Swarovski Atx 85 vs 95 mm

Looking to up grade from my older Zeiss 65 (planning on keeping it for a back-up) to the atx modular system. I like the size of the 85mm but I feel it may be dumb not to get the 95mm if you plan on getting the 65 mm also. It seems once you get the $$$ eye piece for more $ you will ultimately get the 65mm.

The 85 mm seems packable, is it a tweener scope. Anybody just using just the 85 alone, any regrets not buying the 95mm ? Anybody miss the Lower power of the 95 (30X ) vs the 25 X for the 85 mm objective ? I know this has been discussed before but my season is coming fast !

The ATX is the best on the market but heavier than the previous generation of similar sizes. I have the 65 and the 85 myself. The 95 is very large and not practical for a mobile hunter, in my opinion, but a great option for digiscoping or out of a vehicle.

I find myself using the 85 most of the time, the slightly larger exit pupil is more comfortable on my eye over long periods. If I am doing significant climbing, however, I would not take it. I would either use the 65 or my smaller Nikon 50 ED for such.

Focal length is the same on the 65 and 85. 25x is the lowest power but the eyepiece is wide angle so you get a similar FOV as the older 20-60 set on 20x.

Honestly, if your only going to buy one scope and want the most versatile from a hunting perspective I would buy a 65. The swaros have MUCH better edge to edge clarity than zeiss and this alone would justify the upgrade, in my opinion.

Thank You, great explanation & logic. I'm in NV so the scope will be used in & out of the truck, Either way a great system, I made the good mistake of looking thru an 85mm on a sheep hunt last yr. and wow !
Not being moble concerns me re the 95mm but the view would be great. Tired of the refocus / lack of edge clarity on the older Zeiss. Great point on the fov with the new system and the wide angle eyepiece.

Thanks Alaska-bou.

Realize that when comparing these Swaros, the eye piece is the same for the 65, 85, and 95 mm fronts.

The zoom ranges being different are not a function of the eye piece.
This is different than traditional Swaro, or other optics.

If the eye piece is the same and does not determine the zoom range, then what is the difference?

Its the focal length of the front end.

The older style Swaro spotters had a 460 mm focal length.
Swaro does not list the new focal lengths but a few emails to the company and you can get all that data.

But, lets simplify the concept.

Lets compare a 88 mm Kowa promiser to a Swaro ATM.
The Kowa has a focal length of 500 mm.
The Swaro has a focal length of 460mm.

So, when you set both scopes on 20X magnification, the Kowa is magnifying the original image less to get to the 20X level than the Swaro is.

You are looking at both images 20X closer than the naked eye, but the image of the longer focal length is being magnified less to get to bring the image 20X closer.

What does all that crap have to do with anything?

Its the most important part of your question if you ask me.

Set aside the size and weight that you have to consider and compare the difference between the two objectives.

The 65 and 85 mm objectives have the same focal length.
Deciding between them is only a function of light gathering ability of the larger objective and the trade off between size and weight increase.

But, throw in the 95mm objective and you have to consider the change in focal length.

Not only are you increasing light gathering with the larger objective, but you are actually getting closer to the game without having to increase magnification.
That all transmits to even better low light performance. Even on top of the increase to 95mm.

Its why the magnification ranges are higher on that scope.
Because you will get better performance at the higher magnifications than you will at the lower magnifications on the smaller objectives.

So, the question is, is the increased performance worth the extra size and weight?

Thats a personal issue.

Obviously the ideal situation is to buy an eye piece, or ocular module.
Then get all three objective modules.
But who has the money for that?

I pack a 95 with me everywhere I go.
I also pack a large tripod. Its carbon fiber, but its still heavy.

On several adventures I have found myself wishing I was packing my 65mm scope and light tripod, until I pull it all out to use it.
Then I would not trade it for anything in the world.
Its only when I have a loaded pack that I wish I had a less loaded pack.

I have pent a lot of time this spring hiking for Sheep and Goats. Its not fun even without a pack. Anything you put in there is going to suck.
How much suck can you handle?

My wife and I have been looking at getting another scope for her.
Its a toss up between a Kowa 85 prominar and another 95mm swaro.

Both of which I will be packing at the same time, along with tripods and water.
Sometimes you just gotta man up.

Thanks Shedygaga. I liked the weight description Re : "suck" it does but pays off. nice explanation on focal length. Time to decide, headed out to check on some elk. Power to ya for taking care of the wife.

I have the 85 and have used the 95.. If you have the money, get the 95 and 65mm scopes. If you are only going to get one for now, get the 85mm. Best scope on the market by far.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-14-14 AT 10:08PM (MST)[p]I got the 65 and the 95 and felt like I did not need the middle of the road 85. Last year I had the 95 next to my old at 25 X 50 X 65 atm and the extra power that goes with the 95 sure made the difference in me finding a particular buck I was looking for. Very nice having the 30 X 70 zoom. But while back packing the 65 is what I pack. What part of Nevada are you in. I'm in Elko if you want to see it. Fatrooster.

I'm in Reno, thanks for the offer. I was in your neck of the woods today looking for elk (Ha,Ha, it was hot with Mr. Moon making everything a pancake out of the gate). Thanks for the recommendations. I have been using a max 45 X for so long that I can't imagine what 70 x does in good glassing weather. Thanks for all the replies.

PM Sent Fatrooster

I had the 65 and I liked packing it, but hated it in low light.

Now I have an 85 and I love it. I've never used a 95 but I don't think I'd want one if I was getting far from a vehicle.











Stay thirsty my friends

Shedy pretty much nailed it on the head here. I have the 95 mm and hunt closely with a friend who has the 85 mm. There have been countless times where my buddy has asked me to look through my scope at lowlight or for better magnification to get a better look at whatever it is we're watching.
What pack you use should be a big consideration based on your scope. I upgraded to the badlands sacrifice pack, which in my opinion is the best pack you can get. It is lighter than 90% of the other packs and holds twice as much so when it comes to room in my pack that's not really an issue. When a pack can carry an entire boned out cow elk down to the cheek meet and still have room for a 95 mm scope and tripod you know you have plenty of room. Just another sidenote with spotting scopes
"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you
down to their level and beat you with experience."

What is the difference between the STX series and the STS series?

Thanks all for info: I went with the 85 mm scope based in MY ability to pack it. I still see the need for the 65 mm but for now I want the best scope for me that I will carry. I used the scope on an Elk hunt here in NV this weekend and boy the detail at several miles on elk in all conditions was great. Did not kill a bull but passed on 3 bulls at 20 yds yesterday ( to small for the pack out ). I soon realized that everybody has different needs for where they hunt, what weight they carry, or not, and the technical aspect, ( money to !). My eye piece had a small spec in it so it will be replaced, note that I only saw it only with my glasses off so depending on where you focus the scope you may or may not see it (only visible at low power). Have a great hunting season to all... Thanks

Congradulations on a great scope. You will not be disappointed with it. I've been filming video through my 65 mm with both a phone scope and a tines up package and am very happy with the results. Fatrooster.

Thanks Fatrooster, I used the scope on my elk hunt this yr in your neck of the woods, two other scopes were shut down and I was still going near dark. Had two small depredation bulls close but passed on them based on the pack out. Hope to try later in the season for elk but I had to shift gears to my CA Bighorn hunt. I scouted for 3 more days and got pictures (still and video of some decent rams) with the scope. I was really able to age the rams with the new scope. Where can I get a phone scope for the I phone 4s ? I also have a tines up but need to get the 55 mm adapter for my swaro. My sheep season opens in 031 in 12 days, hope to find a mature ram. I have a harder time scoring Ca Bighorns as their bases seem bigger than deserts but the rams I have found the mass out on the end is where scoring is hard to tell a high 150's vs a lower 160's. anybody got pics of CA bighorns sheep in the 160 + range I would love to see them, thanks.

Get your phone scope at phonescope.com. Congrats on the sheep hunt. Sounds like all of your problems are good problems, lol. fatrooster.

I agree 100% went on a 10 mile hike with mine, up Jefferson peak. We need the extra optics power in Nevada. If you are looking to cut weight don't start with your optics.

Thanks again for all who helped with my scope purchase, it helped in evaluating lots of rams, I will admit the 70 x would have been helpful at times, pre-heatwaves !... I harvested this nice 8 yr old ram on the second day of my hunt. I will post him later on the correct forum but enjoy for now.

Nice ram, What'd he score?

166, 32 7/8 and 35 length, bases, 14 2/8, 14, 12 4/8, 8 3/8.CA bighorn. v. happy! Love nevada !!!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats on a damn nice cali..