• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

a new scope , leica 65 or nikon (1 Viewer)

P

pimpelmees

Well-known member
I can buy a used nikon ed82 scope with 30x oculair, but i am looking also to a leica 65 mm apo with the 25x50 oculair (new), what is the best choice ???,

- I am afraid that the nikon will be to heavy to take always around and that
when i want a bird closer sometimes , i have to buy a 50mm ? oculair also !!

- With the leica i will have both worlds , the smaller size and weight and a
very good zoom with always the same field of view from 25 to 50x !! (is
this true) ??

- about the leica 65; have i enough light when its darker outside , is this a
problem ??? and what about field of view against a 82mm ?

- I want to use the scope without a case , even when its rains ??

- What about finding birds in flight; with leica and swaro i have a few times tried but that wasn't that easy , is this becoming more easy with use ??

- swarovski 65 has fallen of because the new zoom give me blackouts and
bad eyeplacement !!
 
There is a big price premium for the new Leica.
If you can tolerate that, then it is clearly a more all round choice than the larger Nikon.
But don't be surprised that even the Leica becomes a chore to shlep all day after you add in the tripod.
You might instead supplement the big Nikon with a small Nikon ED50 or with the Opticron GS52, on a monopod, for a near pocket size always with you scope that still performs optically.
 
etudiant said:
There is a big price premium for the new Leica.
If you can tolerate that, then it is clearly a more all round choice than the larger Nikon.
But don't be surprised that even the Leica becomes a chore to shlep all day after you add in the tripod.
You might instead supplement the big Nikon with a small Nikon ED50 or with the Opticron GS52, on a monopod, for a near pocket size always with you scope that still performs optically.
Click to expand...

i don't want to have 2 scopes, i want 1 all round scope, and i begin to feel that i have to take the leica 65 HD + 25x50 oculair, i love to hear from someone who has a 65 in use (swaro or leica) and what the problems are opposed the 82 mm scopes or benefiets in field of view and darker weather .
 
Well Pimpelmees, you seem to be after the proverbial holy grail.

Some things you cannot get around. The Nikon has 17mm more aperture and therefore collects more light and should better support higher magnifications if that's important to you. It also is bigger and heavier than the 65mm Leica, though less than you might think.

The 65mm Leica is a moose compared to a Nikon ED50 which is the lightweight, low power, daylight champ. With a proper tripod/head, the Leica won't be feather weight and the net difference in weight of the total package between the ED82 and APO 65 will be slight.

Of course the Leica is the current state-of-the-art with it's 4 element APO objective and best zoom available. These issues should sway you more than the (relatively) minor weight differences... IMO.

I can tell you, as a daily user of an ED82 with said 30x EP that it offers a world class view maybe not to be bested, with it's limitations.

Personally I haven't tried one of the new Leicas but I like Leica products a lot and specifications-wise they look brilliant. If I had extra money jingling in my pockets, I'd probably buy one |:d|

Forgot to address your birds in flight question...
One needs a TALL tripod, a fluid (video) head, and a straight scope if you are to be doing much spotting and tracking of birds in flight. Some will say it's a matter of getting accustomed to an angled scope, but that is not my experience. It is much harder to acquire your subject, especially in flight, with an angled scope.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Conville said:
Of course the Leica is the current state-of-the-art with it's 4 element APO objective and best zoom available. These issues should sway you more than the (relatively) minor weight differences... IMO.


Forgot to address your birds in flight question...
One needs a TALL tripod, a fluid (video) head, and a straight scope if you are to be doing much spotting and tracking of birds in flight. Some will say it's a matter of getting accustomed to an angled scope, but that is not my experience. It is much harder to acquire your subject, especially in flight, with an angled scope.
Click to expand...

ok, the weight difference is not my major concern, the advantage of the very good zoom (field of view the same in 25 up to 50) is the great one , the step from 82 to 65 mm is another. I have been looking in to other 65 mm (swaro) and the light is very good compared to 82mm scopes, so why not a 65mm ??


I want angled , straight i think will give me strain in the neck + tripod will be more adjusted when other people look trough the scope and the bird above me is a problem to follow .

Who is using a stay on cover on their scopes ?? or not anymore ?
 
Like I said, the Holy Grail!

You want a lightweight, 65mm angled scope, that's as bright as an 80mm scope and is easy to track flying birds with.

Don't we all.

As far as your impressions of brightness comparing 60ish scopes with 80ish scopes... If it's during the day at moderate magnifications you are unlikely to see a difference. Compare the two types at dawn or dusk with higher magnifications and you'll see it. Or, when digiscoping.

Let us know how you like your new Leica 65 ;)
 
Kevin Conville said:
Like I said, the Holy Grail!


Compare the two types at dawn or dusk with higher magnifications and you'll see it. Or, when digiscoping.

Let us know how you like your new Leica 65 ;)
Click to expand...

The 65mm i will be using 80% with 30x , the other 20 % is for higher when i need it for difficult identification, so no problem for light i think and digiscoping i don't do .

I will let you know what i decide.
 
Kevin Forgot to address your [I said:
birds in flight[/I] question...
One needs a TALL tripod, a fluid (video) head, and a straight scope if you are to be doing much spotting and tracking of birds in flight. Some will say it's a matter of getting accustomed to an angled scope, but that is not my experience. It is much harder to acquire your subject, especially in flight, with an angled scope.
Click to expand...


See:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=166747
 
KorHaan said:
See:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=166747
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed a sighting device greatly improves acquisition of a subject with an angled scope. In the case of birds in flight in does not equate to be the equal of a straight scope (IMO) as one still has to change positions of the head and eyes to the eyepiece. Still, an improvement to somewhat mitigate the disadvantage of an angled scope for this usage.

I guess the OP will have a chance to put it to the test as he seems to be inclined toward the very fine, angled, 65mm Leica.
 
I do not know how widely you plan to look as far as scopes go, but I would handle the 65mm you are interested in, then try to see if anyone has the 82mm to compare. I have had a cheap scope that was 78mm, and it was just unnecessary weight, I can do better with mid price 65mm for a reasonable price.

My tripod currently weighs as much as the 65mm scope.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Conville said:
Yes, indeed a sighting device greatly improves acquisition of a subject with an angled scope. In the case of birds in flight in does not equate to be the equal of a straight scope (IMO) as one still has to change positions of the head and eyes to the eyepiece. Still, an improvement to somewhat mitigate the disadvantage of an angled scope for this usage.
Click to expand...

Kevin.

With all due respect, this statement is simply untrue. With a cable-tie sight on an angled scope you do not have to move the head when going from aiming to viewing. It all happens by moving the eye, a mere fraction of a second, and works extremely well with birds in flight. With the sight, the angled scope has a decided advantage, not a disadvantage, over straight scopes.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
Kevin.

With all due respect, this statement is simply untrue. With a cable-tie sight on an angled scope you do not have to move the head when going from aiming to viewing. It all happens by moving the eye, a mere fraction of a second, and works extremely well with birds in flight. With the sight, the angled scope has a decided advantage, not a disadvantage, over straight scopes.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

OK I concede I've been doing it wrong. I aligned the tip of the cable tie with the top of the rim of the eyepiece. I apparently missed this part:


WHEN ALIGNING THE SIGHT, MAKE SURE THAT YOU KEEP YOUR EYE ON
THE EYEPIECE JUST LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE IT WHEN LOOKING AT A
BIRD. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE EYEPIECE, AND ONLY PEER OVER THE TOP
CENTER OF THE EYEPIECE TO SEE THE TIP OF THE SIGHT, WITHOUT
RAISING OR MOVING YOUR HEAD. THIS MAKES FOR THE BEST SIGHT
ALIGNMENT POSSIBLE AND WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE RESULTS YOU
NEED!!!

Thanks Kimmo.
 
Allrigthythen, I just tried it as described above and found it very unnatural sighting that way.

I like to be somewhat behind the scope when sighting. The added length of the sight line improves the quickness and accuracy much like that of sights on a rifle. I found being on top of the eyepiece while moving the scope to spot a subject uncomfortable and inefficient.

My angled scope is an ED50 and I keep mostly a 16x or 20x EP on it. At those magnifications the field is pretty wide and for non-aerial spotting works fine w/o a sighting aid.

My straight scope is an ED82 and even with the highest power EPs mounted I can get on my target quickly.
 
Kevin,

I have never tried the sight on a scope as short as the ED 50. I can well imagine that with such a small scope it would not work as well since the tip of the sight would come too close to your eye and the sight line would also be too short. However, I have used the sight very successfully with anything from a Fieldscope ED III A and Swaro ATS 65 up. Korhaan used it with a Zeiss 65. With bigger scopes, it is all the easier.

Uncomfortable for you, maybe, I won't contest that, although for me and many others, it is no more uncomfortable than viewing with the scope, which is not uncomfortable at all. Inefficient? Only if your scope really is not suited for this (too short) or if you did not give it the little time and effort needed to learn to do it properly, or if you did not have the sight well-enough aligned and dimensioned. Getting on target in the time it takes to move the scope is not inefficient in my book.

Kimmo
 
Kevin, one further observation: switching back and forth between an angled and a straight scope you will never get the acuity of finding the bird that a person with solely access to an angled scope does. One of the big pass times of birders in Denmark is the raptor migration, and at least a few years ago, the large majority of birders used angled scopes (I remember a total of maybe two straight scopes used by Danes in maybe 10-15 years of birding there). But to become really good, you have to use only the angled scope for a while, not switching back and forth between the two types.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Kevin, one further observation: switching back and forth between an angled and a straight scope you will never get the acuity of finding the bird that a person with solely access to an angled scope does. One of the big pass times of birders in Denmark is the raptor migration, and at least a few years ago, the large majority of birders used angled scopes (I remember a total of maybe two straight scopes used by Danes in maybe 10-15 years of birding there). But to become really good, you have to use only the angled scope for a while, not switching back and forth between the two types.

Niels
Click to expand...

I agree Niels, you need to stick to one or the other & if you choose the angled it will take a little time to get used to but will be worth it in the end. It's a more comfortable viewing position IMO.

Neil.
 
Kevin Conville says "I can tell you, as a daily user of an ED82 with said 30x EP that it offers a world class view maybe not to be bested, with it's limitations."

I bought the 30x wide EP that Kevin describes, much of it based on his glowing rec. I'll have to say he was right. My 82ED with that 30x is astoundingly good. I'm not an eyeglass wearer, so the zoom is fantastic to me as well.
 
kabsetz said:
Kevin,

I have never tried the sight on a scope as short as the ED 50. I can well imagine that with such a small scope it would not work as well since the tip of the sight would come too close to your eye and the sight line would also be too short.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

I have tried it and have to used it on my ED50. Without the cable tie, still difficult for me to acquired my target hehehe ;)

Nikon ED50.jpg
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
Better understanding the Leica range for a second-hand purchase
Replies
15
Views
1K
jb b
J
Will K
Leica APO Televid 82 - first impressions
Replies
5
Views
2K
Will K
Will K
Craig H
Spotting Scopes - Personal needs and perceptions vs optical ability
Replies
6
Views
2K
Craig H
Craig H
T
Stay-on case for Leica APO 65 scope wanted?
Replies
8
Views
3K
BGS61
B
Rapala
Question for Leica Televid Owners
Replies
1
Views
2K
G_Lintz
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top