Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 85mm scopes

  1. #1
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default 85mm scopes

    Does anyone pack around a 85mm objective scope? I am starting to research upgrading my 20+year old Nikon spotting scope and my 10 year old bushnell binoculars.

    Even the lightweight 85mm scopes (ie. vortex) are over 4 POUNDS.......

  2. #2
    Member winibezold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    285

    Default

    i've carried my 80mm swaro before, and if you really want to see something good, its worth it. If you want lighter but the same optical quality, look into the swaro 65mm scopes. i wont say they are just as good, but they really are. you'll lose some low light due to the diameter, but its still swaro glass. you can find good deals on the non hd models and they are still better than alot of others

  3. #3
    Member tekla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    anchorage, alaska
    Posts
    261

    Default

    I packed my leica 82 mm last year and think it was worth every ounce. You never complain about to much scope but cuss your self when you just cant quite tell what you are looking at. I went from the 65 to the 82 and love the field of view.

  4. #4
    Member kahahawai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    Here's my set full complete set up: Swarovski STS 80 HD and cullman tripod, total wt: 5 lb. 9 oz.
    If you have the chance to roll with bigger glass do it !!!! you won't regret it, it will save you miles of walking at times, especially when judging marginal critters. Stid on here just bought a new 95 ATX, He know's alot about these spotters, might want to hit him up on what he says ....



  5. #5

    Default

    Is he bringing a Sherpa to haul that 95?

    Quote Originally Posted by kahahawai View Post
    Here's my set full complete set up: Swarovski STS 80 HD and cullman tripod, total wt: 5 lb. 9 oz.
    If you have the chance to roll with bigger glass do it !!!! you won't regret it, it will save you miles of walking at times, especially when judging marginal critters. Stid on here just bought a new 95 ATX, He know's alot about these spotters, might want to hit him up on what he says ....


    Henry Bowman for President

  6. #6
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    It is looking like I am going to go with the Vortex Razor HD in 20x60x80 and the 12x50 binos in the Razor too.

    I'd really like to jump up to the swaro el range bino's but that isn't in my budget - not when I can get the scope, bino, and RF from vortex for the same price as just the bino's.

    I will have to check out the cullman tripod. I know that the cheap pod I have won't hold an 80mm scope.

    I am sure that these will be a large step up from my 20 yo Nikon spotter and my Bushnell Action IV zoom bino's.

  7. #7
    Member Yellowknife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    803

    Default

    I'm going against the grain here. I had an 85mm (zeiss) for several years. I like it a lot, but finally traded back down to a 62mm this year. The big 85 was great for the glassing intensive stuff, but took up most of my day pack and got left at home too many times for that reason. It's nice to tuck the smaller spotters in my pack even when just going on a summer scouting hike or a weekend moose hunt, and the 85 just wasn't friendly that way.

    For mixed bag hunting, there is a lot to be said for the 65 class. For a big scope, the 80mm Swaro is surprisingly light and compact.

    Ideally I'd like to have both sizes, but that might be a few more years.

    Yk

  8. #8
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    I fat fingered the objective size. It is 85. If they made something more than 48X in the 65mm I would probably go with that..... It is 48.4oz instead of 65.7........definitely something that I have been thinking about.

  9. #9
    Member Bighorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, Alaska
    Posts
    2,032

    Default

    I'd like to suggest a smaller and lighter bino if your choosing to use the big 80. My experience is that once you've found a critter your clamoring to get that big optic you've been lugging around out.

  10. #10
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    I have pretty good vision and until the last couple years had no real use for an 8x binocular....literally I could spot game quicker with my naked eye than with someone using using an 8x bino.

    So, this past experience leads me to a 12x bino after comparing the weights. I know that in sheep hunting that I will have to get the spotter out unless we find a HOG.

    12x50 = 28.7oz
    10x50 = 28.1oz
    10x42 = 24.8oz

    Also -- the rifle that I will be taking has a variable scope that goes up to 14x. Now - you can rip on me if you want, but I do often use my rifle scope to view objects that I have found with my naked eye to verify whether it is a critter or not. I have even been knows to just leave my bino's behind and use my scope.

    With white sheep, leaving the binos behind is definitely an option for me - but the spotter comes with for sure.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Leica 77 here...been lugging it around for years. Spoils you, the clarity, field of view and light gathering is hard to give up.

  12. #12

    Default

    I went from a 65mm Swaro HD 20-60 to a Zeiss 20-75X with 85mm objective. No regrets at all!!! The 75X is nice when you can use the extra zoom and i find I am able to take advantage of that extra zoom a lot more than I thought I could. I'm roughly 6.5 pounds with spotter/tripod though and that is about a pound more than my sheep hunting rifle.

  13. #13

    Default

    Lots of good info here! I am torn to what to do. I had my 62 Leica side by side with the 77 and didn't really see the advantages to go bigger.

  14. #14
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    I looked through both of my choices yesterday at cabelas. Except they only had the angled version of the spotter. My mind is made up. I really liked them both.

    My mule (son) backed out on me for this fall's sheep trip so now I am again wondering how to get my pack weight down. Mostly I will be going Spartan on everything except glass!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •