First Scope, Pentax PF-65 EDII still in the game? (1 Viewer)

Hi there

After I upgraded my bino to the Good Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42. I decided to "upgrade" my spotting scope from the Celestron C90, which weights a ton. My budget is within US$500-$800 scope + eyepiece. Weight <1400gram is acceptable.

I am not sure if the Pentax is still a good choice right now as it has already on the market for several years, and not sure if the Pentax XF 20-60X zoom eyepiece is a good combo. I love the fact that it comes with the pack and therefore no need for extra $ to buy one.
I notice that the new Celestron Regal M2 has cut down the weight to about the same as Pentax but a lot cheaper, is it comparable optically?

In my birding location, 30X is more than adequate in most situation, 60X is useful occasional. So, a good view with minimal CA at 30X, and usable 60X is good enough for me.


Please feel free to share your comment and valued experience below!|;|


AN

Hi ARRI!

I had the PF65EDAII and thoroughly enjoyed it. I never had a zoom, but the BST Explorer fixed eyepieces.
After I bought a Nikon ED50A, I concluded that they were too close in performance to justify the added weight of the Pentax. It was wonderful at 32x and usable at 43x and that's pretty much it.

So I complemented the ED50A with the Nikon ED82A, which yields another dimension of image quality.
The ED50A is still not very far behind it, as long as you don't exceed 30x magnification. Not because of the sharpness, but because the small exit pupil makes it less enjoyable.
The Pentax is better in that regard, and I can definitely recommend it. Re the zoom, I'm not the one to answer, but if I wanted another Pentax, I'd use the XW14 eyepiece (I use the fixed Nikon eyepieces as well. The Pentax has an infinitely better method of exchanging and securing the eyepieces than the threads of the Nikon Fieldscope series, so you could definitely complement the bundle with a fixed eyepiece).

//L

I had both the celestron 65 and the pentax 65(a couple of units of the pentax,actually),and honestly there is not comparison .The unit i had of the Regal 65 was a much better performer than any of the pentax i tried..The pentax is a nice ,compact scope and a more than decent performer,with good image quality up to 30x,but performance at high power was not stellar. Star tests i performed showed quite false color (although i didnt detect a lot of CA in the image)and very irregular patterns ,and coma was always present.I also enjoyed using it in the field and was my first good scope.I used it with the swarovski zoom astro version and was soft at 45x.The Celestron unit i owned ,used actually with Lars's own BST explorer,was an amazing scope,among the best i have owned really.At high power the Celestron had a strong edge,staying sharp at 45x with the Celestron zoom,and way more than that in tests i did boosting the image with 8x binoculars¡...but even at low power the difference could be noted.Star test confirmed great correction .This is important in extended and frequent sessions of observation.

I have a Pentax PF65ED and Pentax PF80ED, they are both excellent scopes. I took my 65ED11 to my local patch along with a Kowa TSN884 with 25x60 zoom. The Pentax with three fixed EPs, The Pentax with the XW20 which gives you 20x was almost a match for the Kowa but the Kowa was at 25x. The Kowa was slightly better, but that's all. Up to about 35x you would not be disappointed with the 65ED11. Despite it's age, it is an excellent scope.
Personally I don't buy into all the technical side of testing a scope, if I get a nice bright, clean pin sharp view, I'm happy and the Pentax provides that. I've tried a few scopes over the last five months, Kowa, Opticron, Hawke and I've looked through Swarovski 85mm and 95mm scopes. When you are really pushing the magnification and in poor light the more expensive scopes are better. Up to about 30x on the 65mm and about 40x on the PF80ed the Pentax scopes are as good as any.
Suffice to say I am absolutely delighted with mine.
I've been out today to my local reserve, with the 80ED and the Baader zoom (and I'm not a big fan of zooms ) but the views of the Little Ringed Plovers and the Green Sandpiper were stunning. I know I keep going on about these Pentax scopes, but they are superb.

mayoayo said:

I had both the celestron 65 and the pentax 65(a couple of units of the pentax,actually),and honestly there is not comparison .The unit i had of the Regal 65 was a much better performer than any of the pentax i tried..The pentax is a nice ,compact scope and a more than decent performer,with good image quality up to 30x,but performance at high power was not stellar. Star tests i performed showed quite false color (although i didnt detect a lot of CA in the image)and very irregular patterns ,and coma was always present.I also enjoyed using it in the field and was my first good scope.I used it with the swarovski zoom astro version and was soft at 45x.The Celestron unit i owned ,used actually with Lars's own BST explorer,was an amazing scope,among the best i have owned really.At high power the Celestron had a strong edge,staying sharp at 45x with the Celestron zoom,and way more than that in tests i did boosting the image with 8x binoculars¡...but even at low power the difference could be noted.Star test confirmed great correction .This is important in extended and frequent sessions of observation.

Click to expand...

Looks like the Celestron is the better bet for close enough performance yet much lower price.

Just wanna know what of kind tripod and tripod hand you guys use. I have a Velbon N640 which is a Gitzo#2 equivalent with a Velbon QHD-71Q ball head (40mm diameyer ball). Is the tripod overkill for a 65mm scope? Wonder if it is worth to "downgrade" the tripod. I know fluid head is the choice for spotting scope, However it seems all fluid head is so heavy that I wonder why not go to the 80mm scope if the whole system is just 300-400gram difference.

Hi,

in general your tripod cannot be too sturdy, only too heavy... a good rule of thumb is to use one which has a maximum rating of double the weight of your scope, EP and camera plus adaption (if you want to digiscope).
So the Velbon 640 looks quite good to slightly oversized. I have an old Velbon 530 legs which are rated almost the same except they have 3 section legs and it works quite nicely for my TSN-3 with SDLv2 EP at 1650g. I have a very light but not very fluid Velbon 3way head on there which I might want to change for a real fluid head sometime in the future...
I would not want to use a less stable tripod and I have used a very heavy duty Cullman Titan tripod (normally used for your medium format camera plus tele or the big studio light) in very windy conditions...

And yes, due to the weight of the tripod and head the weight difference between a 65mm and 80mm scope is not that much... I think what is more important is a way to easily carry the whole package - a scopac or clone is warmly recommended.

Regards,

Joachim

jring said:

Hi,

in general your tripod cannot be too sturdy, only too heavy... a good rule of thumb is to use one which has a maximum rating of double the weight of your scope, EP and camera plus adaption (if you want to digiscope).
So the Velbon 640 looks quite good to slightly oversized. I have an old Velbon 530 legs which are rated almost the same except they have 3 section legs and it works quite nicely for my TSN-3 with SDLv2 EP at 1650g. I have a very light but not very fluid Velbon 3way head on there which I might want to change for a real fluid head sometime in the future...
I would not want to use a less stable tripod and I have used a very heavy duty Cullman Titan tripod (normally used for your medium format camera plus tele or the big studio light) in very windy conditions...

And yes, due to the weight of the tripod and head the weight difference between a 65mm and 80mm scope is not that much... I think what is more important is a way to easily carry the whole package - a scopac or clone is warmly recommended.

Regards,

Joachim

Click to expand...

Thank you for your sharing.

I have just bought a Manfrotto 500AH which is a great head yet heavy. It eliminate all the micro vibration I encountered for the 40mm ball head. I have totally give up for lightweight combination, but considering if I should take a 65mm or 80mm scope for some causal video-scoping with a DSLR.

As I know, the formula of f-stop calculation is:
Focal length / Aperture diameter

Which gives a Regal M2 65ED f5.85, and the 80ED f6

If my calculation is correct, I can't see whats the advantage in brightness for a 80mm scope|^|

AN

The advantage is in the higher resolution that a larger objective is able to achieve..The scopes as you noted,are basically the same in the aperture/focal lenght ratio , giving similar F/ value...with the same ocular ,both scopes will have basically the same exit pupil, but the magnification would be higher in the 80 mm..on the other hand if you match magnification in the zoom,for instance,using 30x ,a very usable magnification,the 80mm will have an advantage in brightness,adding contrast and detail ,to the already higher resolution image...If you are serious about videoscoping ,the large objective will always be better,but small scopes are definitely capable of good video and digiscoping results..

mayoayo said:

The advantage is in the higher resolution that a larger objective is able to achieve..The scopes as you noted,are basically the same in the aperture/focal lenght ratio , giving similar F/ value...with the same ocular ,both scopes will have basically the same exit pupil, but the magnification would be higher in the 80 mm..on the other hand if you match magnification in the zoom,for instance,using 30x ,a very usable magnification,the 80mm will have an advantage in brightness,adding contrast and detail ,to the already higher resolution image...If you are serious about videoscoping ,the large objective will always be better,but small scopes are definitely capable of good video and digiscoping results..

Click to expand...

In my knowledge, I thought that the increased resolution for larger scope is due to the limitation of the light capturing capability of the retina. However, in the case of digiscoping, different f-stop/aperture diameter scope should only affects for shutter speed/ISO.

Not sure if this is theoretically correct?
Please feel free to comment

AN