# What power spotting scope should I get?



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

20-50x50 or better power scope.

It doesnt have to be expensive. I paid $150 for my Celestron Ultima 80 (20-60x80). It is just as good if not better than my $850 Vortex Kaibib 20x56 binos. Get a sturdy tripod, not a lightweight one.

Size will be the consideration. I have the binos for traveling light and the larger scope when i have the room and want to lug it.



Chris


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

many thx~~

will this 27X enough?? or should I go with more power
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01FRAJXZ0/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Cheap is fine. Spend a little more on a good tripod like a Bogen. That will steady things immediately. Add a pistol grip and you’ll be a happy camper


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Depends if you want or need to see/judge the line cutters or just groups to make adjustments. And it depends on your vision. 

For the sole use of spotting arrows in most conditions, you really don’t need ED glass although its nice. Larger objective will make the image brighter.

Something like this 

https://www.opticsplanet.com/vanguard-vesta-460-15-50x60mm-spotting-scope-kit.html

Read the opticsplanet guide on selecting spotting scopes or binos.

DC


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

thx all ~~ reading the guide already

I will be using this tripod (if u can call it that way), as I got one free from workplace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjH9bO3BAoM

with light side bars removed, running a single 33lbs proof ballhead that I already have
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01G9X12Z8/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1



Just not sure if the 27x Celestron Hummingbird I am after (due to compactness) has enough power or not.....


----------



## Timevoid (Aug 19, 2018)

I use a FOCUS Hawk 15-45x60 . And the sweetspot somewhere in the middle of the zoom range, with a BK-7 prism (cheap ones), but it does the job well. Distortions of the image only shows up at the very end of the zoom at x45.
price is 90 euro. wieght is 600gram excl tripod. Tripid is around 1kilo. 
It works well at 30-200meters. I can distinguish whos arrow is whos at 200meters zooming in and looking at the fletching (test just for fun).

If you want less image distirtion at max zoom go for the more expensive BaK-4 prisms.

explains the diffrence. 
https://www.microglobe.co.uk/info/bak-7vbak7_prisms/








.


----------



## Timevoid (Aug 19, 2018)

Timevoid said:


> I use a FOCUS Hawk 15-45x60 . And the sweetspot somewhere in the middle of the zoom range, with a BK-7 prism (cheap ones), but it does the job well. Distortions of the image only shows up at the very end of the zoom at x45.
> price is 90 euro. wieght is 600gram excl tripod. Tripid is around 1kilo.
> It works well at 30-200meters. I can distinguish whos arrow is whos at 200meters zooming in and looking at the fletching (test just for fun).
> 
> ...



So a to clarify the "range" of the scope in detail. 15-45x zoom. 

So at 50m at no zoom(x15) an 122cm Fita target fills the sight, its becoms a very big target. And its not possible to zoom out and look at the entire target face. 

A 80cm Fita target at 50m or 70m you have some room to zoom out to see more then just the blue rings. 
I can spot linecutters without issues up to 100+meters.

The edge range (limit) of this scope is at 150-200meters. It needs to be daylight and clear sky to distinguish fletchings at that range.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Thx~

We shoot 80cm face at 50m, 122cm face at 70cm

I don't need a HD scope for line cutter, just need a decent all weather / waterproof one for sight dial, ideally compact for transport n carry around

So I guess the 9--27X56 Celeston Hummingbird will work for me


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

20X is all you need for any target archery. Lots of them on the market, and cheaper than anything at the same quality level that has a zoom/variable magnification. I've been using the same Bushnell Sentry II for some 40 years, never needed any more magnification that that. You lose clarity with higher magnification, especially with inexpensive scopes.

The key is a good, solid tripod that won't shake in wind.


----------



## Timevoid (Aug 19, 2018)

kentsabrina said:


> Thx~
> 
> We shoot 80cm face at 50m, 122cm face at 70cm
> 
> ...





Stash said:


> 20X is all you need for any target archery. Lots of them on the market, and cheaper than anything at the same quality level that has a zoom/variable magnification. I've been using the same Bushnell Sentry II for some 40 years, never needed any more magnification that that. You lose clarity with higher magnification, especially with inexpensive scopes.
> 
> The key is a good, solid tripod that won't shake in wind.


Yes, I agree. Something like hummingbird that is light weight and mobile but still a tripod that is not to flimsy.


----------



## Black46 (Oct 16, 2013)

The Gillo 12-36x60 scope is a great value

http://www.lancasterarchery.com/gillo-12-36x60-spotting-scope.html


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Thx all~


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

To "see" arrows at 100 yards and under, you're looking for resolution and light gathering, not magnification. 
20X-25X is more than you'll ever need, but that assumes a 60mm objective and good quality lenses.

Also remember that ocular lens angle is important.
I prefer 90 degrees, but the best you'll get these days are about 45 degrees. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Thx all, scope bought, now wait

Celestron 27X Hummingbird, angled/ ED glass/ BaK4/waterproof/fogproof


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

kentsabrina said:


> Thx~
> 
> We shoot 80cm face at 50m, 122cm face at 70cm
> 
> ...


Not a bad choice.

These days, when the farthest we are trying to see arrows is 70 meters, even a 12x scope will do. I never used more than a 20x scope even when we still shot 90. 

What Stash says about the tripod is key however. Put a $2k Leica scope on a flimsy tripod and a $200 Bushnell on a solid tripod, and you'll see more from the Bushnell every time. Don't scrimp on the tripod.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Thx for advice

The light mount tripod I have, seems really stable n solid

But if I have to get a proper tripod, what price range or model should I be looking at

Thx again


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

kentsabrina said:


> Thx for advice
> 
> The light mount tripod I have, seems really stable n solid
> 
> ...


Ebay is littered with great older Bogen tripods which can be had for between $50 and $100. A Dolica pistol grip tripod head is about $50 on Amazon. So for about $100 you can have a system which will last a lifetime.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Ebay is littered with great older Bogen tripods which can be had for between $50 and $100. A Dolica pistol grip tripod head is about $50 on Amazon. So for about $100 you can have a system which will last a lifetime.


got it~ looking at them right now

thx~


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Another reason to get an angled eyepiece spotter is that you can use a shorter tripod, which then allows you to choose a lighter and usually less expensive and easier to pack tripod that maintains the same steady image.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

btw there is a funny rule here ~

at the shooting line, spotting scopes cannot be placed higher than the shortest person's armpit that u are sharing the target with.

lets say 3 persons are sharing one target, being 160cm 175cm n 180cm tall respectively, all spotting scopes on the shooting line of that target, cannot be placed higher than the armpit of the 160cm shooter

reason being~~~~ "not to block press/photographer taking photos"

so yes ~ get a angled spotting scope


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

kentsabrina said:


> btw there is a funny rule here ~
> 
> at the shooting line, spotting scopes cannot be placed higher than the shortest person's armpit that u are sharing the target with.
> 
> ...


than the athlete using the scope. Where does it say you can't block other athletes?

WA.11.1.9.2.
Scopes shall be adjusted so the highest portion of the scope is no higher than the armpit of the athletes.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

huckduck said:


> kentsabrina said:
> 
> 
> > btw there is a funny rule here ~
> ...



.............


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

kentsabrina said:


> btw there is a funny rule here ~
> 
> at the shooting line, spotting scopes cannot be placed higher than the shortest person's armpit that u are sharing the target with.
> 
> ...


this is funny. forget considering the height of the shooter -they care about the picture guy more. hilarious.


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

kentsabrina said:


> .............


seriously. the 1:1 scope to athlete. why would you make a 7ft archer bend down to 4ft something to check a scope?


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

huckduck said:


> kentsabrina said:
> 
> 
> > .............
> ...


Yup that's the rule here, along with WA's


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

tunedlow said:


> kentsabrina said:
> 
> 
> > btw there is a funny rule here ~
> ...


Although we hardly see any photographers/press at our level

So the rule is there, but not being enforced every time or really affect us as "unranked" archers


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

It’s not “the shortest archer on the target”, it’s the archer using the scope. Otherwise, what happens if Tyrion Lannister decides to take up archery now that he has spare time? Or if you’re shooting next to a wheelchair user?

In any event, rules are rules, and if you’re going to compete (at any level), you need to learn and follow them regardless if they make sense “at our level”. If you try to squeeze out the ones that you think don’t need to be enforced, then where’s the line?


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Stash said:


> It’s not “the shortest archer on the target”, it’s the archer using the scope. Otherwise, what happens if Tyrion Lannister decides to take up archery now that he has spare time? Or if you’re shooting next to a wheelchair user?
> 
> In any event, rules are rules, and if you’re going to compete (at any level), you need to learn and follow them regardless if they make sense “at our level”. If you try to squeeze out the ones that you think don’t need to be enforced, then where’s the line?


Yup that's the funny part

The rule is there for real, at least my head coach told us more than once

I did ask the wheelchair scenario, n yes, if the rule is enforced somehow, everyone on that target will have to blend


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I seriously doubt if the rule is intended to refer to the shortest archer on the target. It's never been enforced like that at any shoot I've attended. I'm pretty sure it refers to the archer using the scope. 

A quick look at some WA photo albums isn't conclusive because it's impossible to tell which scope is on which target and which archers, but there were some that looked like the scope was definitely above the nearest archer's armpit. Including one pic of an archer who shot from a sitting down position (not in a wheelchair) whose scope was definitely above his shoulder.

Interesting discussion about how a rule can be interpreted differently. We have an International Judge in our club - I'll ask him on the weekend.


----------



## Polythermic (May 22, 2019)

Stash said:


> I seriously doubt if the rule is intended to refer to the shortest archer on the target. It's never been enforced like that at any shoot I've attended. I'm pretty sure it refers to the archer using the scope.
> 
> A quick look at some WA photo albums isn't conclusive because it's impossible to tell which scope is on which target and which archers, but there were some that looked like the scope was definitely above the nearest archer's armpit. Including one pic of an archer who shot from a sitting down position (not in a wheelchair) whose scope was definitely above his shoulder.
> 
> Interesting discussion about how a rule can be interpreted differently. We have an International Judge in our club - I'll ask him on the weekend.


My interpretation of the rule is that it's not enforced unless the shorter archer complains. If everyone is fine with how the scope is set up on the line, why should anyone have to adjust anything? 

On the other hand, if there was only room for one scope and it's set up way above my head, I would definitely ask the owner to lower it to allow me to use it, too. If they refuse, then I'd ask the judge and the rule would kick in, though I doubt anyone would refuse.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I really like my Baraska Level 20-60x80 scope. Nice crisp views of arrows, not terribly heavy, the leave in case is well designed, and the BAK-4 prism is much nicer than the BK-7 porro in most sub $200 scopes. It can be had for just over $200. Paired with a nice tripod it is more than I really need, and nice to look through. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1ArrowToTheKnee (May 21, 2019)

Swarovski Spotting Scope HD-ATS. 
-Waterproof to 14 feet
-Interchangeable eyepiece
-The Swarovski glass is made with f glass containing fluoride


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

1ArrowToTheKnee said:


> Swarovski Spotting Scope HD-ATS.
> -Waterproof to 14 feet
> -Interchangeable eyepiece
> -The Swarovski glass is made with f glass containing fluoride


Swarovski is not moderately priced, which was the OPs criteria. Great high end glass however.


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

scope n pelican 1200 arrive today, I have no benchmark to compare but it looks n feels nice enough for me


Can't wait to try it on the range


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Swarovski is not moderately priced, which was the OPs criteria. Great high end glass however.


yup my dad had a old Swarovski n Zeiss Bino, he highly recommends those

but the price is up there with high end Nikons


----------



## kentsabrina (Aug 23, 2017)

Yup they work perfectly, just test the setup on my 60/F balcony with strong wind

Stable, heavy at base yet very portable

The monotube is adjustable up to 6.5 feet, base is fully deployed as widest footprint in the pic n can be reduced by half

The Sinnofoto q2 ball head is an overkill for the tiny scope

Case is Pelican 1200 to scale how small the total setup is~~

Cheers


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

Stash said:


> Interesting discussion about how a rule can be interpreted differently. We have an International Judge in our club - I'll ask him on the weekend.


Manage to ask him?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

He wasn’t there on the weekend. I’ll see if I can email him about it.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Here's the reply I got from him. I trust this can be considered definitive. (My "bolds")


> The scope height rule is *based on the individual using the scope*. So if you have the situation of three archers shooting on the same butt, shooting one line, and one is 6’5’, one 5’10 and the third 5’2’. The scope the 6’5” archer is using has to be below his armpit, the 5’10” archer’s scope has to be below his armpit and the 5’2” archers scope has to be below his armpit height. Three different scope heights.
> 
> It is different if there are four archers shooting on the same butt, shooting two lines AB/CD. In this case each archer has to bring their scope to the line when they shoot and remove it when they finish shooting *OR they can share the same scope* with the archer who is shooting in their position. In the second case the scope height has to be set to the armpit height of the shortest of the two archers sharing the scope, which can be awkward if one is 6’5” and the other 5’2”.


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

Now the A/B line makes sense to argue the shortest, but i've shot where the scope in front of me is almost at my neck than me XD. Thanks Stash.


----------



## l30nsmit (Mar 24, 2021)

magnification 8-10 times is quite enough, i bought - mini pocket scope eye lense 1.5cm, exit lense 2.5cm 8cm long 4 cm wide. 10times magnification is like you are loooking at target from 7meter distance, if that is not enough to spot fetched group of 2-6arrows, or just one arrow. well u maibe do not see arrow if it is on line between 9-10, But you see position, low, right, up left, to correct next shot or microtune sight, an i do not use teipod, i just pick it from quiver and look after every 3 shot.


----------



## mgx1138 (Mar 29, 2019)

Look at Kowa spotting scopes... mid-priced; excellent glass. The 27x LER objective is fabulous... Cheap spotting scopes eventually end up in the trash.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Selling everywhere since more than 8 years the same spotting scope 12 x 36 - 60, more than sufficient for the purpose. Have been used at international tournaments of any kind, multiple Olympic games included, and no one has practically used it at more than 20x, so we were planning to change the model to a fixed 20x, but abandoned the idea as people likes zoom models only.


----------



## toxy2020 (Jan 24, 2021)

Look at the Hawke nature trek 9 27 56 as a possible alternative to the Hummingbird ? The Hawke has a lifetime warranty and roughly the same price although not ED glass, comes with stay on case, gives me a rough location at 100 and plenty good enough for me closer (try an optics shop and view before you buy), I also have an Acuter, very nice image but 3x the size and 4x the weight


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Well, this thread is old, but I will pitch in.

I was looking for a 20x scope since that is a good magnification at most ranges I shoot--up to 50 m. I also wanted to be compact and light. I stuck to 60mm objective lenses--I also looked at 50mm objectives, but did not see anything in my budget. 80mm objectives make the scope large and heavy and I don't shoot at light levels where an 80mm objective would be an advantage. I also wanted multicoated optics, 45 degree prism, and BaK-4 prisms--in 2022, those should be pretty standard. In don't really care about specs that can make optics more expensive like 60 degree apparent field of view as I am only spotting targets. Unless it is expensive, zoom eyepieces don't work very well and so I would want the minimum magnification to be 20x. Lastly, I wanted something I could shove into my archery bag and not worry if it got caught in bad weather.

I did a search on Amazon and found a Chinese manufacturer that offered inexpensive spotting scopes. The brand I bought was Gosky. This was a 20-60X60 scope with plastic body and rotating mount and claims to be waterproof. It works really well. No, the zoom mags are not good, but I was expecting that. The cost was just around $85, which is good because I really don't care if it get banged up in my bag or takes a shower on the shooting line.

Ironically, it sits on a tripod costing five time more--a Gitzo Totalux. But I already owned the tripod--one advantage of a lifetime of photography.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Selling everywhere since more than 8 years the same spotting scope 12 x 36 - 60, more than sufficient for the purpose. Have been used at international tournaments of any kind, multiple Olympic games included, and no one has practically used it at more than 20x, so we were planning to change the model to a fixed 20x, but abandoned the idea as people likes zoom models only.


You are quite correct - 20x fixed is not just all that is needed, it is better than a zoom in every way. However as you say, people think they need zooms - knowing nothing about the way optics perform - so they look down on fixed magnification scopes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> Ironically, it sits on a tripod costing five time more--a Gitzo Totalux. But I already owned the tripod--one advantage of a lifetime of photography.


Exactly my situation in '04 - a $40 FeeBay Simmons scope on a very good quality Bogen tripod. Good support will turn a cheap scope into a useable scope, and poor support will disable even the most expensive scope.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Exactly my situation in '04 - a $40 FeeBay Simmons scope on a very good quality Bogen tripod. Good support will turn a cheap scope into a useable scope, and poor support will disable even the most expensive scope.


Also add to the comment by LImb and Hikari that the tripod is more, or needs to be more expensive that a decent optic spotting scope. With higher mags you lose light and field of view and the slightest touch send the whole fov into richter scale 8 earthquake. A good aperture front lens without much edge distortion and a good objective are important but without a solid tripod it is mostly jiggles. Depending on the sun angle a 20-40X zoom is good for up to 100 yds. Many of the cheaper scopes don't really come to focus easily at max mag..Actually what is practical and usable vs what is the very best is a decision we all have to make considering out budgets.....always good to try before you buy..


----------

