Swaro ATS 80 vs. 65

[mountainhawks]

Hey all,
I currently have a Vortex 65 that I love for what I paid for it but it's time to upgrade to the Swaro ATS. I'm having a hard time deciding between the 65HD or the 80HD. I do a fair amount of backpack hunting so the 65 appeals to me (9 0z lighter and obviously takes up less room) but most of my hunting is also done in Nevada where glassing a long ways is common and that's where the brighter 80 also appeals. I've compared them at local sporting good stores and have borrowed the Swaro 65 from a buddy for a few hunts but I can't decide. If anyone has any experience with the two of them your input would be greatly appreciated, is the increased brightness (especially at high magnification) in the 80 worth the weight/volume increase? Any other trade off's I'm missing?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

[Stubaby]

I took both out and ended up with the sts 65 hd.

I'd rather have that and the 25-50 wide angle eyepiece than the 80mm for the smaller size and wider field of view.



I'll sell you a new in box ats 65 hd with the wide angle eyepiece for $2250 tyd.


If you can't get a good look at an animal with that little powerhouse at 50x then you must be 5 miles away and need to get closer.

 

[handwerk]

I had the 65 and moved to the 80 and am glad I did, it's really not a big difference in size between them but to my eyes the 80 was much brighter. Also I second the 25-50 eyepiece as the one to have in most cases.

 

[wildbiotx1010]

I went with the 65 based on the fact that it was smaller. I don't generally make decisions based off of weight, but do so based on size. Either way you go, I don't believe you will feel like you made the wrong choice.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

65 for me too. 85 just adds extra weight and space in my pack. 85 would make a nice truck spotter - meaning one I wouldn't take far from the truck.

 

[TimeOnTarget]

I had the ats 80 for a few years. Loved the scope. Then I went to the atx 95. This scope blows the ats out of the water. I've no idea how they keep making these better and better.

If there is an elk 5 miles away and I'm trying to determine if it's worth going after, I don't want to have to climb 2-3 ridges to get closer and waste half a day doing so just to determine its not what I'm after.

I'll pack that 95 all day for that reason alone.

Lots of guys love the smaller scopes and I can certainly understand why. But the little extra weight is well worth the trade off for me. Maybe as I get older, I'll end up joining the "keep it light" crowd. But I can shave off the lb or so for the bigger spotter in other areas.

 

[mountainhawks]

Awesome, thanks for the replys everyone. I may be more split now than I was before! But really, all the input is appreciated. And thanks for the offer stubaby but I'll have to pass right now.

 

[Stubaby]

No worries........whatever you decide stick with the wide angle eyepiece. It's much more enjoyable than the 20-60 non wide. Well worth the extra $150

 

[grizzly_]

One more wrinkle to consider if weight is important.

Swarovski used to make an ATM model which was the same glass as the ATS, but with a magnesium body instead of aluminum. The ATM was optically identical, just lighter weight.

To give you an idea of the difference, an ATS 65HD weighs 49.6oz, the ATM 80HD weighs 55.6oz. For comparison, the ATX 65HD weighs 55.9oz and the ATX 85HD weighs 67.4oz. (All weights include eyepiece).

An 80mm lens has a surface area (light gathering ability) of 5,024 sq/mm. A 65mm lens has a surface area of 3,316 sq/mm, or 1,708 sq/mm less light gathering ability. Basically an 80mm lens has a 50% increase in surface area over a 65mm lens.

Now its just up to you if the extra surface area is worth the weight/size/cost. Good luck in your decision.

EDIT: I'd concur with the guys that like the 25-50W over the 20-60.