-
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.
New Televid 82 mm (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pagophila
- Start date
Robert L Jarvis
Robert L Jarvis
The new scope was on display at the Birdfair yesterday. It could not be looked through as it was in a glass case. According to the "expert" it was a prototype model, the new scope will be relased next April and no prices have been released. The design looks very much like the new Kowa and not stretched out like the Televid. There will also be a "65" available in due course to accompany the 82. Leica are very confident in that the scope will produce the goods. Particular mention was made of the eyepiece which was 20-60 zoom. The "expert" explained that the design was very unique and that for use in viewing birds or digiscoping one would not need any other eyepiece such as a 20x, 30x or 40x, the new zoom it was claimed can be used at all of these settings without loss of resolution or definition. The design and workings were advised to me but must admit it all went a bit over my head. The scope will weigh in at about 1500grams. Seeing it in the "flesh", it looks very good, the model on show was an angled version. No doubt more details will filter out soon.
41m @ 25x , 28m @ 50x, eye relief 19mm, 390g, 100mm long x 57.5mm dia
look at the (PDF) brochure link
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Those FOV specs work out to about 58.6 degrees AFOV at 25x and 80 degrees (!) at 50X. Too bad the maximum magnification is so low.
I would say that Leica marketing department has had a great idea to call their "low-end" model "HD". It is interesting to see how Swarovski is going to respond. 
I also wish Leica's 2x wide angled zoom VERY welcome. Some users would probably have preferred longer zoom ranges, but if its eye-relief and edge sharpness are good enough, this has a potential to be the best digiscoping eyepiece ever - and just the right power for my other birdwatching needs.
Some random observations on the new design and that strange marketing language:
- lens hood looks quite short
- the body looks back heavy: a long balance plate may be useful especially with digiscoping gear
- is the "newly developed interchangeable bayonet system" that has "full compatibility" compatible with earlier bayonets?
- What the hell is this? "...the eyepiece's focal length is now also independent of the 65 mm or 82 mm scope being used, and is retained when the eyepieces are changed". Did they mean power, parfocality or perhaps "infinity corrected optics" that they use with their research microscopes? This could make it possible to design new kinds of accessories between the eyepiece and the objective - like imagers.
- "32 x WW, with its excellent focusing performance..." Are they using machine translators or something? :-O
I thought I would never see a need to upgrade my old Swaro, but I may not be so sure anymore. :t:
Ilkka
I also wish Leica's 2x wide angled zoom VERY welcome. Some users would probably have preferred longer zoom ranges, but if its eye-relief and edge sharpness are good enough, this has a potential to be the best digiscoping eyepiece ever - and just the right power for my other birdwatching needs.
Some random observations on the new design and that strange marketing language:
- lens hood looks quite short
- the body looks back heavy: a long balance plate may be useful especially with digiscoping gear
- is the "newly developed interchangeable bayonet system" that has "full compatibility" compatible with earlier bayonets?
- What the hell is this? "...the eyepiece's focal length is now also independent of the 65 mm or 82 mm scope being used, and is retained when the eyepieces are changed". Did they mean power, parfocality or perhaps "infinity corrected optics" that they use with their research microscopes? This could make it possible to design new kinds of accessories between the eyepiece and the objective - like imagers
.- "32 x WW, with its excellent focusing performance..." Are they using machine translators or something? :-O
I thought I would never see a need to upgrade my old Swaro, but I may not be so sure anymore. :t:
Ilkka
matt green
Norfolkman gone walkabout
I also notice the shaped tripod foot now fits directly into manfrotto tripod heads (like swarovski so no more need for quick release plates)
Matt
Matt
henry link
Well-known member
I read through the downloadable Leica brochure looking for scraps of "real" information in the marketing poop. Buried in the details are a few tidbits that suggest some good things (particularly for the 65mm) and some probable optical weaknesses.
The objective lens is described as "4 elements". In birding scopes that typically means a doublet objective and a doublet focusing lens. That's one element short of most other premium scopes which use triplet objectives. Better corrections are theoretically possible with a triplet. Also the focal length of the 82mm scope has remained the same as the old 77mm, 440mm, which means the focal ratio is an extremely fast f/5.37. A doublet that fast is really pushing the envelope no matter what kind of glass is used. Even if hand aspherizing and correcting were done (adding $1000 to the price) I don't think a telescope with such a fast doublet can ever be really excellent. I'll have to see it to believe it. On the other hand, the 65mm scope should benefit from having its focal length increased to 440mm, making it f/6.77, a focal ratio that should allow it to be a very well corrected telescope. Another thing I prefer about the 65mm is that the magnification range of the zoom eyepieces (25-50x, 20-60x) is a much better match to the resolving power of the optics. 50x or even 60x is just too low to see the full resolution of a good 82mm scope.
The erecting system is completely new for Leica and is identical to the Zeiss Diascopes. A Schmidt roof prism for the angled version and the odd choice of a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism for the straight version. I don't understand why Schmidt-Pechan was chosen over Porro. SP has nothing but disadvantages. It's more expensive, requires mirror coating and has lower light transmission. The type of mirror coating is not specified, which suggests it may be silver instead of Leicas' version of dielectric. The last I heard Zeiss strangely continued to use silver in the Diascope instead of dielectric.
The HD and APO designations are interesting. Leica still have two tiers of optical quality, but have wisely chosen to drop standard crown and flint objectives, which simply don't have good enough performance to belong in the $1000+ price range. Swarovski should do the same. Notice that both the HD and APO versions use "fluoride glass", but the APO is claimed to have better corrections. In using these designations Leica seem to be recognizing the fact that simply using an "ED" type glass does not mean APO performance will be achieved. It's entirely possible that the HD version of the Leicas will match the color correction of the Swarovski HD scopes, which are better than fast achromats but are certainly not true APO's (particularly the 80mm HD). The Leica APO versions may achieve better color correction than the HD versions by using a "better" and more expensive type of fluoro-crown glass, for instance Schott FK-56 instead of FK-54 or FK-51, and/or the mating glass could be a better (and more expensive) match. It's a bit odd that the APO is given a protective cover glass, but the HD version isn't. Does this mean the front glass of the APO is a glass type Leica consider to be too delicate for an exterior surface?
If I were in the market for an angled 65mm scope I would have to wait until April because the new Leica APO with the 25-50x would go right to the top of my short list. At least on paper, the 82mm doesn't look as optically promising to me.
The objective lens is described as "4 elements". In birding scopes that typically means a doublet objective and a doublet focusing lens. That's one element short of most other premium scopes which use triplet objectives. Better corrections are theoretically possible with a triplet. Also the focal length of the 82mm scope has remained the same as the old 77mm, 440mm, which means the focal ratio is an extremely fast f/5.37. A doublet that fast is really pushing the envelope no matter what kind of glass is used. Even if hand aspherizing and correcting were done (adding $1000 to the price) I don't think a telescope with such a fast doublet can ever be really excellent. I'll have to see it to believe it. On the other hand, the 65mm scope should benefit from having its focal length increased to 440mm, making it f/6.77, a focal ratio that should allow it to be a very well corrected telescope. Another thing I prefer about the 65mm is that the magnification range of the zoom eyepieces (25-50x, 20-60x) is a much better match to the resolving power of the optics. 50x or even 60x is just too low to see the full resolution of a good 82mm scope.
The erecting system is completely new for Leica and is identical to the Zeiss Diascopes. A Schmidt roof prism for the angled version and the odd choice of a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism for the straight version. I don't understand why Schmidt-Pechan was chosen over Porro. SP has nothing but disadvantages. It's more expensive, requires mirror coating and has lower light transmission. The type of mirror coating is not specified, which suggests it may be silver instead of Leicas' version of dielectric. The last I heard Zeiss strangely continued to use silver in the Diascope instead of dielectric.
The HD and APO designations are interesting. Leica still have two tiers of optical quality, but have wisely chosen to drop standard crown and flint objectives, which simply don't have good enough performance to belong in the $1000+ price range. Swarovski should do the same. Notice that both the HD and APO versions use "fluoride glass", but the APO is claimed to have better corrections. In using these designations Leica seem to be recognizing the fact that simply using an "ED" type glass does not mean APO performance will be achieved. It's entirely possible that the HD version of the Leicas will match the color correction of the Swarovski HD scopes, which are better than fast achromats but are certainly not true APO's (particularly the 80mm HD). The Leica APO versions may achieve better color correction than the HD versions by using a "better" and more expensive type of fluoro-crown glass, for instance Schott FK-56 instead of FK-54 or FK-51, and/or the mating glass could be a better (and more expensive) match. It's a bit odd that the APO is given a protective cover glass, but the HD version isn't. Does this mean the front glass of the APO is a glass type Leica consider to be too delicate for an exterior surface?
If I were in the market for an angled 65mm scope I would have to wait until April because the new Leica APO with the 25-50x would go right to the top of my short list. At least on paper, the 82mm doesn't look as optically promising to me.
Last edited:
Comments on Henry's informative posting:
"I don't understand why Schmidt-Pechan was chosen over Porro. "
I think they are smaller and lighter hence save weight. But I agree with your comments.
"It's a bit odd that the APO is given a protective cover glass, but the HD version isn't. Does this mean the front glass of the APO is a glass type Leica consider to be too delicate for an exterior surface?"
As you obviously know, if it was flourite crystal, that would be the case, as it is more delicate than normal glass.
It is also possible that damage to the front element is common. Postings here have suggested that the objective elements in the Swarovski scopes are matched, and hence a damaged front element requires replacement of the entire objective. That might be the case with Leica, hence a cover glass might make sense.
There have also been more than a few reports of coating damage on the front elements of Leica Televid scopes. It might be that this is rare, but it might not be. A cover glass would allow refurbishment at modest cost as and when required. It might also be seen as a benefit for birders who use a scope in destructive environments e.g. near the sea.
Personally I love the idea of a wide field 25-50x zoom. Bring it on.
You wonder about the image quality in the 82mm scope. In my opinion the APO Televid 77mm has excellent IQ with less CA than many competing instruments. It is entirely possible that Leica have decided to make sacrifices in aspects of IQ in order to get a bigger objective and lighter weight, and hence compete better against the competition. I hope so 'cos then I will continue to be happy with my Televid. Well, I will continue to be happy with such a good scope anyway.
We look forward to your review.
"I don't understand why Schmidt-Pechan was chosen over Porro. "
I think they are smaller and lighter hence save weight. But I agree with your comments.
"It's a bit odd that the APO is given a protective cover glass, but the HD version isn't. Does this mean the front glass of the APO is a glass type Leica consider to be too delicate for an exterior surface?"
As you obviously know, if it was flourite crystal, that would be the case, as it is more delicate than normal glass.
It is also possible that damage to the front element is common. Postings here have suggested that the objective elements in the Swarovski scopes are matched, and hence a damaged front element requires replacement of the entire objective. That might be the case with Leica, hence a cover glass might make sense.
There have also been more than a few reports of coating damage on the front elements of Leica Televid scopes. It might be that this is rare, but it might not be. A cover glass would allow refurbishment at modest cost as and when required. It might also be seen as a benefit for birders who use a scope in destructive environments e.g. near the sea.
Personally I love the idea of a wide field 25-50x zoom. Bring it on.
You wonder about the image quality in the 82mm scope. In my opinion the APO Televid 77mm has excellent IQ with less CA than many competing instruments. It is entirely possible that Leica have decided to make sacrifices in aspects of IQ in order to get a bigger objective and lighter weight, and hence compete better against the competition. I hope so 'cos then I will continue to be happy with my Televid.
Well, I will continue to be happy with such a good scope anyway. We look forward to your review.
Unless like me you use Arca Swiss plates which are standard in the photographic world.
On the page 94/95 of the Leica catalogue (Glossary) they somewhat confusingly seem to refer to fluorite mineral.
"Here, FL denotes a special type of lens made from calcium fluorite – a crystalline mineral with an extremely low refractive index and very low dispersion."
I have understood that Kowa too uses fluorite mineral in their 88mm scope, but fluoride-ED/XD in the smaller one.
Ilkka
Just contacted warehouse express and only limited scopes left and no price reduction, gutted!!.
Mark
Their literature for the APO Televid scopes was also confusing and contradictory regarding the objective 'glass' types.
The above suggests they use Flourspar, which Canon also use in their photographic optics.
Fluorspar = fluorite mineral (CaF2)?
I just meant to speculate that if there really is any mineral fluorite lenses used, it could be in the APO82 model, because that seems to require some extra protection.
It would be nice to hear from someone like Jeff Bouton how it really is.
Ilkka :t:
I just meant to speculate that if there really is any mineral fluorite lenses used, it could be in the APO82 model, because that seems to require some extra protection.
It would be nice to hear from someone like Jeff Bouton how it really is.
Ilkka :t:
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride
Excerpts from Leica brochure:
"The innovative High Definition models (HD) and especially the APO versions with their highly elaborate, apochromatic objectives use new kinds of fluoride glass (FL) for an image quality that gets even closer to the ideal."
"High-Definition optics (HD)/Apochromatic color aberration correction (APO) The optics on the new Ultravid and Televid HD models stand apart from conventional optics by way of their increased image resolution performance. The contrast on these models is greater, color aberrations are reduced, the image looks sharper, details are more clearly recognizable, and the color reproduction of the image is extremely natural. This is made possible by optimizing the existing optical systems with the help of new FL lenses.
Here, FL denotes a special type of lens made from calcium fluorite – a crystalline mineral with an extremely low refractive index and very low dispersion (see “color aberration”). Furthermore, these optical glasses offer an impressively high degree of transmission – from UV right into the IR segment of light. By combining FL types of glass with “normal” optical glasses and glasses with anomalous partial dispersion to form achromatic optical systems, chromatic aberration and other imaging errors can be significantly reduced.
This performance is only further improved by apochromatic aberration correction (APO), as used in the APO models. They are also made up of a combination of FL and “normal” optical glasses as well as glasses with anomalous partial dispersion, but are considerably more elaborate, since in their special optical construction they are optimized for three lengths of light waves (primary and secondary spectrum) instead of two (only primary spectrum) – as in achromats. The more compact this kind of optical system has to become, the more complicated its development is. Especially for long focal lengths and high magnifications, this kind of elaborate APO construction is worthwhile, because in ensures a totally impressive viewing experience."
Sounds interesting!
John
PS
Nikon and Swarovski will most likely develop FL-based products, assuming they want to compete with Zeiss and Leica.
Excerpts from Leica brochure:
"The innovative High Definition models (HD) and especially the APO versions with their highly elaborate, apochromatic objectives use new kinds of fluoride glass (FL) for an image quality that gets even closer to the ideal."
"High-Definition optics (HD)/Apochromatic color aberration correction (APO) The optics on the new Ultravid and Televid HD models stand apart from conventional optics by way of their increased image resolution performance. The contrast on these models is greater, color aberrations are reduced, the image looks sharper, details are more clearly recognizable, and the color reproduction of the image is extremely natural. This is made possible by optimizing the existing optical systems with the help of new FL lenses.
Here, FL denotes a special type of lens made from calcium fluorite – a crystalline mineral with an extremely low refractive index and very low dispersion (see “color aberration”). Furthermore, these optical glasses offer an impressively high degree of transmission – from UV right into the IR segment of light. By combining FL types of glass with “normal” optical glasses and glasses with anomalous partial dispersion to form achromatic optical systems, chromatic aberration and other imaging errors can be significantly reduced.
This performance is only further improved by apochromatic aberration correction (APO), as used in the APO models. They are also made up of a combination of FL and “normal” optical glasses as well as glasses with anomalous partial dispersion, but are considerably more elaborate, since in their special optical construction they are optimized for three lengths of light waves (primary and secondary spectrum) instead of two (only primary spectrum) – as in achromats. The more compact this kind of optical system has to become, the more complicated its development is. Especially for long focal lengths and high magnifications, this kind of elaborate APO construction is worthwhile, because in ensures a totally impressive viewing experience."
Sounds interesting!
John
PS
Nikon and Swarovski will most likely develop FL-based products, assuming they want to compete with Zeiss and Leica.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks for posting those quotes, John. I wasn't too keen to download the 102 page brochure again. It takes my dial-up service about half an hour.
After scrutinizing the quotes a few times I'm still not sure whether Leica is using an element made of CaF2 or an equivalent glass type containing fluoride. Certainly, "a special type of lens made from calcium fluorite (sic) - a crystalline mineral with an extremely low refractive index and very low dispersion" sounds like CaF2, but then in the very next sentence the writer seems to be refering to it as an optical glass. The translation might be bad or the writer might be confused or both.
While I like to know whether a telescope uses Fluorite or glass, in fact it no longer makes any real difference in the performance of the optics at visual wavelengths. In recent years glass types which essntially duplicate the optical properties of CaF2 have become available, like Schott FK-56 and Ohara FPL-53. There is really not much point in using Fluorite anymore, although there is nothing wrong with using it either. Matching glass types and the total design matter much more than Fluorite vs glass.
What Leica and no other maker of birding scopes want to talk about is spherical aberration which is far worse than chromatic aberration in these fast scopes and isn't helped at all by low dispersion glass or Fluorite. The only ways to improve SA are to make the focal ratios higher (which makes the scopes longer) or do some very expensive hand aspherizing and correcting.
After scrutinizing the quotes a few times I'm still not sure whether Leica is using an element made of CaF2 or an equivalent glass type containing fluoride. Certainly, "a special type of lens made from calcium fluorite (sic) - a crystalline mineral with an extremely low refractive index and very low dispersion" sounds like CaF2, but then in the very next sentence the writer seems to be refering to it as an optical glass. The translation might be bad or the writer might be confused or both.
While I like to know whether a telescope uses Fluorite or glass, in fact it no longer makes any real difference in the performance of the optics at visual wavelengths. In recent years glass types which essntially duplicate the optical properties of CaF2 have become available, like Schott FK-56 and Ohara FPL-53. There is really not much point in using Fluorite anymore, although there is nothing wrong with using it either. Matching glass types and the total design matter much more than Fluorite vs glass.
What Leica and no other maker of birding scopes want to talk about is spherical aberration which is far worse than chromatic aberration in these fast scopes and isn't helped at all by low dispersion glass or Fluorite. The only ways to improve SA are to make the focal ratios higher (which makes the scopes longer) or do some very expensive hand aspherizing and correcting.
Last edited:
black lark
Registered User
Yes, Flourspar is the name given to the naturally occurring CaF2. One variety is called Blue John and has an attractive blue colour.
Looks like the Leica people still have to do some explaining. They may certainly need to coordinate better between what the scientists say and what is finally printed after the text has been fitted into the format of the brochure. Also, I assume all those definitions in their brochure date from before announcing the new Ultravids and Televids. So, that text may not be meant for our upcoming new toys.
Last edited:
