Post by: BetoBow on November 26, 2016, 02:58:02 PM
Can any one give me their opinion on which one they would go with and the reason behind it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 03:03:26 PM
Post by: BetoBow on November 26, 2016, 04:19:46 PM
I would buy one of the last year model Razor HD's for $999 and save $700+ dollars. In your shoes, it's a no brainer. :twocents:Thanks MtnMuley. How do they perform compared to the new Razor? Do you believe the old Razor is better quality than the Cabelas brand?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 04:42:01 PM
Post by: huntnphool on November 26, 2016, 04:59:19 PM
Post by: teanawayslayer on November 26, 2016, 05:03:03 PM
For that price I'd look at a pre owned Swaro as well. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: dog on November 26, 2016, 05:04:22 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 05:05:55 PM
Post by: JDHasty on November 26, 2016, 05:31:55 PM
Where you gonna find a 20-60x80 Swaro HD spotter for near 1K though? Unless the Swaro is an HD, my eyes chose the Razor HD over the non HD Swaro every day. :twocents:
Cuck hunting I use my old model Razor 85 right next to my buddy's Swaro and they are very close close. Fact is he was using a 30 WA Vortex Razor eyepiece w MOA reticle in his Swaro a lot of the time and that is why I bought one too. It swaps right on, but does not lock on the Swaro.
With his Swaro eyepiece it is still not a big difference in resolution.
Post by: huntnphool on November 26, 2016, 05:47:49 PM
Might take that into consideration. If you are driving to all your vantage points that's one thing. If you are planning on hiking with it, I'd think hard about it. :twocents:
Post by: JDHasty on November 26, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
I've got buddy's that sold their 20-60x65 Swaro to buy the 80mm. They are very nice but now those same buddy's are looking to get back into the 65mm because the 80mm is just too big to pack.
Might take that into consideration. If you are driving to all your vantage points that's one thing. If you are planning on hiking with it, I'd think hard about it. :twocents:
We have a Razor 85, an old 12-40X60 Leupold GR non-HD and a 20X50 Leupold Rubber Armored GR and that Razor is only packable if you really need it. The 12-40 is a lot lighter, but bulky and the little scope I can drop into a coat pocket with a Gorilla Pod or a Leupold Packer Tripod if I am wanting to hike my fat hind end any distance and think I can get by with out more.
Post by: BetoBow on November 26, 2016, 06:38:55 PM
I am planning a couple of backcountry hunts next year. I would need to pack it in. Is the 85 too much of a hassle? Sorry for the million questions it will be my first spotting scope.I've got buddy's that sold their 20-60x65 Swaro to buy the 80mm. They are very nice but now those same buddy's are looking to get back into the 65mm because the 80mm is just too big to pack.
Might take that into consideration. If you are driving to all your vantage points that's one thing. If you are planning on hiking with it, I'd think hard about it. :twocents:
We have a Razor 85, an old 12-40X60 Leupold GR non-HD and a 20X50 Leupold Rubber Armored GR and that Razor is only packable if you really need it. The 12-40 is a lot lighter, but bulky and the little scope I can drop into a coat pocket with a Gorilla Pod or a Leupold Packer Tripod if I am wanting to hike my fat hind end any distance and think I can get by with out more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 06:48:20 PM
Post by: BetoBow on November 26, 2016, 07:03:23 PM
If you plan on back country hunting quite a bit, I'd go 65mm as people mentioned. I assumed you were looking at 80mms since that's what the prices you mention reflected.I assumed bigger is better....maybe not the case lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JDHasty on November 26, 2016, 07:05:33 PM
If you plan on back country hunting quite a bit, I'd go 65mm as people mentioned. I assumed you were looking at 80mms since that's what the prices you mention reflected.
Don't discount the Leupold 12-40X60 HD. It is better than ours optically, and ours is pretty darn good. I got it from Maschmet (when they were repping Leupold) about 1992 for doing a show for them and it really has served us well.
It's kinda' like the Leupold vs Nightforce riflescope dynamic in that there is "mo betta" optically out there, but when it comes to outfitting hunters Leupold has shown themselves to be really listening and making the trade-offs that make Leupold a world leader in outfitting serious hunters.
The Leupold is not seriously marketed to bird watchers because getting into back country is not generally what their first concern is. Bird watchers demand resolution and color fidelity and are willing to pay for it in weight... and dollars.
That is my :twocents: and you probably are more into finding game and assessing game than sitting there examining every hair on that animal and drinking in the experience that that brings bird watchers.
Just give that scope a thought. Leupold most certainly did when they first offered it three decades ago and it proved to be so "right" for hunters that they have kept it alive and improved upon it constantly.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
Also, how did you get an HD model in 1992?
Post by: Sliverslinger on November 26, 2016, 07:13:00 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 07:16:52 PM
Post by: JDHasty on November 26, 2016, 07:29:27 PM
27x is as low as it goes on the new model?
Maybe on the larger Leupold, but not so far as I know on the 12-40X60 GR. It can be used in place of also packing a binocular because of the FOV it offers by going that low. Maybe the larger scope only has a low power of 27 and if you also pack a binocular to find game it is probably OK. Bot not if you don't. I always have a binocular when I have my 20X50, but not necessarily when I have the 12-40.
Post by: lord grizzly on November 26, 2016, 07:40:13 PM
If you plan on back country hunting quite a bit, I'd go 65mm as people mentioned. I assumed you were looking at 80mms since that's what the prices you mention reflected.I assumed bigger is better....maybe not the case lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All I do is backpack hunt. Optics is the only thing I'm willing to pay a weignt penalty on. If your going to get serious about it buy a 80 and spend as much as you can. On the scope and the tripod
Post by: Antlershed on November 26, 2016, 07:43:21 PM
27x is as low as it goes on the new model?The new 85mm Vortex is 27-60, the 65mm is 22-48x.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 26, 2016, 08:03:17 PM
27x is as low as it goes on the new model?The new 85mm Vortex is 27-60, the 65mm is 22-48x.
That's very interesting why they chose to go 27 on the low end. Not good for a guy who wants it to pan country. Be surprised if their sales don't force them to go back to a 20x.
Post by: Bob33 on November 26, 2016, 08:13:45 PM
The angle of view is allegedly wider, and equal at 27x to the older model at 20x.27x is as low as it goes on the new model?The new 85mm Vortex is 27-60, the 65mm is 22-48x.
That's very interesting why they chose to go 27 on the low end. Not good for a guy who wants it to pan country. Be surprised if their sales don't force them to go back to a 20x.
I do agree that having a lower power is nice. I use a Leupold 12-40 HD frequently and love the 12x for scanning.
Post by: JDHasty on November 26, 2016, 08:35:02 PM
The angle of view is allegedly wider, and equal at 27x to the older model at 20x.27x is as low as it goes on the new model?The new 85mm Vortex is 27-60, the 65mm is 22-48x.
That's very interesting why they chose to go 27 on the low end. Not good for a guy who wants it to pan country. Be surprised if their sales don't force them to go back to a 20x.
I do agree that having a lower power is nice. I use a Leupold 12-40 HD frequently and love the 12x for scanning.
It actually works exceptionally well, dontcha' think? 27 just isn't going to work well at all for scanning. I mean it gets you to focus on looking, but it is just too tight. 20 isn't much better.
Leupold did a great job of market research before releasing that scope! I know, how well do I know, that every once in a while you want a bit more power. But that bottom end is where I spend most of my time.
To comfortably, and efficiently, look for game at 12 power and then have up to 40 available, if mirage is not making that unusable, well that is a God's send. And then, how many times can you go above ~40 and not have everything go all to heck... no mater how fine you focus because of mirage?
Where I am going is: Don't leave that scope out of the decision matrix. Ours is first generation and it will be passed down to someone who will treasure it even though the Razor 85 HD outshines it optically every time it is tried. New ones are far better optically, perticularly the HD version, but we want for nothing with our old one. Bottom line is: It works and a new one will give you a tad bit of resolution and color fidelity ours doesn't allow us to enjoy.
My advice is: Don't leave this option out of your decision matrix.
Post by: lord grizzly on November 27, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
I do agree the 20x over the 27 for the low end is my preference
Post by: hucklebeary on November 27, 2016, 08:47:31 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on November 27, 2016, 08:58:24 AM
Post by: BetoBow on November 27, 2016, 05:20:44 PM
I would be stupid on telling you what to buy cause I don't own either of the spotters in question and our eyes are not the same. I do own a older Meopta spotter and I love it. What I don't like about it is how heavy it is and the tripod I need to pack to hold it steady. So to remedy that I bought a Leupold spotter that is way smaller and lighter. And of course being a lighter scope you don't need a heavy tripod. So in short, you should be like me and own 2 spotters. Lol. Just kidding. If your planning on sitting on your butt for hours on end trying to spot a critter like the cous deer guys, buy the heavy glass but if you are just going to use it to determine how big the bull or buck is then use the lighter smaller glass. That's my opinion. Pack weight and size is a big deal in the backcountry..... Not only do you have to pack your camp in, you also have to be prepared to pack meat out.I feel like I am selling myself short if I can afford a bigger scope and purchase a smaller one.....but at the same time I need to be conscious of weight. Wish I can have both but don't think I can convince my wife a second time lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jjhunter on November 27, 2016, 05:37:48 PM
I've got buddy's that sold their 20-60x65 Swaro to buy the 80mm. They are very nice but now those same buddy's are looking to get back into the 65mm because the 80mm is just too big to pack.
Might take that into consideration. If you are driving to all your vantage points that's one thing. If you are planning on hiking with it, I'd think hard about it. :twocents:
I packed my 95mm all over the West this year with no issue. I'd rather go without lunch than day hike without my big spotter. It's all about priorities :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on November 27, 2016, 05:42:36 PM
I would be stupid on telling you what to buy cause I don't own either of the spotters in question and our eyes are not the same. I do own a older Meopta spotter and I love it. What I don't like about it is how heavy it is and the tripod I need to pack to hold it steady. So to remedy that I bought a Leupold spotter that is way smaller and lighter. And of course being a lighter scope you don't need a heavy tripod. So in short, you should be like me and own 2 spotters. Lol. Just kidding. If your planning on sitting on your butt for hours on end trying to spot a critter like the cous deer guys, buy the heavy glass but if you are just going to use it to determine how big the bull or buck is then use the lighter smaller glass. That's my opinion. Pack weight and size is a big deal in the backcountry..... Not only do you have to pack your camp in, you also have to be prepared to pack meat out.I feel like I am selling myself short if I can afford a bigger scope and purchase a smaller one.....but at the same time I need to be conscious of weight. Wish I can have both but don't think I can convince my wife a second time lol.
This is the type of deal I'd be looking for http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-ATS-65-Spotting-Scope-20-60x-S-Zoom-Eyepiece-/272460614349?hash=item3f6feb0acd:g:WMUAAOSwcUBYNedX :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on November 27, 2016, 05:44:05 PM
I've got buddy's that sold their 20-60x65 Swaro to buy the 80mm. They are very nice but now those same buddy's are looking to get back into the 65mm because the 80mm is just too big to pack.
Might take that into consideration. If you are driving to all your vantage points that's one thing. If you are planning on hiking with it, I'd think hard about it. :twocents:
I packed my 95mm all over the West this year with no issue. I'd rather go without lunch than day hike without my big spotter. It's all about priorities :chuckle:
Oh brother! :chuckle:
Post by: full choke on November 27, 2016, 05:46:10 PM