Leica 62 APO Angled vs. Zeiss Diascope 65 (1 Viewer)

Marley · May 23, 2005

Hello to all,

I was wondering if anyone had done any comparisons between the latest 62/65mm offerings from Leica and Zeiss. I have been a big fan of Leica for years and am considering a 62 APO, but I have also heard some good things about the Diascope as well.

I really appreicate bright, crisp optics, but I am not into digiscoping. I also like the compact size of the ~60s ( I currently own a Fieldscope III ED AN).

Does anyone have experience with both the small Leica and Zeiss models?

Thanks to all for the help.

Rgds,

Steffan

Geoff Brown · May 23, 2005

I used both for a month or so last year courtesy of the RSPB with one of their "Aren't birds brilliant" campaigns. The wide and sharp field of the view from the zoom eyepiece of the Zeiss was fantastic and to my eyes far better than anything that the Leica could achieve. I personally would go for a Zeiss but will now sit back and look at all the Leica supporters who will try to convince you otherwise! :bounce:

pduxon · May 24, 2005

well the FOV of the Zeiss is excellent and its a fine scope. Personally I prefer the image of the Leica over the Zeiss. They are both good scopes however and it'll come down to personal preference.

If you own a Fieldscope III ED why are you looking at upgrading? I prefer the Leica but from what I've seen the LEica and the Swaro 65 aren't major steps up.

hinnark · May 24, 2005

pduxon said:
well the FOV of the Zeiss is excellent and its a fine scope. Personally I prefer the image of the Leica over the Zeiss. They are both good scopes however and it'll come down to personal preference.

If you own a Fieldscope III ED why are you looking at upgrading? I prefer the Leica but from what I've seen the LEica and the Swaro 65 aren't major steps up.

I agree with Pete. The Leica has noticable stronger contrast than the Zeiss and that´s why the view seems to be sharper with it IMO. But with a Nikon Fieldscope III ED there´s really no need to look for another scope. The only drawback (for eyeglass wearers) of the Nikon (and also the Kowa scopes) comparing to European modells is the eye relief of their zoom eps.

Steve

kabsetz · May 24, 2005

I totally agree with Pete and Steve. If you "upgrade" to any of the other 60-65mm scopes, you can at best expect marginal improvements to image quality, and at worst (if you end up with a specimen with more optical flaws in it than your present Nikon, something that might very well happen and the likelihood of which depends largely on how good your particular Nikon happens to be) you could end up with a scope decidedly inferior to your present one. However, by moving up to Swaro ATS 80 HD (not much heavier than the small Nikon), Zeiss 85 or Nikon ED 82 (which would use your current eyepieces, so you could buy just the body and keep the little Nikon) you would get a significant improvement in image - again, assuming that you get a decent-to-excellent unit. In any and all cases, I would strongly recommend you take your ED III along and compare side by side. That is the only way to know what you will get. Shop mail order only if you get an unconditional 100% return policy.

Kimmo

Blincodave · May 24, 2005

I think you should consider the zoom eyepiece for the Zeiss carefully - the very wide field of view is at the cost of a lack of definition to the edges.

Dave

dbradnum · May 24, 2005

Blincodave said:
I think you should consider the zoom eyepiece for the Zeiss carefully - the very wide field of view is at the cost of a lack of definition to the edges.

Dave

I agree you should consider carefully - it's important to look through the eyepiece concerned.

I have the zoom on my Zeiss 85, and whilst I can see the slight lack of peripheral definition people keep talking about, it doesn't affect my view AT ALL. I rate the scope extremely highly.

I've spoken to a number of birders since buying the scope who had heard about the lack of definition (but not looked for themselves), and had been put off buying Zeiss. They were surprised at how insignficant the issue was.

Moral of the story: Whilst reading other people's opinions on high-end optics is useful, until you've looked for yourself, don't set too much store by them.

When I bought the scope, I compared the zoom with the equivalent Leica eyepiece, field testing on a disgusting wet day. My immediate impression was that the Leica was sharper... but eventually decided that this was not the case, and that the difference was in the colour cast. To my eye, at least, the Leica has a very cold, blue tinted image, while the Zeiss is considerably warmer and (IMO) more true.

Again, all you can do is look for yourself, and form an opinion that way. These things are far too pricey (and far too similar) to base your decision on a load of other people's opinions.

All the best,

David

pduxon · May 24, 2005

kabsetz said:
IHowever, by moving up to Swaro ATS 80 HD (not much heavier than the small Nikon), Zeiss 85 or Nikon ED 82 (which would use your current eyepieces, so you could buy just the body and keep the little Nikon) you would get a significant improvement in image

As an interesting aside.....

last year I was birding using the 26WW lens on my little Leica. A chap who used the APO 77 asked to look through and was surprised that he could detect no fall off in quality.

I know someone who was advised by a UK retailer that the 80HD was not worth the extra over the 65HD.

Obviously I bow to your MUCH greater experience.

David -

I think you're right its all perception. the differences between the big 4 (certainly in the 60-65mm cat) is relatively small. And the FSIIIED with 30x lens is a potent combination.

Edward woodwood · May 24, 2005

stick with the Nikon

very classy and nice and light/compact too

Tim

iporali · May 24, 2005

pduxon said:
last year I was birding using the 26WW lens on my little Leica. A chap who used the APO 77 asked to look through and was surprised that he could detect no fall off in quality.

It is not easy to see without a 2-3x booster and a resolution target.

I know someone who was advised by a UK retailer that the 80HD was not worth the extra over the 65HD.

Odd opinion IMHO - of course it is "worth the extra" for digiscopers, for people who live in the North or for those who - for whatever reason - just prefer the 80HD

.

Ilkka

kabsetz · May 24, 2005

Ilkka,

Assuming equal quality (equal freedom of aberrations), it is quite easy to see the difference between larger and smaller scopes with a regular zoom and in the wild - no boosters or test targets are necessary. Differences are visible at lower magnifications as well, but they are not that dramatic below some 30x or so.

The smaller scopes can be excellent, though. I remember when I tested the small Swarovski and thought to myself that this is all the scope one would ever need. Then I compared it side-by-side with my full-size reference, both on targets and in the field, and realized this was not so.

Of course, our needs and usages differ. Small scopes also seem to be of generally more even quality, and an aberration-free small scope certainly is easier and more relaxing to look through than a somewhat flawed large scope, even if the latter shows more detail.

Kimmo

pduxon · May 24, 2005

And as I'm sure Mr Allwood would agree a small scope is less likely to do your shoulder in after a hike around Norfolk for the day!

Leif · May 24, 2005

pduxon said:
And as I'm sure Mr Allwood would agree a small scope is less likely to do your shoulder in after a hike around Norfolk for the day!

And if he is feeling flush then he can buy a big 'un to use when the small 'un might not be suitable, and also on the night sky if that is of interest.

One point to note is that his Nikon ED III eyepieces might be useable on the Nikon 82 ED (I think they are) so that would be one point in favour of the Nikon, assuming he were to keep the small one, though the zoom is not so good, at least in terms of the low magnification. Also I don't think the 82 ED has a 20xw eyepiece and IMO that is a useful one to have. But then again I do like fixed FL eyepieces so I am biased.

Leif

Edward woodwood · May 24, 2005

Leif said:
And if he is feeling flush then he can buy a big 'un to use when the small 'un might not be suitable, and also on the night sky if that is of interest.

One point to note is that his Nikon ED III eyepieces might be useable on the Nikon 82 ED (I think they are) so that would be one point in favour of the Nikon, assuming he were to keep the small one, though the zoom is not so good, at least in terms of the low magnification. Also I don't think the 82 ED has a 20xw eyepiece and IMO that is a useful one to have. But then again I do like fixed FL eyepieces so I am biased.

Leif

Spot on Leif
Did exactly that...
got a Nikon ED 78 for £349 with 30x off Warehouse Express, coupled with a Kowa 614 from In Focus on special offer of £249 with my old TSN 2 as part ex...

two top notch flourite/ED scopes for £600
not bad i reckon...

Tim

iporali · May 24, 2005

kabsetz said:
Assuming equal quality (equal freedom of aberrations), it is quite easy to see the difference between larger and smaller scopes with a regular zoom and in the wild - no boosters or test targets are necessary.

...says one of the world's best scope testers :h?:
Last weekend I was lucky to visit an optics exhibition with a nice selection of birding scopes (see below). I could have been more specific with my claim but after intensive side-by-side comparisons I still think that for an average birder and in the wild it is not easy to compare the optical quality of the 77/80+mm vs 60+mm scopes. Eg:
1) How to evaluate brightness in bright light (iris stopped down)?
2) What is the effect of the stopped down iris on aberrations?
3) What zoom setting to use in comparison if the magnification is different (same power or same focal length)?
4) How to control the influence of differential vibration on the perceived image
etc. etc.

I like larger scopes, but I am not sure that I could distinguish them from the corresponding smaller versions just by looking through them. If I could use my digital camera - that's another story.

Sorry about thread deviation

Ilkka

Grousemore · May 24, 2005

For the benefit of the Thread instigator, who was asking about 2 'small' scopes, I have looked through both and prefer the Leica.I think the Leica gives a sharper more natural image.
I also think that both are a significant improvement over the Nikon Fieldscope, but that's only a personal opinion.

Marley · May 24, 2005

All,

Thanks to each an everyone that responded to my post. I really appreciate the opinions and guidance. It allowed me time to re-think my current situation and not disregard my current Nikon FS III ED AN so quickly. It's not so much that I was displeased with my 60mm scope, but that I was looking for a brighter image, especially when using greater magnification. As you move towards 60x with a 60mm scope, the 1mm EPD gets to be a bit small.

I took the time to read the Alula review of the FS 82 ED AN and I liked what I read. I also reviewed several posts regarding this scope and folks seem to give it very high marks. Combining that information with a $890.00 price tag (body only) and the fact that I can exchange lenses with my 60mm scope convinced me to put an 82 ED on order. I can't wait until it comes in!

Thanks again,

Steffan

GaryS · May 24, 2005

Yes back to Steffan's original question.

I am a new proud owner of a Zeiss Diascope 65 and use the 23x WA eyepiece - (Warehouse Express Special Offer). I find the image quality first rate and the FOV with this lens is awesome and should be excellent for speactacle wearers. I have not noticed any significant lack of definition across the field of view, nor chromatic abberation.

My dear family are clubbing togther to buy the zoom eyepiece for my upcoming landmark birthday which will improve the versatility of the scope. Interestingly I have found it is best to use the eyepiece cup right down (even with my specs off) though eye placement is slightly more critical when this mode is chosen. The scope is compact and lightweight; ideal for a long day in the field. The build quality is excellent and I have got used to the dual focus system. The course adjustment is rather stiff but is getting easier with use. The fine adjustment is light as a feather and proves useful for someone like myself who manages to upset tripods with alarming ease!

Sincere thanks to the BFers who helped me to choose - but as many others have said, it really is best to go with what your eye and heart says when you look through the scope (wallet permitting) and then get on with the real business of enjoying observing birdlife, not worrying that a review said the other one was better!

Zeiss Diascope 65 T* FL Technical spec:

Objective lens diameter 65 mm
Focal length 384 mm
Close Focus distance 4.0 m
Tripod thread 1/4 and 3/8 inches
Front filter thread 67 mm x 0.75
Length 300mm w/o eyepiece
Height 105 mm
Weight 1100 grams

Eyepieces:

23x weight = 230g, f=16.7, FOV @ 1000m = 52m Twilight Factor=38.6, Exit pupil dia.= 2.8mm

30x weight = 230g, f=12.4, FOV @ 1000m = 40mm Twilight Factor= 44.2, Exit pupil dia. = 2.2mm

15-45 zoom, weight = 330g, f=25.1-8.4, FOV @ 1000m = 56-26m Twilight factor=31.2-54, Exit pupil dia.=4.3-1.4mm

Hope my newbie effort is of some use Steffan

Best wishes

Sorry Steffan I was a bit too late with my post - maybe it will help someone else a little!

Keith Reeder · May 25, 2005

Told you you'd love the little Zeiss and that EP, Gary!

GaryS · May 25, 2005

You were spot on Keith! You have helped make me a happy man!

Thanks a bunch - I hope Steffan is as happy with his Nikon!

Best wishes

Leica 62 APO Angled vs. Zeiss Diascope 65 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Attachments

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread