-
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.
How many of you guys use a spotting scope ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sagittarius
- Start date
I have a Swarovski scope and tripod, but I also use a Zeiss Dialyt 18-45x65 field scope. It's handy for when more portability is needed and for longer walks in the hills, as it can just be slung over a shoulder. I find that unless there's a strong wind I don't experience much shake, but otherwise I use it with a monopod. The build and optics quality are superb and as it's predominantly aimed for hunting etc it's suitable for all weather use.
John Dracon
John Dracon
Currently:
B&L draw-tube 20x40 - old technology, surprisingly sharp, limited FOV
B&L Balscope Sr. with revolving turret able to handle 3 different powers - usually 15, 20, 30 - very underrated spotting scope - Bushnell Rangemaster is a clone - very good and eyepieces interchange with B&L
Pentax PF ED 65 mm straight - with XW 20 eyepiece - simply superior
Pentax PF ED 80 mm straight - XW Zoom and other Pentax XW fix power eye pieces (very massive for 80 mm)
The European alphas are excellent - comparing apples to apples, it is six of one and a half dozen of the others. All name brand spotting scopes today are first rate. Little secret for those who are just starting into these kinds of optics. Zooms regardless of claims cannot match a fix power eyepiece of equal quality and a given power. For terrestrial use (for birding), IMO anything over 30 power is just a bigger blur. Air pollution, heat waves, humidity, reflections from snow, and wind mirage take over.
But it is the buyer's money and he/she should purchase what seems best.
Regardless what one gets, it should be eye glass friendly.
B&L draw-tube 20x40 - old technology, surprisingly sharp, limited FOV
B&L Balscope Sr. with revolving turret able to handle 3 different powers - usually 15, 20, 30 - very underrated spotting scope - Bushnell Rangemaster is a clone - very good and eyepieces interchange with B&L
Pentax PF ED 65 mm straight - with XW 20 eyepiece - simply superior
Pentax PF ED 80 mm straight - XW Zoom and other Pentax XW fix power eye pieces (very massive for 80 mm)
The European alphas are excellent - comparing apples to apples, it is six of one and a half dozen of the others. All name brand spotting scopes today are first rate. Little secret for those who are just starting into these kinds of optics. Zooms regardless of claims cannot match a fix power eyepiece of equal quality and a given power. For terrestrial use (for birding), IMO anything over 30 power is just a bigger blur. Air pollution, heat waves, humidity, reflections from snow, and wind mirage take over.
But it is the buyer's money and he/she should purchase what seems best.
Regardless what one gets, it should be eye glass friendly.
Well that was the received wisdom on zooms until recently. Certainly the Pentax XWs, for example, are wonderful eyepieces. But check out some of the threads on Cloudy Nights regarding the Leica ASPH wide-angle zoom. Many veteran astro types (myself included) have sold off their Pentax XW collection after obtaining this eyepiece, which has superior levels of polish and therefore lower light scatter. Together with a high quality barlow, such as the Astro-Physics Baradv, the Leica provides superior planetary performance to just about anything--you have to go to specialty orthos or monocentrics, such as the Zeiss Abbes (currently trading at $600 a pop) or the TMB monocentrics to beat it--and those eyepieces have apparent fields between 35 and 40 degrees. Likewise, the Leica is a much friendlier eyepiece for daytime use than are the Pentax XWs, and I say that as a former XW diehard fan.
John Dracon
John Dracon
I can't challenge your view about the ASPH Leica Zoom because I haven't seen one. If I did, I probably would accept what you have said. I try to keep both an open mind and eye.
In my opinion statement on powers above 30, I should have qualified that by saying, "On some unusual days, when humidity is low, wind not blowing, no smoke or dust in the air, etc., etc., higher powers than 30 may be useful." Today was one of those days, and I put the XW 10 in the 80 mm (51 X power) Pentax, and it magnified nicely. But this does not happen frequently in Montana.
As you have identified yourself as an "astro type", I consider myself a "Terra type," and primarily a bird and animal watcher, and since the mission of Bird Forum is terrestrial, not celestial, I don't frequent Cloudy Nights.
Is the Leica zoom interchangeable with the Pentax, or is it brand specific? Also, your mentioning about the Leica being "friendlier for daytime use than are the Pentax XWs" puzzles me. The Pentax Zoom I find somewhat unfriendly, but the XW 20, 14, and 10 has 20 mm eye relief. I wear glasses and have no problem whatsoever getting the full field with those.
John
In my opinion statement on powers above 30, I should have qualified that by saying, "On some unusual days, when humidity is low, wind not blowing, no smoke or dust in the air, etc., etc., higher powers than 30 may be useful." Today was one of those days, and I put the XW 10 in the 80 mm (51 X power) Pentax, and it magnified nicely. But this does not happen frequently in Montana.
As you have identified yourself as an "astro type", I consider myself a "Terra type," and primarily a bird and animal watcher, and since the mission of Bird Forum is terrestrial, not celestial, I don't frequent Cloudy Nights.
Is the Leica zoom interchangeable with the Pentax, or is it brand specific? Also, your mentioning about the Leica being "friendlier for daytime use than are the Pentax XWs" puzzles me. The Pentax Zoom I find somewhat unfriendly, but the XW 20, 14, and 10 has 20 mm eye relief. I wear glasses and have no problem whatsoever getting the full field with those.
John
I've found a fair amount of cross-referencing between this forum and cloudy nights, due to an overlap in interests among participating members, particularly with regard to equipment. Certainly if you're interested in fixed-focal-length 1.25-inch eyepieces, you will find a wealth of information at an astronomical forum, where these things are discussed with all the attention to the minutiae of optical theory, pricing, manufacturing details, etc., that you find here with regard to binoculars. But let me say at the outset that, in my opinion, you already have some of the best eyepieces on the planet.
The Leica zoom is designed for their spotting scopes and so has a proprietary bayonet attachment. When it was "discovered" to be such a fine astronomical eyepiece, some vendors (e.g., APM in Germany) developed adapters for use in either 1.25 or 2 inch focusers. So the 1.25 adapter would enable one to use it in spotters such as the Pentax. I just might do that if I ever graduate to getting a spotter; as it happens, I've got my eye on the Pentax PF-65EDA II. I know how good their stuff is, and that scope looks like a very sweet deal.
In the past, when I would use the XWs in the daytime, I found eye placement more critical than at night, resulting in blackouts occasionally. It was strange, because the XW is an extremely comfortable eyepiece at night. But I find the Leica to be much more friendly with regard to eye placement--the pupil is easy to hold during the daytime. It sounds, though, as this is not an issue for you. For me, though having found a zoom that is every bit as good or better than my XWs, it was hard to hold onto the latter. In a daytime spotting-scope application (or a night-time astro app) one can dial in a magnification to match seeing conditions. However, getting the Leica only becomes cost effective at the point that it replaces, say, three XWs or so. If you are generally happy with one or two eyepieces, the expense of the Leica is not really justified. (And, in particular, your 20mm XW will provide a noticeably larger field than the Leica at minimal mag.) I only went with it because, at the time, I was obsessed with getting the best possible planetary image I could. (Actually, I'm not sure that kind of expense makes any sense at all when one is restricted to the low powers of a spotter.)
By the way, while I've spent 15 years in the astro hobby (and very avidly so), I've taken up birding with a vengeance, spending a lot more time on it than on astronomy since November. It's nice to have a connection with nature that doesn't require a clear dark sky, or a steady atmosphere! Just tonight I had the big scope out for all of five minutes, when it became clear that the seeing conditions weren't going to cooperate. You're right that seeing conditions in the daytime tend to limit magnification--mostly due to thermals--but imagine what kind of conditions are necessary to use 300x, rather than 30x. That's when planetary observation gets interesting. So it's mostly about being patient and being disappointed most of the time. On the other hand, a 20-minute walk today with my dog yielded a dozen species, including a Nuttall's Woodpecker and a beautiful male California Quail--not a common bird on my street. And yesterday, I spent 2 hours at the local marsh and saw 26 species, each of them spectacular in its own way. So yay for birding!
The Leica zoom is designed for their spotting scopes and so has a proprietary bayonet attachment. When it was "discovered" to be such a fine astronomical eyepiece, some vendors (e.g., APM in Germany) developed adapters for use in either 1.25 or 2 inch focusers. So the 1.25 adapter would enable one to use it in spotters such as the Pentax. I just might do that if I ever graduate to getting a spotter; as it happens, I've got my eye on the Pentax PF-65EDA II. I know how good their stuff is, and that scope looks like a very sweet deal.
In the past, when I would use the XWs in the daytime, I found eye placement more critical than at night, resulting in blackouts occasionally. It was strange, because the XW is an extremely comfortable eyepiece at night. But I find the Leica to be much more friendly with regard to eye placement--the pupil is easy to hold during the daytime. It sounds, though, as this is not an issue for you. For me, though having found a zoom that is every bit as good or better than my XWs, it was hard to hold onto the latter. In a daytime spotting-scope application (or a night-time astro app) one can dial in a magnification to match seeing conditions. However, getting the Leica only becomes cost effective at the point that it replaces, say, three XWs or so. If you are generally happy with one or two eyepieces, the expense of the Leica is not really justified. (And, in particular, your 20mm XW will provide a noticeably larger field than the Leica at minimal mag.) I only went with it because, at the time, I was obsessed with getting the best possible planetary image I could. (Actually, I'm not sure that kind of expense makes any sense at all when one is restricted to the low powers of a spotter.)
By the way, while I've spent 15 years in the astro hobby (and very avidly so), I've taken up birding with a vengeance, spending a lot more time on it than on astronomy since November. It's nice to have a connection with nature that doesn't require a clear dark sky, or a steady atmosphere! Just tonight I had the big scope out for all of five minutes, when it became clear that the seeing conditions weren't going to cooperate. You're right that seeing conditions in the daytime tend to limit magnification--mostly due to thermals--but imagine what kind of conditions are necessary to use 300x, rather than 30x. That's when planetary observation gets interesting. So it's mostly about being patient and being disappointed most of the time. On the other hand, a 20-minute walk today with my dog yielded a dozen species, including a Nuttall's Woodpecker and a beautiful male California Quail--not a common bird on my street. And yesterday, I spent 2 hours at the local marsh and saw 26 species, each of them spectacular in its own way. So yay for birding!
Last edited:
John Dracon
John Dracon
Thank you for your informative comments. Do you have any information on the separate costs of the Leica zoom and the adapter? I pretty much operate on a cost/benefit kind of behavior, even though at one time I spent more than I care to admit on Zeiss's stabilized binoculars and spotting scope. Probably a function of growing older, but I tend to spend less on new technology.
Hermann
Well-known member
Not sure I agree with you here. Sure, zooms used to be pretty awful, but that was years ago. Starting with the Leica 20-60x for the original Apo-Televid 77mm zooms became increasingly competitive over the past two decades or so, and modern zooms are astonishingly good. For instance, I can't really see any difference in quality between the (excellent) Nikon wideangles and the Nikon MCII zoom on the fieldscope EDIIIA and the ED82A. Alright, the Nikon zoom is pretty narrow, but the quality of the image in terms of resolution and contrast is as good as that of the wideangles, at any magnification.
I also think high magnifications can be very useful in terrestrial use as as well. Not on all days and certainly not in all environments, but at least over here there are certain times when magnifications well over 50-60x can yield quite a lot more detail than lower magnifications. For instance, at the coast, in summer, there's often a kind of "window of opportunity" in the late afternoon when the seeing is good enough to use very high magnifications, provided the scope (and the eyepiece) are good enough. In fact, there have been days when I would have liked a big scope (bigger than my ED82) to be able to use magnifications of more than the 75x I can get with my ED82.
On such days the only real limit orther than the optical quality of the scope is the size of its exit pupil, it should be at least 1mm, better 1.5mm.
Hermann
Maroon Jay
Airborne
I would like to get a scope but already carrying a DSLR camera, heavy telephoto lens, tripod, water bottle, guide book, my lunch, insect repellant and other things. I was thinking of getting a little telescope that I can collapse and put in my pocket. Not sure how good those things are or if I could hold it still enough.
henry link
Well-known member
I have to agree with Hermann and HighNorth about this. I think John has had some very bad luck with scope optics, zoom eyepieces and viewing conditions if 30x is really the limit.
I agree. A lot of people like the Baader. I haven't had the opportunity to try the wide-angle Swarovski zoom, but in a spotting scope I'd bet it's every bit as good as the Leica, and a bit less expensive too. Meopta also has a good zoom, but it favors AMD over pincushion, and so does not work on astro applications.
APM telescopes in Germany has the Leica with adapter for about $770 shipped to US; Eagle Optics has a demo (no adapter) for $700. The APM adapter runs about $80 (a bit steep, that), but you can get them used on AstroMart for half that. Used prices recently at AstroMart on the Leica have run about $650-700. I would hesitate to buy used, however, unless the seller addresses the following possibility: one run of the Leicas had a bunch of spots on an interior lens--this was reported by many buyers--which necessitated sending the piece into LeicaUSA for cleaning. So even Leica falls down on quality control now and then. But the view in this eyepiece is superb, so I don't regret the hassle.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Yes it works on astro applications. Unless you are maximally, and strangely, AMD phobic (courtesy of you know who). Best views of Saturn's rings ever, short of my sisters's giant Celestron "whatchamacallit"? Meopta S2, 60x. :smoke:
Mark
I should add that, as many others have noted, the Meopta AMD disappears by 40x, making it all the less important. For my money, Meopta nails it all the way to 60/70x. And no, my needs don't stop at 30x. Geez I was looking at a pair of Common Loon today on a big river and I would have liked much more than 27x on my Nikon ED50.
Last edited:
Pardon my lack of knowledge but what does Age related Macular Degeneration (AMD) have to do with this?
Bob
John Dracon
John Dracon
Henry -If you read all the posts after #23, you would see in post #25, I qualified my statement, which was because of the obvious generalization in #23 which was prefaced by the acronym (IMO), which in my understanding of the English language means I wasn't stating as a fact that 30 X is maximum under all conditions. Of course it isn't. Just some conditions.
I am not persuaded that a zoom eyepiece in today's birding scopes is the equal power for power of a similar quality fixed eye piece. Nor is my "opinion" based on back luck with scope optics.
John
I am not persuaded that a zoom eyepiece in today's birding scopes is the equal power for power of a similar quality fixed eye piece. Nor is my "opinion" based on back luck with scope optics.
John
Generally speaking, astro-types dislike angular mag distortion and accept pincushion. Usually the reverse holds for terrestrial (daytime) observers. The reports I had on the Meopta suggested fairly significant AMD. It's disturbing to watch a planet change size as it nears the edge of field, but you won't notice the problem if your scope has a drive and the target stays centered. You probably also won't be bothered at the low powers that a spotting scope is designed for: pretty much, a 1mm exit pupil, or 80x in an 80-mm scope, is about the limit. But in a 12-inch reflector at 300X you really do notice any AMD, and it's not pretty. However, I have no doubt the Meopta is an excellent eyepiece for daytime spotting.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Interesting. I thought astro-types were more interested in flat fields than the rest of us. For me, mostly a birder, a widefield zoom is the way to go and the Meopta 30-60x is about as good as it gets, along with the Swaro 25-50x, the Kowa 25-60x, the Leica 25-50x. These latest designs are really as good as a fixed eyepiece in my opinion, with excellent eye relief, and like I wrote earlier I had a fixed 27x the other day and seriously wanted more for watching those Loons. The Meopta is rock solid up to 60x.
So why wasn't I using the Meopta? Dopey me accidentally left it at a relative's house 500 miles away. No chance to get back there yet. :-C
Mark
henry link
Well-known member
A flat field means that field curvature (and astigmatism) have been corrected so that objects are sharp across the field, but that can be accompanied by any amount of rectilinear and/or angular magnification distortion. Zoom eyepieces run the gamut from barrel distortion to pincushion with varying amounts of AMD present, usually changing with the magnification setting. I haven't seen all of the newest zooms, but I recently evaluated the Kowa 25-60 and found it to have barrel distortion at all magnifications, with the inevitable AMD that goes with that.
Distortion is not noticeable in most simple "planetary" eyepieces, like Zeiss Abbes, TMB Super Monocentrics, Brandons, Claves, etc. because the fields are narrow enough to remain nearly orthoscopic. On the other hand, some wide field astronomical eyepieces, Like Tele Vue Panoptics and Naglers have such huge amounts of pincushion distortion that they create reversed AMD, so that objects near the field edge are stretched radially rather than compressed.
What I mean when I say that most modern zooms are as good as fixed magnification eyepieces is that they don't degrade the axial performance of even the most highly corrected scopes. The only exception would be in the areas of light transmission and contrast, where some very simple eyepiece designs with only one or two lens groups are slightly better. In those performance areas the best current zooms compare favorably to other equally complex wide field fixed focal length eyepieces.
Distortion is not noticeable in most simple "planetary" eyepieces, like Zeiss Abbes, TMB Super Monocentrics, Brandons, Claves, etc. because the fields are narrow enough to remain nearly orthoscopic. On the other hand, some wide field astronomical eyepieces, Like Tele Vue Panoptics and Naglers have such huge amounts of pincushion distortion that they create reversed AMD, so that objects near the field edge are stretched radially rather than compressed.
What I mean when I say that most modern zooms are as good as fixed magnification eyepieces is that they don't degrade the axial performance of even the most highly corrected scopes. The only exception would be in the areas of light transmission and contrast, where some very simple eyepiece designs with only one or two lens groups are slightly better. In those performance areas the best current zooms compare favorably to other equally complex wide field fixed focal length eyepieces.
Last edited:
