85mm Razor vs 65mm ATS at lowlight

[Howler65]

Just re-reading thru this thread. I’ve actually had a swaro 65 now for about a year. I still have my gen 1 razor 65 (and a new baby razor fwiw). As mentioned earlier I preferred my razor 65 to 85. The swaro 65 is an upgrade and there is personally no way I’d pack the razor 85 weight over the swaro.

I snagged one of the older magnesium model swaros. They are about 45oz with the 20-60 eyepiece. It’s tough to beat for size, weight, glass performance. Doubt I’ll upgrade in the 65 realm (btw chose it after comparing new Kowa 66a…mainly price and weight).

I’d like to pick up one of these older Swaro mag bodied scopes…how do I know the body is made of magnesium? What is a fair price for one?

 

[Tahoe1305]

I’d like to pick up one of these older Swaro mag bodied scopes…how do I know the body is made of magnesium? What is a fair price for one?

The model tells you. Google it to back me up, but from roughly 2009-2013 if I recall. Later years were HD models.

Latest generation are ATS/STS (made of aluminum)

The older magnesium are marked ATM/STM…how you’ll know.

It’s tough to tell on pricing. I’m not sure many are tracking the value of the weight vs the age of them. It’s maybe a wash.

I’d expect to pay $1900-2100 with the 25-50 eyepiece. And maybe $100 less with the 20-60. If I ever post mine I’m starting at $2200….just because I’m patient and know there isn’t another scope out there like these.

I had both eyepieces. Sold the 25-50. I preferred the zoom advantage of the 20-60 and it’s a bit lighter (~2oz). For me personally I got weird black out spots in the 25-50 that I don’t with the 20-60. Both are solid. Most prefer the 25-50 just not I.

 

[alexnelon]

I’d like to pick up one of these older Swaro mag bodied scopes…how do I know the body is made of magnesium? What is a fair price for one?

If you’re checking out the old STM/ATM Swarovski scopes, it might be worth your time to do some research on the Nikon Fieldscope ED III.

Back in the day the birding community pretty universally agreed that the Nikon had a clearer image, better contrast, and better low-light performance than the Swarovskis with just a slightly narrower FoV.

Plus there’s a pile of ED III’s for sale that you can pick up for under $500 vs $2k for anything that says Swarovski on the side.