Vanguard vs Vortex?

[cornfedkiller]

I wasn't necessarily in the market for a spotting scope, but read lots of good things on the Vanguard Endeavor 65a, and found a heck of a deal so I pulled the trigger..

Anyways, most reviews I see online for this scope talk about how it hangs with Vortex's Razor line. I have a friends Vortex Diamondback 20-60x80 at my house so I set them both up on tripods yesterday and did a little "testing". I looked down the road at some addresses, road signs, realtor signs, etc.. Mid afternoon on a sunny day - couldnt really tell much difference other than a wider FOV with the diamondback (obviously), and the vanguard seemed a little bit brighter.. but as far as clarity goes, I didnt notice much difference. Was able to read the neighbors address sign at 700, and easily a street sign at 1000 with both of them. I could read a phone number on a realty sign with the vortex that I couldn't read with the vanguard, but I blame that on lack of power.

I figured maybe closer to sunset, I would notice a bigger difference. Checked out the same signs about 10 mins after sunset and both scopes were still even then. Then I saw some deer out in a field about 250 yards away, so I set up both scopes on them and constantly switched back and fourth until dark to see if I lost one before the other, but again, they were pretty much dead even.

Figuring the vanguard was close to a razor, I was expecting it to blow the diamondback out of the water. Because I'm comparing a 65mm to an 80mm, is it not a fair comparison? Are the two actually that close optically?

 

[mtnrunner260]

If I'm looking at the right vanguard, its $330 on Amazon. Much closer to diamondback price than razor.
I'm sure it is a good scope and will do the job in almost every situation but there are no free lunches in the optics world.
I would guess a direct comparison in challenging conditions would yield a clear difference between vanguard and razor.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Maybe you got a really good diamondback? The 65mm diamondback I tested before I got the vanguard hurt my eye and seemed kind of fuzzy, no matter how I focused it. It was very faint but still there. My vanguard isn’t phenomenal, but in the price range to me it was the clear winner. Everyone’s eyes are different it seems. My next scope, if ever will be a kowa.

 

[Napperm4]

Maybe you got lucky with the Diamondback. I owned an 82mm Vanguard and the 1st Gen 85mm. One of my brothers has the 80mm diamondback.

The biggest differences to our eyes when comparing them were low light performance and how well they handled CA when looking at ridge tops, antlers and animals against a snowy background or birds on a branch etc.

I found the vanguard to perform better than anything from Vortex when looking directly into the sun as it handles the glare much better.

Compared to the Diamondback the vanguard has much better edge to edge clarity and is useable higher up in the magnification range.

I punted the razor and kept the vanguard. Hard to beat for the price range. I’ve upgraded my spotter but I can’t bring myself to part with the vanguard and we pass it around the group constantly for the guys lacking better optics.

 

[cornfedkiller]

If I'm looking at the right vanguard, its $330 on Amazon. Much closer to diamondback price than razor.
I'm sure it is a good scope and will do the job in almost every situation but there are no free lunches in the optics world.
I would guess a direct comparison in challenging conditions would yield a clear difference between vanguard and razor.

Yeah that's the right Vanguard, and I know there are no free lunches, but I also think Vortex tends to be a little overrated, and I've read the whole vanguard/razor comparison on multiple websites.

Maybe you guys are right and my buddy has a really good diamondback? And I'm sure the 80mm doesn't hurt anything when comparing them toward last light. I also assume it helps that its a 20-60x so that when I had them both at 45x, the diamondback wasnt at the end of its magnification range like the vanguard was.

I'll need to test them some more in challenging situations and see if there is a clear winner, although my initial impression is that the vanguard is pretty good for what it cost me. I also much prefer the size of the vanguard compared to the 80mm vortex, but unfortunately its also 3oz heavier.

 

[tdhanses]

Did you look at the edge to edge clarify and how sharp overall sticks and other items are? I have to say either you got a bad Vanguard or a good Diamondback.

I compared my buddies Vanguard 65a to my Kowa 553 over the weekend, it was in a perfect light situation but the center of the Vanguard was really close to the overall image of the Kowa. It fell off about half way to the edge. The resolution was not nearly as good but was good enough in the sweet spot.

You should print off a resolution chart and put it out at 100 yards. Then compare the two. Also look into the dark areas of bushes and see which shows the detail vs a blending of branches to black. Try to focus on details of smaller items that are not directly in the open.

 

[cornfedkiller]

Did you look at the edge to edge clarify and how sharp overall sticks and other items are? I have to say either you got a bad Vanguard or a good Diamondback.

I compared my buddies Vanguard 65a to my Kowa 553 over the weekend, it was in a perfect light situation but the center of the Vanguard was really close to the overall image of the Kowa. It fell off about half way to the edge. The resolution was not nearly as good but was good enough in the sweet spot.

You should print off a resolution chart and put it out at 100 yards. Then compare the two. Also look into the dark areas of bushes and see which shows the detail vs a blending of branches to black. Try to focus on details of smaller items that are not directly in the open.

I probably didnt do as conclusive of a test as I could have.. I didn't pay attention to the edge clarity, mainly focused on the sweet spot.

I printed off a resolution chart a little bit ago and will test it out sometime when the weather allows. I will also try looking into dark areas like you suggested.

Should I keep the magnification even on the two when comparing them, or shouldn't it really matter much?

 

[tdhanses]

I probably didnt do as conclusive of a test as I could have.. I didn't pay attention to the edge clarity, mainly focused on the sweet spot.

I printed off a resolution chart a little bit ago and will test it out sometime when the weather allows. I will also try looking into dark areas like you suggested.

Should I keep the magnification even on the two when comparing them, or shouldn't it really matter much?

I always compare at the same magnification.

 

[Napperm4]

I probably didnt do as conclusive of a test as I could have.. I didn't pay attention to the edge clarity, mainly focused on the sweet spot.

I printed off a resolution chart a little bit ago and will test it out sometime when the weather allows. I will also try looking into dark areas like you suggested.

Should I keep the magnification even on the two when comparing them, or shouldn't it really matter much?

Magnification on the 2 is going to be a difference in terms of exit pupil. At 45x on a 65mm objective is 1.44mm on the 80mm it’s 1.88. This means that more light is passing through producing a brighter image that can be mistaken for clarity.

Aside from the alpha scopes, most give up definition at max zoom. So comparing 100% zoom on the smaller objective to 75% zoom on the larger scope would mean that if the images are equal in clarity and definition, technically speaking the smaller scope is superior optically as the Diamondback will generally give up a lot of definition, clarity and ease of focus at 100% zoom.

The vanguard on paper has better glass (HD), coatings to help light transmission and better prisms that will help it look the same as an 80mm optic which will appear brighter at the same zoom due to its increased light gathering ability. The glass and coatings of the vanguard would help keep the smaller scope on par because it gathers less light but is better at transmitting the light to your eye.

If you consider the vortex business model in your decision keep in mind you’re overpaying for the optic and the warranty. You’re contributing your money to keep them profitable and still replace optics for the people that abuse their scopes (drop it off a cliff, run it over with a truck cause it’s covered so throw caution to the wind). Translated that means you’re paying 3x multiple to get a ~$150 optic.

Personally the warranty is the reason I moved away from vortex. I look at performance vs $ spent as the value I’m getting. Logically to keep the company profitable under the model they can’t be using the best components. I’ve had to send in every vortex optic (kaibabs, vipers and several scopes) that I’ve ever had. Maybe bad luck sure but not great odds and they all failed under normal conditions. Culmination issues with the binos, broken focus mechanism, crushed scope tube from factory, tracking issues with scope and broken cross hairs. It’s great that it’s all covered but horrible when it affects your hunt cause your gear gave up the ghost. I treated that stuff with the same care I give my high cost and less covered Swarovski glass and wouldn’t say I’m rough on my optics.

Just my 2 cents. I’ve tried a lot of glass and the vanguard is just one example of something that outperformed a comparable optic at 3x the cost to me.

At the end of the day it’s a very individual choice and different glass meets the need of different people and there’s something out there for every budget.

For my brother it’s his Diamondback. He’ll never argue that my 95mm swaro blows his out of the water but he’s looking for legal vs not legal and I like to count nostril hairs a mile away in the moon light.

The search for better can be a never ending and expensive game. At some point if you’re happy with what you are using and already spent the money then why change or compare?

No offence but if they appear the same to your eyes anyways why not save the cash of chasing optics and put it towards hunts?

 

[cornfedkiller]

Magnification on the 2 is going to be a difference in terms of exit pupil. At 45x on a 65mm objective is 1.44mm on the 80mm it’s 1.88. This means that more light is passing through producing a brighter image that can be mistaken for clarity.

Aside from the alpha scopes, most give up definition at max zoom. So comparing 100% zoom on the smaller objective to 75% zoom on the larger scope would mean that if the images are equal in clarity and definition, technically speaking the smaller scope is superior optically as the Diamondback will generally give up a lot of definition, clarity and ease of focus at 100% zoom.

The vanguard on paper has better glass (HD), coatings to help light transmission and better prisms that will help it look the same as an 80mm optic which will appear brighter at the same zoom due to its increased light gathering ability. The glass and coatings of the vanguard would help keep the smaller scope on par because it gathers less light but is better at transmitting the light to your eye.

If you consider the vortex business model in your decision keep in mind you’re overpaying for the optic and the warranty. You’re contributing your money to keep them profitable and still replace optics for the people that abuse their scopes (drop it off a cliff, run it over with a truck cause it’s covered so throw caution to the wind). Translated that means you’re paying 3x multiple to get a ~$150 optic.

Personally the warranty is the reason I moved away from vortex. I look at performance vs $ spent as the value I’m getting. Logically to keep the company profitable under the model they can’t be using the best components. I’ve had to send in every vortex optic (kaibabs, vipers and several scopes) that I’ve ever had. Maybe bad luck sure but not great odds and they all failed under normal conditions. Culmination issues with the binos, broken focus mechanism, crushed scope tube from factory, tracking issues with scope and broken cross hairs. It’s great that it’s all covered but horrible when it affects your hunt cause your gear gave up the ghost. I treated that stuff with the same care I give my high cost and less covered Swarovski glass and wouldn’t say I’m rough on my optics.

Just my 2 cents. I’ve tried a lot of glass and the vanguard is just one example of something that outperformed a comparable optic at 3x the cost to me.

At the end of the day it’s a very individual choice and different glass meets the need of different people and there’s something out there for every budget.

For my brother it’s his Diamondback. He’ll never argue that my 95mm swaro blows his out of the water but he’s looking for legal vs not legal and I like to count nostril hairs a mile away in the moon light.

The search for better can be a never ending and expensive game. At some point if you’re happy with what you are using and already spent the money then why change or compare?

No offence but if they appear the same to your eyes anyways why not save the cash of chasing optics and put it towards hunts?

Thank you for that detailed response. I wasn't really disappointed with the vanguard because I know you typically get what you pay for with optics so I know its no alpha. I was more-so curious why that diamondback was right there with it when everything I read says it should be way behind it... wasn't sure if its my eyes, the size difference between the two, or something else. Your first few paragraphs basically sum up what I was wondering.

As far as saving money goes, I could've just not bought the vanguard at all and used my buddy's scope any time I needed, but I also don't love borrowing stuff like that in case it breaks, and other than being a little heavier, I like the vanguard way more - smaller size fits in my pack better, angled eyepiece is nicer to look through, lens covers are better, and overall build quality feels better.

 

[Napperm4]

Thank you for that detailed response. I wasn't really disappointed with the vanguard because I know you typically get what you pay for with optics so I know its no alpha. I was more-so curious why that diamondback was right there with it when everything I read says it should be way behind it... wasn't sure if its my eyes, the size difference between the two, or something else. Your first few paragraphs basically sum up what I was wondering.

As far as saving money goes, I could've just not bought the vanguard at all and used my buddy's scope any time I needed, but I also don't love borrowing stuff like that in case it breaks, and other than being a little heavier, I like the vanguard way more - smaller size fits in my pack better, angled eyepiece is nicer to look through, lens covers are better, and overall build quality feels better.

I didn’t mean to come across as sounding like you should save your money. Hahaha I’m the last person that hesitates or advises against spending money on hunting gear.

I just wasn’t clear from the way I interpreted your comments if you were joining us in optics anonymous feeding an addiction or if you were questioning the value in the scope you got. Maybe drawing on my experience where I had a razor first then got a vanguard out of curiosity from the hype then felt a little jaded I’d spent so much more on the razor when the cheaper scope performed better.

Back to your experience. I’d say it all comes down to the higher quality components of the vanguard. The fact it hangs right up there with the bigger scope should show its strengths. I’d bet if you try them both at twilight you’ll be surprised by the difference the smaller scope has over its larger counterpart. Low light is what really separates the boys from the men in terms of optics. Funny you mention yours being heavier. Aside from the magnesium bodied scopes, better optics tend to weighed more. Really says a lot when the smaller scope weighs more than the larger one.

 

[cornfedkiller]

I just wasn’t clear from the way I interpreted your comments if you were joining us in optics anonymous feeding an addiction or if you were questioning the value in the scope you got. Maybe drawing on my experience where I had a razor first then got a vanguard out of curiosity from the hype then felt a little jaded I’d spent so much more on the razor when the cheaper scope performed better.

To be honest, I wasn't really sure how to feel right away. Maybe the scope was overhyped or my eyes just don't see a huge difference like others do, or the conditions were "right" - I realize optics difference can be very subtle and situation dependent - I don't see a ton of difference between my ELs and friend's Viper HDs when glassing something at 200 yards from a treestand, but put them both on a tripod out west and look 1/2 mile or further and the difference is immediately obvious. Anyways, I wasn't sure if I should be disappointed that it didnt blow the diamondback out of the water, or if I should be pumped that a smaller, cheaper scope performed as well as a bigger one.

I guess I was (obviously) hoping it would be much better which would further justify buying it - if its the same, I could have just as well saved my money (aka spent it on something else) and borrowed his. But from what you guys are saying, it sounds like a) I should be happy that it is every bit as good as a larger scope, and b) I haven't put it through the paces enough to really know which is better, and if I were to continue testing more, I'd probably find that the vanguard outperforms the diamondback. I did try them at twilight all the way up to dark, but I was keeping the deer I was looking at in the sweet spot and wasnt really trying to count hairs or anything.

Thanks again for the help Napperm!