OK, I confess - I can’t see fish. I’ve tried all the polarized lenses there are, and maybe once in a blue moon, but it would be more fun if I could see more - does anyone ever use a spotting scope? If so, what specs should I look for?
While not a spotting scope, I do carry at times a pair of 8X25Nikon Travel Lite. A buddy of mine uses a Brunton monocular.
Isn’t a spotting scope used for long distance viewing? Maybe I 'm misunderstanding. Are you trying to see fish near you as within 10 plus or minus feet?. If that’s the case, polorized lenses are the answer. And then again, maybe there AIN’T NO FISH WHERE YOU’RE LOOKIN! 
Mark
Smith Optics are the best lenses to see the fish in the water. If they’re there, that is. A spotting scope is used for viewing wildlife from a distance, or gauging range. A spotting scope won’t necessarily allow you to see fish, but it will help you see the Bald Eagle in the nest a few hundred yards out.
herefishy,
I wear a pair of 6x30 Steiner Marine binocs around my neck at all times while fishing, big game hunting & just out for a jaunt with the dogs. I like these binocs, because they are just short of being too bulky, have enough viewing power, and aren’t too heavy. I tried some of the real compact binocs, and they give me a headache, and I don’t get headaches!! YMMV of course! I can watch a fly or fish very close up or a mink working the far bank. I check out fish working close to the far bank under overhanging branches as well as all manner of birds and swimming snakes. I would be lost without them.
Best regards, Dave S.
Although my eyes aren’t the best in the world, I don’t have trouble seeing fish. I think that in part it is a skill that’s honed by practise and experience as much as anything. And, I agree with luckie88’s comment about having good polarized sunglasses - I’m not sure whether or not Smith Optics are the best, but they’ve worked well for me for a couple decades. In my opinion, however, even with practise, experience and the best glasses, there are many people whose eyesight just isn’t good enough to spot fish. In my opinion, further magnification isn’t going to be much help for them.
That being said, I have a pair of Swarovski EL 10x42 binoculars that I use from time to time. I think that Swarovski is generally considered to be among the best, as far as optics, and among the most pricey! However, I use them more to see insects on the water or in the air that I can’t see with my naked eyes, than to help seeing fish. But, I have from time to time used them to confirm what I thought were rising fish at a long distance - over 100 yds away. At that distance though, using the binoculars to spot rising fish is more of a curiosity than anything, because you’re better off in my opinion just trying to get closer - you can’t catch them at that distance! There may be times when binoculars might be a help in spotting fish - such as on placid spring-type creeks, for example - but they really haven’t been much of a help to me on the faster moving water where I do much of my fishing these days.
My 10x42’s are right at the upper edge of hand helds, and anything more powerful than that and you’d probably also need a tripod, at at least something to support them. Even mine get a bit shaky sometimes, and I have to rest them on something. And if I really want to zero in on something, I can replace the eye pieces on mine with ones that have rubber side shields which block out distracting light coming in around the edges.
After saying all of that, however, I should have asked the question: why do you think you need to see fish? If you know where they should be, know what they should be eating, and can put the right fly in the right place at the right time, shouldn’t that be sufficient to catch them?
You can see them when you take them off the hook, can’t you?
I certainly agree that you do not need to see fish to catch them.
But when conditions are right and you can sight fish, there is not a bigger rush than sighting and catching trout or any sport fish.
A good pair of polarized glasses and practiced patience in spotting fish goes a long way in helping achieve this.
The fish I’m trying to see are the ones a guide or someone next to me says “See! right over there~cast right above him”. I guess you’re right about it taking practice - I’m always in too much of a hurry to start flailing away to practice. The monocular? Maybe that is what I was thinking of as a spotting scope. What specs should it have for, say 10-20 feet?
Fish are masters at camoflage. Unless you are looking for steel head or salmon in thin water - who don’t really worry about Kingfishers and Ospreys - you won’t see much because they are trying very hard not to be seen. It’s kinda like deer hunting. Look for movement. There are billions of half buried snags that look just like fish except they don’t move. But, as previously stated, you have to know where to look. Like at the top of a slot just upstream of where the sand starts on the bottom. A snag that moves. The twitch of a tail. And patience. But then, that is probably where you would have drifted a fly through anyway.
Bob
I think I am only average at spotting fish - that aren’t rising. I have done better when I have looked for the shadow of a fish than when looking for an actual fish. Also I sometimes see a fish when I recognize that the water has (for a second) changed its rhythm - over a period of about 2 minutes you can detect the rhythm of a secton of water even if it is gurgling.
If someone else can see the fish (not rising) underwater, then you should too, magnification will probably make it harder to do so.
As far as optics are concerned, when I am on a larger river I carry an inexpensive, small pair of binoculars. For the most part this allows me to determine whether that ripple I see (just a little too far away) is a fish rising or a strand of grass (or weed) which occasionally disturbs the surface. Or if the flurry upstream is a hatch (or spinner fall) or just my imagination. IMO they are only good for looking at thing in the air, not in the water. And they are not any help in determining specific bugs.
Seems to me you’d need polarization on the monocular/scope or you’d just end up with a closer view of a lot of glare off the water. Do they make these with the proper optics?
Regards,
Scott
My friend has an 8 power. I don’t know enough about monoculars to answer your question. You can contact http://www.binoculars.com or http://www.opticsplant.com I have gotten excellent responses when I was looking for a new pair of binos.
I like to take my spotting scope with me every time I go out. I started taking it with me ever since I saw Mountain Goats on a rock outcropping on the St. Joe River in Idaho. I wanted to get a closer look but couldn’t. Wouldn’t you know, I never saw any more goats since I started using it. I use it for all forms of wildlife except fish. Can’t see where it would do much good looking for fish.
A spotting scope would be totally useless for spotting fish…especially if you can’t spot them as it is. It takes a long time to learn how to see fish. The best way is to go down to the river and just sit there. Forget the fly rod. Just sit and watch. Also learn where fish hold in water. This will help you to look in the right places. Get a good pair of Polaroid glasses. Start by finding a higher vantage place. Once you’ve learned to see fish from above, then work you way down to the water. Learn to look for windows of smooth water, to look through. Look for shadows that move. Sun helps in the learning…but eventually you’ll learn to see them on cloudy days too. Open mouths flash white. Fish rolling for a nymph, flash there bellies…etc. Just go down with a beer and a chair and watch.
*** Start with your ears and listen.
You said you have tried Polarized lenses. As did I. However, I got some good (read that -expensive) glasses that have magnetically attached polarized sun glasses and they are far superior to all the “fit over” and “clip ons” I tried previously. My glasses are so heavily polarized I can not see the screen of my hand-held GPS with them on. My underwater vision went from vague shadows to distinct features of the fish. And while they were costly, I would spend the $ again without any hesitation.
Budd, what is the brand of your glasses? Do they come with the sunglasses included, or did you buy the sun glasses separate?
On the topic of polarized sun glasses - I too have purchased ‘normal’ glasses for everyday wear that are a brand that have BOTH grey and brown/amber polarized magnetic clip-ons. Grey for driving and normal use, but brn/amber for fishing. Brn cuts the blue-green out of the water/image so you can see deeper. Grey does not work for this.
So maybe next pair of prescription sunglasses should be brown/amber - have to try that.
The brand is Takumi and the magnetic sunglasses option is called Easyclip. They are the most heavily polarized lenses I have ever found.
And no, the frames came with the sunglasses.
I used brown/amber for a number of years but switched to copper last year; liked them a lot better. Don’t know if they make them in prescription.
Regards,
Scott