You traded in a big spotter for a compact…your feedback please

[S-3 ranch]

I switched over to a leupold 25x gold ring on a window vise , it’s so much more practical, and fits perfectly in my pack with a camera tripod when on the go
40x was wearing out my eyes, when I go sheep hunting or desert deer hunting
I rent the latest and greatest version spotter , utility of space is my reason for not owning a high powered spotter.

 

[guitarpreston]

That’s a bear at like 2.5 miles with the mini razor last week. I’ve had it and a Nikon ed50 and they’re both pretty good. I sold the razor a few days ago though, going to get a Nikon 60mm….if I had the money I’d go stc without a doubt, but for 1 week a year I can’t justify it.

 

[BLJ]

That’s a bear at like 2.5 miles with the mini razor last week. I’ve had it and a Nikon ed50 and they’re both pretty good. I sold the razor a few days ago though, going to get a Nikon 60mm….if I had the money I’d go stc without a doubt, but for 1 week a year I can’t justify it.

Are you referring to the new mini Razor?
In comparison to the ED50?

 

[guitarpreston]

Are you referring to the new mini Razor?
In comparison to the ED50?

Yes. My specific ed50 was a Japanese model (I think some are Chinese but not sure) and I felt like it edged the razor out, sold both. I am going to get the 60mm ed iii now.

 

[BLJ]

Thanks.
The ED50’s I’ve seen pictures of were china bodies with Japanese eye pieces.
I would assume the Japanese body would be an improvement.

I have an ED III. IMO it’s very good for the price, size and weight.
Only personal complaint is FOV on 20x. Not really the scopes fault for that.

 

[Macintosh]

Linking this here for myself and for posterity:

Thread 'Crowd Sourced Optics Comparison (CO area) ***Updated 3/9/24***'

Dec 28, 2023

So I guess I’m bored. But 5 years ago or so I invested a good chunk of $ to purchase (then resell) a dozen or so $1000 binos and then eventually a few of the same in spotters and wrote some bro level, objective as possible, comparisons.

I know we see a lot of these online by folks who have way more resources and connections (provided from manufacturers) than I. I don’t know about you all, but I’m always a tad suspect of those based on whose getting paid for what.

Here’s what I have that I plan on comparing:

Spotters:
-Razor Gen I 65mm (I compared this five years ago and I loved it)...

• Tahoe1305
• Replies: 238
• Forum: Optics

• 

 

[Macintosh]

@Tahoe1305 reading through the comparison you guys did, it actually looks like the 553 didn’t do as well as the baby razor. I know the center resolution had a lot to do with some of the scores, but I see even in edge resolution the 554 did not score as well as the baby razor did, and the chart has the baby razor, actually scoring better than the ATC.This doesn’t jive with the typical feedback I hear on these models, do you have any comments on this? I’m trying not to read too much into the chart, but it threw me off a little bit, are you able to provide some commentary on if this was a universal opinion of folks who tried them, and if I’m reading too much into the objective numbers?

 

[4th_point]

Regarding the ED50, Nikon has been making them in China for awhile but the early ones were supposedly made in Japan.

I've had one of each and I wouldn't worry about COO but I would look at the tripod foot as the design was improved for the 1/4-20 thread insert. I'd make sure to get the latest.

The 13-40x eyepiece is preferred on the ED50 by many people, myself included. The 13-30x was an older design. The 13-40x is considered one of the best eyepieces ever made by some astute users, but it suffers from poor FOV and ER. If you can deal with those downsides, it'll provide excellent resolution if the body it's attached to is well corrected.

The ED50 is extremely light weight, and needs to be handled carefully and protected well. You can find pictures online where the body has split at the seam. My latest one broke internally and Nikon wouldn't replace it due to it being grey market. I bought it dirt cheap and took that risk. Otherwise, I have been satisfied with Nikon customer service but I have had to push them a few times.

 

[6.5x284]

These are elk feeding earlier this month at 5.2 miles. I phonescoped and cropped if that makes sense. In the spotter I can see antlers on 2 of them when they move at times. Obviously there is sun hitting them which helps but I’ve watched this heard many times without the sun and can see them as well. I can actually pick em out in my NL12’s knowing where to find them routinely. I have a big spotter but rarely use it. I’ve been really impressed with the STC. Much better than the Gen1 Kowa 553/554. I’ve found environmental aspects like smoke and haze limit the max power being effective on my bigger spotters more often than not in August and September.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4th_point]

I’ve found environmental aspects like smoke and haze limit the max power being effective on my bigger spotters more often than not in August and September.

Are you saying that the STC does better than the bigger scopes with smoke and haze, or just that you can't take advantage of the higher mag on the big scopes?

The reason I ask is because some people in the astro world believe that smaller scopes do better than bigger scopes with junk in the air. I've seen it myself once, where a 60mm was clearly better than an 82mm side by side with forest fire smoke.

 

[BullNuts]

I just sold my razor hd 27-60x85 spotter, which is my benchmark. I use it at the range to spot bullet holes on paper out to a couple hundred yards, and I only occasionally use it hunting. I just don’t live in an area where spotting scopes are relevant, so it’s only every other year or so on a western hunt that it even gets considered. This one is just too big, too heavy, so I’m not using it even when I travel. I would like to get into a compact, lightweight spotter that maximizes value, i.e. best optics for the money. My goal is to be able to see deer antlers in a general sense out to about 2000-2500 yards, maybe a little more. I don’t need to score, I just need to see “antlers: yes or no, big or little”. I can’t do this with my 10 X binoculars on a tripod. I’ve used a few pairs of 15s and while they’re close, I don’t think they’re quite enough to see what I want to see, at least for my eyes. Im really focused on size and weight, I’d rather go without entirely, than have a spotter thats too big and heavy.

So, what are your suggestions for good/better/best options and reasoning, on either spotters or high magnification binoculars, to accomplish this? Money is a concern, but rather than specify a budget I’d like to see the range of options that people think are truly good, and decide from there.

Same…would like to shave the weight and bulkiness of a bigger spotter, but not sure where the line is on going too small.

 

[BLJ]

Regarding the ED50, Nikon has been making them in China for awhile but the early ones were supposedly made in Japan.

I've had one of each and I wouldn't worry about COO but I would look at the tripod foot as the design was improved for the 1/4-20 thread insert. I'd make sure to get the latest.

The 13-40x eyepiece is preferred on the ED50 by many people, myself included. The 13-30x was an older design. The 13-40x is considered one of the best eyepieces ever made by some astute users, but it suffers from poor FOV and ER. If you can deal with those downsides, it'll provide excellent resolution if the body it's attached to is well corrected.

The ED50 is extremely light weight, and needs to be handled carefully and protected well. You can find pictures online where the body has split at the seam. My latest one broke internally and Nikon wouldn't replace it due to it being grey market. I bought it dirt cheap and took that risk. Otherwise, I have been satisfied with Nikon customer service but I have had to push them a few times.

Have you compared FOV between the 13-40 and the 20-60? If you have, is the 13x on the bottom end a significant improvement in FOV over the 20x?

 

[Tahoe1305]

@Tahoe1305 reading through the comparison you guys did, it actually looks like the 553 didn’t do as well as the baby razor. I know the center resolution had a lot to do with some of the scores, but I see even in edge resolution the 554 did not score as well as the baby razor did, and the chart has the baby razor, actually scoring better than the ATC.This doesn’t jive with the typical feedback I hear on these models, do you have any comments on this? I’m trying not to read too much into the chart, but it threw me off a little bit, are you able to provide some commentary on if this was a universal opinion of folks who tried them, and if I’m reading too much into the objective numbers?

The 554 we had out there may have been a lesser sample. I had a 553 for a few months and I don’t remember it being quite as rough as the one we had.

The baby razor was solid. I still have it. I do think vortex does a worse job at controlling quality between samples. I kept that one because in actual comparison it ended up doing really well. Maybe others differ, I’m not sure.

Like I said in the preamble on that thread, I’d consider +/- one level as likely accurate. Regardless of what the chart says (that was actually what I observed…but) I still don’t think the razor is better than the swaro. If nothing else the quality and controls on the swaro are well above the razor.

I was impressed with the picture of the razor though, but for me the cost for a secondary (not primary) spotter makes it hit a sweet spot.

 

[4th_point]

Have you compared FOV between the 13-40 and the 20-60? If you have, is the 13x on the bottom end a significant improvement in FOV over the 20x?

That eyepiece is called the MCII. It's 13-40x on the 50mm ED50, 20-60x on the 60mm ED-III, and 25-75x on the 82mm ED82.

So one eyepiece, but different zoom range depending on which scope body it's used with.

If you want to know what the difference is between 13x vs 20x vs 25x, Nikon has that on their website for min and max zoom for FOV. Might be in their archives.

 

[4th_point]

The baby razor was solid. I still have it. I do think vortex does a worse job at controlling quality between samples. I kept that one because in actual comparison it ended up doing really well. Maybe others differ, I’m not sure.

Sample variation is a real problem with all brands. And Swaro and Kowa are guilty as well. The 95 and 99 reports were bad for several years showing poor optical correction from the factories. I stopped looking awhile ago, but at the time there wasn't a single 99 tested that had optical correction inline with the cost.

The 883/884 has been hit and miss as well, with some being really good and others being lemons, but I don't know about the new 88.

I think most hunters, nature observers, birders, etc don't know how to weed out the defective samples. So it just muddies the water if claims are made based on limited samples or unknown level of optical correction.

I know big scopes are not the focus of this thread. Just pointing out that alpha scopes can still have issues. That stated, the alpha scopes may not be perfect, with some levels of aberration, but in theory should be better than non-alpha models. But when you pay alpha prices, many assume that you will be getting as close to perfection as humanly possible which isn't necessarily true.

If you want the most bang for your buck, you need to learn how to weed out the lemons.

Anyway, I tried one 56mm Baby Razor in 2023 and it would not achieve sharp focus at 39x. If you read posts here and elsewhere, and even comments from dealers, they claim that is true for all makes and models. That's actually not true. In theory, the 56mm should be sharp up to 56x or more.

So the Baby Razor I tried was obviously a lemon but I didn't check to see what the cause was. I just moved on.

But the beauty of the Baby Razor is that you might be able to find multiple samples locally and buy the best one. Might be harder to do that with a Kowa or Swaro - you'd need to buy multiple samples from a dealer with good return policy. That's what some people have done to finally get a good 883/884 - keep testing until you get a good one, but you need to be able to afford multiple scopes on the credit card!

 

[waspocrew]

I was impressed with the picture of the razor though, but for me the cost for a secondary (not primary) spotter makes it hit a sweet spot.

This is where I'm at - Eurooptic will do a Mil/LEO vortex sale in May taking the baby razor to $700-750. This widens the price difference a bit more between it and the ATC/STC.

I was able to spend a little time behind an ATC a few weeks ago and of course the image looked great. I had my 85 ATX next to it and while I could get a bit more detail (due to magnification), the ATC was more than capable of determining which bull(s) were the better of the herd at a mile or so.

Once the season is over, I'll devote more time in comparing the two. I have a sheep hunt in Aug 2026 that I'd like to bring a spotter on. An ATC or mini razor will save me 2 lbs over my current 85 ATX.

 

[Tahoe1305]

Sample variation is a real problem with all brands. And Swaro and Kowa are guilty as well. The 95 and 99 reports were bad for several years showing poor optical correction from the factories. I stopped looking awhile ago, but at the time there wasn't a single 99 tested that had optical correction inline with the cost.

The 883/884 has been hit and miss as well, with some being really good and others being lemons, but I don't know about the new 88.

I think most hunters, nature observers, birders, etc don't know how to weed out the defective samples. So it just muddies the water if claims are made based on limited samples or unknown level of optical correction.

I know big scopes are not the focus of this thread. Just pointing out that alpha scopes can still have issues. That stated, the alpha scopes may not be perfect, with some levels of aberration, but in theory should be better than non-alpha models. But when you pay alpha prices, many assume that you will be getting as close to perfection as humanly possible which isn't necessarily true.

If you want the most bang for your buck, you need to learn how to weed out the lemons.

Anyway, I tried one 56mm Baby Razor in 2023 and it would not achieve sharp focus at 39x. If you read posts here and elsewhere, and even comments from dealers, they claim that is true for all makes and models. That's actually not true. In theory, the 56mm should be sharp up to 56x or more.

So the Baby Razor I tried was obviously a lemon but I didn't check to see what the cause was. I just moved on.

But the beauty of the Baby Razor is that you might be able to find multiple samples locally and buy the best one. Might be harder to do that with a Kowa or Swaro - you'd need to buy multiple samples from a dealer with good return policy. That's what some people have done to finally get a good 883/884 - keep testing until you get a good one, but you need to be able to afford multiple scopes on the credit card!

That’s what is kinda cool about buying used of here and doing comparisons with other folks. 1) you get the lower price. 2) you can compare the actual sample and make a decision on keeping it or not based on how it performs and 3) have other people validate or invalidate if you are crazy or not.

 

[Tahoe1305]

This is where I'm at - Eurooptic will do a Mil/LEO vortex sale in May taking the baby razor to $700-750. This widens the price difference a bit more between it and the ATC/STC.

I was able to spend a little time behind an ATC a few weeks ago and of course the image looked great. I had my 85 ATX next to it and while I could get a bit more detail (due to magnification), the ATC was more than capable of determining which bull(s) were the better of the herd at a mile or so.

Once the season is over, I'll devote more time in comparing the two. I have a sheep hunt in Aug 2026 that I'd like to bring a spotter on. An ATC or mini razor will save me 2 lbs over my current 85 ATX.

I get most of my optics for close to half off too. If I had to pay full price for a razor, I’d spend an extra $500 and get an ATC. But for 3x the cost and it being a secondary unit for my uses, I can’t justify it.

 

[Macintosh]

@Tahoe1305 Where are you finding atc’s for $2k? Or is that a used price? Im seeing msrp of 2999 listed everywhere.

 

[JNDEER]

2000-2500 yards looking for antlers a low end 50mm scope will be effective about 20+ minutes after first light and -10 minutes after sunset.

High end 50mm scopes add about 5-10 minutes extra time. Both scopes will have a small FOV- so be ok with that.

A low end 65mm scope will function around the same as a high end 50mm scope (splitting hairs).

Having gone from a 50mm to a 65 to a 80 there is no perfect scope for all situations.

Animal ID and super lightweight the Nikon ed50 will be more the enough. Packable and just needing to see antlers or legal antlers a 65mm will be the best of all worlds if first light and last light is a concern. Trophy hunts or huge distances a 80 will be your friend.