New ED50 or used ED60 (1 Viewer)

Hi,
I am looking to purchase a new ED50 or a used ED60. Both are comparable in price and would fit my budget. I believe I would personally have no trouble toting around the extra size and weight of the ED60.
So my question is, what would be better, the security of a new ED50 with the Nikon guarantee or a used but better built ED60?
I have some concern reading about durability problems with the ED50 though I like the security of the Nikon warranty.
I like the ED60's greater magnification. Has this scope stood up well over time.
Thanks for any opinions.

I have both of these. I love the little ED50, but if I had to choose just one, it would be the 60ED.

Hi...I just got a second hand,unused EDIIIA..this is the last version of the ED60 nikon,and it is waterproof..I am mentioning this because nikon has upgraded a couple of versions after the original ED60,and not until the EDIII that they waterproof the scope(O-ring ,Nitrogen)...If You can find a used,in good condition EDIII,for the same price than the ED50,I think is much more scope in all regards..
Still small and not too heavy in comparison , even considering the super-ultra-light weight of the ED50..the EDIII weights 1095g. vs 450 or so for the ED50..
The EDIII is super nicely built,,robust,light,and amazingly nice ergonomics on the tripod( I have no issue with it being back-heavy)..
The center focus ring is much nicer to use than focus knobs that I have used,for many reasons. Is better damped than most,and offers a perfect balance between resistence and fluidity,plus a very good speed ratio,that is both easy to use in a fast or fine way.
It is also easy to find ,left or right,independent of the eyepiece orientation of Your choice...And the orientation of the eyepiece can be changed with the rotatory collar,also a very tripod-friendly feature..In that regard ,ergonomy and durability the difference is clear and the advantage goes to the EDIII,,,Optics are also better,..as nice as the ED50 is in that regard,the push in aperture is very significative,and with the great correction the EDIII has, It really delivers ..If You need 30X or more ,there is no comparison.All I can say at this point is that there is NOTHING I dislike about this scope(the EDIII)
The ED50 has many charms in itself, no doubt,but there are issues....It is so tiny ,Is great optically and Is not too expensive..then is the issue of being able to get away with a compact tripod,also a plus...Durability issues have been raised,and few users in this forum only,had reported the scope breaking..This point made,I personally would be more worried about buying a used ED50 than to buy a used EDIII..

So finally Your question was not about what scope is better ,or about personal preferences,...You were concerned about if It was better to buy new,with a full warranty or used with ...What warranty?....
You are in the USA and Nikon has a No-Fault warranty in their products that might or might not work with second hand optics...My experience is that It does, but even if not free,or No-fault ,the products have some implicit warranty and Nikon has good customer service ,so You will be able to find a solution in the event Your second hand scope needs service..

HI,

I had a ED50 for a year and the exchanged it for a ED111. I enjoed the ED50 a lot, especially with the 15/40 Zoom, but apart from getting older and that i might beed a needing a lighter scope in the future, the ED111 is much the better scope, and I agree with the above post in all aspects. I did tend to get slightly paranoid about the plate on the ED50, so I did not carry it with a hide mount attached. The ED111 is built like a tank.

As mayoayo pointed out, in the USA all Nikon scopes are covered by the no-fault ($20 cost to you when you send something in) warranty, so don't give that issue a second thought. The ED60 is easier to use as a general purpose scope and is super durable. Unless ultimate small size and weight are the priority, it is the better scope.

--AP

mayoayo said:

The EDIII is super nicely built,,robust,light,and amazingly nice ergonomics on the tripod (I have no issue with it being back-heavy)..

Click to expand...

By this do you mean that you don't consider the EDIII to be back-heavy or that you do but are not bothered by it? My EDIII is definitely back-heavy but I have a Manfrotto 701 HDV head and I find that, if I push the sliding plate all the way forward and extend the scope's sunshade, it is perfectly balanced. However it is still inherently back-heavy.

Apart from that slight issue, it is a superb scope. It is definitely much more robust than my ED50 and gives a better view with the same eyepieces. However these days I use the ED50 much more than the EDIII as I can use it hand held and don't have to carry a tripod, which I find is a great advantage.

Ron

The ED60 as said above is a better option if weight is not an issue. THE major advantage of the ED50 is portability. It is a great little scope to put on a small tripod hang it on your back and forget its there. So if you intend to do a lot of walking where a scope will be used occasionally then go for the ED50. Don't fall on it though, I did this and snapped one in half. (ED60 is far more robust).

mayoayo said:

Still small and not too heavy in comparison , even considering the super-ultra-light weight of the ED50..the EDIII weights 1095g. vs 450 or so for the ED50....

Click to expand...

To be clear, the EDIII-A (~1.4kg w/eyepiece) is the heaviest scope in its class given its 60mm objective. A Kowa/Pentax/Leica/Swaro/Zeiss will weigh about the same but have 65mm objectives.

And if weight/size is a factor then one needs to consider the mount too. At a minimum for the EDIII, you are looking at something that weighs in at ~2kg+ and ~50cm tall when collapsed. A suitable mount for the ED50 need only weigh ~1kg and perhaps ~30cm. It can even be used handheld in certain conditions. The weight/size difference may not look like much, but let me assure you it makes a BIG difference in your comfort factor the further you walk over difficult terrain as one needs to carry more and more stuff to keep safe, fed and comfortable in the woods. With a minimum ~1.5kg weight savings, you could carry a nice camera and a Walkstool too. Or even a 6-pack of your fav adult beverage instead!

That said, the EDIII is definitely the superior scope but in good light the ED50 holds its own.

I think most everyone would agree that the ED60 is more robust and better built. It might have slightly better optics, I don't really know, and (of course) it has 10mm more aperture.

But, to me, the ED50 makes more sense. As Rick points out, not only is the ED50 much lighter but requires a much smaller/lighter mount. Especially the angled version. The ED50 also compliments an ED78/82 much better if one later decides to go up in aperture. One having plenty of horsepower, the other being super portable.

The weight penalty for that extra 10mm of aperture the 60 has over the 50 doesn't work for me.

Kevin Conville said:

...The ED50 also compliments an ED78/82 much better if one later decides to go up in aperture...

Click to expand...

That's a very good point. When I bought my ED78 (my first scope, and still my only big scope), I chose it over the 60ED because it offered a larger aperture in a package not much longer or proportionally heavier that could be used on the same sized tripod (further reducing the percent difference in total kit weight). I was originally planning to get a 60mm scope but the "big" Nikon was so small that I ended up getting it, and thinking of it as a 60mm scope with a bonus 18mm diameter. At the time, it was the only "compact" full sized scope (the competing 77mm Kowa, 80mm Swarovski and later Leica scopes of the time were monsters). That proved to be a good choice, because as you say, the 50ED is a perfect companion purchase. I inherited a 60mm fieldscope, but it sees very little use--there just aren't many situations that make its in-between size attractive given my other choices. But as a "one and only" scope for knockabout use, it would be a good choice.

--AP