vortex razor 11-33-50 Vs the razor 16-48-65 whats your thoughts

[Jordan guyer]

I'm looking to get a spotting scope cant decide between these two. Is saving the weight worth loosing the 14 power?

 

[littlebuf]

No. Pay the weight penalty. I opted for the razor in 85. I can carry less food if need be...

 

[Brock A]

I was sold on the 65mm until I looked through littlebuf's 85mm. I now own an 85mm! Weight penalty is worth it for optics IMO.

 

[a3dhunter]

Depends on what you need to see.
If you are a trophy hunter counting inches then go with the bigger scope.
If you are a hunter just needing to see some country, and will be backpacking in a lot, and all you need to see is if there are elk or deer there then the 50mm is great.
Where I hunt elk it doesn't matter if it's a 5 point bull or a 6 point, I'll be going after him. If I had a goal of 330" then I would want the bigger scope to see details better.

I dropped a smaller and lighter weight 50mm scope that I used last year and bought a 65mm ed scope that I carried this year, after comparing the last two years I now bought the 50mm again, since it covers what I need most of the time.

 

[Wrongside]

Depends on your needs and what you need the scope to do. The 50MM is a great scope, for what it is. I've been really happy with mine. I'd like the 85MM as well. For the trips where magnification matters more than ounce counting. That'd be the best for my uses.

 

[BackcountryMT]

I have the 50mm and really enjoy it. With the Summit SS it's a good combo. I could see needing something bigger if I were in a LE area. As is, I won't pack it unless we are hunting mule deer or spring bear.

 

[Jordan guyer]

I do a lot of backpack hunting so saving weight would be nice. would you say with the 50mm with a 33 power i would be able to tell if i was looking at a buck from two miles away or would i need more magnification to see if they were bucks from that far away. I dont need it to count inches just to see if I'm looking at deer with horns.

 

[blb078]

I have the 50mm, actually got rid of my 85 because of it. At 2 miles you should be ok, 2-3 miles is kind of the limit on it. But at first/last light you might have a hard time seeing clearly at 33x which I kind of did a few times. If I'm figuring this out right then looking at something 2 miles away on 33x it would appear 106 yards away through the glass, but someone a little more knowledgeable might be able to confirm or correct that.

 

[BigDog00]

Personally, I think at 2 miles it would be pretty tough with the 50mm. Especially if your talking low light situations. You really have to consider the type of terrain you will be hunting. I have the 65mm and am going to sell it to get the 85mm. There were too many situations this year where I really wanted some more magnification, especially being in Wyoming where you can see forever. I too am not really scoring animals at long distances, but I do want the capability to be able to really look an animal over in order to decide if I want to go after it. I carried the 65mm plus a promaster 525 tripod around this season and honestly it wasn't really noticable. I will gladly be packing around the 85mm next season. If your interested in looking at the 65 and possibly taking it off my hands just shoot me a pm and we can make some arrangements as I'm just down in Casper.

 

[Ironman8]

I'm not sure I understand the low light "argument" as a reason to go bigger. I understand going bigger if you want to score, but I'm not sure what that will do for you in low light? For example, if you spot an animal anywhere over a mile away when light is fading, are you really going to be able to make it to a shooting position before it's too dark to make a shot? I think not. (We're talking the first/last 15 or so minutes here where bigger/better glass makes it's money) Also, if you're glassing at first light, why are you starting at the two mile range anyway? I would much rather start close in and work my way out...in which case by the time I care to check 2 miles out, the low light argument is moot...

 

[fillthefreezer]

I'm not sure I understand the low light "argument" as a reason to go bigger. I understand going bigger if you want to score, but I'm not sure what that will do for you in low light? For example, if you spot an animal anywhere over a mile away when light is fading, are you really going to be able to make it to a shooting position before it's too dark to make a shot? I think not. (We're talking the first/last 15 or so minutes here where bigger/better glass makes it's money) Also, if you're glassing at first light, why are you starting at the two mile range anyway? I would much rather start close in and work my way out...in which case by the time I care to check 2 miles out, the low light argument is moot...

bigger objective lens gathers more light which is critical and higher magnifications. a 65 and its highest power will be getting dark, so if you need 45x zoom in the magical 15 minutes youd be better served with the 85

 

[Matt Cashell]

If you use the bigger scope's low light advantage to use and locate animals coming out to feed at last light, you can develop a plan for first light.

Or, if you make use of that low light ability at first light, you can make a move to intercept moving animals later in the morning.

The biggest advantage to bigger scopes is you get useable brightness at higher magnifications.

 

[Ironman8]

bigger objective lens gathers more light which is critical and higher magnifications. a 65 and its highest power will be getting dark, so if you need 45x zoom in the magical 15 minutes youd be better served with the 85

I fully understand about larger objectives, eye pupil, ect. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you answer makes me think you didn't fully read my above post...either that, or I wasn't clear with what I was stating...

 

[Ironman8]

If you use the bigger scope's low light advantage to use and locate animals coming out to feed at last light, you can develop a plan for first light.

Or, if you make use of that low light ability at first light, you can make a move to intercept moving animals later in the morning.

The biggest advantage to bigger scopes is you get useable brightness at higher magnifications.

Ok I buy that (and I figured someone would say that)...but is it your experience that animals will feed/bed in the same places every morning/night? I admit that I've never elk hunted, but I don't typically see the same deer every morning/evening when I'm whitetail hunting.

Btw, please don't take any of my questions as argumentative. Just trying to figure out what it is I don't know

 

[Matt Cashell]

Ok I buy that (and I figured someone would say that)...but is it your experience that animals will feed/bed in the same places every morning/night? I admit that I've never elk hunted, but I don't typically see the same deer every morning/evening when I'm whitetail hunting.

Btw, please don't take any of my questions as argumentative. Just trying to figure out what it is I don't know

Yeah, I have watched elk and mule deer feed out at dusk and found them in the same area in the morning ... quite often.

Sometimes every minute counts in the mornings. If you can spot them at very first light you might be able to intercept them before they make their bedding cover.

It is especially important if you are glassing long distances at high magnification, because your stalk is going to take longer.

There is some point where the size and weight aren't worth it. This varies from hunter to hunter, and the reason why companies sell the different sizes.

 

[littlebuf]

50's are kind of a glorified Bino if you ask me. Im an ounce counter and I don't think twice about putting a 4 pound spotter in my pack. I've just spent a bunch of money making everything else lighter. Brock was packing a 50 last season. I let him glass with my 85 for a afternoon up high late last Sept and low and behold the 50's gone and he's packing a 85. If your hunting Texas or Iowa 90% of the time don't waste your money, if you plan on being deep in the rockies/western mountains go with as big a scope you think you can pack. It's one thing you won't regret

 

[JNDEER]

I think everyone has already said it. A 50mm will have a really hard time to see a buck (big or small) at 2 miles in really low light, a 65mm will (I tested this just this year on blacktails useing a ED50 and an ED60). Heck even at 1 mile in low light it is very hard to see antlers in low light with a 50mm. When there is light it won't be a problem.

 

[Eric S]

I agree with the 85 crew. Do a couple extra squats and you wont feel the difference between the 65 and 85

 

[ElkNut1]

I've been using both the Razor HD 85 & 50 the last several weeks on a mule deer hunt, both have their place for sure. Which one to pack can be decided on the type of country one hunts. If it's steep country where it's common to pull 1200' up & down all day the 50 is our choice, & it's an easy choice to make! (grin) The 50 is lightweight & the tripod is lightweight that handles the 50 easily, the spotter is 25oz & the Summit SS Tripod is 1.8#, at aprox 50oz for the two it's very doable & that 50 is fantastic in clarity & super fast focusing. I have no issues out to a couple miles with this Spotter with even nearly 60 year old eyes! (grin)

We use the 85 for around the truck or not very far from it, yes it gathers more light & has a longer distance for viewing but with the heavier body & you need a larger/heavier tripod to support it properly, with the two the weight becomes very noticeable in steep tough country while it's in your pack. If ones hunting lots of rolling hills with sagebrush & not much more than a few hundred feet in elevation climb throughout a days hunt then it could be considered. I use both a ton & would not be without either. In honesty, I'd choose the 50 over the 65, the benefits are just to small to say the 65 is a hands down choice. Around the rig & viewing 2+ miles then the 85 all the way! Good Luck!

ElkNut/Paul

 

[kazpilot25]

I was in this same situation a couple months ago. I tested both and ended up with the 65. I love it!!