How to balance a Swarovski ATX with 115mm lens

[bobwhitebarry]

I recently "upgraded" to a Swarovski ATX with the 115mm lens. Images are outstanding, but the used the exact same Arca type tripod mount as the 85 and 95mm lenses. As such, it doesn't balance on a tripod at all. I consider it a design flaw. The mount should have been longer and moved substantially forward. I have reached out to Swarovski Optik a could of times and never a reply.

I bought a rail from RRS and it does help, but it needs to be taller. I see that Outdoorsman's makes a rail specific for the 115mm lens. I am tempted to get one, but I will no longer be able to use the "stay on case." Any other solutions or recommendations? I think Swarovski needs to issue a recall and make things right, but until that happens, I'm looking for solutions others have come up with.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

the obvious one is 'for sale', but I'm biased, I'd say that about 99% of swaro gear

 

[amo16]

This is literally why they make balance rails. Get one and move on.

 

[fatrascal]

If the cover does not fit then shave some of the plast shoe with a dremel. Fatrascal

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

LOL. Get a rail. 115 balances perfectly with a BTX.

 

[Antares]

I think Swarovski needs to issue a recall and make things right

This was my favorite part.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

I guess I forgot to mention that I tried both versions of Swarovski's rails. Neither work. The video was with a 95mm lens. The rail can't slide forward on the 115mm lens because it hits the "bell" of the lens. The RRS rail I cut an angle on the front to get the rail a bit further forward. It is much better, but still far from being balanced.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

It begs the question, what type of head are you using that can't balance the 115? some of the smaller pan heads are not designed to work with such a big optic, and you may need to move up into a sizeable ball head or something with some meat to be able to get the swaro 115 to be useable. Balance isn't necessarily the issue, its ability to hold where you want it to and lock it for panning...tell us some more about the rest of the equipment you are using.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

It begs the question, what type of head are you using that can't balance the 115? some of the smaller pan heads are not designed to work with such a big optic, and you may need to move up into a sizeable ball head or something with some meat to be able to get the swaro 115 to be useable. Balance isn't necessarily the issue, its ability to hold where you want it to and lock it for panning...tell us some more about the rest of the equipment you are using.

That is a great question. I have several tripods and heads. My Leofoto system is designed for much heavier video equipment the the ATX 115, but it wasn't working for me, so I purchased Swarovski's best and heaviest tripod and their Gimbal mount. I love the Gimbal head, but the front end is too heavy and it still won't balance. It is definitely strong enough and will hold it in place, but without balancing it is hard to pan or tighten things because the imbalance makes it "settle" after tightening. I cropped my setup out of a picture my wife took. You can see the head I am using and the rail. It is as far forward as it can go and touching the bell of the lens.

The tripod attachment on the lens is really the problem. It is the same as the ones on the 85 and 95mm lenses. For the 115mm it needs to be a fair amount longer and angled further to the front. If it were just longer it would work with the Swarovski balance rail or this one from RRS.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Outdoorsman's site does show the balance rail for the 85/95 being the same dimensions as the 115. Have you called them to confirm the dimensions?

 

[bobwhitebarry]

I spoke with Outdoorsman's and the rail for the ATX/STX 115mm is designed specifically to fix Swarovski's screw up. It does not work with the stay on case, but it is designed to balance the 115mm setup. It just kills me to pay that much money for an "alpha" scope and it was that poorly engineered. Worse yet, they don't respond to emails or return phone messages. I guess the over-hyped "German engineering" phrase doesn't apply since it is Austrian...

 

[bobwhitebarry]

Today I heard back from Swarovski USA. They said they were recently made aware of the problems with the tripod mount and balance rails for the 115mm lens. They said Austria has made a new BR balance rail specifically for the 115 to resolve the problems. They even offered to send me one free of charge!
In the near future they still need to replace the tripod mount with one that balances the ATX or STX eyepiece. People could then use a balance rail for heavy cameras or the BTX eyepiece if desired. That said, I am very grateful that Swarovski is trying to make things right.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Today I heard back from Swarovski USA. They said they were recently made aware of the problems with the tripod mount and balance rails for the 115mm lens. They said Austria has made a new BR balance rail specifically for the 115 to resolve the problems. They even offered to send me one free of charge!
In the near future they still need to replace the tripod mount with one that balances the ATX or STX eyepiece. People could then use a balance rail for heavy cameras or the BTX eyepiece if desired. That said, I am very grateful that Swarovski is trying to make things right.

Will it work with the cover on or will folks still have to remove the cover to use the balance rail?

While I have never had an issue with "balancing" my STX 95 (with the cover), I am curious about the balance rail. Outdoorsman is close by and historically has been less expensive that the comparable Swarovski components.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

If the mount was taller the scope would exert more leverage on the foot and it would induce more shake and probably be more likely to break.

I don't think that Swaro is going to issue a recall to make the scope worse.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

If the mount was taller the scope would exert more leverage on the foot and it would induce more shake and probably be more likely to break.

I don't think that Swaro is going to issue a recall to make the scope worse.

They realize it is a big error and they are working to correct it. The only way really is to have a different tripod mount that is taller and moved forward. Designed right it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

Will it work with the cover on or will folks still have to remove the cover to use the balance rail?

While I have never had an issue with "balancing" my STX 95 (with the cover), I am curious about the balance rail. Outdoorsman is close by and historically has been less expensive that the comparable Swarovski components.

I'll report back when I get the new 115mm balance rail and try it out. I would assume it would be a similar design as the 2 previous balance rails which have both plastic and aluminum parts. The rails are really designed to take a balanced scope and rebalance after adding a camera or BTX eyepiece, etc. It can work wit or without the stay on case, In my situation, because it is already so off balance, it is asking a lot for a rail with plastic parts to balance that much weigh imbalance. I'll try it both ways, but it will likely be much more stable without the case.
Looking at the Outdoorsman's rail for the 115mm lens, they machined it out of aluminum so there will be no movement. It doesn't have the plastic parts to pick up some bearing on the lens and the eyepiece. It looks like a better replacement for a poorly designed tripod mount... just can't use the case.
I'll report back with pictures of how it differs from the current Swarovski BR balance rails.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

If the mount was taller the scope would exert more leverage on the foot and it would induce more shake and probably be more likely to break.

I don't think that Swaro is going to issue a recall to make the scope worse.

It also would not increase "leverage" on the foot because it would be in balance. What they currently use for the tripod mounts creates the leverage you mention because it is so front heavy.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

It also would not increase "leverage" on the foot because it would be in balance. What they currently use for the tripod mounts creates the leverage you mention because it is so front heavy.

They can't move it forward, there's no where for it to go. If they make the foot longer/taller, it will exert more force on the foot, causing it to wobble more when things like wind hit the giant surface area of the side of the unit.

Using the unmodified rail on an ATX 115 with a PTH head, you can get the tension to be high enough to stay in position but loose enough to allow smooth tilt. (although its not effortless)

I'm surprised they designed a new rail, it looks like the same rail on the website and on my rail it looks like an adapter for the rear position would take care of the "problem"

 

[svivian]

You're are being quite critical..... The ATX line up came out in 2012. After many years of hunters and birders begging for bigger lenses swaro complied in 2020 with the 115mm objective. When swaro made the ATX eye piece they had no intentions of an objective that large which is why it was not in the original design. All they can do is work on a rail system that will mitigate it but it will never be perfect unless they completely redesign the whole scope.

 

[bobwhitebarry]

I thought I should follow up on my original post. I bought 2 versions of Swarovski balance rails. Neither worked at all. Swarovski contacted me and said the engineers were aware of the design flaw and looking at options to fix it. They sent me an "adapter" to use on the BR that was supposed to work, but the holes lined up to the wrong tripod mount connection point. If they change the holes, it will kind of work. I am working with a team of staff, but their computers have been down for several weeks. Fast forward... Outdoorsman's makes 2 balance rails. One spefically for the 115mm lens! Initially I was a little dismayed. Yes, it worked, but the polymer would warp when it was barely tightened. You can see how much it would flex in my pictures. I also really wanted to use my stay on cases SOC that I paid WAY too much for already, but the good guys at Outdoorsman's said it would not work. I ended up buying a mounting screw 5/16" inch longer and it actually fits great with the SOC and has much less flex. I am SUPER pleased! One pic shows the balance point with the ATX, another the balance point with my digiscoping camera installed. I forgot to take a picture with the BTX, but just know it also fits and balances perfectly. Until Swarovski fixes their design flaw, this IS the answer!