I recently replaced my old spotting scope (Bushnell Trophy Extreme 20-60x65) to a Celestron 20-60x80 that was on sale for Black Friday.  I haven't tried the new one out yet, but it's a big spotting scope.  The Celestron is maybe 19" end to end, whereas the Bushnell was maybe 14-15".  The Bushnell and tripod fit in a compact soft carrying case that easily fit in a medium backpack.  The Celestron would fit in a medium backpack, but the tripod that it came with probably wouldn't.  I'm gonna use the tripod that came with the Bushnell for now.

The Celestron was a bit of an impulse buy because I saw the pricing discount on Black Friday.  I was also close to getting a Leupold 20-60x80 that would've been maybe 17" end to end.  Didn't do my research and didn't realize the 80 mm objective lens spotting scopes were that hefty.  I think the 60-65 mm objective lens models are a good blend of max magnification range and not too bulky.  The Celestron might be better for star gazing than at the rifle range.    

Kowa TSN 601, Konus and a Burris Landmark
You want a big objective and a good eye relief for a spotting scope. If you are wanting something compact - binos are the alt.

Kowa TSN 601, Konus and a Burris Landmark
You want a big objective and a good eye relief for a spotting scope. If you are wanting something compact - binos are the alt.

Ok, not exactly compact, but just not as hefty as the Celestron. 

The Konus 20-60x80 is about 2" shorter than the Celestron.  The Kowa you listed indicates a main body length of about 12".  I'd be good with that.  But with the 20-60 zoom eye piece, that sucker is getting pricey.  I'm ok with spending more.  For my current spotting needs, don't need super clear and the Bushnell I was using was definitely good enough.  I am looking forward to trying out the Celestron though. 

I also have a Vortex binos in 10x.  That would be fine for the pistol range.  It was "ok" for the rifle range at 50 yards and enough mag to get a decent zero, but the added magnification helps at 100 yards and smaller group sizes. 

Vortex 20-60X60. I kind of wish I would've bought the 80mm objective model but for 20% more not too sure. It does everything I need it to do but the 80 would've probably been brighter, easier to see trace and mirage. It would've been nice if it had a changeable eyepiece to a long eye relief one. I could afford the Vortex not a Kowa. I spent a few hours behind a Kowa and it is really nice!!

Ok, not exactly compact, but just not as hefty as the Celestron. 

The Konus 20-60x80 is about 2" shorter than the Celestron.  The Kowa you listed indicates a main body length of about 12".  I'd be good with that.  But with the 20-60 zoom eye piece, that sucker is getting pricey.  I'm ok with spending more.  For my current spotting needs, don't need super clear and the Bushnell I was using was definitely good enough.  I am looking forward to trying out the Celestron though. 

I also have a Vortex binos in 10x.  That would be fine for the pistol range.  It was "ok" for the rifle range at 50 yards and enough mag to get a decent zero, but the added magnification helps at 100 yards and smaller group sizes.

a Kowa with a 25 or 27 fixed mag with long eye relief is what you want. The Kowa TSN82V with a 27x LER is the most common one on the line. I've read good things about the Celestron.

Some general principles to remember, you cant fix poor quality glass and design with a bigger objective. a 65mm swaro is gonna outclass an 80mm low end vortex (as far as clarity and edge to edge crispness and CA, etc). Also, if you choose a more budget friendly spotter and plan to use it for extended periods, dont go cheap and high zoom, the eye strain will kill you and make you regret your decision. I think for compact spotters for hunting or portability, the leupold GR 12-40 is top notch as well as kowa, esp the tsn 553 that came out. Obv for your do it all spotter, id go for the trusted swaro ats sts 65. And if you need something to jus sit at the range and spot 17hmr holes at 200 yards, you can cough up the pennies and get a leica televid 80mm.

Just an example of why glass quality matters. A crazy example is, between my brother myself and pops. We could see better detail on goats at 400-800 yards better with my leica 2800com rangefinder than a cheapo vortex diamondback 8x binos. Both on a tripod.

A lot of it really depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it at kokohead then you really overbought for what you need. Hunting, long range shooting then you probably got what you needed. I have the Leupold that you looked at and it is too much for Kokohead, but I couldn’t pass up the deal my buddy gave me.

I disagree. 100 yards at Kokohead is still the same as 100 yards anywhere else. My first spotting scope was a cheap Simmons from Sports Authority. It did the job but had a poor eye relief and a yellow tinted image. If you are a casual shooter that shoots ince in awhile then perhaps a cheapie scope will do if you can tolerate the irritating nuances.
An aletrnative is a remote HD cam. Ive been playing with an open source project called EZ Wifi broadcast and its cost is less than an avg spotting scope. The remote cam is a Rasp Pi zero, Pi cam, and an Atheros wifi card. It broadcasts in 720p straight to your phone via a Rasp B+ and same wifi card.
A fork of that is better and is called Open HD with support for better cams.
Anyhoo, an alt solution to a spotting scope.

Some general principles to remember, you cant fix poor quality glass and design with a bigger objective. a 65mm swaro is gonna outclass an 80mm low end vortex (as far as clarity and edge to edge crispness and CA, etc). Also, if you choose a more budget friendly spotter and plan to use it for extended periods, dont go cheap and high zoom, the eye strain will kill you and make you regret your decision. I think for compact spotters for hunting or portability, the leupold GR 12-40 is top notch as well as kowa, esp the tsn 553 that came out. Obv for your do it all spotter, id go for the trusted swaro ats sts 65. And if you need something to jus sit at the range and spot 17hmr holes at 200 yards, you can cough up the pennies and get a leica televid 80mm.

Just an example of why glass quality matters. A crazy example is, between my brother myself and pops. We could see better detail on goats at 400-800 yards better with my leica 2800com rangefinder than a cheapo vortex diamondback 8x binos. Both on a tripod.

I hear ya on the glass quality.  For rifle scopes, I've always leaned toward the higher end side of the spectrum, but I've also looked through the whole range on other guns.  I am certainly not against spending more $$$ on a quality spotter, but I have a difficult dropping that much $$$ on something that I couldn't at least test out first.  But on the other hand that's kinda BS because I've done that with rifle scopes. . .   

I actually have a Vortex Diamondback 10x binos, but that is mostly for sporting events.  I have used it to spot for buddies at the rifle range at 50 yards and it was ok.  Definitely not a high end binos, but I thought it was pretty clear.  I have looked through higher end Vipers and Leica and they are crazy clear. 

For the Celestron that I picked up Thanksgiving weekend, that was partially an impulse buy as I noticed my Bushnell showing signs of failing.  I actually was going to get the Leupold, but the Celestron was an awesome deal.  While I would say the Bushnell was definitely "good enough" for my spotting .223 to .308 bullet holes in reactive targets in the 50 and 100 yard line, I am sure there are better spotting scopes out there.  I will definitely give the Celestron a try, but I'm thinking that I'll want a smaller one.  Not necessarily compact, but this Celestron is huge.  Like it was meant for star gazing. 

A lot of it really depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it at kokohead then you really overbought for what you need. Hunting, long range shooting then you probably got what you needed. I have the Leupold that you looked at and it is too much for Kokohead, but I couldn’t pass up the deal my buddy gave me.

Primarily Koko Head.  If I do eventually join one of two buddies hunting, I'll see if I need anything different then. 

My first spotting scope was a 20-60 and it was good for both the pistol range and rifle ranges.  The Leupold I mentioned as primarily because of the deal I found Thanksgiving weekend.  While I am ok with spending $$$ on quality gear, as you've seen many of my firearms, I am also a sucker for great deals.  Many times I am super tempted to buy something just because I know it's a great deal, and that temptation often turns into impulse buys. . .   

I heard that they don't allow Leupolds in shipping containers.  I'll hold onto it for you if you want. . .

I disagree. 100 yards at Kokohead is still the same as 100 yards anywhere else. My first spotting scope was a cheap Simmons from Sports Authority. It did the job but had a poor eye relief and a yellow tinted image. If you are a casual shooter that shoots ince in awhile then perhaps a cheapie scope will do if you can tolerate the irritating nuances.
An aletrnative is a remote HD cam. Ive been playing with an open source project called EZ Wifi broadcast and its cost is less than an avg spotting scope. The remote cam is a Rasp Pi zero, Pi cam, and an Atheros wifi card. It broadcasts in 720p straight to your phone via a Rasp B+ and same wifi card.
A fork of that is better and is called Open HD with support for better cams.
Anyhoo, an alt solution to a spotting scope.

I've seen a lot of folks doing this lately and posting videos.  Various angles, but the one that I find interesting is those USPSA/IPSC shooters that put the camera behind the target so that you can see them shooting as well as the hits (from the back of the target).  Every time I see those videos I wonder how many goobers are doing the same and shooting their cameras.

Then who was it who posted about some shotgunners either a bench or two away shooting their target stands. . .

Don't discount me as a gear snob - just wanting to save people from going down that expensive path of going with less than ideal optics and regretting it later. A good spotter will always be needed.

I've seen a lot of folks doing this lately and posting videos.  Various angles, but the one that I find interesting is those USPSA/IPSC shooters that put the camera behind the target so that you can see them shooting as well as the hits (from the back of the target).  Every time I see those videos I wonder how many goobers are doing the same and shooting their cameras.

as long as the camera not low left, I won't hit it...

as long as the camera not low left, I won't hit it...

but you don't own any...

Don't discount me as a gear snob - just wanting to save people from going down that expensive path of going with less than ideal optics and regretting it later. A good spotter will always be needed.

Totally not discounting you as a gear snob. I agree and I’m generally one who values quality gear and am accepting of the cost premium. That said, I have a few regrets along the way.

For the spotting scope, I’m good with spending more for quality. I just would like to try before I buy. I read good things about Celestron and I thought it was a decent choice for wanting a scope sooner rather than later.

Whats your ideal budget for a spotter?? We understand you want a more balanced compact spotter with approximately 60-65mm objective. I think if you throw out a relative budget some members can give you a decent list. There are a lot of brands that id trust my money on for a "blind" buy. For example, my brother had 100% faith in buying his sightron siii for his "budget" build without ever seeing one, and it does not disappoint for the sub 1k market.

as long as the camera not low left, I won't hit it...

But a black stripe and you will. 

Whats your ideal budget for a spotter?? We understand you want a more balanced compact spotter with approximately 60-65mm objective. I think if you throw out a relative budget some members can give you a decent list. There are a lot of brands that id trust my money on for a "blind" buy. For example, my brother had 100% faith in buying his sightron siii for his "budget" build without ever seeing one, and it does not disappoint for the sub 1k market.

I’d say a spotter that’s 15” max for the main body. 45 degree preferred, but flexible. Not sure on power as I haven’t looked through less power with better clarity spotting scope. So far have only used 20-60x and that has worked well. And that probably was on a crappy clarity.

Main use is 100 yard rifle range, but also use regularly at pistol range. Eventually want to use on longer distance ranges, say 100-600 yards, but won’t be often.

Budget, I’d like to stay in the 200-500 range, but I am not against going higher if it’s way better. That’s exactly what I ended up doing with the LPVO. Targeted 1500 max and ended up almost double that.

But a black stripe and you will. 

hey, i'm an equal opportunity shooter
I hit the black target, the white target, and the brown target...

hey, i'm an equal opportunity shooter
I hit the black target, the white target, and the brown target...

I would’ve thought you’re partial to orange targets. The clay variety of course 

Used the Celestron today at the pistol range. It’s very clear and much better than my previous Bushnell. Love the 45 degree eyepiece as well. I think it’s still too big and would like a slightly more compact one, but I’m overall happy with it.

I also tried out a compact (pocket sized) Swarovski 10x25 binos. They are SUPER clear. Enough magnification for the pistol range and I’m thinking of going with just that for future trips to the pistol range. It was my dad’s and looks like he bought it about 15 years ago.  Never knew he had it until I found it about a week ago. Now I know where I get my tendency for nicer optics 😝

Tried out the binos at the rifle range. A buddy was hosting some friends with his .22 rifle. The binos are impressive, but not enough for spotting those 22’s at 100 yards. So will have to stick with the spotting scope for the rifle range.