Aperture v ED (1 Viewer)

It seems that at just about any price point one has a choice between a bigger scope and one with ED glass. One can get a good ED 60ish mm scope for near the price of a good 80ish mm scope, and the same can be said for the new 50mm ED scopes compared to their 60mm standard glass counterparts.

I would prefer to have a smaller scope with ED glass qualifying that I rarely need over 30x.

Let's have some others chime in on their thoughts. Forced to choose would you take ED or aperture?

Robert Ellis said:

It seems that at just about any price point one has a choice between a bigger scope and one with ED glass. One can get a good ED 60ish mm scope for near the price of a good 80ish mm scope, and the same can be said for the new 50mm ED scopes compared to their 60mm standard glass counterparts.

I would prefer to have a smaller scope with ED glass qualifying that I rarely need over 30x.

Let's have some others chime in on their thoughts. Forced to choose would you take ED or aperture?

Click to expand...

ED because i can't be bothered to lug a big scope around anyway, my manfrotto 190 and Zeiss 65 are more than heavy enough

Likewise - I'd rather have an ED/APO 65 (like my Zeiss) than an 80+mm non ED anything.

I guess it depends on what the scope is going to be used for. If for digiscoping then I'd definitely go with the ED glass - even though it's a smaller objective.

If for just 'normal' viewing then I'd likely opt for the larger objective since in my experience the eye is less discerning than a camera. A larger objective means a brighter and wider view - ideal for dull conditions or evening use. Also the reason for me having a scope is to get a bit more reach than my binoculars - the larger objective giving more reach than the smaller. On the other hand if I were likely to be carying it far then a smaller scope would be better.

In the end I went for the compromise - larger objective but the most compact design - but probably the dearest one of the lot!