Hi, Tweeters,

My word, but I touched a nerve. I had a small mountain of responses to my
request for your opinions on spotting scopes. Several people asked me to
forward the results of my data collection, and I will try..but if I get your
address wrong, please forgive me. This is why I'm also putting it on
Tweeters. I'd like to thank all of you for your advice, comments, opinions
and help.

Now then. Since my day job is data collection (no, no, no....I'm not the bozo
who calls you at dinner time and wants to know your opinion....I collect
maintenance and operation data on M1A1 Abrams tanks.) I figured I'd tackle it
like I do at work. I tallied up all the folks who wrote me with opinions and
experiences.
I also recieved several websites to look through. I'll put them at the end of
this report.
I'm certain I"ll get some more responses, but I'd like to get this done and
over with!!

I received 18 actual brand name preferences, although I recieved a larger
number of responses with general information and help.
I did NOT request information on specific brands, so the data aren't tainted
by that. I did not count scopes that were bought ten or twenty years ago
(i.e. Discoverer).

The last category covered ''second level" scopes, in the lower price ranges,
($500 to $800) and are labeled as "Others". I discounted these because, as so
many of you pointed out, you get what you pay for. Over and over again I was
advised to stretch that budget and spend the money, because it's worth it in
the long run.
I am fully prepared to eat peanut butter sandwiches for a couple months in
order to afford a high dollar scope. (my husband may not think this is such a
hot idea, but he offered to buy it for me...and I didn't give him a chance to
change his mind!)

I also did not count data such as "So-and-so has Brand X and his birding
partner has brand Z." There were comments about other brands that I will
cover but did not count.

Of those 18, this is the breakdown:

Swavroski (80 series): 6
Leica Televid 77: 5
Nikon, all types: 2
Kowa: 1
Pentax: 1
Others: 3

Comments:

Swavroski: "...heavy, need a good, sturdy tripod" "Only Celestron is better"
"...heavy tripod, but it's motionless in the wind" "...angled eyepiece is
easier to use, especially if many people of varying heights are looking
through the scope. It's also less prone to damage if the scope should be
knocked over." "...usable throughout its range. Any deterioration in image is
due solely to heat wave magnification. Zoom eyepiece has a wierd
characteristic of presenting a smaller diameter image as you zoom from 20x to
about 40x, but then enlarges again. The 80 mm objective lens makes a huge
difference in light gathering capability." "...outperformed my Kowa,
particularly under low light conditions. I attribute most of this to the zoom
eyepiece which consistently delivers a brighter, sharper image at all
powers." "(I'm) extremely happy with its performance. However, the total
weight of this setup is right at 12 pounds, and one doesn't have to schlep
very far before one starts to wish for a llama or a sherpa to bear it around
for one."

Leica: "...make sure you get zoom lenses with top-quality glass" "...scope
rotates on its longitudinal axis while remaining on target....(I also like)
the snap up and down eyecups." ""...after eye surgery....I chose the Leica
after spending over an hour comparing it side by side with Swavroski and
Kowa. I have never regretted it.""
"...my dream scope."

Nikon: "more affordable, but I wish it had a larger exit pupil and longer
eye relief, as I wear glasses."

Kowa: "I love it." ""...the 82mm, non-florite (sic), 20-60 zoom...gave me
less eyestrain, especially with the angled eyepiece. I have a good tripod
with a video head... it's (the scope) armored and nitrogen filled, water
proof and shock proof. Its wide aperture lets in lots of light. I couldn't
see a difference between it and the Leica. I think the Kowa is the better
scope.""

Pentax: I had only one voice for Pentax, but the fan is absolutely ecstatic
about his, and I admit, it seems to have a lot going for it. He has the W36X
and the 72 mm eyepiece, and he says "the eyepiece looks like you could fall
into the view!"

No votes, but comments:

>From the homework I've been doing, it seems Questar is to scopes what Rolls
Royce is to cars, but one person said "...the Questar had a crisp view, but
the tripod was shaky."
I may be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that Celestron is a subsidiary
of Questar. One person looked through a CelestronC90 and had this to say:
"...not thrilled with the view....fixed length eyepiece did not have great
eye relief." "one had to be precisely aligned to see" through the scope."

I also received many websites to check out. Here they are, and I apologize if
I get the address wrong...
www.birdingpal.com
www.betterviewdesired.com
www.njaudubon.org
www.buytelescopes.com
www.cameraworld.com (this one is in Oregon, (no tax) and you get a 5%
discount as a first time buyer, it says...)
American Birding Association...I think that is www.aba.org, but I haven't
done the searching yet,
and
Cape May Observatory, ditto.
I also went to www.cabelas.com. I haven't had the time to check it out, but
there seems to be a discrepancy in their web price and their catalog price. I
bought my Zeiss binos from them.

Thank you, every one of you, who sent comments, advice and opinions to me. I
hope this helps those of you who asked me to share my findings with them.

Michelle
MBlanchrd at aol.com
Oly, WA