Maven S1 80mm spotting scope. What’s been your experience?

[Winchester44]

Was able to try a Maven S1 80mm offered to me for $1,000. Overall I like almost everything about it save the eye relief seems very tight/unforgiving. Is this normal for a large objective high power spotting scope? All my experience has previously been with compacts 56-62mm. My only other experience was with a Nightforce 80mm and I seem to remember a similar tight eye relief/ tight eyebox.

 

[nobody]

Every spotting scope I’ve ever used has had a much less forgiving eyebox when compared with my binos, and every one of them gets progressively less forgiving the higher up in magnification you go. However, I wouldn’t ever describe my own personal S1 as having a tight or unforgiving eyebox. Personally, with the wide angle eyepiece on the S1, I feel it’s far more forging relative to other spotters on the market I’ve used or owned.

The worst/least forgiving eyebox I’ve ever had was a 65mm Diamondback a few years back. And I didn’t even think that one was bad in eyebox (but the optical quality was), it was just not as good as my Maven S1A.

Part of what it could be is how the eyepiece fits your facial structure. I can’t use swaro spotters because of the eyecup shape and size, it doesn’t allow me to get my eye where it needs to be. Doesn’t matter how “good” the optics are, it doesn’t fit my face. Maybe your face is the same way with the Maven?

 

[Winchester44]

Every spotting scope I’ve ever used has had a much less forgiving eyebox when compared with my binos, and every one of them gets progressively less forgiving the higher up in magnification you go. However, I wouldn’t ever describe my own personal S1 as having a tight or unforgiving eyebox. Personally, with the wide angle eyepiece on the S1, I feel it’s far more forging relative to other spotters on the market I’ve used or owned.

The worst/least forgiving eyebox I’ve ever had was a 65mm Diamondback a few years back. And I didn’t even think that one was bad in eyebox (but the optical quality was), it was just not as good as my Maven S1A.

Part of what it could be is how the eyepiece fits your facial structure. I can’t use swaro spotters because of the eyecup shape and size, it doesn’t allow me to get my eye where it needs to be. Doesn’t matter how “good” the optics are, it doesn’t fit my face. Maybe your face is the same way with the Maven?

Thanks so much! Yes my only other significant experience has been with smaller spotted Razor HD and Leica Telvid APO. They seemed very forgiving, but lower magnification.

What eyepiece are you referring to? I thought the S1 was fixed and not removable?

 

[nobody]

Thanks so much! Yes my only other significant experience has been with smaller spotted Razor HD and Leica Telvid APO. They seemed very forgiving, but lower magnification.

What eyepiece are you referring to? I thought the S1 was fixed and not removable?

You’re correct, the eyepiece isn’t removable. What I mean is that the integral eyepiece of the spotting scope is a 25-50 wide angle, which results in a wider field of view than other similar spotters, which seems to help with the eyebox.

It’s not necessarily just magnification either, it’s magnification relative to objective diameter too. Take your objective lens diameter, and divide it by your magnification. The smaller that number, the smaller the exit pupil (column of light exiting the eyepiece and entering your eye), and the less forgiving the eyebox can be as well. Basically when your exit pupil is smaller, the diameter of the “picture” you’re trying to line your eye up with ends up shrinking and getting more critical of eye placement.

At 25x, the maven has an exit pupil of 3.2. At 50, the exit pupil is 1.6.

With something like a razor 65, at 16 power the exit pupil is 4.06, and at 48 it’s 1.35.

So the relationship isn’t as simple as “lower mag spotter=better eyebox.” It has to do with exit pupil and field of view. I just sold my razor 65 in favor of an S1A, and even though the exit pupil on the razor low end should’ve meant the eyebox was more forgiving, it had a narrower field of view than I wanted, which hurt the perceived eyebox. The maven technically has a smaller exit pupil, but the wide field of view offsets that when viewing and helps with perceived exit pupil.

I can tell you full power on the maven is easier to get behind than my razor 65 was by a decent margin.

 

[Winchester44]

You’re correct, the eyepiece isn’t removable. What I mean is that the integral eyepiece of the spotting scope is a 25-50 wide angle, which results in a wider field of view than other similar spotters, which seems to help with the eyebox.

It’s not necessarily just magnification either, it’s magnification relative to objective diameter too. Take your objective lens diameter, and divide it by your magnification. The smaller that number, the smaller the exit pupil (column of light exiting the eyepiece and entering your eye), and the less forgiving the eyebox can be as well. Basically when your exit pupil is smaller, the diameter of the “picture” you’re trying to line your eye up with ends up shrinking and getting more critical of eye placement.

At 25x, the maven has an exit pupil of 3.2. At 50, the exit pupil is 1.6.

With something like a razor 65, at 16 power the exit pupil is 4.06, and at 48 it’s 1.35.

So the relationship isn’t as simple as “lower mag spotter=better eyebox.” It has to do with exit pupil and field of view. I just sold my razor 65 in favor of an S1A, and even though the exit pupil on the razor low end should’ve meant the eyebox was more forgiving, it had a narrower field of view than I wanted, which hurt the perceived eyebox. The maven technically has a smaller exit pupil, but the wide field of view offsets that when viewing and helps with perceived exit pupil.

I can tell you full power on the maven is easier to get behind than my razor 65 was by a decent margin.

Awesome this is great information! Thanks so much!