I upgraded my Spotting scope, and I’m underwhelmed. Looking for input

[Ahugemuledeer]

Hello fellows,

I hunt a lot of high alpine, and spend a considerable amount of time glassing behind binos, getting a closer look with my spotter.

For a few years, I’ve been packing around a relatively cheap (as far as scopes go) vortex diamond back 65 mm 15-45. It’s fine for looking at deer and has a nice eye relief which I’ve come to appreciate.

Last week, I found a smoking sale on a Nikon Monarch ED 60mm 15-45. 30 percent off. Woohoo. I couldn’t help myself. After days of research on the piece, forum reviews etc. I pulled the trigger. From what I understand, it’s a well regarded piece of glass, and as we know we get what we pay for with optics. The MSRP on this piece is nearly 1000 $ more then my ‘Ol Diamond back, and I was really excited.

Until today. I spent 3 hours comparing the 2 side x side. New vs old. I glassed up some people 4 or 5 miles away, sea gulls far out, license plates from a mile away. All the things you would when testing glass. I couldn’t find ONE thing to look at that my diamond back didn’t produce very, very close image to the Nikon. There wasn’t one scenario where the vortex wouldn’t have been just fine. Infact, the longer eye relief on the old scope makes it abit nicer. The Nikon does have the most subtly sharper colour, but only if you really, really force a comparison.

I think I’m gonna return the new piece. I’m interested what you all think about this, is my old scope just good enough to be a matter of diminishing returns? Am I missing something about the higher quality glass?

 

[Maverick1]

Your eyes have already given you the answer you seek. Listen to them.

 

[ghostrider272]

The old Bushnell Elite 20-60x80 spotters gave higher end spotters a run for their money and had multiple eyepieces and a camera adapter. If you can find one you can probably get into one for cheap.

 

[Marshfly]

Having owned that exact Diamondback spotter and replaced it with a Kowa 77 that says a lot more about how poor the Nikon is than anything.

The Diamondback is terrible if that didn’t explain it enough. I’d be looking towards Maven if you want to upgrade. I bought the C series binoculars for my son and wife and was blown away for the price.

 

[Marshfly]

The other thing is if you compared them in great light with little heat waves you won’t see a huge difference. It’s when stuff gets tough that the differences come out. Glassing at dusk and dawn. Glassing into shadows. Afternoon heat waves. Etc.

 

[Dakota_Rookie]

What time of day did you do the comparison and what were the conditions? As said above, if the Nikon is worth the extra money, it should prove its self at dawn/dusk and glassing into dark shadows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurts86]

Having owned that exact Diamondback spotter and replaced it with a Kowa 77 that says a lot more about how poor the Nikon is than anything.

The Diamondback is terrible if that didn’t explain it enough. I’d be looking towards Maven if you want to upgrade. I bought the C series binoculars for my son and wife and was blown away for the price.

+1 to this.

Spotting scope are best ignored until you can spend $1500-$2k on a Kowa, Swarovski, Leica. Middle steps provide no value.

Spotting scopes ask a lot optically and they have to be almost perfect and even then they are heavily limited effected by atmospheric conditions.

 

[TaperPin]

Hello fellows,

I hunt a lot of high alpine, and spend a considerable amount of time glassing behind binos, getting a closer look with my spotter.

For a few years, I’ve been packing around a relatively cheap (as far as scopes go) vortex diamond back 65 mm 15-45. It’s fine for looking at deer and has a nice eye relief which I’ve come to appreciate.

Last week, I found a smoking sale on a Nikon Monarch ED 60mm 15-45. 30 percent off. Woohoo. I couldn’t help myself. After days of research on the piece, forum reviews etc. I pulled the trigger. From what I understand, it’s a well regarded piece of glass, and as we know we get what we pay for with optics. The MSRP on this piece is nearly 1000 $ more then my ‘Ol Diamond back, and I was really excited.

Until today. I spent 3 hours comparing the 2 side x side. New vs old. I glassed up some people 4 or 5 miles away, sea gulls far out, license plates from a mile away. All the things you would when testing glass. I couldn’t find ONE thing to look at that my diamond back didn’t produce very, very close image to the Nikon. There wasn’t one scenario where the vortex wouldn’t have been just fine. Infact, the longer eye relief on the old scope makes it abit nicer. The Nikon does have the most subtly sharper colour, but only if you really, really force a comparison.

I think I’m gonna return the new piece. I’m interested what you all think about this, is my old scope just good enough to be a matter of diminishing returns? Am I missing something about the higher quality glass?

Since the old days I’ve been cheap and look for bargains - many stores used to have a tripod mounted rack that held all their spotters to compare side by side and I don’t think it’s random chance that nobody makes it easy like that anymore - inexpensive optics are better than they’ve ever been. A quick look around the optics counter at Cabelas and not only do they not have a rack, there’s not a shelf or flat object to easily rest on anywhere close - obviously they want it to be difficult.

I’m a firm believer in side by side comparisons, and think you’re right to return it if it’s not noticeably better. Like anything, optics are made to a tolerance of what’s acceptable.

 

[WKR]

Buying a used zeiss, swaro, kowa, would be a better choice than a brand new lower end spotter.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Hello fellows,

I hunt a lot of high alpine, and spend a considerable amount of time glassing behind binos, getting a closer look with my spotter.

For a few years, I’ve been packing around a relatively cheap (as far as scopes go) vortex diamond back 65 mm 15-45. It’s fine for looking at deer and has a nice eye relief which I’ve come to appreciate.

Last week, I found a smoking sale on a Nikon Monarch ED 60mm 15-45. 30 percent off. Woohoo. I couldn’t help myself. After days of research on the piece, forum reviews etc. I pulled the trigger. From what I understand, it’s a well regarded piece of glass, and as we know we get what we pay for with optics. The MSRP on this piece is nearly 1000 $ more then my ‘Ol Diamond back, and I was really excited.

Until today. I spent 3 hours comparing the 2 side x side. New vs old. I glassed up some people 4 or 5 miles away, sea gulls far out, license plates from a mile away. All the things you would when testing glass. I couldn’t find ONE thing to look at that my diamond back didn’t produce very, very close image to the Nikon. There wasn’t one scenario where the vortex wouldn’t have been just fine. Infact, the longer eye relief on the old scope makes it abit nicer. The Nikon does have the most subtly sharper colour, but only if you really, really force a comparison.

I think I’m gonna return the new piece. I’m interested what you all think about this, is my old scope just good enough to be a matter of diminishing returns? Am I missing something about the higher quality glass?

I would absolutely return it and keep building up for a kowa.

 

[LongWayAround]

I have some monarch binoculars that I keep as a spare set. I'm not surprised by your experience. And also, Nikon's customer service absolutely blows if you should have to warranty that thing.

Return the Nikon. Sell the Vortex.

 

[Blackdog317]

If you are disappointed in a side by side comparison, I doubt you will ever feel good about that purchase. Return it and save up for a lightly used top-tier spotter that won't leave you wondering.

Based on your hunting style, it sounds like a solid spotter would be worth the investment.

 

[Brian Fahs]

Get a high end kowa. Pick size to your needs.

 

[Ahugemuledeer]

I geuss my surprise could be boiled down to this,

I’ve been dreaming about a swaro, or kowa scope a long time. The Nikon monarch mind you, is neither one of those, though from the reviews I read people often draw the conclusion that the glass is nearly swaro grade or close. Though I didn’t actually expect a 1500 dollar scope to provide the perfect image of a 3000 dollar one, I thought it would be better enough to make a difference in how effective the tool would be for hunting.

Interesting, there wasn’t a single detail the monarch could make out that the diamondback couldn’t, right down to the colour or side of a sea gulls beak accrose town

 

[gr8fuldoug]

There can technically be a difference, however, if you cannot see that difference than there's no difference.

 

[Article 4]

Sometimes, you absolutely get what you pay for. Usually not at 1 in the afternoon at 30 power looking across a canyon on a clear day.

Its when its very early, or late and you turn it up to 60 or 70 or even 80 and you are trying to find that animal at distance and everything looks grey in a lower end scope, then you wish you had spent the extra money. I know, we are all penny pinching in Bidenomics right now and I love a good deal too, but also, buy once, cry once.

 

[Lwing]

Is the nikon even serviceable? My nikon spotter is a throw away, customer service offered me a replacement at twice the cost of it on Amazon,
There’s better options out there,
at least when the vortex craps out they’ll give you a new one,
Yes the razor spotter crapped out on a sheep hunt, fogged up