Scope Advice - please help!

[prairiemerlin]

Hello everyone,

For years now, I have owned a 90 mm Meade ETX telescope. My family bought it long ago for looking at the moon and planets. When I got into birding, I realized I needed a scope, so I took the ETX and put it on a tripod. It works fairly well, but after several years of using it, I have become extremely fed up. Here are some bad things about it:

- It is a Questar style, the eyepiece sticking 90 degrees up from one end. This means I have to have the tripod at a ridiculously low height, making it almost impossible to see over boardwalk railings, cattails, etc, which I can easily see over. This is very frustrating.

- Second of all, it has a fixed 48x eyepiece! This makes it extremely hard and frustrating to scan through loosely-distributed flocks of waders and ducks. For tightly packed, distant flocks, however, it works fine. This eyepiece also makes finding isolated ducks on water or perching birds in trees very hard. Also, finding birds that are close to the scope requires much endurance.

- The image is reversed. I normally don't have a problem with this, but when a rare bird shows up, I forget. When someone finds, say a Gyrfalcon atop a building, I get completely frustrated finding it until I remember the reversed image.

- Not only does the 90 degree eyepiece make it difficult to see over objects between the scope and the bird, it makes my neck sore. After viewing for long periods of time, my neck becomes quite sore, which is irritating. If you were wondering, I have gotten used to looking straight down; however, I would rather have a "weaker" angled scope.

- As you can imagine, this scope is very heavy. It can make my back sore after a two mile hike. (I have a Tri-pack, which is to carry my scope on my back.)

- This telescope is seriously non-weather proof; I cannot take it out even if it is just drizzling rain.

So those are the bad things. My scope works fairly well, but I can't wait for a new one. After about two weeks of looking around at various scopes, I have narrowed down my choice to two scopes: the Zeiss Diascope 65 T* FL, and the Swarovski ATS 65 HD. I like both because of their lightness and compactness among other things. An 80 mm is out of my budget, and would also be rather heavy to carry. If anyone has these scopes, how do they work, and are you satisfied with them? I have read extensive reviews on these, and I am having trouble deciding. I have looked through both models and have been impressed by them.

If I purchased one of these scopes, I would also get a zoom eyepiece. Which scope has the better zoom eyepiece? I noticed that the Zeiss has a 15-45x zoom eyepiece, and the Swarovski has a 20-60x.

Thanks everyone for reading and any advice. On one last note, I have not completely decided to get an angled scope or a straight one. I like both, especially straight through because you do not have to bend down at all. However, I have not decided and am gathering information on this subject.

[Grousemore]

After about two weeks of looking around at various scopes, I have narrowed down my choice to two scopes: the Zeiss Diascope 65 T* FL, and the Swarovski ATS 65 HD. I like both because of their lightness and compactness among other things.

Did you look through a Leica 62 Apo?

The two on your list are good scopes and my advice would be to try and find somewhere to test them side-by-side and get the one that suits you best.

Angled/straight is another personal decision that only you can decide.

Good luck, whatever you get will be a big improvement on your current 'monster' ;)

[AlanFrench]

Neil,

I used a 3.5" Questar (the astronomical version) for about a decade, so I understand your experience. The Q was great while I sat at a picnic table on the beach at camp, but it was not something to carry around. I actually owned one only because I happened across one at a price that was impossible to pass up.

For field work, I picked up a Swarovski ATS-65 HD, and I am very happy with it. I have the 20-60mm zoom and the 30x eyepiece, and find I use the zoom most of the time. I owned a Bushnell Spacemaster for many years, and absolutely hated the straight through viewing. I thought it was just horrid for birds up in the treetops or, indeed, much above eye level. I am much happier with the angled scope.

I would certainly check out the Swaro, along with the Zeiss and the Leica. Other folks may well have other suggestions to add.

Clear skies, Alan

[prairiemerlin]

I once did look through a Leica, and it was very, very nice, but I did not like it as much as the Zeiss or the Swarovski.

[raymondjohn]

Dear Niel

It has been said a thousand times before on BF but the FOV of the ziess zoom is to die for!

best wishes

raymondjohn

[prairiemerlin]

Thanks everyone for the help.

Raymondjohn, I did read a review that mentioned the FOV of the Zeiss. The one thing that is repelling me from the Zeiss is that a friend of me told me that the edges of the scope image were very blurry. I haven't found anything about this on line, and does anyone have any information on this? The things that draw me to the Swarovski follows:

- The Swarovoski seems much more armored and tough. The Zeiss, on the other hand, seems a bit more delicate.

- A review I read stated that the Swarovski had a sharper, crisper image than the Zeiss.

And in favor of the Zeiss:

- The dual focus knob seems to be a good focusing system to me.

-According to several reviews, the image of the Zeiss is extremely bright, brighter than the Swarovski.

- The FOV of the zoom eyepiece on the Zeiss is better than on the Swarovski.

Thanks again for all the help.

[Andrew Rowlands]

I noticed that the Zeiss has a 15-45x zoom eyepiece, and the Swarovski has a 20-60x.

My experience of zoom eyepieces indicates that 40-45x is about the useable limit under most UK lighting conditions.

Andy.

[henry link]

Neil.

Are you aware that the Swarovski 65mm HD is now more expensive than the Zeiss 85mm Diascope? Check the specs. The Zeiss 85mm is only a little heavier and longer than the Swaro 65. Edge fuzziness in the Zeiss zoom is confined to the lowest magnifications where its field is so wide that the area of softness would be complely outside the fields of other zooms.

[Bill Atwood]

Henry's right about the price.

I like my ATS 80 HD and haven't had a good chance to really look at the Zeiss yet, but the Zeiss 65 FL w/zoom is almost $500 less than the Swaro 65 HD w/zoom.

[Andrew Rowlands]

The Swarovoski seems much more armored and tough. The Zeiss, on the other hand, seems a bit more delicate.

I guess the $500 difference in price would mean you could afford a good stay-on case and a rigid 'travelling' case and still have enough left to buy a decent tripod Neil?

[prairiemerlin]

Where's this $500 difference coming in? The Swarovski is $1059 on the ABA website, and the Zeiss is $1099! If anything, it is cheaper!!

[Andrew Rowlands]

Where's this $500 difference coming in? The Swarovski is $1059 on the ABA website, and the Zeiss is $1099! If anything, it is cheaper!!

Give them a call in the morning Neil, check that their online prices are current - it seems that Swaro introduced a big price hike at the beginning of the month.

[Bill Atwood]

The $1059 Swarovski is the nonHD version. The HD model is $1539.

Also bear in mind that these prices don't include an eyepiece.

I'm a member of ABA and as much as I like ABA, its not high on my list of optics retialers. Most other retailers are usually substantially cheaper. (Except on most Swaro products.)

[prairiemerlin]

Ohhh, thanks for clearing that up Bill! Well... I guess the Zeiss is cheaper then. I am going to an optics store to try out some models in the next week or two, and I will tell you what I choose! I will have to buy an eyepiece, but hopefully my current tripod will work with my new scope.

[dicklynch]

Hello everyone,

For years now, I have owned a 90 mm Meade ETX telescope. My family bought it long ago for looking at the moon and planets. When I got into birding, I realized I needed a scope, so I took the ETX and put it on a tripod. It works fairly well, but after several years of using it, I have become extremely fed up. Here are some bad things about it:

- It is a Questar style, the eyepiece sticking 90 degrees up from one end. This means I have to have the tripod at a ridiculously low height, making it almost impossible to see over boardwalk railings, cattails, etc, which I can easily see over. This is very frustrating.

- Second of all, it has a fixed 48x eyepiece! This makes it extremely hard and frustrating to scan through loosely-distributed flocks of waders and ducks. For tightly packed, distant flocks, however, it works fine. This eyepiece also makes finding isolated ducks on water or perching birds in trees very hard. Also, finding birds that are close to the scope requires much endurance.

- The image is reversed. I normally don't have a problem with this, but when a rare bird shows up, I forget. When someone finds, say a Gyrfalcon atop a building, I get completely frustrated finding it until I remember the reversed image.

- Not only does the 90 degree eyepiece make it difficult to see over objects between the scope and the bird, it makes my neck sore. After viewing for long periods of time, my neck becomes quite sore, which is irritating. If you were wondering, I have gotten used to looking straight down; however, I would rather have a "weaker" angled scope.

- As you can imagine, this scope is very heavy. It can make my back sore after a two mile hike. (I have a Tri-pack, which is to carry my scope on my back.)

- This telescope is seriously non-weather proof; I cannot take it out even if it is just drizzling rain.

So those are the bad things. My scope works fairly well, but I can't wait for a new one. After about two weeks of looking around at various scopes, I have narrowed down my choice to two scopes: the Zeiss Diascope 65 T* FL, and the Swarovski ATS 65 HD. I like both because of their lightness and compactness among other things. An 80 mm is out of my budget, and would also be rather heavy to carry. If anyone has these scopes, how do they work, and are you satisfied with them? I have read extensive reviews on these, and I am having trouble deciding. I have looked through both models and have been impressed by them.

If I purchased one of these scopes, I would also get a zoom eyepiece. Which scope has the better zoom eyepiece? I noticed that the Zeiss has a 15-45x zoom eyepiece, and the Swarovski has a 20-60x.

Thanks everyone for reading and any advice. On one last note, I have not completely decided to get an angled scope or a straight one. I like both, especially straight through because you do not have to bend down at all. However, I have not decided and am gathering information on this subject.


Niel,

Have you looked at the Pentax PF-65? Very very light, and you should be able to get it for arounf $700.00.

Dick

[prairiemerlin]

I have eliminated the Swarovski ATS 65 mm HD as it is too expensive. However, after browsing, I have found the Kowa 663, which also seems very good. Does any one have experience with the Kowa 663? The price is certainly better.

[John Russell]

Neil,
I have been using a straight Zeiss Diascope 65 for the past couple of months and am very satisfied with it. I had a chance to compare all 3 eyepieces and opted for the 23x. The Zeiss zoom eyepiece is undoubtedly one of the best but at 15x the edge sharpness leaves something to be desired and the true fov is about the same as the 23x fixed. At 45x the exit pupil is only 1,4mm so is not very bright. OK I'm prejudiced against zooms - too many air/glass surfaces and compromises in optical quality.
IMHO the decision straight or angled is a catch 22 situation. It's more difficult to find and follow the bird with an angled scope but if you are above average height a suitable tripod for a straight scope will be disproportionately heavy and expensive.
I already owned an old Gitzo tripod, which with 3D head weighs nearly 6kg and is something of a mismatch for the little Diascope 65. It's a pain to lug around but it goes high and is very stable.
I was out birding at the weekend looking at various grebes and waders and an experienced ornithologist in the group had brought along his angled Diascope 85 complete with zoom and carbon fibre tripod. The whole combination weighed about half as much as mine but the tripod, even at the lower height, was prone to vibration and with my straight scope I was quicker on the bird.
Hope this hasn't confused you even more. You really have to try out all the options yourself.

John

[Tero]

..with my straight scope I was quicker on the bird
I somehow favor the straight ones too. More of a binocular type of experience. But for sharing the view, angled works good.

[raymondjohn]

Dear Brown Creeper

It is true that the edges at x15 mag on the zoom are soft but to my way of thinking if you are looking for seabirds in a turbulent ocean any glimpse even in a soft edge at least gives you a chance to use the zoom. This I reckon allows you to cover more area. Again I think a similiar edge is given when scoping shorebirds and waders.

Having said this any of the top scopes are good and try before you buy if that is possible.

best wishes

raymondjohn

[henry link]

It's true that the Zeiss zoom has a lot of glass to air surfaces (10), but the 23x has almost as many (8). I use both and contrary to my expectations have found the zoom to actually be a little brighter when set to 23X. Loss of brightness and sharpness at high magnification is inevitable in any scope. In the Zeiss scopes (and others with excellent zooms like the Swarovskis and Nikon Fieldscopes)it's the objective lens that's now the limiting factor at high magnification rather than the zoom eyepiece.

[John Russell]

Henry,
I can't really understand how the transmission of the zoom eyepiece at 23x mag could be higher than that of the fixed eyepiece. I'm sure you would agree that the edge sharpness of the 23x eyepiece is pretty good and that its fov is greater than the zoom at the same mag.
I am not an amateur astronomer but have found some of the articles on Cloudy Nights very interesting. It would seem that many planetary and lunar observers are willing to sacrifice fov in favour of transmission, contrast and freedom from distortion and are using eyepieces such as plössls, orthoscopics or monocentrics with only 4 or 2 glass/air surfaces.
I don't know if these principles are valid for birding scopes, after all there are many differences, but I intend to experiment with an astronomical eyepiece on my Diascope and will report on the results.

Regards,

John

[dipped]

Hi Neil, have you completely ruled out Swaro ATS65 as there is one for sale on BF classifieds at £675 ono. Even with shipping to USA could be a bargain.

I have one with a zoom and I think it is a very well thought out scope and it is an advantage to be able to zoom to 60x providing weather conditions permit.

Just a thought. I have no connection to the seller.

[AlanFrench]

Henry,
I can't really understand how the transmission of the zoom eyepiece at 23x mag could be higher than that of the fixed eyepiece. I'm sure you would agree that the edge sharpness of the 23x eyepiece is pretty good and that its fov is greater than the zoom at the same mag.
I am not an amateur astronomer but have found some of the articles on Cloudy Nights very interesting. It would seem that many planetary and lunar observers are willing to sacrifice fov in favour of transmission, contrast and freedom from distortion and are using eyepieces such as plössls, orthoscopics or monocentrics with only 4 or 2 glass/air surfaces.
I don't know if these principles are valid for birding scopes, after all there are many differences, but I intend to experiment with an astronomical eyepiece on my Diascope and will report on the results.

Regards,

John

John,

With modern glasses and coatings I wouldn't fret much about light transmission in multi-element eyepieces. I have a photo of 20 three element telescope objectives set up in a row. You can see through the elements and beyond the elements, and the view through them is not all that much dimmer.

Generally, multi-element eyepieces can provide better correction over a wider field, and, of course, higher prices.

Clear skies, Alan

[John Russell]

John,

With modern glasses and coatings I wouldn't fret much about light transmission in multi-element eyepieces. I have a photo of 20 three element telescope objectives set up in a row. You can see through the elements and beyond the elements, and the view through them is not all that much dimmer.

Generally, multi-element eyepieces can provide better correction over a wider field, and, of course, higher prices.

Clear skies, Alan

Alan,

You are, no doubt, right on the issue of transmission. The human eye is probably incapable of perceiving differences in brightness of less than 20%.

However, I wonder if all the multiple half-wave reflections at the air/glass surfaces of multi-element eyepieces end up where their designer intended and don't result in a loss of contrast compared to plössls, orthoscopics etc.

Regards.

John

[henry link]

You are, no doubt, right on the issue of transmission. The human eye is probably incapable of perceiving differences in brightness of less than 20%.

However, I wonder if all the multiple half-wave reflections at the air/glass surfaces of multi-element eyepieces end up where their designer intended and don't result in a loss of contrast compared to plössls, orthoscopics etc.

John,

I also have a keen interest in eyepiece light transmission. The www.apm-telescopes.de website used to post the results of eyepiece transmission tests of a large number eyepieces. Transmission was measured at many different wavelengths. Peak transmission in the best simple eyepieces was above 98%. In complex eyepieces it ranged from the upper 80's to the mid 90's. I've subjectively compared many of the same eyepieces. I've found that I can detect transmission differences of as little as 2-3%. Differences of 5-10% are very obvious in a side by side comparison. The highest transmission eyepieces I own are TMB Monocentrics, A Zeiss A-16 Orthoscopic and a Zeiss 25mm 3-element aspheric, all above 98%. The Zeiss aspheric is much brighter and higher contrast than the Zeiss Diascope zoom set at 25mm. The brightest complex eyepieces I've found are the Swarovski and Nikon spotting scope eyepieces which are surprisingly close to the performance of simple eyepieces. The Zeiss Diascope eyepieces appear to me to be slightly dimmer and lower contrast than those. IMO among "premium" multi-coated eyepieces some of the lowest transmission complex eyepieces are the Televue Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians.

[prairiemerlin]

I ordered the Zeiss yesterday. I decided to get angled, since my dad and I bird together a lot, and he's only a foot or two taller than me! I also got the zoom eyepiece. I can't wait till it comes...

[John Russell]

John,

I also have a keen interest in eyepiece light transmission. The www.apm-telescopes.de website used to post the results of eyepiece transmission tests of a large number eyepieces. Transmission was measured at many different wavelengths. Peak transmission in the best simple eyepieces was above 98%. In complex eyepieces it ranged from the upper 80's to the mid 90's. I've subjectively compared many of the same eyepieces. I've found that I can detect transmission differences of as little as 2-3%. Differences of 5-10% are very obvious in a side by side comparison. The highest transmission eyepieces I own are TMB Monocentrics, A Zeiss A-16 Orthoscopic and a Zeiss 25mm 3-element aspheric, all above 98%. The Zeiss aspheric is much brighter and higher contrast than the Zeiss Diascope zoom set at 25mm. The brightest complex eyepieces I've found are the Swarovski and Nikon spotting scope eyepieces which are surprisingly close to the performance of simple eyepieces. The Zeiss Diascope eyepieces appear to me to be slightly dimmer and lower contrast than those. IMO among "premium" multi-coated eyepieces some of the lowest transmission complex eyepieces are the Televue Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians.

Henry,
Thank you for those observations. It tends to confirm my suspicions that the simpler designs offer superior transmission and contrast, though usually at the cost of fov and eye relief, in the shorter focal lengths.
I have just obtained an 11mm Televue Plössl for my Diascope 65. It is just an experiment and too early to pass judgement but I do not think it will enjoy a lot of use. Brightness comparisons with the 16,7mm (23x) Zeiss eyepiece are, of course, senseless.
Astronomers seem to regard the eyepiece as half the telescope.
It seems to me a very simplistic approach, when birding scopes are tested and evaluated on the qualities of their dedicated zoom eyepieces, even if this is the combination bought by many birders.

Regards,

John

PS: Neil, congratulations on the purchase of your Diascope. I am sure you will be more than satisfied.