60-65mm vs 80-85mm

WSF · Mar 12, 2011

Would some of you guys comment on your experience/
thoughts regarding pros and cons of the smaller(60mm)
vs the larger(80mm)objectives. I will be backpack
hunting for sheep. Looking to purchase Zeiss or
swarovski but have questions weight,clarity, etc..
I hunted with leupold 15-40x60 last year and felt
it wasn't quite enough. I'm willing to pack a little
more weight if the clarity advantage is there.

Thanks

bigbull1 · Mar 12, 2011

I have a Swarovski 20x60x80 ATS HD that I can make great spots with and has amazing low light abilities. Having said that, I wish I bought the 65 as I ended ip buying a second scope for backpacking as the 80 is heavy. I think the 60-65 objective is a good medium.

Ed
www.huntpacks.com

fatrooster · Mar 12, 2011

I have the swaro ATS 80 but am selling it this year and going with the 60mm. Mostly due to being a backpack hunter and wanting to cut weight. fatrooster.

GLEDEASY · Mar 13, 2011

I use to have an 80mm scope, but quickly sold that as soon as I tried packing that thing around. Weights not only an issue but also the space it takes up. Obviously there will probably be a little difference as the objective is smaller, but I would go with the 60-65mm. If you're planning on buying a higher end scope I don't think you'll miss that difference when compared to the cons of trying to pack the 80mm around. I own a swarovski 65hd and obsolutely love it.

WSF · Mar 13, 2011

I appreciate the comments.
Definitely helpful!

Thanks

huntindad4 · Mar 13, 2011

With a quality brand I don't think clarity will suffer much but would suspect you will notice a difference in lower light.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!

azbow · Mar 13, 2011

If you want the very best scope to see under all conditions go with the 80mm. I set up my 65 HD Swaro next to an 80 HD Swaro and sat there looking through them until it was to dark to make out details in the 65. I still could see the things that I was using for comparison, through the 80 for several more minutes. Just makes sense right?
The 65 is the one that I carry the most though, on long hikes and when I am actually carrying by bow. Just scouting, the 80 gets the work.

greatwestern · Mar 13, 2011

LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-11 AT 00:03AM (MST)[p]^right on...the big glass does pierce the twilight much better per power setting

i do know a couple guys that haul them kegs around in the high country, but i think they're a bit too pork

i carry an older 20-60x60 ED fieldscope and it has always been a consistent performer with any of the good larger objectives under ideal lighting conditions...once lighting is diminished, there is quite a noticable difference between them

with good glass, that difference is something you can work with with respect to the tradeoff in size and weight, but don't expect quite the same performance from the little dude
under twilight conditions, all other factors being equal...

hell, these days i'm in the dark ages with my little 60mm objective...but my philosophy is thus:

you make whatever you have WORK until you find something definitively better!

i would agree that a quality 65mm type scope is the ideal all arounder between optical performance and packability...and that little ED 50 is a pretty sweet packer if you don't need top end power

Fortis · Mar 14, 2011

I use a Kowa 884 and it is fantastic. If I were a backpack hunter I'd go straight to the 60mm Leupold GR HD. It's arguably the toughest spotter on the planet and has excellent glass, and it's very short.

hank4elk · Mar 14, 2011

For backpacking go with the 65. Weight and space a factor. I went with Alpen and gave my Leupold to a friend for a retirement gift. The Alpen was better for what I do. Excellent glass for a small amount.