When I first heard about the Celestron Hummingbird from a Ron Spomer video, I was intrigued. Could a tiny 20oz spotter have actual utility? I'm anal about keeping things lightweight for my hunts, and would have loved to have a little more magnification than my 10x monocular last year when I was identifying game bedded in shadows, so I wanted to give it a try.
After a bit of research, I found a couple other options in the same weight range, but I couldn't find any comparisons between them. To make things more challenging, none of the outdoors stores in my area carried any of them for me to go see. So I decided to pick up one of each to compare and share my experience in case someone else had the same questions I did. The spotters I could find in this weight range include:
Someone is going to ask why I didn't include the Vortex Razor 13-39x56 or the Crossfire 12-36x50, so I'll go ahead and answer that. They weigh around 32oz, which is over 1.5x the others. It's possible that they have great glass, I just don't put them in the same class because of the massive weight difference.
So with introductions out of the way, here's my assessment: Get the Hawke Nature-Trek.
I invited a friend over for an evening of glassing and comparing. He's spent way more time behind glass than I have, and I wanted to have one more opinion besides my own. He brought along his Vortex Razor 20-60x85 HD so we could see what we'd be compromising by taking a tiny spotter on a hunt.
After a couple hours of glassing that took us well past shooting light, we both agreed on everything below:
Clarity:
Both Celestrons and the Hawke had surprisingly good clarity, but the edge definitely went to the Hawke. We were both able to pick out more fine details with it than the Celestrons. Clarity was basically identical between the Hummingbird and the Hummingbird ED. None were perfectly sharp edge-to-edge, but the Hawke wasn't bad. The 85mm Vortex was definitely sharper than the others, but not by as much as I had expected. I could resolve a bit more detail with it, but I'm not sure I'd carry the extra pounds unless I was only targeting Boone & Crocket records.
Field of View:
The Celestron scopes had identical field of view - they only differ in the glass - and they had noticeably wider field of view than the Hawke. This was odd to me, because their specs don't reflect this. The Celestron shows 98-216ft at 1000yds, while the Hawke shows 108-234ft. However, despite the Hawk having a narrower field of view, we found that it was still more useful because the clarity went closer to the edges. The Celestrons lost a lot of clarity in that last 15-20% of the view, rendering the extra field of view much less useful. The 85mm Vortex was noticeably crisper at the edges of the view than the smaller scopes.
Brightness:
All three scopes were pretty comparable in brightness. I couldn't tell a significant difference, even in the last few minutes of light. This was where the 85mm Vortex really shined. At 20x it looked noticeably brighter than the others at comparable or even lower powers. The difference was obvious.
Chromatic Aberration:
The base Hummingbird definitely had some chromatic aberration, especially when looking at edges of ridges or other contrasty views. It wasn't bad at all at the center of the view, though. The ED version was definitely better, but the biggest difference was just toward the edges of the view. The Hawke was by far the best. We could pick out a small amount of chromatic aberration if we looked for it, but it definitely had the best glass of the three.
Build Quality:
This is the only area where I feel the Celestron wins. Both Hummingbird models just felt more solid. The focus knob and the magnification ring were smoother and had zero play, while the Hawke just felt...well...cheaper. The celestron felt like a precision instrument in my hands, and the Hawke felt a little more loose and gritty. Don't get me wrong, even the Hawke doesn't feel like a $10 Toys R Us special, but it just isn't as smooth as a higher end scope either. The included lens caps fit better, with the Hawke objective lens cap refusing to go in all the way and making me worry about it coming off in my pack. To me none of that is worth as much as glass quality, but I still have to give this one to the Celestron.
Extra Features:
They all have the same basic layout, weight, and size, but the Celestrons do offer one thing that might matter to some people: The eyepiece can be swapped out for any Celestron telescope eyepiece, which means you could drop in higher or lower magnification if you wanted to. The Hawke eyepiece is removable, but I didn't see anything in their literature about it being compatible with other eyepieces.
I plan to take the Hawke with me on all my scouting trips this summer, and I'm eager to see if I like carrying it or if it just doesn't offer me enough utility to find a place in my pack. I'll try to report back at the end of the season.
I'm curious to hear if anyone else has experience with these scopes or with the SVBony and can share their thoughts.
Hope this was helpful to someone!
After a bit of research, I found a couple other options in the same weight range, but I couldn't find any comparisons between them. To make things more challenging, none of the outdoors stores in my area carried any of them for me to go see. So I decided to pick up one of each to compare and share my experience in case someone else had the same questions I did. The spotters I could find in this weight range include:
- Celestron Hummingbird 9-27x56
- Celestron Hummingbird 9-27x56 ED
- Hawk Nature-Trek 9-27x56 ED
- SVBony SV410 9-27x56 ED
Someone is going to ask why I didn't include the Vortex Razor 13-39x56 or the Crossfire 12-36x50, so I'll go ahead and answer that. They weigh around 32oz, which is over 1.5x the others. It's possible that they have great glass, I just don't put them in the same class because of the massive weight difference.
So with introductions out of the way, here's my assessment: Get the Hawke Nature-Trek.
I invited a friend over for an evening of glassing and comparing. He's spent way more time behind glass than I have, and I wanted to have one more opinion besides my own. He brought along his Vortex Razor 20-60x85 HD so we could see what we'd be compromising by taking a tiny spotter on a hunt.
After a couple hours of glassing that took us well past shooting light, we both agreed on everything below:
Clarity:
Both Celestrons and the Hawke had surprisingly good clarity, but the edge definitely went to the Hawke. We were both able to pick out more fine details with it than the Celestrons. Clarity was basically identical between the Hummingbird and the Hummingbird ED. None were perfectly sharp edge-to-edge, but the Hawke wasn't bad. The 85mm Vortex was definitely sharper than the others, but not by as much as I had expected. I could resolve a bit more detail with it, but I'm not sure I'd carry the extra pounds unless I was only targeting Boone & Crocket records.
Field of View:
The Celestron scopes had identical field of view - they only differ in the glass - and they had noticeably wider field of view than the Hawke. This was odd to me, because their specs don't reflect this. The Celestron shows 98-216ft at 1000yds, while the Hawke shows 108-234ft. However, despite the Hawk having a narrower field of view, we found that it was still more useful because the clarity went closer to the edges. The Celestrons lost a lot of clarity in that last 15-20% of the view, rendering the extra field of view much less useful. The 85mm Vortex was noticeably crisper at the edges of the view than the smaller scopes.
Brightness:
All three scopes were pretty comparable in brightness. I couldn't tell a significant difference, even in the last few minutes of light. This was where the 85mm Vortex really shined. At 20x it looked noticeably brighter than the others at comparable or even lower powers. The difference was obvious.
Chromatic Aberration:
The base Hummingbird definitely had some chromatic aberration, especially when looking at edges of ridges or other contrasty views. It wasn't bad at all at the center of the view, though. The ED version was definitely better, but the biggest difference was just toward the edges of the view. The Hawke was by far the best. We could pick out a small amount of chromatic aberration if we looked for it, but it definitely had the best glass of the three.
Build Quality:
This is the only area where I feel the Celestron wins. Both Hummingbird models just felt more solid. The focus knob and the magnification ring were smoother and had zero play, while the Hawke just felt...well...cheaper. The celestron felt like a precision instrument in my hands, and the Hawke felt a little more loose and gritty. Don't get me wrong, even the Hawke doesn't feel like a $10 Toys R Us special, but it just isn't as smooth as a higher end scope either. The included lens caps fit better, with the Hawke objective lens cap refusing to go in all the way and making me worry about it coming off in my pack. To me none of that is worth as much as glass quality, but I still have to give this one to the Celestron.
Extra Features:
They all have the same basic layout, weight, and size, but the Celestrons do offer one thing that might matter to some people: The eyepiece can be swapped out for any Celestron telescope eyepiece, which means you could drop in higher or lower magnification if you wanted to. The Hawke eyepiece is removable, but I didn't see anything in their literature about it being compatible with other eyepieces.
I plan to take the Hawke with me on all my scouting trips this summer, and I'm eager to see if I like carrying it or if it just doesn't offer me enough utility to find a place in my pack. I'll try to report back at the end of the season.
I'm curious to hear if anyone else has experience with these scopes or with the SVBony and can share their thoughts.
Hope this was helpful to someone!
