#4 in Spotting scopes
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of BARSKA 15-40x50 Colorado Spotting Scope
Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 5
We found 5 Reddit mentions of BARSKA 15-40x50 Colorado Spotting Scope. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Fully coated optics with porro prism system
- Large 50mm objective lens
- Shock absorbing rubber armor
- Come with table tripod and soft carrying case
- The highest clarity range is at 150 yards. Beyond 150 yards, the image will naturally start to become blurry.
Features:
Specs:
Color | Black |
Height | 0.0393700787 Inches |
Length | 0.0393700787 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | April 2011 |
Weight | 0.881849048 Pounds |
Width | 0.0393700787 Inches |
https://www.amazon.ca/Barska-CO11500-15-40x50-Colorado-Spotting/dp/B0049IZMUW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1480084327&sr=8-3&keywords=Spotting+scope
For a 100 metres this 40x should be plenty sufficient.
If I'm only shooting between 25 and 100 yards - is this dubiously cheap spotting scope going to be sufficient to check my groups?
http://www.amazon.com/BARSKA-15-40x50-Colorado-Spotting-Scope/dp/B0049IZMUW
I bought this scope and put this tripod on it. It works great out to 100yds with .22lr/.223. Cheaper glass will get fuzzy at higher magnifications, so I find that 30x works best for this particular scope.
Here, Here and Here, though i would pick a $10 binocular over a $30 spotting scope. (based on experience with both)
Hello :-)
Yes, a reflector is the best bang for the buck but the image is upside-down. You can get erecting eyepieces and erecting adapters, but as they are rarely used (it does not matter if space is "upside-down") there are few choices and especially the adapters tend to be of poor quality.
Under $200 you will have MANY sets that are not good; Either on a weak tripod or with flawed optics. Short cheap refractors are not suited for high magnification; Short newtonian reflectors have their flaws, too.
.
GoScope: Short refractor has several flaws, despite the large aperture.
Starblast 4.5": Short reflector, the aperture ratio of F/4 will have several flaws.
70eq: Small refractor. Not bad, but it just lacks the aperture for many targets. Especially for terrestrial, the 70az would be better (and cheaper) than the 70EQ
.
Yes, aperture is key, but portability plays a big role, too :-)
Here is a link on what to expect in different smaller apertures and one link with more comparisons:
.
For size, see
.
One option under $200 is the Celestron c90; You will need a (rigid) tripod and one or two more eyepieces, but these are fun for terrestrial viewing and super small. Maksutovs are short as they have a different design (optical path "bouncing" back and forth).
For $200, you can get a 5" telescope though, or a 6" dobsonian for $275 if the main focus is space... And get some $35 binoculars or spotting scope for day-time (Celestron Cometron 7x50, or just something simple as this spotting scope so you don't have to compromise regarding night-time observing!)
Here a few other suggestions;
.
Eyepieces: It depends strongly on the choice of telescope. But you can get decent eyepieces for $20-$40, and there's no need to combine a cheap kit eyepiece with a cheap barlow. Stay away from overpriced eypiece box sets and zoom eyepieces (as they have a narrow apparent field of view on one side of the scale, but they can be nice for a day-time spotting scope). Two or three decent wide-angle eyepieces instead can go a long way.