ED82 vs. smaller Nikon ED scopes (1 Viewer)

Hermann · Jul 19, 2012

Just a quick note:

I have been writing for quite some time now that I'm entirely happy with my 60mm Nikon EDIIIA and, on those occasions when low weight and small size are important, with my ED50. However, I finally got myself an ED82 a few weeks ago. The price was pretty good, and I've got all the eyepieces I wanted to use with the ED82 anyway. My reasoning was I might use it on trips when I won't be walking long distances and during the winter when the high magnifications might come in handy, although I mainly wanted to get a new toy ... :king:

I was wrong. After some extensive testing to make sure I got a good specimen (which I did, the star test is almost perfect as far as I can tell), I did some extensive comparisons with my ED IIIA, also a very good specimen, and the differences are rather clearcut. Much clearer in fact than I thought possible, and they aren't just visible at high magnifications but also at fairly low magnifications, using both the zoom and several wideangle eyepieces in side-by-side comparisons. It's not just a question of the larger exit pupil at 25x or 30x, the image is definitely sharper and has more detail, at least to my eyes. The image of the ED IIIA is really nice, but the image of the ED82 is even nicer. The larger objective lens *does* make a visible difference at any magnification. In effect this mirrors the difference between the ED IIIA and the ED50 which I always thought was pretty obvious in direct comparisons.

Now, this isn't something entirely new; Kimmo came to the same conclusion way back in one of his excellent Alula reviews. He was absolutely right. I won't be selling my ED IIIA though because I don't think I can stand carrying the ED82 on all my trips, but I think the ED82 will get a heck of a lot more use than I thought.

Hermann

looksharp65 · Jul 19, 2012

When I changed from the Pentax 65 mm to the ED82A, it was to obtain those greater magnifications that the Pentax wasn't really able to.
I chose the ED82A for many reasons, one of them was that it fits into my backpack and this makes the weight difference feel negligible.
But I was amazed to see its life-like, bright and rich image. But I'm also perfectly satisfied with my ED50A. If I had used it with a tripod, I might have considered an EDIIIA instead, but the ED50A is perfect with a monopod.

//L

mooreorless · Jul 19, 2012

Hermann I would like to get the ED82A myself, I have the EDIIIA and ED50

Hermann · Jul 19, 2012

looksharp65 said:
I chose the ED82A for many reasons, one of them was that it fits into my backpack and this makes the weight difference feel negligible.
But I was amazed to see its life-like, bright and rich image. But I'm also perfectly satisfied with my ED50A. If I had used it with a tripod, I might have considered an EDIIIA instead, but the ED50A is perfect with a monopod.

Don't get me wrong - I think the ED50 is an amazing little scope that is perfect for those occasions when you need a scope but can't really carry one of the big boys. But the size of the objective lens *does* limit the amount of detail in the image it delivers, and at, let's say, 25x, the difference to the ED IIIA and of course the ED82 is there.

Hermann

Sancho · Jul 19, 2012

I quite agree with you, Hermann. Much as though I love my ED50 with 27x, and even though I used it almost exclusively for a few years, I eventually realised in side-by-side comparisons in the field with a friend's bigger scope (Squidge of BF fame) that a large-objective scope in field far out-resolves the ED50 at distance. I've reverted to using the ED50 only when I want to travel very light. The large-scope problem was almost completely resolved with the purchase of a a Cleyspy Mulepack (from another honoured BF member, Helenelizabeth).

John Cantelo · Jul 20, 2012

The best 'scope is,of course, the one you have with you which these days, for reasons already articulated, is the ED50. However, at times I too feel the lack of a large OG 'scope, but unfortunately I feel the lack of funds to get a good quality 80mm+ scope even more!

kabsetz · Jul 23, 2012

Hermann,

Congratulations on your new scope. Good to hear that you got a very good specimen also.

I well remember how, back when I did the tests that you mentioned in your first post, I did not at first believe the results I was getting, and did quite a number of trials with different scopes, distances and magnifications before I was ready to believe that larger scopes had the edge over smaller ones not just at high magnifications but at medium and low magnifications as well. I'm sure that if we went down in magnification to the range where the exit pupil is 4mm or more, the difference would eventually vanish, but with birding scopes the small ones rarely have exit pupils bigger than 3mm, and the current "big" scopes with 85mm objectives hit 3mm e.p:s at 28x.

But, the advantages of bigger scopes still go against conventional wisdom, and people need to see it for themselves to believe it. The same holds for the advantages of high magnifications, which are usually discounted by the majority and espoused by just a few of us, most notably Henry and David Rodrigues.

Now I'm very curious about the new 95mm Swaro, which although it stops at 70x instead of reaching 80-90x, should have enough of an advantage from its 13mm bigger objective that I may be finally forced to move on from the Nikon 82 as my personal birding tool. But that will depend on how well Swaro has managed to implement the design.

I'll paste below the link to the old Alula review that Hermann was probably referring to. It shows towards the end a graph of resolution/distance results for one 65mm scope (Swaro) and one 80mm scope (actually an 82, a Kowa 823), where both specimen were cherries as attested by star-testing as well as their general performance relative to their peers.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_5_Smallscopes_GB.shtml

Kimmo

mikefreiberg · Jul 23, 2012

Hermann said:
Just a quick note:

I have been writing for quite some time now that I'm entirely happy with my 60mm Nikon EDIIIA and, on those occasions when low weight and small size are important, with my ED50. However, I finally got myself an ED82 a few weeks ago. The price was pretty good, and I've got all the eyepieces I wanted to use with the ED82 anyway. My reasoning was I might use it on trips when I won't be walking long distances and during the winter when the high magnifications might come in handy, although I mainly wanted to get a new toy ... :king:

I was wrong. After some extensive testing to make sure I got a good specimen (which I did, the star test is almost perfect as far as I can tell), I did some extensive comparisons with my ED IIIA, also a very good specimen, and the differences are rather clearcut. Much clearer in fact than I thought possible, and they aren't just visible at high magnifications but also at fairly low magnifications, using both the zoom and several wideangle eyepieces in side-by-side comparisons. It's not just a question of the larger exit pupil at 25x or 30x, the image is definitely sharper and has more detail, at least to my eyes. The image of the ED IIIA is really nice, but the image of the ED82 is even nicer. The larger objective lens *does* make a visible difference at any magnification. In effect this mirrors the difference between the ED IIIA and the ED50 which I always thought was pretty obvious in direct comparisons.

Now, this isn't something entirely new; Kimmo came to the same conclusion way back in one of his excellent Alula reviews. He was absolutely right. I won't be selling my ED IIIA though because I don't think I can stand carrying the ED82 on all my trips, but I think the ED82 will get a heck of a lot more use than I thought.

Hermann

Hermann,

Great observation. I have always thought that more light gathering helps make the details "POP" more in the field, thus making the resolution seem sharper. The ED82 has always been one of my most favorite pieces of glass and still have one now.

Also, the ED82 is the largest of that model, but I have always found it to be rather lightweight for it's objective size class. Any thoughts on that? Have a great day!

All the best
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

looksharp65 · Jul 23, 2012

mikefreiberg said:
Also, the ED82 is the largest of that model, but I have always found it to be rather lightweight for it's objective size class. Any thoughts on that?

Mine is possible to tuck into a Haglöfs Corker M backpack, and considering the extra reach it provides compared to its predecessor, the Pentax PF-65EDAII, the weight increase is negligible.
I did like the Pentax but wouldn't have been able to put the 80mm in that rucksack. And the 80 mm Pentax also loses aperture when focusing closer.

Since I don't own the case for it, I have found that it is easy to get a good, secure grip around the barrel when moving it to and from the tripod.
The backpack provides enough protection. This scope is no less than awesome! :t:

//L

ED82 vs. smaller Nikon ED scopes (1 Viewer)

More options

Hermann

Well-known member

looksharp65

Well-known member

mooreorless

Well-known member

Hermann

Well-known member

Sancho

Well-known member

John Cantelo

Well-known member

kabsetz

Well-known member

mikefreiberg

Well-known member

looksharp65

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread