what are the conclusions?

some days i see better than others. regards,ben

Look at this....
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links);
for a reasonable explanation of the folded light path used in the SCT and the MCT. The SCT is designed to be user/owner collimatible, (aligned optically), and this is a daunting task if you are not familiar with how it is done. The MCT, although it can be collimated, is not designed for the owner to do this and will generally remain aligned for several lifetimes. Overall the MCT supplies the most bang for the buck in telescopes.
With the SCT and the MCT you must purchase eyepieces but this is a minor
expense.
Comments on binoculars: Quality binoculars are hard to beat under most circumstances, but are not truly a replacement for a high powered spotting scope. Binoculars supply visual
information in the format your brain is accustomed to receiving it, from two eyes. And please note that I said **quality** binoculars. Trying to utilize a $29 set of binoculars is folly because I have handled almost every set of binoculars on the market and what you need is not generally available at that price. Any of you that have paid for that 'lifetime dream' hunting trip and then tried to use $29 binoculars all day will know of the intense headache cheap binoculars will cause.
Optical alignment, (collimation), of the two binocular tubes and all optical elements within the tubes cannot be understated. My preference in binoculars is the Pentax PCF series, starting at ~$195. Look for binoculars with individually adjustable eyepiece diopter, (that small + or - visual correction you see in eyeglasses), for the ultimate in viewing comfort.
High quality binoculars are a lifetime investment and can be some of the best money you will ever spend. The Pentax line has all the features I outlined and is guaranteed for life, even if you weigh 220 lbs and sit upon them. (Please don't ask how I know about the validity of the Pentax guarantee, it embarrasses me.) 10X binoculars can be hand held but any higher magnification is difficult, (damned near impossible to hand hold), but for very young, steady, muscles.
Check 'eye relief' with any viewing aid you are interested in. Eye relief is critical and is the distance from your eye to the eyepiece. If you have only a diopter, (magnification or the lack
thereof), correction, that visual problem can be corrected with system focus and you can remove your glasses for viewing. But if you have even moderate astigmatism you will be forced to wear corrective lenses nearly all the time, and this is where 'eye relief' becomes critical. If you wear corrective lenses check the distance from the front of your glasses to the surface of your eyeball. You will find that this distance is probably 15mm to 17mm and is the 'eye relief' so ~15mm minimum, is critical. If you do not have sufficient 'eye relief' you will find that you are limiting the field of view, (looking through a garden hose), as you move your eye away from the eyepiece.



You have a knockout scope in the Celestron(80). Every person that has ever looked through any of my Celestron scopes wants to know about getting one I have turned dozens of people on to the fairly priced Celestron scopes over the years.
I use several Celestron telescopes including an ED 100mm as shown (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) I also have a C90 that is perhaps 10 years old and is shown in the same section. The drawback with the Maksutov type telescope is the requirement to purchase eyepieces but two of those will do almost everything you could need and are available for ~$20 each.
And a conventional spotting scope from Celestron is available and shown in the same area. I have absolutely nothing against Nikon, Zeiss, Swarovski, Pentax or Kowa except the outrageous price for these scopes. If nothing but spending $600 to $2500 will make you happy then, by all means, get one of those listed in the previous sentence. But I challenge any one to show me the difference in a $2000 Zeiss and a $200 Celestron.
The largest optical manufacturing facilities in the world are part of SYNTA in China and it won't be long until all optics are made there.

 
Should I get the 80 series, or would the 65 series do as well for what I need? Anything else I need to take into account?

Hi:
The 65mm, (obj diameter), should do everything you need. Where the 80mm obj comes into play is for some very beginning astronomical observing. The 80mm Celestron is nearly $50 more than the 65mm and offers only 5X more magnification. I have found that higher magnifications are nearly useless in bright daylight due to thermal instability.
The Celestrons are the optical equivalent of a Zeiss, Nikon, Kowa etc and the price is a whole lot more agreeable.
I have the 100mm Celestron and feel it offers little more than the 65mm.

I finally checked my replies to you and find that I did not mention the conventional spotter that I use. I have the Celestron 100mm Ultima for a conventional type spotter. It is the closest thing I have ever found to my 100mm Unertl Team Spotter, and appears to be a nearly direct optical copy.
A point regarding zoom optics. There are some zoom setups/lenses that indicate greater than 3:1 range. It is my opinion, (yeah, I know, everybody has one), that exceeding this range produces some undesirable effects. Stay with the 3:1 zoom range when selecting a telescope of any type.

Multi-coated optics? The Russians still use the very finest mercury and rare earth based
multi-coating materials that have been discontinued for environmental reasons in the rest of the world. I guess the Russians don't care if their citizens are born with two heads.
The spotting scopes that I mentioned and that I use, (just the smaller range of astronomical telescopes), are made by LOMO. This telescope line is often compared to the very highly regarded Questar that is fabricated entirely in the US of A.
Take a look (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) and scroll down the page to "The Astele 95" and read the comment regarding comparison to the Questar. High end Russian, (really the former USSR), optics must be seen to be believed. The view of the "Pleiades", (Messier 45), (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) through my simple LOMO Maksutov Cassegrain Telescope, (MCT), is something that I never tire of. The brilliant blue stars, and surrounding blue shaded dust have a very high 'wow' factor.
LOMO is a mnemonic for Leningrad Optical and Machine Company. A walk around
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) will display the range of products available from this respected company.
The import of LOMO telescopes is in some stage of cutback at this time so if you want one it would be best to check on the availability. Even the Russians cannot compete with the cheapest from China. My beloved American made 'Celestron' Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope, (SCT), has been redesigned and is now manufactured by SYNTA in China.
You have the choice of a $900 Kowa, (a very fine spotting telescope), or a $120 LOMO. And I absolutely >>defy<< and challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference. The finest optical test benches in the world will put the LOMO ahead of the best from Zeiss, Kowa, Nippon Kogaku

Spotting scopes at 100 yards "see" the -2, -1 and infrequently, the 0 displays. Each display or set of views has six different sized view. Here's the -2

And the smallest seen to date "0".