UKH

I'm planning a trip to the US and hope to do a bit of low-level twitching.  Does anyone have any recommendations for a cheapis, smallish, rugged spotter scope please?

What do you mean by cheapish?

I've got a Hawke 12-36 x50 which was just over £200 2 years ago and I'm happy with it. However it's no longer current - they only do it with ED glass now which bumps the price up to getting on for £400.

However a quick check shows that it's apparently available for £199 from https://www.birders-store.co.uk/hawke-endurance-12-36x50-angled-spotting-sc... (not the ED version).

Even more compact (but I'm not in a position to recommend) is the Celestron Hummingbird - pocket size, goes from binocular level magnification to x27. Hawke do one the same and I think it's also available from other brands (from pictures it looks to me like there's a single manufacturer - probably Chinese - that makes this scope for several makes but with slightly different specifications with respect to quality; e.g. ED glass etc). Again these are probably somewhere near £200.

Good question.  I was hoping for something I can put on my birthday list so perhaps £200 is too much, more like £60 is what I was thinking but I really don't know if that is feasible.

Second hand:

https://www.at-infocus.co.uk/product/kowa-ts502-20x-wfv/

Think you might struggle at that price range. You might do better around the £100 mark- stay a cheap end opticron?

I’d like a recommendation for a mid price range for a spotting scope please.

Would I get something reasonable around £500?

Used, probably. Look at the stuff now selling for 1 to 1.5k, and then search for a previous model. Be careful, I am shopping around for a scope for my daughters, and half the ads on that site are scams. Probably an underestimate even.

CB

Hmmm, may have to go back to the drawing board!  Mk 1 eyeball as issued!

But then oh cr*p I looked at the KOwa TS502 and it looks absolutely perfect, helped by this dramatic video of it in use, including such highlights as man sitting in stream and man diving up wrong side of road, with appropriate stirring music! youtube.com/watch?v=kfhsEByZWhI&

Been thinking about getting a scope recently, mainly for otters / marine wildlife. Don't really want to go mad initially so going to go fo something cheap (2nd hand £200 or so) and see how much it gets used then maybe move up to a decent Kowa model or similar.

Have you used InFocus? There's one quite near me but I've never been, should get along there really. Ended up getting the last set of binoculars when I was up in Norfolk from Cleyspy who were very helpful.

Just pointing out that the 2nd hand Kowa linked to above is a TS502, the video is a TSN502, not the same scope.

The TSN is the current model, has a zoom eyepiece 20-40x IIRC. The TS is an older model with a fixed 20x eyepiece.

£500 should get you a decent scope - not top drawer (where you need a £2000+ budget), but should be noticeably better than cheaper scopes (like mine).

Main thing is to decide what you want; full size or compact, straight or angled.

At £500 I think I'd want to be trying out my shortlist rather than just relying on reviews and recommendations.

Don't forget to budget for tripod, the bigger the scope, the better the tripod needs to be - partly because of higher magnification.

Thanks Michael, yes had clocked this but very well worth clarifying!  Also he IS driving on the RIGHT side of the road and I am a numpty.

InFocus has been mentioned about and I would endorse them. I bought a scope from their Willow Farm shop in Hertfordshire and the experience was excellent. Tried quite a few and with no pressure to buy.

Although I will keep my scope it does not get used as much as I had hoped when I got it.

For distance viewing, the magnification and light gathering of scopes wins hands down but a tripod is essential so I don't carry it that often.

Whenever I go out wildlife watching, or just taking in the views, my binoculars are always with me and sometimes the scope, but never the other way around.

Dave

What would you say are the most important things to consider when choosing a scope?

I'm interested in that sweet spot of bang for buck. Once you go past it you enter the law of diminishing returns for small improvements in quality.

For size I doubt that you can beat my Celestron Hummingbird but it isn't all that cheap, around the £250 mark.

Advantage: takes astronomy eyepieces as well.

Disadvantage: twist barrel focusing - I'd much rather have a wheel.

Any use?

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/hawke-nature-trek-9-27x56-spotting-scope-1745...

Have you looked into renting one when you get there?

That's basically the Hawke equivalent of the Celestron Hummingbird - since most optics are made in China or Japan to the specifications of the brands we know (like Opticron, Hawke, etc), I can't believe that there is more than one manufacturer of this scope. As I mentioned above, it must just be being made to different material/quality specifications for the different brands.

Presumably for £250 you have the ED glass version (or you've had it since they first appeared), the non-ED glass version can be found for about £200.

I don't think they still do the even smaller 7-22x50 Hummingbird.

I've got some Viking ED binoculars, ex-display binoculars which I'm really pleased with.

What are the collective's views on Viking Spotting Scopes?

Since you're concerned with value for money, I would say the main thing is to try all the possibilities out so that you can judge whether any extra £ actually gives you a better viewing experience, and that you're happy that any such better viewing experience is worth those extra £. The "viewing experience" can be quite personal, you may prefer scope X where most people prefer scope Y.

Use reviews to give yourself a shortlist. The best website I found for that is  https://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/ (does scopes as well as bins)

It also has useful guides to things like "straight of angled", explaining ED glass, etc.

I've been mulling a Spotting Scope for years.

Cheers

Yes it's the ED version but unfortunately it doesn't have the fine  focusing facility mentioned in the Hawkes's specifications. 

I don't think the Hawke equivalent of the Hummingbird has fine focusing - just the one barrel ring I think.

All their Endurance range scopes have coarse & fine focus, their cheaper ranges don't appear to have this dual focusing.

I'm at the upgrading my bins stage - my 20+ year old Opticron Imagics are still ok but I should be able to get something visibly better for £250-300. Need to go and compare a few, do I want 8x32 again or 8x42, does extra £ give me something better, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think I can justify going to £400-450 which would take me to the next "step". 

I was going off the Wexphoto link that Kevin S provided of the Hawke, which claims it has a fine focusing knob. The accompanying photo suggests differently, however.

Further to my previous post, you can get e.g. a Zeiss Diascope 65 with straight optics and the regular zoom lens for around €600 in Germany.

Not the brightest (compared to the 85mm and above Zeiss/Svarovski/Leica scopes), but light and with very nice optical properties until 20 min before light runs out at dusk for the fat tubes as well.

Kowa and Optolyth make good scopes, too.

CB

What are the recognised sizes for a scope?

I've got a pair of 10x42 binoculars and understand its the physical size of the lenses that make the difference at collecting light. But I know bugger all about scopes.

Smaller spotting scopes have 65 mm (ish) front lenses, and typically between 15 and 50x magnification. No point to go any higher in magnification, not enough light.... Also, no point in going any lower in front lens diameter for the same reason.

The standard for bigger front lenses is about 85 mm (eg. with Optolyth, Zeiss, Meopta), but if you are happy to spend 4k you can also get a top of the line Swarovski ATX with a 110mm front lens and a 25 to 70x zoom (you can get the same scope with 65/85/95mm as well). Often you can specify either regular oculars which have a somewhat higher magnification range or a wide angle option where you trade in some max. magnification for a wider field of view.

In first approximation, the light collecting ability scales with the square of the front lens diameter and inversely with the magnification. However, even at the top end (Zeiss Harpya) some scopes do not even use the full front lens unless you zoom in above some threshold, meaning that the light collecting power when when you drop magnification at dusk improves less than you would expect. This is much more common with cheaper scopes (and not really a problem with the Zeiss which is otherwise screamingly bright,

FWIW I have an 82mm Leica Apo Televid with a 25-50x wide angle ocular, but would not mind getting another, smaller, and in particular lighter scope that I would consider lugging around on multi day hikes. The Leica is just too heavy.

That said, I will in a few weeks have the opportunity to look through the Swarovski ATX110 my son is currently working with during his gap year as a bird warden on the North Sea.

If I stop posting here I will probably be in jail after the bank heist that suddenly became necessary will have gone wrong....

CB

I don't fully agree, if portability is a high priority (it was for me) then a scope with a smaller front lens may be what you want/need. The compromise is that it will not have the same light gathering power so you'll be limited, especially in poorer light. The other factor is that a smaller scope will generally be of higher quality than a larger scope that is the same price - so again if your budget is limited, you may decide to jump that way.

Unfortunately, optics is a slippery slope to more and more expensive kit (bit like Hi-fi, but thankfully not like climbing hardware - and there are no Jimmy Choo climbing shoes - yet) - try to stay out of jail ☹

Lots of food for thought there.

If I went 65mm and 85mm what would my options and budgets have to be for a good quality but not stupid quality for an average spotter using a handful of times a year?

If you go down to 50mm you are in "binocular range" and will anyway not be able to use more than 20x even in best light, even ignoring the quality of the image.

So, IMO spotting scopes start around 65, where you can use magnifications difficult to steady by hand. But even at that size there are huge differences in weight and length. Some of the stubby ones are actually quite good!

CB

Assuming you are happy with the limitations of a scope - heavier and bigger than binoculars, the need for a tripod, not as useful as binocular in some situations, along with the advantages - excellent for distance viewing, sometimes better light gathering, then after deciding your budget I think the most important thing is trying some out.

I, and others, here have mentioned the 'In Focus' shops and if you are close to one I suggest giving them a visit. Also have a look at any convenient RSPB reserves. Quite a few have permanent displays of scopes(and binoculars) which you can try out.

Dave

Are you sure you need a scope?

I’ve had both for many years and the bins get 99% of use and scope 1%.

In ok light my 50mm scope starts going noticeably darker at about 25-28x - still usable at max of 36x but usually I'd play around a bit on "static" subjects to find the best compromise between brightness and magnification.

Obviously with a bigger lens, the need to do that would only occur at lower light levels.

There’s an In Focus at Brockholes Nature Reserve  (the old gravel pits on the M6 near Tickled Trout). 

Thanks for the suggestion. Its a bit too far to go, however I do have an RSPB shop 25 minutes down the road.

Cheers

I'm thinking perhaps not.  Really interesting to see the discussion about them though, very helpful.  Perhaps a small rugged pair of cheapish bins instead...any recommendations? : ) : )

I highly rate stuff from Viking optics. Their lower priced kit looks remarkably like RSPB binocs, except for the branding.

Below a certain price say £300ish, then all binoculars come from the same factory. Different companies just rebrand them to their needs.

Above a certain price level then companies can have binoculars made to their specs. They become less generic and more designed towards the company's branding and quality controls.

I’m sure there is a more eloquent way to explain it, but I hope this helps.

I got some great help from this site about 15 years ago and my binocs are still going strong.

I got a pair at ten times magnification. I was given a cheap pair at eight times magnification as a Christmas present and worked out they just were not good enough to see the birdies.

The diameter of the front glass is just as important as the magnification. The wider the diameter, the more light gets in and the brighter your viewing pleasure.

The advice was ten times magnification with 42mm diameter lenses. It shows as 10x42mm.

Any bigger and you will struggle to hold them still enough to enjoy the view. I bought myself a pair of 20x80mm binoculars. They were physically bigger than my head. The 20 part was that I had twenty times magnification. What this meant was that they were too powerful to be hand held and needed a tripod to keep them stable enough to look through. I used them twice before they gathered dust hiding in their box.

That it kind of my point, except maybe I am a spoilt child and stop enjoying the darkened images above 25x when I KNOW that better images are possible!

I earn my money looking down microscopes and am downright allergic to bad optics!

CB

I think you're generally correct but I think the "crossover" is  much less than £300.

The "cheap" factor may have been more important than the lower magnification..

Again, generally correct but there are other factors, exit pupil size 42/8 > 42/10 but your max pupil dilation decreases as you age so can you still take advantage of it!

Disadvantage of x10 compared with x8 is narrower field of view, important for actually finding the birdies. However modern x10 probably have as good FOV as old x8.

It's a bit of a compromise balancing act and personal preference between x8 and x10. I'm surprised that very few do x9, most quality makes avoid it.

If money's no object, then you can get x12 which are as bright as cheaper x10, etc. More difficult to hand hold but £2000+ apparently (way out of my price range ☹️) buys some quality glass and coatings that transmits light that much better.

You need to go on special gym/weight training to heft 20x80 😁, and as you said needs a tripod. Specialist, mainly astronomy or marine.

I can appreciate that as a professional user of optics, your acceptable starting point may be a little higher than average 😁, you've already been sensitised to see the nuanced differences.

One place I worked at many years ago had a x20 binocular microscope just hanging around (no idea why). Absolutely brilliant on Mondays for looking at gritstone rash.

Pupil sizes eh?

What do you suggest for unequal pupils then?

In low light you'd swear I was having a stroke it's that obvious.🤣

Buy two unmatched monoculars 😁

Seriously though, with scopes the unequalness(*) isn't an issue (unless you spend £3k+ on the Swarovski binocular eyepiece) because like most people you'll likely have a favoured eye, but with bins I guess it makes "try before buy" even more important.

(*) - have I just made up a new word?

We all have a budget but like many other things 'cheapish' can mean poor quality.

My binoculars cost about £70 and they appear fine until I borrow my wife's binoculars that cost about £250.

The difference is huge. Even though mine have 50mm objective lenses and therefore should provide a brighter image than hers which have 42mm objectives, the opposite it true. The image is brighter and with better contrast, with less fall off to the edges of the field of view and they focus to a much close distance.

Rather than recommend a particular make I suggest going to try a few pairs within your budget. I really think this is essential.

Dave

No idea how anyone removes splinters from their hands without a stereo microscope!

I have a cheap and cheerful Russian dissection scope for home use that you could pick up for fifty quid at any German flea market back in the 90s.  No continuous zoom, just a selection of fixed magnifications, which makes for surprisingly good optics.

Who cares about a flat FOV unless you spend lots of time on that scope. Chucked out the dodgy old Russian light bulb, fitted a surplus LED head light instead, and bingo...

CB

People have covered most of what you need above.

However (in my view):

10x42 is great.

Check size and weight 

raincups for eye pieces very useful (and will prob come as standard)

If you are wearing them a lot a wide, stretchy strap reduces strain on neck.

Nitrogen purging reduces fogging.

’rubber armouring’ is useful for crag loiterers like us🙂.

The focussing wheel needs to be easy to use and accurate (inc wearing gloves?)

You get what you pay for (to a certain extent). I pay circa £250 and, more or less, use them every time I step out of the house. I’m not sure the difference between 250 and 600+ is worth it. Diff between 100 and 200 definitely is. Lesser known makes can give good value (as with most products)

Plenty of reviews on the internet as I’m sure you’ve discovered.

I wouldn’t go for a monocular - they are more difficult to use.

Happy spotting!

Thanks Lemming, you know when you posted at the top of the thread I thought it was a piss-take about my wildly over-optimistic price range!  Now I realise this was not the case : ) 

Thanks, and yeah really good points from you and others which boil down to "You could but a pair for £60 but they will be cheap and the step up to a couple of hundred is well worth it".    Very useful recommendations about trying before you buy and personal preference.  Also top tip about the Infocus shops, turns out Infocus Cotswolds is about 20 mins form my house so I think a stop in to say hello is the next sensible thing to do.  

As ever thanks UKC for the helpful suggestions and questions!

I follow the mantra of "Buy cheap, pay twice". As for my binoculars, I bought a pair of ex-display models, at the time from Viking. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to take up the offer. That investment paid off for me as my binoculars have stood the test of time with their build quality and performance.

Once you step away from budget binoculars and head towards the mid range priced options you get the most bang for buck in image quality. Once you start paying the "Big Boy" prices of brands like Swarovski, then the law of diminishing returns kicks in where you start to pay considerably more for smaller improvements in quality.

With my limited knowledge and using my binoculars a few times a year I'd recommend ED glass from either the RSPB or Viking. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if the branding was taped over in a hands on test.

https://vikingoptical.com/peregrine-ed/

https://shopping.rspb.org.uk/binoculars-scopes/birdwatching-binoculars/rspb...

Years ago I tried out the range of high-end binoculars at RDPB Minsmere. I know I will never be satisfied with anything less than Swarovski ED optics, still saving up...

For several years I had use of an old pair of Zeis bins as part of my job & they were far superior to my own cheap pair. When I left the job I had to give them back & found my old pair terrible & ended up buying a pair of Leica Trinovids. Can't really justify the cost for what I use them for but having used a good pair for a few years it was difficult to go back to a cheap pair.

Remember that ED glass is not a magic bullet; ED glass in poorly (optically) designed bins will be worse than non-ED glass in well (optically) designed bins.

All that ED glass does for certain is ensure that they're better than the same make's non-ED equivalent and that they're more expensive.

Once again, make sure the extra £ are giving you a better viewing experience.

Having said that, all manufacturer's best bins will have ED glass (or an even higher spec called something else).