• 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.

Zoom eyepieces versus fixed (1 Viewer)

mattpau

Well-known member
I was wondering if someone could summarize for me the drawbacks to a zoom scope eyepiece versus a fixed one, other than the higher price (which doesn't seem that significant in the context of the entire scope package). The advantages of the zoom seem obvious, although I owned a zoom eyepiece many years ago with my first Spacemaster and found the higher powers useless - the increased size of the image was offset by the increased "fuzziness". But my understanding is that it's a whole different story today with modern high quality zooms.

Thanks in advance.
 
modern day zoom's can offer a good site picture these days, but the main difference over fixed eyepieces is still the field of view!. its still a case of closer image v more sight picture. i prefer the zoom for my birding needs, low mag (decent field of view) then bang it up to 60x for the detailed shot - exellent!
 
as Salty says really. If I had just one eyepiece I'd go for a zoom but there are occasions when the fixed is king. It all comes down to personal preference I guess.
 
Field of view and light transmission are about it for fixed over zoom.

In every other respect the zoom wins out and with the quality of the zooms nowadays light tansmission and field of view are pretty good anyway. I have both but find the zoom so much more versatile. No doubt on the duller days of winter yet to come I'll be swapping to the fixed eyepiece for a while but 90%+ I use the zoom.
 
As far as light transmission is concerned, with present designs and coatings it is virtual dead heat between zooms and Wideangles. According to measured light transmission figures published by Markus Ludes and re-calculated for the sensitivity of the human eye during daylight conditions by Christian Losch, transmissions for Zeiss, Leica and Nikon zooms respectively were 93.8, 93.7 and 95.1%. Nikon wideangles averaged 94% and Zeiss 95.5%. Leica wides were not measured.

This shows that brightness at corresponding magnifications should be just about identical. A couple of percent difference in transmission is not discernible in practical viewing.

The wider field of a wideangle, coupled with its usually longer eye-relief, gives a more "magnificient" view, more of a "wow" factor. For identifying birds, the flexibility of the zoom is tops. Serious, hardcore birders now predominantly use zooms. However, some still stick to low-power (20x-30x), especially for activities such as raptor migration watching or waterfowl counts.

Kimmo
 
mattpau said:
I was wondering if someone could summarize for me the drawbacks to a zoom scope eyepiece versus a fixed one, other than the higher price (which doesn't seem that significant in the context of the entire scope package). The advantages of the zoom seem obvious, although I owned a zoom eyepiece many years ago with my first Spacemaster and found the higher powers useless - the increased size of the image was offset by the increased "fuzziness". But my understanding is that it's a whole different story today with modern high quality zooms.

Thanks in advance.


I use two wide angles and a zoom. The zoom is my general purpose eyepiece, the convenience of being able to zoom quickly up to 75x on to a distant bird is priceless.

I seawatch at two different locations, at one site a 30x wide is effective, at another site, the birds are distant and I use 38x wide.

All of these eyepieces have their uses and they also have their disadvantages. These all relate to power, field of view and depth of field. It is all about horses for courses.
 
Eyepiece

I Have A 20-60 Zoom Eyepiece For My Leica Apo 77 Scope And It Is Excellent I Would Certainly Recommend Using One, As To The Differance I'm Not Sure. But I Know Which I Would Prefer . B :)
 
Hi folks
old chestnut this one
I use two scopes Kowa 613 with 20 X wide angle and Nikon ED78 with 30 X wide angle

although the differences have lessened over the past 15 years, a wide angle fixed mag does give slightly better resolution and much easier, more comfortable viewing. I find it much easier to find a bird with a wide angle lens and there's no way a zoom would be useful when abroad in more closed environments. In a similar way that Zeiss 7 x 42 bins were long considered to have the best resolution over higher mag bins I still prefer a fixed mag wide angle scope.

Since starting birding as a young teenager 20 years ago I have become more and more favourable towards lower magnification, brighter, wider-angled optical aids
 
Zoom 4 me all the way...

I use the 20-60 zomm on my Kowa 824 and love the flexibility it gives me.

At 20 you get a good field of view but something inside you always wants to see what the bird had for breaky so you creep up to 30...40...60 and voila! Your right there with the bird. Although your FOV will be reduced, you will be having a good one on one with your subject.

To me that option is a must. It's just human nature to want to get as close as possible and when you get there, your goal is to look at the bird not the branch it's one so FOV at 60 is not that important to moi.

Marc
 
Thanks very much to all who responded. There seems to be a strong majority for the zoom if one were limited to only one eyepiece, although Tim is obviously a dissenting voice.

I guess it's important to consider the type of birding one does. I'll never be a "competitive birder" (ie into big days, etc.) - doesn't fit my interests or psychological makeup - plus, I'll admit it, I'm not good enough! IDing distant birds isn't what I'm primarily into - I love the great views. As such I'm very reluctant to give up the "wow factor"! I also use my scope a lot when travelling in the tropics - again to get the great views of new birds. I leave it behind in the hotel room for rain forest but any other habitat it's with me. Was thoroughly annoyed when at Selva Verde in Costa Rica I went for a morning walk without the scope (cause I expected the guide would have one since he had the day before) and it was a different guide without a scope. We had a perched Black-crested Coquette (scarce hummer). Perfectly identifiable with bins but what a great view it would have been with the scope. But I digress. Essentially the key question is will I get greater views by going with an optimal fixed or with a higher powered zoom?

On the other hand, I'm currently considering scopes from the Pentax 65, which sells for about US$550, up to the Leica 62 APO and Swarovski 65HD which are in the $1200 to $1500 range (although I admit the latter are mainly a pipe dream). Maybe it makes more sense to go with a less expensive scope and get two eyepieces. Decisions, decisions.
 
No. Don't do it! When you have unlimited money, sure, go for lots of different bits. But when you are on a modest budget, it becomes really important to get the best optics you can. You will see the difference between a scope that is the best you can afford after you allow for an E/P, and the scope that is the best you can afford after you allow for two eyepieces. Get the best scope you can, and the best single E/P you can. Don't fritter away your money by getting two of something you only need one of.

Fixed vs zoom? My take on this hardy old perennial is this:

* If you are buying top-class glass (Leica, Swarovski, etc.), get the zoom. It's more flexible, and top-class zoom eyepieces are very, very good.
* If you are constrained to buy something cheaper (as many of us are), there are two good reasons to buy a fixed E/P. First, the cheaper zoom eyepieces are not as good as the top-class ones (it's much harder to make a good zoom E/P than it is to make a good fixed one). Second, getting a fixed E/P will save you something like $US150. You can put that saving towards getting a better scope, or moving up towards a better brand of both scope and E/P. Better to have decent glass and a fixed E/P than have second-rate glass and a third-rate zoom.
 
mattpau,i have the new Swarvoski *) with zoom and 30wa,I go 95% of the time for the zoom,the Swaro is a fabulous peice of kit,having been birding nearly 35 years I can swear by it,having started using "Nelson type scopes.

John
 
Tannin - thanks a lot for the dissuasive advice - makes a lot of sense.

John - thanks for your frequency of use (zoom vs fixed) info. PS I don't need a lot of convincing that Swaro scopes are great, it's just that the price hurts!
 
mattpau said:
Thanks very much to all who responded. There seems to be a strong majority for the zoom if one were limited to only one eyepiece, although Tim is obviously a dissenting voice.

I guess it's important to consider the type of birding one does. I'll never be a "competitive birder" (ie into big days, etc.) - doesn't fit my interests or psychological makeup - plus, I'll admit it, I'm not good enough! IDing distant birds isn't what I'm primarily into - I love the great views. As such I'm very reluctant to give up the "wow factor"! I also use my scope a lot when travelling in the tropics - again to get the great views of new birds. I leave it behind in the hotel room for rain forest but any other habitat it's with me. Was thoroughly annoyed when at Selva Verde in Costa Rica I went for a morning walk without the scope (cause I expected the guide would have one since he had the day before) and it was a different guide without a scope. We had a perched Black-crested Coquette (scarce hummer). Perfectly identifiable with bins but what a great view it would have been with the scope. But I digress. Essentially the key question is will I get greater views by going with an optimal fixed or with a higher powered zoom?

On the other hand, I'm currently considering scopes from the Pentax 65, which sells for about US$550, up to the Leica 62 APO and Swarovski 65HD which are in the $1200 to $1500 range (although I admit the latter are mainly a pipe dream). Maybe it makes more sense to go with a less expensive scope and get two eyepieces. Decisions, decisions.
There is a very clear way out of the predicament: buy the Zeiss 65 / 85T*FL with its quite amazing zoom and, uniquely, enjoy the best of both worlds - a wide angle zoom. No other zoom optic comes close for field of view.
 
scampo said:
There is a very clear way out of the predicament: buy the Zeiss 65 / 85T*FL with its quite amazing zoom and, uniquely, enjoy the best of both worlds - a wide angle zoom. No other zoom optic comes close for field of view.

Thanks a lot for the advice. For reasons of portability and limited financial resources I would no doubt go for the Zeiss 65. The zoom on this scope body translates to 15-45X only. Do you think this is enough power?
 
45x is plenty, Paul. Or that's my feeling (and I have a Swaro 80mm with 20 - 60x). I don't use the 60x end of the zoom range much at all, not for just looking and enjoying, and certainly not for photography (which is my main love). I do use the full 60X for ID purposes though, particularly with largeish birds a very long way away (ducks and cormorants, for example). But all that does is (maybe) give me an extra tick for the day, or confirm a guessed-at identification. Even with the Swarovski ATS80HD's magnificent optics (and even more impressive price tag) and Australia's wonderful daylight, 60x is pushing the limits further than you can really go and still get good quality views.

In fact, if Swarovski made, say, a 15-45 E/P for the ATS80 instead of a 20-60, I'd buy one like a shot. I would use the 15x, and if it had a 10x I'd use that too, especially for photography.

But the 60x, that's more about show than go. People ask to look at my scope and I show them the 60x zoom and they say "wow!" But people who already know a little about optics - the peope in the local birding club, for example, who all have binoculars already and sometimes have their own scopes, or people who are familiar with telescopic rifle sights - these people tend not to be so impressed by the 60x end of things: the thing that really knocks their socks off is the clarity and brightness around 20-30x.

If you can stretch to a Zeiss 65mm with 15-45x (or even with a fixed E/P), that would be excellent. I've never used a Zeiss scope, but people I respect have written about them and say that they are in the same class as Swarovski and Leica - i.e., superb. OK, it's 65mm not 80, but even sight unseen I'd have a 65mm Zeiss scope over a 80mm-class scope from a lesser maker any day.

I don't often get to try other scopes, but the other day I swapped with a Kowa owner for a few minutes. The difference was amazing! The Kowa, a 65mm one I think, was sharp enough in the centre of the field of view, but the FOV seemed tiny and really only of 1st rate quality near the centre. Overall, although the magnification was about the same, the image seemed much smaller and more vague, and you have to hold your head just so to get any picture at all. After being spoiled with the Swaro, it was quite a let down.

(Then I had a look through her Swarovski binoculars and the tables were turned. My bins are such cruddy little ones that I don't even bother getting them out of the car: I can do nearly as well with the naked eye. There is a lesson there too: those cheap Gerber 20 x 10 bins still cost over $100, and the money was completely wasted. That's 1/25th of a pair of top-class Leica/Zeiss/Swarovski bins that will last a lifetime. If I hadn't spent that $100, I'd be that much closer to the real thing.)

But back to scopes. Let me put it this way. With the Sarovski at 60x or the Kowa at any zoom level, you can see the bird. With the Swarovski at 20x or 30x, you are right there with the bird, you can almost forget that you are looking through an artificial visual aid and just enjoy.

Spend the money. You won't regret it.
 
I completely agree with Tannin, and would add: 60x would be next to useless with 65mm; I have the Zeiss 65mm Diascope with 15x45 zoom. To use it above about 30x, I have to have optimally bright conditions. The FOV and clarity at 15x is superb, and I use it much more than the high end of the power range.

Best,
Bill
 
Bill A said:
60x would be next to useless with 65mm...
I agree that 45x is plenty and that the Zeiss is a quite superb piece of kit - but 60x is fine when available as anyone who looks through a Swaro 65HD knows only too well. Even a fixed 60x on my younger son's Kowa 601 is very usable in decent light.
 
Got to agree with Scampo 60x on the Swaro 65 is pretty fine, it is on the non HD as well.

That said I'd say 45 or 48 is generally plenty. In most situations the better fov of lower mags 15 or 16 is going to be worth more and if you have 60 you'll wonder if you should have the 75x of the Nikon ED82........

The 48x on the Leica has worked pretty well on some dull days (we have them rather a lot over here!!)
 
Bill A said:
I completely agree with Tannin, and would add: 60x would be next to useless with 65mm; I have the Zeiss 65mm Diascope with 15x45 zoom. To use it above about 30x, I have to have optimally bright conditions. The FOV and clarity at 15x is superb, and I use it much more than the high end of the power range.

Best,
Bill


intersting Bill
this is the point that kind of baffles me too....

if performance above 30 x is not that great and you end up using it at thirty mostly, then why not get a fixed 30 x with the wider FOV and slightly better resolution (hardly noticable these days though perhaps) it offers?. I can't think when i'd ever get much use out of a high mag apart from the 'wow' factor.

Tim
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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