Zeiss Diascope 85 FL vs. Kowa TSN 824 vs. Nikon 82 ED (1 Viewer)

Greetings,
As I forewarned when I joined this fine forum a little while back, I would be seeking your scope advice. From reading previous scope threads, I've already been so impressed by the quantity and quality of the scope insights that I have the (probably very wrong) impression that many of you spend so much time evaluating different scopes that you can't have much time left in the day to actually use them birding
So, here's my situation: I bought a Nikon 82 ED with a 38 X WA eyepiece several weeks back to use primarily for hawk watching. When I took it to the hawk watch I was disappointed because 1) it was very difficult to quickly focus on the birds; and 2) even when focused on the standing, and cooperative waders that also occur at the site, the image never seemed completely sharp.
No doubt these problems stemmed at least in part from the scope's infamously hypersensitive helical focus (coupled with stiffness of the focusing ring). However, I wonder if, a) the depth of field for these scopes is particularly shallow, and b) if my scope (and/or eyepiece) was the victim of unit to unit variation. On a subsequent, sunset visit to a sandhill crane staging area, while very impressed with the scope's brightness, I was again disappointed with its lack of sharpness. I did a side-by-side comparison with another birder's Kowa TSn-824 (which had a 32X WA eyepiece), and found that the Kowa was not only slightly brighter (not surprising, given the lower power eyepiece) but also significantly sharper than my scope. Furthermore, the movement of the focusing knob was quite smooth and precise.
When I called Eagle Optics, and said that I was thinking of returning the Nikon ($899.00) and buying the Kowa ($1,249.00), their representative suggested that I instead go for the Zeiss Diascope 85 FL which was $$150.00 more than the Kowa, but for which the 20-60X zoom has such a wide field that I'd have no need for a fixed wide angle lens. So, should I a) try another Nikon 82 unit; b) get the Kowa; or c) go for the Zeiss?
Any adivice that you provide would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
El Puffino

Hi El Puffino and welcome!

If it's any help, I have a Zeiss 65mm plus zoom (mainly for weight reasons as I do a lot of birdwatching up on the fells, scrambling over stone walls etc) and found the zoom is brilliant with a terrific fov at 15x (higher in the 85) which allows speedy bird location then the ability to zoom in close on your chosen subject. At its lowest mag the outer10% of the edges are soft but this is down (as I understand it) to the wide fov and it sharpens up as you zoom in. And don't listen to all those who moan about the split dual focussing - it's only a problem if you are used to single wheel mechanisms and is quickly overcome. It has been just about the best buy I have made and enhanced my birding 100%!!

Good luck

Barry

Ultimately the choice of scope is down to personal taste, elpuffino, but I have the same scope/eyepiece combo as Barry, and I can't fault it (an opinion which I retain even after doing side-by-side comparisions with Nikon, Leica and Swarovski "equivalents").

The sharpness and resolution of the view throughout the zoom range continues to make me grin, even after a year and a bit of ownership, and as Barry says at the lower end of the zoom, the view is wide, wide, wide!

It's better than you'd expect it to be in marginal light too.

Some people say that compared with more "neutral" scopes the Zeiss view has a yellow cast: I can see what they mean but I have never seen it as a problem - an alternative way to describe it is as a "warmer" image, and I for one find the Zeiss view very satisfying, and the tiny difference this cast/warmth makes has no negative effect whatsoever on the perceived accuracy with which birds' colours are represented.

In other words, you won't mis-ID a bird because of it and you might actually appreciate the slight difference in tone compared with the arguably "colder" views from other scopes.

As I say though, it's really just a case of finding one you like - they're all great scopes, but if the little Zeiss is as good as this, the 85mm is going to be more of the same.

I'm yet another very happy Zeiss owner - I've had the 85 almost a year, and am delighted with it.

However, my advice to elpuffino would be don't even consider spending that much money without trying what you're buying, side by side with the competitors! The differences between all the top end scopes are not huge, and a lot comes down to personal preference. You need to decide if the image through the Zeiss is what you want, if you like the image tone, find the dual focus comfortable, don't mind the outer FOV being slightly soft and swimmy at wide angle... All of these things put some people off, and if you don't try it, you'll never know.

Perhaps 65 mm is the way to go.

Thank you (and Barry) for your quick and thoughtful responses. Based on your enthusiastic endorsement of the 65 mm diascope I am now considering it, as well (especially since it's $300 less than the 85 mm model). The site where I hawk watch is on the shore of the Great Lakes, where it's frequently quite overcast - so I'm wondering whether you've used your scope in similar, dim conditions to look at birds that would be completely invisible to the unaided eye (or binoculars). The smaller weight and size would be a plus for me as I do quite a bit of backpacking and hiking.

Thanks again,
El Puffino

Keith Reeder said:

Ultimately the choice of scope is down to personal taste, elpuffino, but I have the same scope/eyepiece combo as Barry, and I can't fault it (an opinion which I retain even after doing side-by-side comparisions with Nikon, Leica and Swarovski "equivalents").

The sharpness and resolution of the view throughout the zoom range continues to make me grin, even after a year and a bit of ownership, and as Barry says at the lower end of the zoom, the view is wide, wide, wide!

It's better than you'd expect it to be in marginal light too.

Some people say that compared with more "neutral" scopes the Zeiss view has a yellow cast: I can see what they mean but I have never seen it as a problem - an alternative way to describe it is as a "warmer" image, and I for one find the Zeiss view very satisfying, and the tiny difference this cast/warmth makes has no negative effect whatsoever on the perceived accuracy with which birds' colours are represented.

In other words, you won't mis-ID a bird because of it and you might actually appreciate the slight difference in tone compared with the arguably "colder" views from other scopes.

As I say though, it's really just a case of finding one you like - they're all great scopes, but if the little Zeiss is as good as this, the 85mm is going to be more of the same.

Click to expand...

Zeiss scopes do have a bright image, but if you're going to be using it in overcast conditions then I'd be inclined to stick with the 85mm version - especially as it's such a compact light weight design. The much wider field of view helps with locating birds as well.

I do like Kowa scopes as well. I had the angled version the 823 for a couple of years and was very pleased with it - it was as good as the Swarovski I have now.
Optically I don't think there's much in it, but the Kowa is a larger heavier design.

zoom edge fuzziness and digiscoping

I believe I read and/or heard somewhere that the swimminess at the edge of the FOV disappears at the zoom's higher powers, which raises the following 2 questions: 1) at what power does it disappear; and 2) how does this swimminess affect digiscoping - i.e., if it disappears at 30X, and I'm digiscoping at higher power (often unlikely) then it wouldn't seem to pose a problem.
Thanks,
El Puffino

dbradnum said:

I'm yet another very happy Zeiss owner - I've had the 85 almost a year, and am delighted with it.

However, my advice to elpuffino would be don't even consider spending that much money without trying what you're buying, side by side with the competitors! The differences between all the top end scopes are not huge, and a lot comes down to personal preference. You need to decide if the image through the Zeiss is what you want, if you like the image tone, find the dual focus comfortable, don't mind the outer FOV being slightly soft and swimmy at wide angle... All of these things put some people off, and if you don't try it, you'll never know.

Click to expand...

So, which would you choose?

I hate to put you on the spot, but, based on your experience with the Kowa and the Zeiss, which would you pick? I certainly hope to be able to give them a direct comparison, but I'm curious about the views of folks like you who've actually gotten a chance to use both in the field.
Also, here's a quick research methods question from someone who's just getting familiar with the forum - is it possible that one reason that I'm hearing mostly from happy Zeiss owners is because the thread is posted in the Zeiss category (and thus folks familiar with the Zeiss , but not with the other scopes are replying)? Still, all the Zeiss users are satisfied, which goes a long way.
Thanks,
El Puffino

IanF said:

Zeiss scopes do have a bright image, but if you're going to be using it in overcast conditions then I'd be inclined to stick with the 85mm version - especially as it's such a compact light weight design. The much wider field of view helps with locating birds as well.

I do like Kowa scopes as well. I had the angled version the 823 for a couple of years and was very pleased with it - it was as good as the Swarovski I have now.
Optically I don't think there's much in it, but the Kowa is a larger heavier design.

Click to expand...

Hi El Puffino

if you have the chance, obviously try the 65/85 scopes side-by-side to find what suits you best, but remember there's a great deal of difference between trying the kit out in a shop and actually using it after carrying it on a 10 mile hike up hill and down dale and you've still got miles to go! Also a scope needs a sturdy tripod - more stuff to lug around along with the camera, sandwiches, flask, notebook and bins!!

elpuffino said:

I hate to put you on the spot, but, based on your experience with the Kowa and the Zeiss, which would you pick? I certainly hope to be able to give them a direct comparison, but I'm curious about the views of folks like you who've actually gotten a chance to use both in the field.
Also, here's a quick research methods question from someone who's just getting familiar with the forum - is it possible that one reason that I'm hearing mostly from happy Zeiss owners is because the thread is posted in the Zeiss category (and thus folks familiar with the Zeiss , but not with the other scopes are replying)? Still, all the Zeiss users are satisfied, which goes a long way.
Thanks,
El Puffino

Click to expand...

A tough one to answer as it really is down to personal preference as to how the scope feels for you. Both are excellent scopes and to be honest I'd expect you to be pleased with the performance of any of the top names.

The Zeiss is a modern compact lightweight design with very bright optics. If just considering the two models for my use I'd likely buy the Zeiss 85mm. It has top quality optics, is very good for digiscoping and as I tend to carry the scope for a couple of miles when birding the compactness and lower weight is a boon. personally I like the wide field of view and the fuzzy edges as it seems to let more light in. I'm not 100% sold on the yellowish cast but I dare say I'd get used to it.

The Kowa is larger and heavier and a more dated design. However is digiscoping is the prime use and I wasn't intending carrying it very far then I'd buy the Kowa. I also prefer the more natural crisper view through the eyepiece which is just the same as the Swarovski.

As regards the replies to the thread then I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is the Zeiss optics forum so it will mainly be Zeiss owners that reply however like myself, several members do have experience of more than one scope brand.

I digiscope with the Zeiss 65 with no problems (apart from the photographer himself!).

I usually use the 15x setting on the zoom lens if I can. There is no soft edge problem since with most (if not all) cameras you need to zoom in a couple of stages with the camera's optical zoom just to eliminate vignetting - and this eliminates any soft edge that might be visible. I hope this makes sense - basically you never use the outer 10 percent of the scope image anyway.

In fact having a zoom down as low as 15x is a real digiscoping advantage - the lower the magnification the more light, faster shutter speed, lower shake magnification etc. In addition the wide fov makes finding your subject much easier - you can then zoom in further if you need to.

As for poor light, I think both Barry and Keith live in the north of England - there's not much anyone can tell them about overcast conditions :storm:

Puffino,

If your Nikon does not show an adequately sharp image at 38x, it is definitely a poor sample. A sharp one will also show just as good depth of field as any other scope at equal magnifications. 38x will always have less depth of field than a 32x, though.

So, I would say that any of your three options would be a good one, providing you get a good sample in return. The only bad option would be to keep the present scope.

My personal preference is pretty strongly in favor of larger scopes, and since you initially opted for the 82, you seem to have an inclination for them also. Larger objectives not only give brighter images at low light, but also offer better resolution and thus work better at higher magnifications. They weigh more, but then they are also balanced better. Since Zeiss, Swaro and Nikon use the same prism housing on both their large and small scopes and have not bothered to customize the tripod attachment for both sizes, they are all rear-heavy in the 60-65mm configurations and very well balanced in the 80-85mm models.

As far as the focussing designs, you'll get used to whatever you end up having. They all work well enough. Having said that, my personal favorite is the Zeiss dual-knob even though I have never owned one. Whenever I use it, though, I think it is very good and easy, and can be fine-focused splendidly without shaking the gear.

My final comment is that although I like the Kowa image a lot, I have a bias against composite bodies and a preference for metal alloys. I cannot help thinking that there is a higher likelihood for the Zeiss or the Nikon (or the Swaro) to become a heirloom rather than anything made out of fibre-reinforced composites.

Kimmo

Thank you all for your scope advice - the time, thought, and knowledge you've put into helping a relative stranger are really amazing. As to my scope decision: When I mentioned to Eagle Optics that I thought I might have gotten a sub-par unit, one of the people there said they'd check it for defects, while another said he didn't believe in unit to unit variation. My feeling is that while the scope's performance is probably substandard, it isn't quite "defective" (i.e., no knob falling off, or anything obvious like that). So, if it isn't defective, I don't know if they'd just want to trade it for another unit. I am now leaning towards the Zeiss 85 (especially since Eagle Optics just reduced the price by over $100), based on your comments, and the incredible quality of some photos taken with it posted in the gallery. Also, having had a scope or two fall on the rocks, Kimmo's concerns about the Kowa's composite body have some resonance. Still, I would like to try all three scopes side by side (and have a look through the 65 mm models as well), but it might be problematic, as the scope dealerships that I know seem to carry either Kowa or Zeiss, but not both. Also, if I somehow manage to get my hands on a better Nikon unit, I'll go with that, save over $500 and use it towards a ticket to some truly exotic birding locale - perhaps even the U.K. I also like Barry's suggestion to carry a flask on a birding trek - if its contents are right the edges of my f.ov. will be "swimmy" no matter what scope I use, but I'll still enjoy the expedition!
Thanks again,
El Puffino

kabsetz said:

..I have a bias against composite bodies and a preference for metal alloys. I cannot help thinking that there is a higher likelihood for the Zeiss or the Nikon (or the Swaro) to become a heirloom rather than anything made out of fibre-reinforced composites. Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo, I tend to agree with you. But then, I don't think it makes sense to buy a optical tool as a heirloom. My experiences with the advances in the field make me think such a piece might end up in the attic by then. Anyway, I bought the FL binoculars in spite of the fact that it is also a piece made of composites. In the end it is the overall performance that made me choose it, with the hope that the composites will last as long as I do. Also, composites are heavily used in fighter airplanes such as the Hornet FA-18, so they can't be that bad.

Swissboy said:

composites are heavily used in fighter airplanes such as the Hornet FA-18, so they can't be that bad.

Click to expand...

So it must be good if you can make weapons out of it? Sorry Robert

I'd like to mention a couple of points concerning these scopes (Nikon, Kowa & Zeiss).
The Zeiss's eyepiece is on the same axis as the objective, whereas the Nikon is slightly off-set and the Kowa is very much to the right from the objective line. This makes aiming of the Zeiss easier than the others, unless you learn how to make and use cable-tie aiming tweakings.

The eyepieces of the Kowa are much better suited for digiscoping than the others (except the zoom!). Their superior eye-relief increases the options from which to choose a camera. Even the otherwise brilliant Zeiss zoom has only average eye-relief, and the Nikon zoom is even worse. Both Nikon & Zeiss have 30x wide-angles, which are better for digiscoping, but they simply don't have the best fixed power: 20/21x.

I have nothing to add to Kimmo's comments about the scope size. It is IMO almost like the "ED vs. non-ED" issue. But I do understand that weight/size can sometimes be a determining factor.

Best regards,

Ilkka

El Puffino obviously ndoesn't need a scope to see through my flask carrying ploy - let's hope the wife doesn't read this!! Or are we going to broaden this discussion into what one should carry as liquid refreshment when out birding…

B

El Puffino,
I tried the ED82 with a 30x WW recently....Wow!!!Superb! Razor sharp, easy to focus and great natural colours and contrast. I'm now saving up for one. I even found the much maligned 75X zoom easy to use in practice.
I'd suggest you've got a stinker of a scope....or maybe its just the wrong one for your eyes. I think we all 'see' things differently when looking through Optics (just read some of the scope threads!), which is where side-by-side comparison comes in very useful to choose the best/most suitable one for yourself. I've looked through a number of scope models recently, and when you look through 'the right one' you know it.
One last thought, have you tried it with a 30xWW?

Steve Jones said:

El Puffino,
I tried the ED82 with a 30x WW recently....Wow!!!Superb! Razor sharp, easy to focus and great natural colours and contrast. I'm now saving up for one. I even found the much maligned 75X zoom easy to use in practice.
I'd suggest you've got a stinker of a scope....or maybe its just the wrong one for your eyes. I think we all 'see' things differently when looking through Optics (just read some of the scope threads!), which is where side-by-side comparison comes in very useful to choose the best/most suitable one for yourself. I've looked through a number of scope models recently, and when you look through 'the right one' you know it.
One last thought, have you tried it with a 30xWW?

Click to expand...

I echo what Steve says.
I have the ED82A, 30x Wide and 38x Wide. In clear air I find the view to be Razor sharp. I can still visualise my first subject on getting the scope home, a hare at about 25 yards away. Every hair absolutely sharp - stunning detail. So if in clear air you are not able to get similar results the scope is definately a poor sample. Well worth asking Eagle Optics to check it out. If you get satisfaction and stay with the Nikon then see if you can try it with the 30x Wide. That eyepiece gives this scope the WOW factor.

get a 30 x W for it

Tim

iporali said:

So it must be good if you can make weapons out of it? Sorry Robert Ilkka

Click to expand...

I happen to have an interest in flying objects other than birds. Though I don't like the purpose they make them for. But those planes are likely to put more strain on the material than we do on our optics. Which is why I assume it's OK to have those composites in our optical tools.