Swarovski AT80 vs Nikon Fieldscope III ED (1 Viewer)

I've seen each of these scopes with a 20-60x zoom eyepiece selling for around $1,000, and I'm wondering if anyone has had any experience with both of these scopes. The Swarovski I can buy is the non-HD version while the Nikon is ED glass but 60mm vs the 80mm of the Swaro.

Which of these would you recommend if offered at the same price point? From what I've read so far, the Swarovski scope has a wider view with the zoom while the Nikon may correct better for CA or distortion with the ED glass. Thoughts?

Hi Coolhand - well...it depends.

If you do a lot of hiking and/or traveling by plane/bus etc. - the smaller Nikon would be more handy...and one you would be more likely to bring with you. Is the Nikon a straight or angled version? This is a critical consideration...you can get accustomed to viewing one way or another - but many people have a preference...I prefer angled myself - because I do digiscoping and like to let other people of different heights look through my scope.

If space is not a consideration, the Swarovski AT80 still remains an amazing spotting scope. I know because I own one and have been using it since 1995 or so. I once owned both the HD and still own the non-HD and was able to compare them. You will see no difference. There will be ever so slight chromatic aberration with the non HD version - but you will only see it you take a photo (digiscope) of a bird through the scope...it will look like a purple fringe around branches or a perched bird, etc. But for looking through the scope - not a problem. One important thing to look for is the 20-60x zoom. There have been several iterations...the earliest model just screwed into the objective; the second iteration had a locking mechanism...the current version (the best) is larger - you can probably find photos of each on the web -you might want to ask the seller which version he has and adjust the price accordingly.

The Swarovski repair/warranty is top notch. If your scope ever develops internal fogging (all the best scopes are nitrogen purged/sealed but certain conditions will cause moisture to build on the internal glass...such as storing the scope in a high humidity environment or taking the scope from an air-con room into the humid tropics...like a hotel room (overnite) to the rainforest (morning). Anyway, Swarovski would repair your scope for free - even if you are not the first - because such "damage" is covered under the lifetime warranty. (Remember these scopes are supposed to be waterproof on land!) I have sent many items to Swarovski that I purchased used or new - and Swarovski has always fixed them with no questions asked - and no charge. I highly highly recommend Swarovski for this reason. By comparison, having owned Nikon photo equipment and Leica binoculars - and having used the repair departments for both - I am much less impressed...repairs are expensive at either...I know because they have charged me for problems I thought were manufacturing defects - on items I bought new that developed problems down the line.

Nikon's ED glass would be better than Swarovski's in certain situations...but (for me) the Nikon 60mm size would fall far short of the view the 80mm Swarovski would offer. So you can see my preference right away - however, you must make your own decision based upon your needs.

Finally, if you could save a few hundred dollars more in the coming weeks, the Swarovski 80mm ATS/STS scopes with zoom lens are becoming more common on the used market (about $1300-$1500) - that might be the best of all worlds. However, if you can get that Swaro 80AT for $1000 or less (try for $750) - that would be wonderful. So again - the best scope for your needs...it depends on your needs, the money you have etc.

Finally, finally...expect to pay another $200-$600 for a good tripod and pan/tilt head. Buy used and start looking now...these two items are also critical to get the best out of any scope.

Good Luck!

Robert DeCandido PhD
NYC

$1000 seems like too high a price for either of these scopes to me. $600-650 would be more like it. At $1000 I would be searching for an AT-80 HD or a Nikon 82ED. Between those two the choice would be between lower eyepiece comfort from shorter eye relief with the Nikon zoom vs a more useful highest magnification of 75x in the Nikon.

I haven't seen one in a long time, but I didn't have a very high opinion of the non-HD version of the AT-80. I thought it was OK at low magnification, but too compromised by CA at higher magnification, about what you would expect from a conventional f/5.75 doublet.

As always, the wide quality variation in individual units of scopes with similar specs is often more important than the brand and model.

Henry

Totally agree with henry link...1000$ is the price of the Hd version ...If you could get the HD ,that is a very nice scope,and has the advantage of being compatible with the swarovski wide angle zoom..The nikon ED82 that Henry suggested has a higher power zoom,but is not very comfortable due to short eye relief and narrow field of view..You can also look for a used Kowa 823 in that budget,also very nice scope.There is a Brunton Icon ED with a wide angle zoom for 500 in this forum ,in the for sale section,although sample variation could be more crucial in that model that in those Nikon,Swaro or kowa models,that seem to be a bit more consistent,in my experience

I agree that a good unit of the Kowa 823 is a very fine scope. One of those, bought used by a friend for about $1000, has the lowest aberrations I've ever seen in any birding scope. However, anyone interested in that scope should look through the Kowa scope threads. There are reports of deteriorated rubber coating and breakage of the composite body.

I reviewed the Brunton ICON ED 25-50x scope here.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=297258

I tried two units. One was pretty good and one was pretty bad. A good ICON will show about all the detail most people can see through any scope at 50x as long as the distance to an object is beyond about 100'. Spherical aberration increases rapidly and resolution decreases at closer distances. I consider a good one to be about as effective beyond 100' as a current Swarovski ATS-80HD and certainly much better than a non-HD AT-80. The ICON has better correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration than the Swarovski, but outside of a small central area the Brunton 25-50x eyepiece has much more lateral color than the Swarovski 25-50x. Lateral color and excessive spherical aberration at close range are the Brunton's two Achilles' Heels.

Henry

henry link said:

I consider a good one to be about as effective beyond 100' as a current Swarovski ATS-80HD and certainly much better than a non-HD AT-80. The ICON has better correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration than the Swarovski /../
Henry

Click to expand...

just wondering, did you mean that the ICON has less longitudinal CA than ATS80HD or the non-HD AT-80??

Sorry I didn't make that clear. The ICON has exceptionally low longitudinal CA, lower than any Swarovski scope I've seen, including the ATX-85 and 95. It's so well corrected that I suspect what Brunton calls SD (super-low dispersion) glass is one of the Fluorite equivalents, like Ohara FPL53. It's a shame the low longitudinal CA isn't matched by equally well corrected lateral color.

Henry

henry link said:

Sorry I didn't make that clear. The ICON has exceptionally low longitudinal CA, lower than any Swarovski scope I've seen, including the ATX-85 and 95. It's so well corrected that I suspect what Brunton calls SD (super-low dispersion) glass is one of the Fluorite equivalents, like Ohara FPL53. It's a shame the low longitudinal CA isn't matched by equally well corrected lateral color.

Henry

Click to expand...

ok, thanks for clarifying, very interesting!
just wonder what the tradeoffs are here, since Swaro don't make the very last effort to remove all longitudinal CA?

would it impair on transmission, or some other optical property that they prioritizes?

No optical tradeoffs at all, just increased cost.

Thanks for all the suggestions and useful info. I should have added that I currently use a Nikon 60mm ED II w/20-45x eyepiece. I love this little setup and I'm wondering if I'd see much improvement between 20-40 jumping up to a 80 or so objective. From what I understand, the bigger glass is ideal for the longer end of magnification when you go past 40 or so. I've seen a Nikon 78mm ED with 20-60x going for $700, not sure if that would be a significant improvement or not. I know it isn't waterproof and I can't think of too many situations where I'll need that feature, even though it's nice to have.

I'm going to visit an optical shop this weekend to have a look at some scopes and make some comparisons. Swaro, Zeiss, Pentax. Curious to see what I'm missing.

If you don't need WP and don't have to carry very far or not at all, a 80ED refractor would be a cheaper idea and just keep the 60ED.

Coolhand,

I have owned the Nikon ED 78 A for many years, and can say that a good sample is an excellent scope and will be significantly better than the ED II at magnifications above 35x or so. Also, even though it is not waterproof, it is very well sealed and not once did I have any trouble with fogging or water penetration even though it was used in the rain quite often. However, I had a stay-on case on it most of the time.

I will also recommend the Kowa 823/4 that Henry praised. The rubber coating issue is real, but since it is only cosmetic, you can use it to your advantage by bargaining the price down. Impact resistance can be an issue, but in my view the scope is likely to break only if it receives a hit hard enough to be likely to compromise the optical properties of a scope anyway, irrespective of what it is made of.

The ED 60 II is a good scope, though, and will give you a good reference standard by which to evaluate improvements. Do take it with you when you go shopping, and set it up beside the other scopes. Also, in reference to your initial question, I don't think the Fieldscope III ED is enough of an improvement over the ED II to warrant the upgrade. It is brighter and has better contrast and is fully waterproof, but that's it and the differences are not huge in the first two areas.

Kimmo

So you already have the 60ED II? That's a great scope! I agree with Kimmo that the ED III is only a tiny improvement over it, so I would eliminate the EDIII and other 60mm scopes from consideration. Definitely go with the 78ED or the Kowa 82, or another ~80mm ED scope. What are you looking for with respect to "improvement"? If it is a brighter and/or easier view, the big scopes will certainly deliver. If it is more magnification, the big scopes will provide a more modest gain. Since you already have a great 60mm scope, and you seem most interested in powers around 30x, you may not be impressed with gains from a larger scope. That said, one advantage of going with the 78ED is that the zoom you describe as a 20-60x is actually a 25-75x on that scope, so it provides more magnification than the other scopes you are considering. Furthermore, you'll be able to use that eyepiece on your 60mm ED II as a 20-60x zoom, and assuming your 20-45x is of the same age as your scope, you'll find that besides providing higher magnifications it also has better coatings for possibly improved contrast. There are two versions of the 20-60x, the MCII version with better coatings, but both are better than old versions of the 20-45x. Some folks don't like the eye-relief and FOV of the Nikon zooms, but if you already get on well with the 20-45x you'll love the 20-60/25-75x.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

I agree with Kimmo that the ED III is only a tiny improvement over it, so I would eliminate the EDIII and other 60mm scopes from consideration. Definitely go with the 78ED or the Kowa 82, or another ~80mm ED scope. What are you looking for with respect to "improvement"? If it is a brighter and/or easier view, the big scopes will certainly deliver. If it is more magnification, the big scopes will provide a more modest gain. Since you already have a great 60mm scope, and you seem most interested in powers around 30x, you may not be impressed with gains from a larger scope. That said, one advantage of going with the 78ED is that the zoom you describe as a 20-60x is actually a 25-75x on that scope, so it provides more magnification than the other scopes you are considering. Furthermore, you'll be able to use that eyepiece on your 60mm ED II as a 20-60x zoom, and assuming your 20-45x is of the same age as your scope, you'll find that besides providing higher magnifications it also has better coatings for possibly improved contrast. There are two versions of the 20-60x, the MCII version with better coatings, but both are better than old versions of the 20-45x. Some folks don't like the eye-relief and FOV of the Nikon zooms, but if you already get on well with the 20-45x you'll love the 20-60/25-75x.

Click to expand...

I fully agree. I've got the EDIII (and have access to two EDIIs) as well as the ED82, and the EDII is *a bit* better than the EDII, but no more than that. A bigger scope would be a better addition, ideally the 78mm or the 82mm Nikon because you can use your eyepieces then. One of the great advantages of the Nikons is that there seem to be fewer lemons about than with other scopes. We've got altogether 3 60mm Nikon scopes in the family, and they are *very* similar in optical quality. In fact, I've so far not seen a really bad specimen.

On the two versions of the 20-60x zoom - I've got both, and the difference is negligible IMO. They're both excellent (despite their narrow field of view).

Hermann

Thanks again for all the great feedback. Is there an easy way to tell the older version of the 20-60x from the newer? Does the newer have twist-up eyecup?

Here's a Google search page with images of both the 20-60x MC and MC II zooms. The MC is the one with wider knurled rings between the magnification scale and the scope body. Both have twist-up eyecups.

http://www.google.com/search?q=niko...h&sa=X&ei=9bT5VJflKIf0yAS7hoC4DA&ved=0CAUQ_AU