ED or non-ED. that is the question

[Theophilus]

Hello all, I am new to the forum, but have been birding now for about 8 years.

I have pretty much decided on the Nikon FS65 III, and am trying to decide whether or not I REALLY need to spring for the ED, especially since it practically doubles the price of the scope.

I plan to get the straight-thru model, to cut down as much as possible on light loss and image degradation, as well as use the 40x or the 30x WF eye pieces (to start) for the same reason.

What's the experiencial wisdom on the difference between ED and non-?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

Ted

[Bill Atwood]

You probably will regret not having it. More so at higher powers.

[kabsetz]

If you are even considering getting the straight-through model instead of the angled for reasons of improved optical quality, you really MUST take the ED model. Of course, the best way for you to tell is to put the two side-by-side and compare for yourself. The difference is quite obvious.

On the other hand, with the type of Schmitt prism Nikon uses in the angled fieldscopes, you do not compromise on quality by taking it instead of the straight-through model. Actually, you migt find it better. This is because Nikon's angled prism only uses total reflection surfaces, thus needing no silvered or aluminized surfaces, and since it is a single solid piece of glass, consequently only having two glass/air surfaces. A straight-through porroprism scope has two prisms, hence four glass-air surfaces, and the angled versions of Leica's 77mm and Swarovski's older AT series have three prisms. Zeiss and Swarovskis ATS have started using a prism similar to the Nikon. I have tested a fair number of Nikon scopes, and am yet to find a single one where the visible image quality flaws would have been traceable to the prism. If the objective is good, the Fieldscope's angled prism is capable of conveying a crisp image at 75x and even beyond. Note, however, that in the Spotting Scope series, Nikon uses a different prism construction, and with these the straight-through model is very likely better.

Kimmo

[Theophilus]

Kimmo--thanks for the information! :clap:

To clarify what you said; the angled scope is actually better than the straight-thru model due to fewer glass-to-air surfaces. This is great.

(Again, talking about the Fieldscope III 60mm, with fixed power, WA eyepieces)
So, do you think that I would still see the noticeable difference of the ED model over the non in the angled version? If so, do you think it is a $400 difference? That is the big factor; that's a lot of money for me, and if the non-ED model (angled) is 95% or even 90% of the ED model, it might not be worth it to me.

Also, I am using Nikon 8x32 SE binos, just for reference.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond above, because it would be rather difficult for me to actually do a side-by-side comparison.

Thanks again!

Ted

[Jane Turner]

ED... for sure

[scampo]

Hello all, I am new to the forum, but have been birding now for about 8 years.

I have pretty much decided on the Nikon FS65 III, and am trying to decide whether or not I REALLY need to spring for the ED, especially since it practically doubles the price of the scope.

I plan to get the straight-thru model, to cut down as much as possible on light loss and image degradation, as well as use the 40x or the 30x WF eye pieces (to start) for the same reason.

What's the experiencial wisdom on the difference between ED and non-?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

TedI think there is no greater light loss through either model - both use prisms, I think. The days of "prismless" scope designs seem long gone (I might stand corrected on that - but not on the light loss).

The 30xW is a superb eyepiece to put with the scope - as is the 38x. BTW, I didn't know Nikon made an FSIII 65mm objective - isn't it 60mm?

[Swissboy]

What's the experiencial wisdom on the difference between ED and non-?
Ted

I know, it's a lot of money, and at first you might not really think there is such a big difference. But if you can afford it at all, and you would not have considered the ED otherwise, I also suggest the ED. If you go for the cheaper version now, you might still want to switch later on, which makes for a much greater overall expense. This way, you'll be comfortable knowing this is as good as you can possibly get it. And it's not just about which features you might still be able to barely recognize, it's about how much you'll ENJOY what you can see!

Robert

[henry link]

....On the other hand, with the type of Schmitt prism Nikon uses in the angled fieldscopes, you do not compromise on quality by taking it instead of the straight-through model.....

Kimmo

Kimmo,
Do you know if this prism uses a roof, and how many internal reflections are involved?

Ted,
I agree with everyone else. ED is the way to go. The better the prism the more the advantages of ED will be evident. IMO non-ED is subjectively about 80% of the image quality of ED at 20X, 50% at 60X.

Henry

[pluvanut]

Kimmo--thanks for the information! :clap:

To clarify what you said; the angled scope is actually better than the straight-thru model due to fewer glass-to-air surfaces. This is great.

(Again, talking about the Fieldscope III 60mm, with fixed power, WA eyepieces)
So, do you think that I would still see the noticeable difference of the ED model over the non in the angled version? If so, do you think it is a $400 difference? That is the big factor; that's a lot of money for me, and if the non-ED model (angled) is 95% or even 90% of the ED model, it might not be worth it to me.

Also, I am using Nikon 8x32 SE binos, just for reference.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond above, because it would be rather difficult for me to actually do a side-by-side comparison.

Thanks again!

Ted

Hi Ted,
Your mention of SE bins clinches it. I came axctly the same route, using SE 8 x 32.
My first serious scope was FSIII (straight) + 30xW. It is a very good tool, but after about 6 months, I realised that I had been 'hunting' for sharp focus and 'bite' in the image like the SE.
I looked at FSIIIED and could see it was obviously closer to SE image quality than ordinary glass with my existing 30x.
Don't mess about, buy ED from scratch. I am willing to bet thet you will want to before long and going via a non-ED first is an expensive excercise.
At this level of quality, all visible differences are costly, but ED is the icing on the cake and IMO a pleasure not be missed.
Health warning - ED brought thoughts of 20-60 zoom, which is another honey and these nice people on BF (some of whom have posted to this thread already) are no help at all when you are trying to save money!

Go for it!

Happy birding :-)

Edit: I wouldn't worry over much about straight/angled for quality; take your pick. ED is a much bigger issue.