Larger scope or XW10? (1 Viewer)

When I only had my Pentax 65mm I used to be very content with it. Although not a heavy scope, I found myself leaving it at home a little too often.
As a consequence, I missed some opportunities to see the far away birds.

So I bought a Nikon ED50A and a zoom eyepiece, and I use it with a monopod.
I knew it was a good scope but I am still amazed to see how well it performs.
As a matter of fact, I use it a lot more than my Pentax. The Pentax is still a lot wider because I use fixed eyepieces, and a little brighter, but not much.

But it is not sharper, from what I can see. And above 32x the image deteriorates (admittedly, I've only tried 48x).
So when I put all things together, the added effort of carrying it, compared to viewing quality and viewing time, I am not completely sure I should keep it.

I had, and still have, the idea of acquiring a Celestron C90 to reach beyond what the Pentax can. But then again, the Pentax reaches no further than the little Nikon.

So instead of having two "larger" scopes, I consider just replacing the Pentax with a larger scope.

What would you do from:

1) Get the Celestron and keep the Pentax

2) Same as above and buy an XW10 for the Pentax
3) Replace the Pentax with a larger scope - which? ?

//L

Get a Nikon 82ED.

mooreorless said:

Get a Nikon 82ED.

Click to expand...

I have considered it, if it's proportionally as good the ED50 and better in absolute terms. It must be able to handle at least 50x.
But I am not so fond of Nikon's eyepiece attachment method. The 1,25" eyepieces with locking ring on the scope is a great way to do it.

looksharp65 said:

I have considered it, if it's proportionally as good the ED50 and better in absolute terms. It must be able to handle at least 50x.
But I am not so fond of Nikon's eyepiece attachment method. The 1,25" eyepieces with locking ring on the scope is a great way to do it.

Click to expand...

Get the Celestron C90 or C70. One other factor to be considered is absolute cost, and both these scopes cost peanuts compared to the Nikon and use astro eyepieces. I use a LOMO Astele 60 mak sometimes up to 77x and there is no better scope than a mak for going to higher magnifications. As a matter of fact, mak scopes do not perform well at low magnifications (central obstruction becomes obtrusive).

Rmel66

The question is would you take a bigger scope with you?

There is a brightness/contrast versus magnification trade-off where a lower magnification and higher brightness can help usability with a short EP to help out when you really need that extra magnification.

I suspect the ideal EP for this scope is the XW14 (and I have seen that combo in the field ... the only time I've seen PF65 in the field) but that's 26x magnification (the "ideal" 2.5mm exit pupil for a 65mm scope and above the diffraction limit for the eye) or a similar.

Or a similar good 14 or 15mm EP.

I have the XF12 on mine as the standard and it's perhaps just a bit too much at 32x but still perfectly usable (especially as it has good ER and wide AFOV).

But I think you are pushing the Pentax at 48x. I've done the same with my Pentax PF65 and it's not great with a 9mm-ish EP though the images are bigger which can help ID but you have some issues with the small exit pupil and a more dim image.

I find I can push my Zeiss 65 Diascope rather further than the Pentax.

Which EP are you using now?

Perhaps a fixed EP for the Nikon ED50? And a light weight tripod?

Kevin is right in asking if you are willing to use a bigger scope to gain better higher magnification views than you are getting with the ED50. That said, the ED82 with MCII zoom is the logical upgrade. The only other fieldscope SYSTEMS that I would be interested in for visual use would be Swaro 65 and the Kowa 77x (I also like the Kowa 66x, but its 20-60x zoom does not match the optical quality of the scope). I like my Kowa 88's, but they only come out when I want to digiscope. The ED50 w/ MCII zoom and 20x wide MC handles all of my visual needs.

Lots of options on which way to go, but if you stay with the Nikon Fieldscope, you can
switch eyepieces for which one to go with. I also like the ED50, it is just a nice little
scope. I would also like to try the 82ED sometime, then it would seem you would have
all bases covered.

Jerry

Lars, Bob A (SD) recently bought a Celestron C90 and seems to like it a lot. I will give him a shout so he can tell you what he thinks.

Lars,

As Steve mentioned, I just picked up a new redesigned C90 (1250mm FL) and posted my thoughts along with some pix in several posts (starting with #19) to this thread http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=195811 I comment on the trade offs between an astro and conventional spotting scope as well as using the C90 for night time viewing.

As an aside, the word on CloudyNights is that Pentax will no longer be supplying their great high end XW eyepieces because of the impact of the recent earthquake and tsunami. This is not seen as temporary but a permanent move on the part of Pentax. Availability and pricing is already being impacted.


Addendum: just noticed that you'd also posted to that thread. Not sure if you saw my later posts on the second page though. Bottom line is that I remain quite pleased with my purchase. I'm using 32, 19 and 13mm 2" eyepieces along with a 25mm 1.25" for night viewing through that 2" 90* diagonal I bought. 32, 25, 12.5 and 10mm 1.25" eps do well for terrestrial work with the supplied Celestron 45* erect prism diagonal. I have pushed things up to a 6mm (208x) with success but wouldn't make a habit of it. For what it's worth, the 32mm (39x) and 12.5mm (100x) eyepieces Celestron choose to provide with the C90 spotter make for a very good power choice for the buyer who will not be adding additional eps.

I mounted my C90 on a Bogen 3021/3047 tripod as the one supplied with the bundle is much too flimsy. You can see the Bogen in the photo I show with the Intes-Micro Mak-Newt scope on a EQ6 mount in the background.

Your 65mm Pentax scope with a XW eyepiece will likely trump the C90 in the resolution arena despite the aperture size difference. But the differences may not be all that great (or even noticeable depending on your eyes) which begs the costerformance issue. Certainly the images will be brighter at higher magnification in the C90.

Lots of replies - thanks a lot!

My Pentax is used with cheap, but very, very nice BST Explorer eyepieces (12 and 18 mm).
I find the 12 mm most useful. The view is comfortable and wide with 60 degrees AFOV and really bright, then again no sharper than the Nikon.

The ED50 is used on a monopod which serves its purpose very nicely in terms of stability (I have mounted a steady side bracket on the lowest section to put my left foot on) and it is very speedy.

Kevin wonders; will I really bring a larger scope? Well, not all the time, probably the Nikon will be used the most. If I bring a larger scope it must give considerably more magnification, brightness and AFOV with great sharpness. This is where the Pentax 65 fails, as it is very nice at 32x but as a whole, not really better than the Nikon.

Considering the fact that the C90 is so cheap and can be used with thousands of different eyepieces, I suspect it would be the best way to go.
Then again, if my Pentax will spend its future life in the closet, wouldn't it be better to sell it first and buy a good 80mm or 85mm refractor rather than the C90?

I am thinking of the Pentax 80mm or the Celestron Regal or something similar.
Possibly the 82ED with zoom (I dont like to change the Nikon eyepieces in the field) but the Nikon zooms don't have the AFOV I want.

Buying the C90 will probably give the most opportunities at the least expense, but I am not very fond of the thought of having the splendid Pentax scope just as a spare.

We use to say "industrialized country problems" here in Sweden to make some irony on silly matters... guess this is one of these.

`My Pentax is used with cheap, but very, very nice BST Explorer eyepieces`

I used to have a 15mm, i found it to be of ave optical quality.

IF you keep the pentax, could be worth upgrading the ep you use.

in my experience, the c70 will give you 34-38x wide angle as its optimal point. Its def fuzzy past 40x.

Lars,

If cost were no object I'd have bought a nice TeleVue refractor BTW the newly redesigned C90 has been favorably compared to the William Optics 90 APO refractor by Ken Dauzat of Ken's Rings (see his comments here http://www.kendauzat.net/tele.htm). Factoring the central obstruction the new C90 has a light grasp equivalent to a 83mm refractor.

Not helping anyone... just posting to add problematic =P

What about that Vixen 110(mak) ?

It comes with the tripod(porta II) and looks great in the paper.

Anyone have tested it? Is it good? How it compares to the C90?