Why not more DIY “big eyes”?

[Antares]

Oh. Well I have a truck. So that helps. I'd get pretty tired if I had to walk everywhere.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

Too heavy to carry around

they definitely ain't light but for certain glassing intensive hunts I figure out a way to fit them in the pack. A specialty tool for sure but damn well worth the pain when you need them.

 

[BBob]

they definitely ain't light but for certain glassing intensive hunts I figure out a way to fit them in the pack. A specialty tool for sure but damn well worth the pain when you need them.

That’s for sure. I’ll pay just about any price to carry them on a desert sheep or Coues hunt. Some mule deer and elk hunts too. 15’s just get left in the dust. I pummel my buddies that are limited to 15’s, it’s no contest. I’ve also said it many times, twins have some advantages over BTX but come with the weight penalty. Most of the time I’ll take the twins.

 

[SikaSeeker]

On the topic of weight. Recently acquired an Optolyth TBS 100 APO(flourite HD) and decided to compare. It’s a tank and though I’m waiting to get an adapter for eyepieces I used the Kowa 30x EP and there’s not a massive difference between it and the 664. Also weighed the 824.

 

[4th_point]

Thanks for posting the weights.

 

[SikaSeeker]

On the topic of weight. Recently acquired an Optolyth TBS 100 APO(flourite HD) and decided to compare. It’s a tank and though I’m waiting to get an adapter for eyepieces I used the Kowa 30x EP and there’s not a massive difference between it and the 664. Also weighed the 824.View attachment 564230View attachment 564231View attachment 564233

664 = 1335grams
824 = 1630g (no tripod foot)
TBS 100 = 2650g

 

[Outwest]

To answer query , in theory

Big eye 2x 66mm =68.42 cm.squared total aperture area

85BTX = 56.75

95 BTX = 70.88

115 BTX = 103.87

So the 664 Big eye should outperform the BTX85 and be around level of BTX95.

It would be very interesting to compare against the BTX115 , I’d bet the difference isn’t that huge.

Hatchet Jack said they can hang with Highlanders that have 105.62.

I’d say this is accurate, haven’t compared with the highlanders. The other advantage of the 664’s is the straight viewing, if you’re into that kind of thing

I’ve been using a set of 664’s with an Adams setup for the past few seasons. I find myself packing them even when the looks aren’t super long just to be able to really dissect thick areas. Optically, they are excellent with the 30x wa and with that bracket they are near bulletproof. I have used and abused my set and they have never come out of collimation once set.

I occasionally will pull one scope off to use as a standalone but the amount of resolution increase with both eyes is substantial.

That 30x wa beats out a lot of other zoom spotters in that price range (and a little higher) at a much smaller size and lower weight. The only downside is that digiscoping is tough because the phone zoom alone reduces quality.

 

[EsotericJunkie]

Just get a Kowa Highlander "Prominar" and be done with it.

Ej

 

[SikaSeeker]

Adams adapters website states the 664 setup weights 6 lbs 12 Oz which is 3kg. I pegged the individual scope at 1.3kg so this leaves the adapter around 400grams.

Compare to a Kowa Highlander that weighs 6.2 kg, just a smidge over double the weight. Many users have said there is very little difference, then compare the price tag and you can begin to see the appeal. 3 kg weight saving is a LOT in a backpack.

 

[4th_point]

Cost, weight, and angled view make the Highlander unappealing to me unless they were simply used on an observation deck. Neat device though.

 

[BBob]

Everyone I knew that bought the Highlander's have long since sold them. Mostly because the BTX came along. Highlander's were pretty much a truck only glass although a few carried them but not nearly as much as we do twins or BTX.

Speaking of Big Eyes, the LBT is just down the road from me a bit. I have sat in a lookout tower just across from it glassing the mountain

 

[BBob]

Also reminds me a buddy had the Swaro 30x75. They were known as the Twin Telescope.

Swarovski Optic 30 x 75 Twin Binocular with case & tripod Near Mint

 

[SikaSeeker]

Those Swarovski binoculars were issued to the British Army in “Northern Ireland” to observe the border area around Bandit Country. Basically they could only fly helicopters in and out due to the number of attacks on standard vehicles.

Also issued to British destroyers in the Falklands. I missed out narrowly acquiring a pair a while ago. Doubt they’d hold a candle to modern optics but they’d be an interesting conversation piece.

 

[Antares]

Also reminds me a buddy had the Swaro 30x75. They were known as the Twin Telescope.
View attachment 565961

Swarovski Optic 30 x 75 Twin Binocular with case & tripod Near Mint

Those are wild! I had no idea they existed.

 

[BBob]

Those are wild! I had no idea they existed.

They were pretty cool but heavy. He put them into a large gimbal mount (Swaro) on a surveyors tripod. The binocular itself was 20 lbs? They were definitely heavier than Highlanders.

Another very cool glass that also came around about that time was the Zeiss 20x60’s with mechanical stabilization. You could take a small block of wood and a strap to unlock the mechanism while it was on a tripod. It eliminated a lot of wind shake on the smaller tripods we were using at the time. They were meant for hand holding but we never really used them that way. When they were hand held it gave a cool floaty image. Definitely usable hand held but too big and heavy to be practical for that.

 

[SikaSeeker]

Yes the mechanically stabilised Zeiss are a classic but absurdly expensive both new and used. The mechanism itself is ingenious, I have a Canon 15x 50 IS binocular and maybe it’s a possible alternative for some guys. They also come in 18 x 50. The image stabilisation works well and they’re fairly bright considering magnification. Also fairly robust but not something you want to throw around.

 

[SikaSeeker]

If you ever want to trial Zeiss products their dealers here in Europe will let you have anything for a few days free so long as you place a large deposit/ give details as retainer.

 

[4th_point]

Shameless plug but I have a 664 for sale in the classifieds. Anyone that needs a second 664 for big eyes, shoot me a PM.

 

[SikaSeeker]

Not a DIY setup, but I have a pair of 884s and Adam (of Adam's Adapters) is making me a bracket for them. Should have it in the next month. I can't wait. As far as Kowas go, I think these are as big as you can go and still get a usable PD. The new 99S and 88S are both too big, from what I've heard.

I've got two wide-angle, fixed 35x eyepieces and two 1.6x extenders, which will give me the option of making them 56x. I'm pumped. They're beautiful to look through singly, so I can't wait for the pair. Sometime in the next few months I'll take them to Haleakala for some star viewing... probably a fair bit of deer viewing as well.

View attachment 562546

Antares did you get the bracket setup ? I see a 774 for sale and that may be my next big eye project. I’d love to be able to test 88/77 big eye side by side with a Highlander for good measure.

 

[Antares]

Antares did you get the bracket setup ? I see a 774 for sale and that may be my next big eye project. I’d love to be able to test 88/77 big eye side by side with a Highlander for good measure.

Funny timing, I've been ignoring this project (because of hunting season), but I just started messing around with it again last night.

I've got the bracket. Collimation was no problem. However, I am having an issue where I can't fit the bridge of my nose between the eyepieces... of course I can make it fit, but then the PD is too wide. I'm going to take the eyecups off and see if that gives me the clearance I need. I'd like some halfway decent weather so I can do some outdoor testing (it rains a lot here). If I can't get it to work, I'll have a bracket and an 884 for sale in the near future. That's the update.