, long eye relief, fixed focal length objectives show up from Leica and others. Well, these had been around for a long time on the astronomical side. My (and others) reaction was....about time! So, what does this say about the Pentax PF-80. Just this - I believe the objective assembly on the Pentax PF-80 is as good as anyone's, including Zeiss, Swarovski, Pentax, and Leica. When we all read birding scope reviews of these industry leader's scopes, we are really reading reviews of eye pieces (more or less). I am confident these great optical companies mastered the production of fine objective lenses long ago. Since we can't switch out eyepieces in order to control for the effect and truly assess the objective assembly, we convince ourselves that the scope (and not the eyepiece) is what is being reviewed. I use my PF-80 with two Pentax XL eyepieces (21mm and 14mm) that I own. The view is absolutely unbelievable. The Pentax zoom, or any zoom for that matter, is simply nowhere close. You might note that Better View Desired rated the PF-80 the Reference Standard for 80mm scopes but did so only when using the fixed focal length eyepieces (not the zoom) and that ranking has survived subsequent reviews of the Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss big new scopes. Right now, I believe that the Pentax fixed focal length eyepieces are simply the best. Unfortuntely the only spotting scope they fit is the Pentax (and all astronomical telescopes as well). If they were to fit spotting scopes, they would provide just as remarkable a view in the Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, or Pentax. If you have not looked through the Pentax with one of the fixed focal length eyepieces inserted you are missing something. By the way, the TeleVue eyepieces (naglers and radians) are also amazing on the Pentax. Someday eyepiece barrels will be standardized for all and then birders will learn that all the reviews that they have read on scopes were really reviewing eyepieces. Get the Pentax and enjoy the opportunity to choose between over 200 possible eyepieces from the modest but adequate to the stunning and unbelievable (e.g. Pentax and TeleVue). By the way, I have star tested the PF-80 at high magnification and the objective optics are not limiting the performance of the scope.

And this. The Nikon 82ED is one of the best scopes ever made according to many, and can be had for under $1,000.
http://www.6mmbr.com/spotterreview.html