• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

My initial Pentax PF65ED AII review (1 Viewer)

Mpacker

Michael Packer
Some of the issues I found with the Pentax PF65ED AII are important. So instead of waiting to post a full report in the review section of BirdForum, I thought I post them now. I will explain how I came to my conclusions as a follow up but here's my feeling:

The scope has a cool down time for thermal stability and performance - don't let the scope get too warm in a car (or too cold) relative to the ambient temp. and then expect good views or imaging at moderate power.

The scope's contrast using top notch eyepieces is not bad, but not very good. I'm not impressed.

The scope shows decent near diffraction limited performance. My scope's lens is slightly over/under corrected - can't remember how that goes rel. to in/out of focus - and shows a little more chromatic aberration than I expected.

Hence, the scope cannot really be used at very high power. And Hence It can not do as well as good 80mm scope. Forget it. I would not observe using any ep less than 5mm (78x). Stay under 60x. 7mm at 56x is a better choice if you want power but don't buy the pentax 7mm - you would be wasting your money IMO unless you have another "apo" grade scope that you want the 7mm for. This is not the case for other small really high quality scopes such as the TV60 which certainly can give great views at ~78x and higher.

If you really want a great value and get a very good small and versatile scope, buy the older 65ed which is going for ~$350 (not the II) before they are all sold out.

For birding, my initial grade for the AII scope is an 8 in optical quality perhaps just making 9 overall in terms of size weight and cost. I like the scope. But at $350, I give the older non II a 9.75. I suspect I would give the swavorski 65ed no better than 9. (Expensive bugger and its no 80mm either). I should have a chance to compare side by side with the AII in a bit.

Michael
 
You might, I suppose, have a poor sample of the scope. It sounds suprising that Pentax would downgrade their spec on a newer design? Comparing it with 80mm scopes is one thing, but from what you say any 60-65mm scope from the top manufacturers would put it to shame (the Nikon FSIIIED, for example).
 
I havn,t found any spotting scope 80mm or under that is really good at mags over about x75 .
Astro scopes are a different design to spotters & can take more magnification.
But of course you have to look at an upside down view with them.
I personally have found the older type 65pf ed equal to any 60mm scope except my takahashi fs 60 which is an astro scope.
I live in Medina OH .If ever you are up this way feel free to try out my spotters . I have several .
Brian
 
Thanks Steve and Brian. I should mention, that in the back of my mind, I am thinking of the Better Views Desired website. The review of the older pf65 on that sight raised the issue whether 80mm scope is worth it with scopes like the pf65. Scopes are getting better but to me the reason to get a 65mm over an 80mm is still for non performance issues of size, weight etc. Likewise the reason to get an 80mm is to enjoy better views at higher power. But I do agree that the PF65's ability to use wide field astro grade EP's narrows the gap.

I think it is generally true that the optics of high-end birding scopes are not on par with the high end astro scopes. A solid birding scope needs to have cost adders like nitrogen purged waterproof optics. There is also a different magnification limit when one tries to image over a thermal landscape verses pointing a scope up into the sky. Nevertheless, switching out different EPs and upping the magnification etc I feel this is a great plus for a birding scope. The pentax scope gets to use the great astro quality EPs like the Tele-vue and Pentax XW’s. This in itself allows the scope to be on par with several higher cost 65mm birding scopes on the market today. Its just if the pentax scope were of better optical quality it could be a reason to get it over many 80mm birding scopes at the time of this writing.

Right now, one would have to pay over $800 for the Televue 60mm birding/astro scope but I think you would be getting a better scope optically. However the 60mm is not waterproof which brings me to a final point of clarification on my review of the 65ed AII - optically sealed scopes have thermal cool down issues. This is not just a pf65 issue but its something I saw and thought worth pointing out.
 
Michael ,thanks for the pm .Have you tried the Nikon 50 ed ? I have one ,Its an exellent scope. Most of the others stay home since i got it.
With the x30 mc & the 13-40 zoom you usually need nothing else.
Brian.
 
Some of the issues I found with the Pentax PF65ED AII are important. So instead of waiting to post a full report in the review section of BirdForum, I thought I post them now. I will explain how I came to my conclusions as a follow up but here's my feeling:

The scope has a cool down time for thermal stability and performance - don't let the scope get too warm in a car (or too cold) relative to the ambient temp. and then expect good views or imaging at moderate power.

The scope's contrast using top notch eyepieces is not bad, but not very good. I'm not impressed.

The scope shows decent near diffraction limited performance. My scope's lens is slightly over/under corrected - can't remember how that goes rel. to in/out of focus - and shows a little more chromatic aberration than I expected.

Hence, the scope cannot really be used at very high power. And Hence It can not do as well as good 80mm scope. Forget it. I would not observe using any ep less than 5mm (78x). Stay under 60x. 7mm at 56x is a better choice if you want power but don't buy the pentax 7mm - you would be wasting your money IMO unless you have another "apo" grade scope that you want the 7mm for. This is not the case for other small really high quality scopes such as the TV60 which certainly can give great views at ~78x and higher.

If you really want a great value and get a very good small and versatile scope, buy the older 65ed which is going for ~$350 (not the II) before they are all sold out.

For birding, my initial grade for the AII scope is an 8 in optical quality perhaps just making 9 overall in terms of size weight and cost. I like the scope. But at $350, I give the older non II a 9.75. I suspect I would give the swavorski 65ed no better than 9. (Expensive bugger and its no 80mm either). I should have a chance to compare side by side with the AII in a bit.

Michael

I just got this scope with the XW14 Eyepiece and I could not agree more with you. I have owned two scopes in the past at various times in my life which were a Bushnell Spacemaster and a Zeiss Diascope (flourite model I believe with zoom eyepiece).

I gotta say that my biggest complaint so far is that I cannot get the scope to focus to a very crisp sharp image, it always seems somewhat soft. I definitely noticed the CA and I am not really sensitive to that. I also have a problem with a weird half mooning black out when I pan the scope or move my head against the eyepiece.

Are you at the Magee Marsh in Ohio? I am in South East Michigan and would love to arrange a meet up to compare scopes to make sure neither of us have damaged models. I had to mail order mine because no one carries these in a store around here and if they did they do not let you scrutinize them carefully, I.E. taking them outside and spending sometime looking at things.

My test so far consisted of looking at some Red-Wings at about 50-100 feet away on a sunny day about 8pm.
 
nightheron28 and Brian, you might want to bird Ottawa National Wildlife Ruge on Sat. July 21st: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Ottawa/

I am going to go. Their Auto tour is open that day. Located next to Magee Marsh off Rt 2 ths is a great place to check out shore birds (just now making their return) and scopes. Drop me and email if you'd like to hook up and we can work out cell #s.

With great EPs, the pf-65ed AII is a nice scope set up - in the birding realm - for under a $1000. But I did get sucked into the hype. In the astronomy world it is just a 65mm f6 finder. Optics are only as good as their weakest link.
 
I havn,t found any spotting scope 80mm or under that is really good at mags over about x75 .
Astro scopes are a different design to spotters & can take more magnification.
But of course you have to look at an upside down view with them.
I personally have found the older type 65pf ed equal to any 60mm scope except my takahashi fs 60 which is an astro scope.
I live in Medina OH .If ever you are up this way feel free to try out my spotters . I have several .
Brian

Well, that's odd. If the light is good and the air clear, the Nikon is as sharp as a pin at 75x as is the Zeiss at 60x. It's really a matter of brightness and - the bane of all telescopy, atmospheric haze.
 
Michael,

I have experienced cool down issues of two different types with birding scopes, and might have something relevant to add to this discussion.

The first type is the normal one of taking a scope from one ambient temperature to another, and is pretty much a function of the temperature differential and the size/thickness of the objective lens elements. Even in the most extreme cases I have witnessed, cool down times with birding scopes have been under 30 minutes, more typically 10-15, and with our summer temperatures not being very high, only obvious in the colder seasons. Most birders I know (including myself until some ten years ago) are unaware of cool down effects and just assume there is poor atmospheric conditions when they see a fuzzy image in their scope.

The second type of cool down effect I have witnessed with scopes that have plastic or polycarbonate bodies. I first noticed it with an Opticron ES 100, when on a nice cool sunny day a scope that had had ample time to cool down showed a poor image. I noticed that the sun was shining on one side of the scope (of course, what else), and that side was hot to the touch while the other side was cool. We did some tests (Jan Meijerink in Holland and myself in Finland) where, indoors, using hot-water bottles, we assymmetrically warmed up scopes of different types and star-tested as well as resolution-tested them. The performance of polycarbonate-bodied scopes deteriorated quite dramatically, by about half or more, while the performance of metal-bodied scopes deteriorated by less than 10%. The fall in performance was not due to tube currents, but to deformation of the optical system. When the scope was in sunlight, wrapping a white T-shirt around the objective end corrected the situation after a 10-15 minute cool down time.

My conclusion therefore is that with polycarbonate-bodied scopes, it is necessary to use an insulated case or to cover the body with something white if you wish to obtain the full performance of the scope in sunny weather.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo thats good advice .I have been putting white t shirt or towel over my pentax scopes ever since i noticed how cool my white Takahashis were compared to my black Pentax,s when standing in the sun.
Good advise from Kimmi as usual.
Brian.
 
Very good Info. I never really thought about how to keep my scope in the car - ready for a quick pull out and view session - til now. No Sun and good ambient surround.
 
You might, I suppose, have a poor sample of the scope. It sounds suprising that Pentax would downgrade their spec on a newer design? Comparing it with 80mm scopes is one thing, but from what you say any 60-65mm scope from the top manufacturers would put it to shame (the Nikon FSIIIED, for example).

It certainly sounds like it could be a poor sample. I own a PF65a II with XW14 EP and haven't had any issues getting sharp images. I have noticed some fringing when looking a brightly backlit subjects.

Eye positioning with the XW14 does seem to be quite critical, the half mooning results from a partial misalignment of eye pupil and lens pupil. If I understand the design issues correctly this sensitivity to eye positioning is inherent in wide (65-70deg+) FOV EP's.

I suspect the trap with EP's like the XW's is treating the EP glass as a widescreen TV whereas the image you are looking at is actually "floating in space" - the diameter given as the lens pupil, positioned at the eye relief measurement from the EP glass.

cheers
Paul
 
It certainly sounds like it could be a poor sample. I own a PF65a II with XW14 EP and haven't had any issues getting sharp images. I have noticed some fringing when looking a brightly backlit subjects.


Paul, 28x is medium power on the low end. At 28x I like the view too. But try going over 35x. I found the scope quite soft. Contrast not impressive. In fact not allowing me to do easy birding with it in the 50x range. A good scope should look sharp 50x and even 60x. Let me know if you see different. Its obvious to me but its always best to compare it to another scope with ED glass as I did.

Best Michael
 
I do not know if there is a comparison here, but I think the fundamental problem I had with the scope is that my previous scope the Zeiss Diascope FL 65 with zoom eyepiece (bought a year ago) was leaps and bounds "sharper" then the Pentax. I think I was trying to get away with a cheaper scope and I got what I paid for a cheaper quality image. I really did not get on with the scope. I never, never experienced the half mooning thing with the zeiss scope of course this could be do to the fact that like the other reviewer said the wide angle fixed ep's all suffer from this. I just remember the Zeiss being incredibly bright, sharp, and having a very Wide FOV. I regret ever having to give it up. I bought the Pentax because I thought who knows maybe because they do not have the name and rep Zeiss has that they may have a comparable product but for a lot less because of this fact. Sadly I was wrong. Anyway I am going to save up for the Zeiss and stop playing around. Could be too that I should have tried the Vixen or the other eyepieces mentioned.
 
Last edited:
nightheron28- Ya , the Pentax XF zoom will give you a bad impression of the scope. I have looked through it and then my XW14 and XF 8.5mm and it's not even in the same league as far as I'm concerned. Get an XW EP of the power of your choice. Personaly I have ever really liked zooms. I seem to fuss with them too much. With the nice big bright stable image the XW14 gives it makes it very nice to use.

I just got the 8.5mm Xf which gives 46x. Clear and sharp. I have the 65 ED-A II. I like the view from both eyepieces. The XW14 is my main eyepiece and the 8.5 gives more magnification and under certain conditions I can see more detail. Particularily at long distances like 1-3 miles. But, in certain conditions the XW14 give me a better view and in most conditions the XF 8.5 gives no advantage over the XW 14. But, I bought the 8.5 only for those occasional times. I would really like to try a XW10 or even an XW7. I may sell the 8.5 XF and try one of the others. I use my scope mainly for wildlfe viewing and hunting. I need to be able to resolve good detail at 1-3 miles. So far so good. I am happy with my little Pentax at half the price of others.
 
nightheron28- Ya , the Pentax XF zoom will give you a bad impression of the scope. I have looked through it and then my XW14 and XF 8.5mm and it's not even in the same league as far as I'm concerned. Get an XW EP of the power of your choice. Personaly I have ever really liked zooms. I seem to fuss with them too much. With the nice big bright stable image the XW14 gives it makes it very nice to use.

I just got the 8.5mm Xf which gives 46x. Clear and sharp. I have the 65 ED-A II. I like the view from both eyepieces. The XW14 is my main eyepiece and the 8.5 gives more magnification and under certain conditions I can see more detail. Particularily at long distances like 1-3 miles. But, in certain conditions the XW14 give me a better view and in most conditions the XF 8.5 gives no advantage over the XW 14. But, I bought the 8.5 only for those occasional times. I would really like to try a XW10 or even an XW7. I may sell the 8.5 XF and try one of the others. I use my scope mainly for wildlfe viewing and hunting. I need to be able to resolve good detail at 1-3 miles. So far so good. I am happy with my little Pentax at half the price of others.

I had an XW14.
 
I just got the 8.5mm Xf which gives 46x. Clear and sharp. I have the 65 ED-A II. I like the view from both eyepieces. The XW14 is my main eyepiece and the 8.5 gives more magnification and under certain conditions I can see more detail. Particularily at long distances like 1-3 miles.

Thanks for posting Snyd. I hope we get a few more posts to see a trend one way or the other! Michael
 
I just got back from a sheep hunting trip here in Alaska and spent a lot of time using the xw14 and the xf 8.5. Keep in mind that I am interested in seeing the most detail I can at long distances. Half a mile on out, I can put up with some mirage, I am not digiscoping. I also need decent eye releif because of my overhanging brow so I can see the whole FOV of the eyepiece. Otherwise I'm looking through a straw. Of course the xw is great at 20mm. The xf at 18 was no problem for me either.

In mixed conditions of over cast/sunny and cool (60's). I could see more detail at over a half mile with the xf 8.5 than the xw 14. The image of course is a little darker but I could still see more detail for judging horns of Dall Sheep. For my eye anyway the larger image was better even though it was a little darker and not as much FOV. But, I don't care about FOV for this application. I'm not scanning, I'm zeroing in on one critter. I think the little xf 8.5mm provides a great image on the 65mm scope. I need to be able to clearly identify the size, mass and tips of horns before embarking on a long trek in rugged country. Sunny and hot (70's) at times I got a lot of mirage and switched back to the xw14 which obviously was much better at the lower mag. I wonder if the xw10 could have given me an image close to the xf 8.5 but not as much mirage.

The XW 14 is a nice bright detailed image but at the long distances under the right conditions I found myself wanting a larger more detailed image for my application. I may trade/sell it for an XW10. (anyone interested?) I would REALLY like to see what an XW7 looks like on this scope. I can't imagine the image would be any darker than the xf 8.5. Maybe even a little brighter?

All in all for me the xw14 and xf8.5 is a pretty darn good combo. It also has me thinking though that I may not really need the bigger heavier XW eyepiece at all! I still have not used the xf 12 but if it is as clear as the xf 8.5 it would save me half a pound of weight (and 150 bucks!).

One other note, I do like the feel of the scope better with the lighter eyepiece when having to use a smaller lighter tripod for my application.

Anyone try the new WO wide angle 7.5-22.5 zoom? 17-52x would be a nice range if it has a good image, fov and eyerelief.
 
Sunny and hot (70's) at times I got a lot of mirage and switched back to the xw14 which obviously was much better at the lower mag. I wonder if the xw10 could have given me an image close to the xf 8.5 but not as much mirage.

Mirage is going to be a function of atmospheric conditions -- all the magnification will do is make it bigger / more obvious. I imagine the xw10 would be intermediate to those ep's in terms of mirage on a hot day.

I've found there is no eyepiece that will cure mirage on a sunny day -- the only thing you can do is use lower magnification. It's just a function of the atmosphere, which is a part of the optical chain you can't change.


The XW 14 is a nice bright detailed image but at the long distances under the right conditions I found myself wanting a larger more detailed image for my application. I may trade/sell it for an XW10. (anyone interested?) I would REALLY like to see what an XW7 looks like on this scope. I can't imagine the image would be any darker than the xf 8.5. Maybe even a little brighter?

At one point, I had the XL14, XL10, and XF12 eyepieces with my PF-65ED (version I). (The XL is the predecessor of the XW, pretty much the same just a little smaller AFOV).

I found that the XF eyepiece provided equal sharpness in the center of field, but the XL's had much better sharpness/contrast out to the edge and were significantly brighter. I found the XL10 to be brighter than the XF12, despite the higher magnification, so I would imagine that the XW7 will be as bright as the XL8.5.

I also think (wonder if you've noticed?) that the XF line has a slightly different color cast to the image -- maybe that's why the XL's appeared brighter.

Anyway, I doubt the XW10 would really do much for you unless you wanted to use it to replace BOTH of your current eyepieces. There's so little separation between 10mm and 8.5mm -- 40x vs. 45x isn't a big difference at all. The XW14 has a lot more separation and serves a different purpose for you, so I wouldn't feel the need to insert another ep in between them.

It also has me thinking though that I may not really need the bigger heavier XW eyepiece at all! I still have not used the xf 12 but if it is as clear as the xf 8.5 it would save me half a pound of weight (and 150 bucks!).

Like I said, the XF12 is probably the equal of the XW14 in terms of on-axis sharpness and resolution. What you will lose is field-of-view, sharpness out to the edge, and a little bit of brightness. It will certainly save you weight, it just depends how much you need that wide FOV for scanning and need edge sharpness.

The wide FOV and edge sharpness is really important to me as a birdwatcher. When I'm scanning a mudflat for shorebirds, I can take in a swath of birds in one field-of-view, and just move my eye around and check out the birds all throughout the field and make ID's all the way to the edge, saving me lots of minor scope adjustments.


Anyone try the new WO wide angle 7.5-22.5 zoom? 17-52x would be a nice range if it has a good image, fov and eyerelief.

Lordy, I can't wait for someone to get one of these. I was sooooo disappointed when I opened up my Hyperion zoom and discovered that it didn't focus on the Pentax scope. Especially so once further reviews and tests confirmed that it's basically the best widefield zoom out there. Hopefully, the WO zoom will fill that niche for us PF-ED owners for whom the Vixen/TV class of 8-24mm zooms is just not right.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top