• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Disappointed with "expensive" spotting scopes

J

johnny_boy

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
May 2, 2013
27
0
Washington State
I bought a Konus 20-x60 80mm spotting scope a few years ago to spot .17/.22/.30 caliber holes at 200 yard. Overall, to be honest, I am not too happy with it.

I have a Sightron SIII 8x32 scope, and it does a better job at identifying holes than the Konus spotting scope. So, I don’t really use the spotting scope much when I go shoot alone. (I am not 100% happy with Sightron's zoomed passed 24 either, but it was very slightly better than Nightforce one that I compared. So I am assuming this is as good as it will get as a rifle scope)

So, after much research I decided to upgrade to Vortex Razor HD. I tried it out against Nikon 82mm ED 25x75 and I preferred the Vortex by a slim margin. So, I went back to the store intend to purchase it. I brought my Konus, so I could compare it. I was going to be blown away by the difference, that spending $1750 (after tax) was not going to be a problem! Until I looked through both. I went back home without purchasing the Razor.

While I felt the Razor was better it did not feel like it was $1500 better. Maybe 10-20% better?

First, Konus at 60x is about equal to Razor 45x. So, we know Konus is lying :). So I ended up comparing it at the “real” magnification. I was shooting across indoor at Cabela’s from one end to the other. The light was therefore a bit dim. But here in Pacific Northwest, the light is always a bit dim outside. :)

The razor at 45x was a bit sharper than Konus at 60x, had a bit more contrast, and better chromatic aberration, and much better flare/ghost control, under the indoor light situation. However, I was not blown away by the difference. I would call it minimal, considering Razor is 8x more expensive.

I love the sharpness of Razor/Nikon/Konus when you set at 20x, but the moment you start moving the zoom dial, they all degrade very quickly. Are there any good scope that actually is nearly sharp, contrast and bright at 60x as 20x? I am assuming that is not possible at 85mm objective lens.

Overall, I am disappointed that spending much more is not really going to buy me a lot more. Am I expecting too much from a $1600 scope? My understanding is the Razor is only hair bit not as good as top end Swarovski or Kowa? It seems that you are hitting the law of diminishing return VERY fast on spotting scopes?

p.s. - it is possible that at outdoor brighter light, things could be more different. But I am always shooting when it is cloudy, or raining or moments before the dusk after getting off work, and etc, so I did not make a point to test it outside.
 
Last edited:
unfortunately, it sounds like testing inside the Cabela's has given you skewed results. Having looked through both, the Razor is absolutely and very noticeably superior. We were seeing 6mm holes at 400 (the longest distance my range has). The Konus has a similar ability to contrast, but resolution is dominated by the Razor.
 
hmmm, I wish I can say it was noticeably superior, but for me it wasn't. Razor does out resolve Konus, since Razor at 45x was more clear than Konus at 60x and you could crank Razor all the way to 60x and you can see the target bigger. I just didn't get the feel that it was night and day better like I hoped.

I might have to give it one more try outdoor, or purchase it and run it at the range, and return it if I am not still happy with it. I know my Konus will show more chromatic aberration under bright outdoor light.
 
The chromatic aberration is what washes out the bullet holes at long range. The best test is to put the two side by side and try to spot bullet holes on a cloudy day (so the mirage doesn't skew the test).

I've had scopes where glancing through the glass doesn't provide the oomph feeling but when I try to spot bullet holes, one doesn't show any and the other magically springs them into view.
 
I mean I have some lower end spotting scopes but i do have a $3,500 swaroski spotting scope and the thing is awesome but it is a lot of money but its a one time buy
 
It is dark, overcast and cloudy a lot in W. WA (obviously) and it drizzles all the damn time. In fall, sun rises about 10am and sets at 3-4pm (it's still there, just totally hidden in dark gray!). But that never stopped training.

I've used two spotting scopes here when in military, the Bushnell (or were they Leupold?) rubber armored one (up to 40x?) and the 20-60x Kowa (I think we had a model that went higher?). That Kowa was really nice and it certainly did the job! Now you wouldn't want to carry this beast in the field for long distances, but at the range, it is a truly great piece of shooting equipment for the price (a lot less than that Swarovski IIRC). The Bushnells, or Leupolds, believe it or not, used to be issued to snipers here ten years ago. I thought they were junk except at close range and on good days, but they could handle some abuse. They got much, much better stuff before deployment, but I forget what they received.

So doesn't sound like you've tried Kowa yet... I don't think you'd be let down by them. I never was. And at 200yards!? Yeah, you won't have a problem with that Kowa. I don't understand why you had that many problems with the others, I thought the ones you mentioned would perform better. But as a former SDM instructor, I can say the guy in charge of the SDM program here ten years ago was diehard about these Kowas. To him, there just wasn't a better spotting scope for shooting to 1000m.

Trace shows up MAGNIFICENT with these Kowas. The contrail is so defined it looks like something from the movie Matrix, no shit. Same with mirage, calls are easier when the mirage looks like a damn angled brush fire! Now you likely won't be zooming in on .22 holes at 1000m, but at 200m, no problem at all.

Good luck, you usually get what you pay for, but before I dropped that kind of coin on a Swarovski, I'd try out a Kowa first. If you can compare 'em side by side, that would be ideal.
 
From what I've seen with my own eyes and also read in reviews, the Kowa 883 is better than everything else, including the Swarovski and the Vortex. You really need to look though one.

I have the much less expensive TSN-821M and everyone that has looked through it at a match has been impressed, but the 883 is much better.
 
If you shoot allot in Cabela's, by all means judge the scopes performance in Cabelas.
I own the Vortex spotter, it is a great scope. I prefer the 30X wide angle to the stock 20-60, but both get the job done nicely.

If you cannot see a big difference in real world conditions from your Konus to the Vortex, it is either the best Konus ever, the worst vortex ever, or...
 
I ordered a konus 15-45 out of the creedmoor catalog and while its good for 100 yards on paper, its terrible @ 200 and beyond on paper.

With that said I could sit .223 hits on steel and rocks out to 1025 yards with it no problem. I see no reason to replace it. I was seriously considering a Mark 4 but I just see that money being better spent elsewhere.
 
I really like my kowa its the 663. My brother in law has the razor and I don't feel one is better as far as optically when you can see something with one you can see it with the other. But overall I like my kowa since it is smaller and the focus knob is not as sensitive as the razors. Before you buy you should really try to get your hands on a kowa. Some of my shooting buddies have cheap bushnells and some other brand, cant think of name right now but the kowa and razor blow them away even at 100yds.
 
Atmospheric conditions can really affect the quality of the image through any scope. The first decent scope I got I was so diappointed in because I got it middle of the afternoon in July in Kansas, looked like the 800 yd. target had grown legs and was walking around. The next morning was a completly different story, very clear, could see every little detail. The Razor is a very good scope, close to a Zeiss 65 FL.
 
Second the suggestion for the KOWA 883. You need to look through one before condemning "expensive" scopes. However, I went with the Meopta Meostar S2, an 82mm objective. It has zero chromatic aberration, is very bright, amazing clarity and detail, cuts through mirage and has the widest field of view of any scope out there. It's also $1000 less than the KOWA. I'm very pleased with it and have no regrets choosing its over the KOWA.
Skip
 
If your primary objective is to see holes on a target at distances over 400 yards or so I'd have to say that our Target Cam product is going to do a better job for a whole lot less than high end spotting scopes. Not to say that spotting scopes aren't still useful, they are, it's just that atmospheric conditions, like Bronco said, are going to always be the issue. On hot days you're not going to see shots out past 300 yards regardless of how good the scope is.

With our system the camera is 20 feet from the target and the image of the target is sent via wireless signal back to the bench next to you so mirage and dust are not a factor. On real long shots you can actually look over at the screen and watch your bullet hit. Multiple cameras allow you to view multiple targets by just switching channels.

Feel free to call or email me directly with any questions.
 
Last edited:
you get what you pay for with optics, and there is a lot of glass in a spotter, you don't want to skimp and get something cheap, you'll be disappointed
 
Advertising is advertising ONLY: I'm in this job, and having formerly worked as copywriter, I can guarantee that_
As shooter,I've seen even top line German and Austrian spotting scopes having problems at 300 meters, searchin'for .22 or 6ppc holes on black bullseye, if/when the meteo is not-so-friendly_ that without questioning the excellence of higher cost products_
we all are buying by mail or in some shop, and I've never seen optics shops (brand don't matter) placed near a 300mt. shooting stand...
I think there must be some reason if our free-rifle competitions, even inside the limit of this shooting distance, are commanding the help of signalling personnel under the target, and the spotting scope is used by the shooter to see the bright end of the signaller's score pole, indicating where the shot has landed...
 
OK, so I took the advice of the forum as well as my own advice. I went and purchased the Vortex last night. I tested it out under the outdoor condition this early morning when it was still cool but bright enough (overcast this morning, as usual).

Summary - Vortex will be going back to the store. My initial assessment still held true under outdoor under the daylight. I see slight advantage but not enough to justify the $1500 jump for ME.

Details - This is not a scientific testing, so don't take it at face value.
View attachment 6813
  • I set up the two scopes inside my house through the windows (open, took out the bug mesh panel). Pointed at the house across that is 205 yards away, verified by the range finder previously.
  • Comparison took place between 8:45 to 9:45 am.
  • Set both of them on a tripod. Konus on the crappy tripod it came with on top of my chair. Vortex on a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod.
  • Tried my darnest to get the focus right on (both of them are very difficult, as it never really gets fully sharp, so I was hunting back and forth until it was the least fuzzy.
  • Set up a 35mm DSL camera with the sharpest known lens in its class, which alone cost more than the Vortex Razor HD, on another tripod
  • Tried real hard to get the camera focus through the eye piece (I guess this is called digiscoping?). Very hard to do, I found out.

I focused on the dirt spots on the siding of this house, trying to simular dark holes on a tan/gray white target paper.

Konus 20x60-80mm set at 60x.
View attachment 6814

Vortex Razor HD 20x60-85mm set at ~45x
View attachment 6815

Vortex Razor HD 20x60-85mm set at 60x
View attachment 6816

In these photos it looks like Razor at 45x an Konus at 60x is about the same, but my eyes, I could tell Razor was slightly better. I had hard time capturing it. Razor was brighter, so I had deal with it at the post processing time. I originally set the aperture and shutter speed the same to show which is brighter, but that made the Vortex a bit too washed out looking. Image was shot in RAW with minimal sharpness and exposure change done. Again, this is not a scientific test, I would have put way more controls with multiple reiterations, but I think it demonstrates what I was trying to convey in my initial post in picture, so you don't think I am crazy! :)

Overall iN SHARPNESS, in the CENTER, I only see marginal improvement in Vortex over Konus. However I can tell the EDGES are sharper on Vortex, and while Vortex still does have CA, it is not nearly as bad as Konus which has bad purple fringe problem near the edges.

[Side notes - this was the second Vortex Razor HD sample, so I don't think I had a "bad" copy. I also compared Swarovski 20-60x80mm HD ($2800) with Razor at the store as well. Swarovski was sharper, but I won't consider it twice better. 10-20%? But I definitely felt that it had more "in focus" feel to it at 60x while Vortex and Nikon I never felt like it was in sharp focus at 60x)

[Epilogue - I think this post will make a lot of Vortex Razor HD users very angry and I think I will get a lot of attacks. I hope we can have a civil conversation. I thought Nikon ED was worse! :) Please be happy with what you have. Vortex is way better built, air sealed, and can take abuse. While Kouns feels like a cheap plastic toy and it will probably shatter if I ever drop it or hit is against something. I used to be a pro photographer, and I used to pay double, triple of the cost of similary sharp lens, because the "L" lens provide weather sealing, better built, and large aperture that allows me to take pictures at low light situation. But if you compared them at f/8, $500 lens will look almost as sharp as the $2000 lens, especially around the center]

[Epilogue 2 - So I am not sure if I am going to upgrade to more expensive ones. I don't think I can justify spending $2500-$3000 for a Swarvoski or Kowa, as this is my hobby and not my job. I dropped a lot of money on glass when I was a pro photographer, but because that was my job. I might just keep using my Sightron rifle scope for spotting my own shot for <200 yards. Maybe think about the target cam thing, but in public ranges I shoot it is going to be hard to place those out on the range due to various reasons]

[Epilogue 3 - Just for the heck of it, I tried to take a photo of the house using my camera only. 300mm f/2.8 x 2.0 TC = 600mm f/5.6. The lens have fluorite element(s) in it. Then I digital zoomed the image at 100% pixel level. Surprisingly?, it is not nearly as sharp as shooting through the scope, though it has much better "picture quality" to it with no CA.
View attachment 6860
 
Last edited:
Quick close up photo of edges of the scope and chromatic aberrations of the scopes.

1. Vortex CA - purple fringe
View attachment 6818

2. Vortex CA - removed it digitally
View attachment 6819

3. Vortex CA - not as bad as Vortex, but it does have some CA
View attachment 6820

4. Vortex CA - removed it digitally
View attachment 6821

As you can tell, the sharpness of the lenses are actually pretty good on both, but it is the control of color fringing that makes things look much sharper to our eyes. Really expensive lenses have fluorite elements that control CA really well.
 
Last edited:
Your eyes may be similar to mine. Have a look at the Pentax 80mm spotters. I have a Vortex Razor right now but was never blown away by it like I was the Pentax.
 
"I have a Sightron SIII 8x32 scope, and it does a better job at identifying holes than the Konus spotting scope. So, I don’t really use the spotting scope much when I go shoot alone. (I am not 100% happy with Sightron's zoomed passed 24 either, but it was very slightly better than Nightforce one that I compared. So I am assuming this is as good as it will get as a rifle scope)"

Not even close. Use an alpha scope (Schmidt & Bender, Premier, Hensoldt, NF ATACR or B.E.A.S.T) and the difference in resolution is obvious. It becomes apparent at distance with higher magnification. You may not see much difference inside Cabela's as the distance is not great enough.

The Sightron SIIIs are great for the money, like Bushnell Elite Tacticals, but they have the glass to pull off 24x and then get darker. My Bushnell XRS does the same thing above 24x; it is useable but on an overcast day the image is a bit on the dark side. I had an S&B PMII 5-25x56 (never should have sold it) and it is in poor conditions at greater distances that you really see what you are paying for.

I am selling a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 20-60x80 spotter with ED prime glass. It is, again, fantastic optically for the money (less than $500). I just received its replacement, an Optolyth 20-60x80 Compact HD/APO that cost 5 times as much.

I compared them side by side yesterday, tripod mounted and trained on a section of a distant tree (over 200 yards away) that added a few challenges to the mix; bright sky in the background, shadows from neighboring branches, foliage vs branch. In broad daylight the Bushnell was plenty bright and clear at 60x. The FOV was larger in the Optolyth and the detail, color, and contrast were noticeably better. Looking through the Optolyth was "easier". The Bushnell required more effort to get into the eyebox and any movement from that optimum position introduced a haze into the FOV, and looking through it for a minutes at a time fatigued my eye. I could have looked through the Optolyth all day effortlessly.

I left the scopes up as the sun went down and both scopes were able to satisfactorily resolve the little tuft of foliage from the branch far longer into the dusk than I thought they would. When the image in the Bushnell finally devolved to where I could no longer distinguish between the foliage and the branch, the image through the Optolyth still clearly defined the contrast in colors and detail for another 4 minutes. Even then I could discern detail but the color contrast was gone.

The main reason I got the Optolyth is because I wanted the ranging reticle and as Aries64 has written many times, the Optolyth eyepieces are the only ones where one can rotate the reticle to suit the position of the scope. A Swaro may have a slight edge in brightness, and Kowa is the undisputed top of the heap, but the Optolyth is definitely in this alpha group of spotters.

The difference between an alpha rifle scope and the rest of the field (Nightforce, Sightron, Leupold Mark 4 ,Bushnell Elite, etc.) is slight but noticeable.
Nobody ever lost a match because they could not see a target with one of these scopes that they would have seen with an alpha scope.

Actually spotting little holes at 400 yards plus is another story, though.

Last weekend at 400 yards I could not spot my hits due to mirage past 300, neither with the Bushnell XRS or the Bushnell spotter.
The guy with the Tac Ops and S&B PMII 5-25x56 couldn't see his hits at 400 either.
With that much mirage, the better optics fared no better, but the mirage sure had great clarity and contrast!

Joe
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ken226
Maybe I have a good spotter but I love my Vortex Razor HD. I use the Mil 30X eyepiece as I want a spotter with a reticle in it, so my options are few. As far as the optics in it I am very happy. I have used Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold MK4, Bushnell (don't remember the model) and a Konus. The Vortex I have is the only one I have used but has impressed me. The only other spotters I would say were even close to it were the Swarovski and Zeiss. Now I have not been able to do a side by side but I am VERY picky about optics. I have used the Razor from 25yds out to 1000yds and it has always focused well, and provided all the detail I need. I don't use it to spot bullet holes at distance, but rather to see splash, read trace, and wind. I would say that it leaves nothing on the table for my needs. I know all this optical quality stuff is very subjective but I do not settle for lesser quality and feel like this Razor I have is filling my needs well. Just my .02
 
lennyo3034 said:
Your eyes may be similar to mine. Have a look at the Pentax 80mm spotters. I have a Vortex Razor right now but was never blown away by it like I was the Pentax.
Click to expand...

I've heard from a few people that Pentax spotters are really awesome; do you know if they offer any eyepieces with mil based reticles?
 
That I'm not sure. I will say I also am a fan a Sightron glass and have compared the SIII to both the Pentax and the Razor. It was not even close. My target was pine needles at 300 yards and the difference was very evident. I just wish I was able to test the pentax next to the Razor.
 
I just picked up a konus 80 mm this week and i used it to find hits on steel at 450 yards and it worked pretty good for what i paid.
I have a bushnell elite doubler that fits the knous eyepiece perfectly and will give you a little extra zoom because the konus does not go to 60 x like it says.
 
More Update - Positive!

Finally got a hold of a friend who has another Vortex (who told me to buy this in the first place) and borrowed from him this morning and this time I took it to a spot that I could measure 300 yards. This time I took an old target with six .308 shots tightly grouped but not touching each other. I can definitely see better with Vortex than Konus at that distance. With Konus, I can tell sort of that there are 6 shots, because I know there are 6 shots. With Vortex, I can tell much more clearly. It is not a night and day difference, but enough to make a difference to notice the quality.

Two reasons why:
1. This copy is sharper than the new Vortex that I bought. This one I feel that it goes into a sharp focus at 60x rather than finding for the least fuzzy picture.
2. Therefore 60x makes a difference. Vortex 45X and Konus at 60X, I can almost tell 6 holes either way, although Vortex is a bit sharper (10-15%?). But on Vortex I can zoom in to 60x and see the details a bit better. My guess would be that at 400 yards, I could find Vortex usable, while Konus, it will get fuzzy. Have not tested at that distance though.

I would say the new Vortex that I have is maybe about 10-15% sharper than my Konus (At the center only. Edges Vortex is definitely better). I think my friend's Vortex is another 10% sharper than my new Vortex. Which makes 20-25% sharper than my Konus. (Sorry these numbers are totally made up by my gut feeling. Not scientific at all). So at 20-25% sharpness increase, I can definitely tell that it is sharper and I can start to justify the cost difference.

Now, the question is whether mine is the BAD copy, or my friends' is exceptional copy? If I can get a similar copy as my friends, I think I will be very happy with the Vortex.

(Sorry I didn't take any pictures this morning, as I was busy to get this done before my work got too busy. Plus I realize that pictures look fuzzier than what I can see with my naked eyes.
 
Last edited:
Opticsspecialist said:
you get what you pay for with optics, and there is a lot of glass in a spotter, you don't want to skimp and get something cheap, you'll be disappointed
Click to expand...

This post nicely sums up this thread and others regarding glass. There are many posts that discuss the pros and cons of low to mid level glass. This is because there will always be some degree of compromise with low/mid level glass. Save up more $ and buy Zeiss, Swarovski or Leica and you'll never look back. If you can save up $1,500 to buy a Vortex or similar, you can save more and buy top line. It might take longer, but the wait is worth it.
 
a humble advise BEFORE any buy: TEST your (next) SPOTTING scope at the farthest distance available, triyn'to see your BULLET HOLES on BLACK paper ( not on steel, not admiring mountains,sheeps, flowers, stars or little birds_ any report (and retail price) will be welcomed_
 
If you have Gitzmo gear than you know damn well there are diminishing returns when you want the best of the best. Is that Gitzmo 3x as good as a Manfrotto? Hell no! Maybe 10-20% such as your assessment with the spotting scopes. I run a D4 with the trinity 2.8 glass. Are my photos 20x better than my wife's on her iPhone? I'd sure like to think so but she doesn't agree. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. You already knew your answer before you started. Cool experiment and you got to kill some time though. It sucks to be the store that sold you the scopes to do your tests since they are going to have to eat a bunch of money because you played with them before you returned them.
 
mikeltee said:
If you have Gitzmo gear than you know damn well there are diminishing returns when you want the best of the best. Is that Gitzmo 3x as good as a Manfrotto? Hell no! Maybe 10-20% such as your assessment with the spotting scopes. I run a D4 with the trinity 2.8 glass. Are my photos 20x better than my wife's on her iPhone? I'd sure like to think so but she doesn't agree. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. You already knew your answer before you started. Cool experiment and you got to kill some time though. It sucks to be the store that sold you the scopes to do your tests since they are going to have to eat a bunch of money because you played with them before you returned them.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree here. I do find the gitzo tripod worth 3x price difference. When I purchased it, it was the only carbon fiber game in town, and it was way lighter than anything else. I paid for the lack of weight part. i used to travel alot on foot with it for my business, and it was worth it.

It was the stores recommendation to "buy it and take time to try it, and if you don't like it, return within 90 days," when I told them I wanted to do some more side by side testing outside. I wanted to keep it, but at 8x price diff, I do not think it is worth it for the copy that I bought. I would probably buy my friends copy though. I have not decided.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's the subjective nature of "diminishing returns".
Some don't see the several percent return for several times the cost being worth it when it comes to optical quality.
You do, however, value the utility offered by the Gitzo (weight savings and compact folded size) as justifying the 300% purchase price, while I do not.
I paid for a $400 Manfrotto CF tripod and fluid head combo that is extremely sturdy and fluid, and handles 90% of my tripod duties. I am not willing to pony up another $900 to get a tripod that is lighter and more compact.
I did, however, just upgrade my spotter at a cost (after selling the Bushnell LUHD20-60x80) of $2300 to get an optic with only slightly better optics and a mil ranging reticle that rotates, and I am pleased with the value in my upgrade.
Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matteman
Spotters Comparison between Vortex Razor 85 and Swarovski ATX 95
Replies
0
Views
626
Matteman
Matteman
Cmelde01
Need help with scope selection
Replies
0
Views
60
Cmelde01
Cmelde01
L
Which spotting scope to buy?
Replies
38
Views
2K
Rabbit9
R
M
Spotting scope $1000ish
Replies
76
Views
2K
mi223
M
LuckyDuck
Marsupial Gear Spotting Scope Cases
Replies
0
Views
127
LuckyDuck
LuckyDuck
Top Bottom
Back