Kowa 77 vs Swarovski ats 65

[eaglemountainman]

While we're on this subject............ I wish they would have used the Pure fluorite crystal glass on the 774 series. Why use the best eye piece with lesser quality objective lens?

While they are at it make these scopes with an armored finish like Swarovski.

For me, that would just about be perfection. I would own one for sure. I would still keep the 554 though.

 

[sneaky]

While we're on this subject............ I wish they would have used the Pure fluorite crystal glass on the 774 series. Why use the best eye piece with lesser quality objective lens?

While they are at it make these scopes with an armored finish like Swarovski.

They didn't want to cannibalize sales of their 88 series spotter would be one reason. Second, the price would be much higher. Swarovski doesn't use pure fluorite in any of their spotters and people aren't complaining. The 77 is a fantastic scope just as it is.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

And, why are you calling the 77s glass "lesser quality"? Lesser quality than what? Just one scope on the market has better glass in it. You going to apply that logic to all the Swaros, Zeiss,Meoptas, Nikons, Leicas as well? None of those use pure fluorite either.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[eaglemountainman]

And, why are you calling the 77s glass "lesser quality"? Lesser quality than what? Just one scope on the market has better glass in it. You going to apply that logic to all the Swaros, Zeiss,Meoptas, Nikons, Leicas as well? None of those use pure fluorite either.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Seems they would all benefit if they did, as good as they are.

 

[excaliber]

The 77MM scopes do not have the pure Flourite crystal. They have lesser quality glass than the newer 550 series Spotter and their Flagship 880 series.

Their high-grade XD lenses used on the 77 series are not as good as the Flourite used on their other high end Spotting scopes.
IMHO it's a waste to put their best eyepiece on an objective lens of lesser quality. Upgrade the 77 series to Flourite glass.

 

[sneaky]

The 77MM scopes do not have the pure Flourite crystal. They have lesser quality glass than the newer 550 series Spotter and their Flagship 880 series.

Their high-grade XD lenses used on the 77 series are not as good as the Flourite used on their other high end Spotting scopes.
IMHO it's a waste to put their best eyepiece on an objective lens of lesser quality. Upgrade the 77 series to Flourite glass.

We're well aware of which glass they use in the 77s compared to their others. Especially those of us who actually own the 77s. I've never wanted better glass in my 77, it's an outstanding scope as is. If I want the pure fluorite I'll just buy an 88 body and be done with it. The 77 is a great scope made even better with the price point it comes in at. You sound like someone who just looks for something to complain about.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

The 77MM scopes do not have the pure Flourite crystal. They have lesser quality glass than the newer 550 series Spotter and their Flagship 880 series.

Their high-grade XD lenses used on the 77 series are not as good as the Flourite used on their other high end Spotting scopes.
IMHO it's a waste to put their best eyepiece on an objective lens of lesser quality. Upgrade the 77 series to Flourite glass.

Why don't you take the time and write Kowa and tell them they're stupid for making a great scope at a great price point and that they should make it more expensive by putting pure fluorite glass in it. Be sure to tell them it's because you think it's the best thing to do.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[excaliber]

You sound like someone who feels their favorite spotter is getting picked on. I merely stated facts. The Kowa 77 is much nicer than anything I own.

 

[eaglemountainman]

We're well aware of which glass they use in the 77s compared to their others. Especially those of us who actually own the 77s. I've never wanted better glass in my 77, it's an outstanding scope as is. If I want the pure fluorite I'll just buy an 88 body and be done with it. The 77 is a great scope made even better with the price point it comes in at. You sound like someone who just looks for something to complain about.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I always want better glass, even if it may not exist yet. And you're right, the 77 is an outstanding scope. But, could it be even better.....?

 

[sneaky]

Maybe, but even the TE11-WZ eyepiece "only" has XD glass in it. Doesn't seem to hurt the picture on the 88. I think Kowa has it right, a small spotter with fluorite, a big spotter with fluorite, and a spotter that splits the difference between the two in the 77. Those who want pure fluorite have the 88 at their disposal, and it works at a slight weight penalty, but comes with a much bigger hit price-wise. I don't think they see a need for 3 pure fluorite spotters in their line. Hunters and birders have two entirely different needs in glass, that's why the birders nerd out on glass, and hunters for the most part, don't.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I always want better glass, even if it may not exist yet. And you're right, the 77 is an outstanding scope. But, could it be even better.....?

And you have that option with the 88 right? The 77 is just about perfect for price to image quality.

Quick question do you own a 77? It’s easy to knock what you assume, bet you would be happy with the 77, otherwise spend way more on an 88 or get a Swaro ATX and don’t worry about anything else.

Would you pay close to the price of an 88 for a 77, say $150 diff, which would you pick?

 

[sneaky]

You sound like someone who feels their favorite spotter is getting picked on. I merely stated facts. The Kowa 77 is much nicer than anything I own.

Nope. There's just no reason to put pure fluorite glass in the 77 and make it almost the same price as the 88. I'd pick the 88 at that point. The 77 is right where it needs to be with price and performance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[eaglemountainman]

And you have that option with the 88 right? The 77 is just about perfect for price to image quality.

Quick question do you own a 77? It’s easy to knock what you assume, bet you would be happy with the 77, otherwise spend way more on an 88 or get a Swaro ATX and don’t worry about anything else.

Would you pay close to the price of an 88 for a 77, say $150 diff, which would you pick?

I'm curious, exactly where in any of my posts on this thread did you get the impression that I was knocking the 77? I think maybe you should reread all my responses and concentrate very hard on you comprehension.

Like excaliber told sneaky, " You sound like someone who feels their favorite spotter is getting picked on ".

And to answer your question, no I don't own a 77. I wanted a light scope, but with pure fluorite objective and so I went for the 554. I would have paid the premium for a 77 with pure fluorite if it was offered.

 

[eaglemountainman]

Maybe, but even the TE11-WZ eyepiece "only" has XD glass in it. Doesn't seem to hurt the picture on the 88. I think Kowa has it right, a small spotter with fluorite, a big spotter with fluorite, and a spotter that splits the difference between the two in the 77. Those who want pure fluorite have the 88 at their disposal, and it works at a slight weight penalty, but comes with a much bigger hit price-wise. I don't think they see a need for 3 pure fluorite spotters in their line. Hunters and birders have two entirely different needs in glass, that's why the birders nerd out on glass, and hunters for the most part, don't.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The whole thing smells like a very complicated marketing strategy by the Kowa bean counters to effectively cover all demagraphics and possibilities.

 

[tdhanses]

I'm curious, exactly where in any of my posts on this thread did you get the impression that I was knocking the 77? I think maybe you should reread all my responses and concentrate very hard on you comprehension.

Like excaliber told sneaky, " You sound like someone who feels their favorite spotter is getting picked on ".

And to answer your question, no I don't own a 77. I wanted a light scope, but with pure fluorite objective and so I went for the 554. I would have paid the premium for a 77 with pure fluorite if it was offered.

You state it’s subpar and you want the best, maybe reread your own posts. I have both the 553 and 773, had the 80mm HD swaro as well. The 77 is no slouch with what it has optically. I don’t have a favorite spotter, I’ve had more optics in the last 5 years then most on the forum, but I don’t knock quality and the 77 series is quality. Yet you state it’s subpar without ever looking through it, maybe add some actual experience so you don’t mislead people with assumptions, if I had to pick between my 553 and the 773, I’d take the 773, glad I don’t have to and glad I can experiment.

 

[eaglemountainman]

You state it’s subpar and you want the best, maybe reread your own posts. I have both the 553 and 773, had the 80mm HD swaro as well. The 77 is no slouch with what it has optically. I don’t have a favorite spotter, I’ve had more optics in the last 5 years then most on the forum, but I don’t knock quality and the 77 series is quality. Yet you state it’s subpar without ever looking through it, maybe add some actual experience so you don’t mislead people with assumptions, if I had to pick between my 553 and the 773, I’d take the 773, glad I don’t have to and glad I can experiment.

You're delusional. Nowhere in my posts did I state that the 77 was subpar. This is that comprehension problem of yours that I alluded to earlier. In fact, in post #20, I noted the, "superb quality optics of the 774". Then in post #49 I agreed that," the 77 is an outstanding scope". I think what tripped your trigger, was that I intimated that as good as the 77 is, it might be improved with the use of pure fluorite optics, and that just twisted you all up. Get over it.

Your turn. Show my where I referred to the 77 as "subpar". You can't. You're like Adam Schiff running around making schitt up. Get your facts straight before you go making stupid and false accusations.

 

[tdhanses]

You're delusional. Nowhere in my posts did I state that the 77 was subpar. This is that comprehension problem of yours that I alluded to earlier. In fact, in post #20, I noted the, "superb quality optics of the 774". Then in post #49 I agreed that," the 77 is an outstanding scope". I think what tripped your trigger, was that I intimated that as good as the 77 is, it might be improved with the use of pure fluorite and that just twisted you all up. Get over it.

Your turn. Show my where I referred to the 77 as "subpar". You can't. You're like Adam Schiff running around making schitt up. Get your facts straight before you go making stupid and false accusations.

Ok, maybe you didn’t say subpar exactly but you alluded to it as it doesn’t have the pure fluorite crystal glass and you think it can be better never having looked through it. It’s on sale currently, I challenge you to get one and let us know what you think.

My opinion, it’s a perfect price point and plenty good, better then most and way cheaper then the best, but just my opinion after owning it plus many others.

If it had pure fluorite it would have a small increase in performance and you wouldn’t buy it because it would be priced so close to the 88. You can get a 77 currently for close to the price of a 55.

 

[eaglemountainman]

I'm glad for you and your opinion. When/if they ever offer the 77 with pure fluorite glass, as I stated in post #41, that would be perfection to me, and I would buy one. And pay the premium, but not until then. Right now, I'd rather have the weight savings and optics of the 554 than the 77. And hey, don't presume to tell me the reasons why I wouldn't pay for a 77 with fluorite. Who do think you are? You don't know me.

And to dispel this belief of yours that I've never looked through a 77, let me just say, you're flat out wrong. I have and that's why I can say that they are an astounding piece of glass. But I hold to my earlier statement that they could be better with the use of fluorite.

Enjoy your 77 and don't let the voices in your head tell you that it's sub par.

 

[sneaky]

I'm glad for you and your opinion. When/if they ever offer the 77 with pure fluorite glass, as I stated in post #41, that would be perfection to me, and I would buy one. And pay the premium, but not until then. Right now, I'd rather have the weight savings and optics of the 554 than the 77. And hey, don't presume to tell me the reasons why I wouldn't pay for a 77 with fluorite. Who do think you are? You don't know me.

And to dispel this belief of yours that I've never looked through a 77, let me just say, you're flat out wrong. I have and that's why I can say that they are an astounding piece of glass. But I hold to my earlier statement that they could be better with the use of fluorite.

Enjoy your 77 and don't let the voices in your head tell you that it's sub par.

For a 6.7oz weight penalty perfection is already available in the 88. You don't know any of us on the forum either so you need to drop the confrontational attitude.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I'm glad for you and your opinion. When/if they ever offer the 77 with pure fluorite glass, as I stated in post #41, that would be perfection to me, and I would buy one. And pay the premium, but not until then. Right now, I'd rather have the weight savings and optics of the 554 than the 77. And hey, don't presume to tell me the reasons why I wouldn't pay for a 77 with fluorite. Who do think you are? You don't know me.

And to dispel this belief of yours that I've never looked through a 77, let me just say, you're flat out wrong. I have and that's why I can say that they are an astounding piece of glass. But I hold to my earlier statement that they could be better with the use of fluorite.

Enjoy your 77 and don't let the voices in your head tell you that it's sub par.

Don’t hold your breath and try relaxing more, this is just the Internet.