Nikon Eyepieces (1 Viewer)

Avron · Jun 15, 2004

Hello everyone,

Steve has indicated in strong terms that the 30x eyepiece for the Fieldscope III ED is wonderful. Has anyone had the opportunity to use either the 40x or 60x fixed, wide angle eyepieces on the Fieldscope III ED? If so, I would be grateful for your impressions.

Thanks.

Avron

jad29 · Jun 15, 2004

I have the 30x and 50x for the 82mm ed, that should be the 24x and 40x in the 60mm scope. I find both of them equally great, just a sacrafice with the fov and brightness for increased power. In the 82 the 50x is plenty bright even approaching dusk. I also have the older model 75x, it is a pretty dark view, and does not seem to resolve much more than the 50x, but hard to excpect much at that small of a exit pupil.

Jad

dogfish · Jun 15, 2004

I have the 40 wide old-style eyepiece (rubber eyecups, not fully multicoated) which I've used with my EDIIIA. It's not half as good as the 30x; not sure whether it's the drop in brightness, but just seems a bit 'soft' in comparison with the lower-powered eyepieces. Of course the new MC eyepieces should be an improvement, but haven't tried them.
Sean

william j clive · Jun 15, 2004

I have the 60/75x WA MC that I use on a 78ED. I used to have the old 60/75x, that was a tiny eyepiece that gave quite dark images. The new one is a big improvement on the old, though the images are darker than, say a 30/40x.

It is an eyepiece well worth having, and has been very useful on distant birds.
Once on a twitch a queue formed to look at a distant bird on a cliff when nobody else could get more than 60x on their scopes.

Clive

henry link · Jun 16, 2004

The various Nikon WA eyepieces are actually all the same basic eyepiece, which is why they all have the same apparent field and eye relief. The 30X, 40X and 60X(in the 60mm scope) add Barlow elements with different magnification factors to the front of the 24X eyepiece to produce higher power in the telescope. Whatever image deterioration is encountered at higher powers doesn't come from the eyepieces which are actually capable of better performance than the objective lens and prisms in the telescope will allow .

scampo · Jun 16, 2004

Avron said:
Hello everyone,

Steve has indicated in strong terms that the 30x eyepiece for the Fieldscope III ED is wonderful. Has anyone had the opportunity to use either the 40x or 60x fixed, wide angle eyepieces on the Fieldscope III ED? If so, I would be grateful for your impressions.

Thanks.

Avron

There has been a recent review in the highly regarded Finnish Alula magazine that speaks very highly of the 50x and 60x fixed Nikon eyepieces. The 38xW (on the ED78/82) is, unquestionably, a superb eyepiece.

Avron · Jun 17, 2004

Thanks, everyone, for the feedback and the interesting information. Based on what I’ve learned here, I intend to call Nikon in Toronto and ask whether they would be amenable to providing me with eyepieces to look through if I bring my scope to them. I am especially interested in seeing the difference between the 20-60x zoom (the eyepiece I currently use) at higher powers and the 40x and 60x eyepieces. I’ll let you know what I discover.

Avron

scampo · Jun 17, 2004

It will be interesting to hear from you later!

Hermann · Jun 17, 2004

Avron said:
Based on what I’ve learned here, I intend to call Nikon in Toronto and ask whether they would be amenable to providing me with eyepieces to look through if I bring my scope to them. I am especially interested in seeing the difference between the 20-60x zoom (the eyepiece I currently use) at higher powers and the 40x and 60x eyepieces.

Well, from what I've seen I reckon you'll find the wideangles somewhat easier to use than the zoom. With the wideangles the placement of the eye is clearly easier, and to me the zoom with its tubelike view often doesn't "feel" quite right.

Optically I don't think there's much between them. The zoom is excellent optically. It's so good that I decided not to get the high power wideangles. I've got two fixed eyepieces (24x in the old style and a 30x MC) that I only use on special occasions when I need a wide field of view more than the versatility of the zoom.

Hermann

scampo · Jun 18, 2004

I agree the view of the Nikon is narrower than some others at the lower magnifications around 25x but its fov increases as the zoom range is increased. Although I prefer the relatively ultra-wide view offered by the Zeiss, I really don't find the Nikon so very different from other top makes in this respect. Are you referring to the new 25-75x MCII eyepiece?

Hermann · Jun 18, 2004

scampo said:
I agree the view of the Nikon is narrower than some others at the lower magnifications around 25x but its fov increases as the zoom range is increased. Although I prefer the relatively ultra-wide view offered by the Zeiss, I really don't find the Nikon so very different from other top makes in this respect. Are you referring to the new 25-75x MCII eyepiece?

Yes, I do. I haven't got the specifications at hand, but from what I recall both Nikon zooms start off with the same field of view. At low magnifications they're in my opinion both tubelike; at higher magnifications this effect decreases somewhat. But their field of view is never anywhere near that of the Nikon wideangles.

However, the convenience of the zooms (and even the "old" zoom isn't *that* bad up to about 40x, over 40x the image quality degrades somewhat) is usually more important to me than a large field of view. I mainly use my 24x and my 30x for raptor watching and in confined spaces where a large field of view is more important than the ability to switch magnifications. But even at coastal migration spots I tend to use the zoom most of the time.

The Zeiss .... well, I find the contrast isn't quite as good as that of my ED IIIA. But I'm tempted to get the Diascope 65 some day just because of the zoom. The difference in the field of view is quite astonishing. Unfortunately that'll have to wait because I bought a Zeiss Mono 20x60S last autumn. OK, it was well below the recommended retail price, but these optical toys aren't cheap ...

)

Hermann

scampo · Jun 19, 2004

Your experience mirrors mine. I'm lucky, too, in being able to use a Zeiss 85 (zoom + 30xW), a Nikon 82 (zoom + 30xW) and a Swaro 65 (zoom).

Your comment regarding the contrast with the Zeiss is interesting. Certainly, the Nikon scopes - both EDIII and ED82 - appear on initial use to have slightly more obvious levels of contrast, but after extended use, the issue becomes less clear for in use as a birding scope, I do not find that the Zeiss lacks contrast in any meaningful way at all. What I believe is the case is that the Zeiss has a slightly yellow colour cast (never distracting and helpful in some lighting situations), the Nikon has a slightly reddish cast (immediately impressive as offering a very faithful image) and the Swaro has a slightly blue colour cast (useful in certain lighting conditions, and initially suggestive of near neutrality).

For me (and many of those who have tried out my Zeiss with its zoom), the balance falls distinctly in its favour simply because, all other qualities being more or less equal, the extraordinarily wide field of view of its zoom eyepiece is a genuine plus point when in the field looking for those often illusive little blighters called birds!

In terms of 'tube-like' views, it is an odd thing, but when lined up next to the Zeiss, even the Swaro exhibits this effect at lower magnifications.

Hermann · Jun 19, 2004

scampo said:
Your comment regarding the contrast with the Zeiss is interesting. Certainly, the Nikon scopes - both EDIII and ED82 - appear on initial use to have slightly more obvious levels of contrast, but after extended use, the issue becomes less clear for in use as a birding scope, I do not find that the Zeiss lacks contrast in any meaningful way at all. <snip>
In terms of 'tube-like' views, it is an odd thing, but when lined up next to the Zeiss, even the Swaro exhibits this effect at lower magnifications.

With regard to the contrast of the the Zeiss you may well be right. I didn't have a chance to use the Zeiss for any extended period of time yet, and contrast isn't something that's easy to judge when you compare high quality optics because the differences - if any - are pretty small and depend to some extent also on the prevailing light.

The tubelike view - well, most zooms (with the notable exception of the Zeiss) have a tubelike view in my opion, especially at low magnifications. However, with the Nikon it seems me to be more pronounced, possibly because the eye placement seems me to be more critical with the Nikon zoom than with, say, the Leica or the Swarovski zooms. In fact, I find the old Nikon zoom somewhat easier to use than the new one in that respect.

But like I said before - all this is pretty subjective. There are far too many variables that come into this, such as physiological differences between different observers and so on.

Hermann

scampo · Jun 19, 2004

Again - my feelings mirror yours. The Nikon is more narrow than the Leica and Swaro, and both of those are significantly narrower than the Zeiss. The Nikon does have major compensations, I feel, though, as the solidity and clarity of the view through a Nikon is hard to better. I don't know quite how Nikon do it, but their top range binoculars exhibit the same kind of visual qualities.

I am hoping that Nikon will launch a wider angle zoom. Clearly, that would be very useful - and leave little argument that theirs is a top notch scope. For now, though, in my estimation and experience, the Zeiss 85T* + zoom takes the glory by a long way and should be on anyone's shortlist if they want as fine a birding experience as modern optics will allow.

bohemwarbler · Jun 29, 2004

How's the resolution on the 75X?

I use the Nikon Fieldscope 82ED and am satisfied with the 25 X 75 zoom. When I go to the higher magnification, I'm looking more for clarity of resolution than wide field of view. Of course, the resolution isn't as sharp on the higher end of the zoom as it is on the lower end, especially on the smaller birds in the greater distance. I'll be taking a trip to Maine in August and am looking at the possibility of adding the 50X WA or the 75X WA. Anyone tried both? What's your suggestion?

scampo · Jun 29, 2004

I think the sharpness or resolution is pretty much the same throughout the range. At higher magnifications looking at distant objects, there is far more likelihood of atmospheric haze and pollution distracting from a sharp image. If you use the scope on a nearby resolution target you will be amazed at the edge-to-edge sharpness of the Nikon zoom even at its maximum magnification.

Bluetail · Jun 29, 2004

I recently got a Nikon 82ED with the 25-75 zoom and I have to agree with Steve. On a clear, sunny evening when the heat haze has died down the resolution at 75x is hardly less than at 25x. I'm expecting it to come into it's own during winter time. Having said that, I've not found the extra magnification particularly useful. 60x is as much as you need in the field and the extra 15x hasn't yet shown me anything I couldn't already see at 60x.

scampo · Jun 29, 2004

Indeed - it's rare to need even 60x, Jason, I find. I use it because of ease, but a friend with a 45x maximum sees as much as I do!

bohemwarbler · Jun 30, 2004

scampo said:
Indeed - it's rare to need even 60x, Jason, I find. I use it because of ease, but a friend with a 45x maximum sees as much as I do!

Steve,
I tested your theory. I went out this evening with my Nikon 82 ED 25x75 zoom. It was just after 8 PM, about 78 degees, mid-humidity level, no wind, with the sun setting very low behind a light cloud cover. I was looking at a Great Blue Heron approximately 125 - 150 yards to my west. I moved the zoom from 25x to 75x and compared the resolutions. There was essentially the same sharpness of image at 75x as at 25x. The overall image was narrower and only slightly darker, still, the detail was very crisp. At that distance I could very clearly see the yellow-orange iris and black pupil of the Heron's eye.

I called Nikon before this experiment and the tech fellow I spoke with believed that the fixed eyepieces would offer only minimal improvement in terms of the sharpness of image at best, perhaps more psychological than actual because of the wider field of view.

scampo · Jun 30, 2004

It is a superb optic, isn't it? As sharp as they come, I reckon.

Nikon Eyepieces (1 Viewer)

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Active member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

New member

Steve Campsall

Senior Moment

Steve Campsall

New member

Steve Campsall

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread