[dalat]

Hi,
I don't own a scope until now, I am using only 8x binoculars at the moment. Start to think about a scope now, even though it will still take a while until I come close to a shop where I could buy one (nothing available in Vietnam).

My main birding here is rain forest birding, often involving quite some walking. Occasionally I am at the coast, or at wetlands. So the scope use would be for tree tops in forest (probably only when not too much walking is involved) or scanning of the forest edge and sometimes for waterbirds. No digiscoping intended.

After all the praise I read here for the Nikon ED50, I feel that this could be a promising candidate, as it would not come too expensive and seems ideal for the intended use in forest and also may do the job ok for the occasional use for water birds.
On the other hand, maybe a used 65 Leica, Zeiss or Swaro would do the job better and not come much more expensive?

Thanks for ideas!
Florian

[kristoffer]

I really like my Swaro ats65hd, it is small and light weight and most important the image is stunning. It has no colour bias like the Zeiss and amazing sharpness from sweet spot to edges. I use the zoom and love it for birding.

The ED50 is smaller but you will still probably need a tripod for it so the total size difference is not huge. The Swaro is expensive but the ed50 with eyepiece can also be quite expensive. I´m also looking at a new scope for my girlfriend but I think most ed50s just cost too much (unless you find a nice second hand deal). Also for me it does not matter as much if it is heavy, I will primary use the second for one for sea birding. That means that I will probably buy the Celestron Regal 80mm.

On the other hand it sounds like you want a small scope so that gives the ed50 some edge again.

I managed to buy a second hand ats65hd with eyepiece, soc and some other stuff in perfect condition for £900. I think the ats65hd is the best 65 mm scope out there now while Kowa got the best full size scope with their 88mm.

[dalat]

Hi, thanks for the opinion.
Yes, indeed the small size and weight does make it very attractive to me. I guess the ED50 also can be used with a lighter tripod than a 65 mm scope, or I am wrong with that idea?
I just feel the scope is small and handy, it's likely to get much more use with me than a bulky one...

You say the ED is expensive... but with roughly half the price of a Swaro 65, price still makes it interesting as a first scope to me...

Another question to you, as I've seen you mentioned in various of your posts that the Zeiss Diascope has a bothering colour bias. I'm a bit confused by this, because I can't remember other posters saying sth. like that, generally the Diascope seems to get quite good reviews. Is your observation from a single (maybe faulty) specimen? Do other users share your opinion regarding the colour bias?

Thanks, Florian

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by dalat

Hi, thanks for the opinion.
Yes, indeed the small size and weight does make it very attractive to me. I guess the ED50 also can be used with a lighter tripod than a 65 mm scope, or I am wrong with that idea?
I just feel the scope is small and handy, it's likely to get much more use with me than a bulky one...

You say the ED is expensive... but with roughly half the price of a Swaro 65, price still makes it interesting as a first scope to me...

Another question to you, as I've seen you mentioned in various of your posts that the Zeiss Diascope has a bothering colour bias. I'm a bit confused by this, because I can't remember other posters saying sth. like that, generally the Diascope seems to get quite good reviews. Is your observation from a single (maybe faulty) specimen? Do other users share your opinion regarding the colour bias?

Thanks, Florian

Yeah you can use the ed50 with a smaller tripod but you still need to have the same hight on it, regardless of scope. And smaller and lighter tripod makes it more sensitive to wind and shakes. But of course, you can get a really small tripod.

Naturally the 65hd is a lot more expensive, but I compared with a new ed50 (it can be quite expensive at some stores) and a second hand Swaro.The ed50 is cheaper, no question about it.

The Zeiss got a yellow bias, it is a fact. However some like it, a bit like using yellow glasses for increased contrast when you shoot a gun or driving perhaps. And I am not sure if everyone thinks about it if you don't have, lets say the new Kowa or Swarovski, next to the Zeiss. But it does make yellow, white and close colours harder to distinguish. To me this is a big deal, for someone else it might not be.

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by dalat

On the other hand, maybe a used 65 Leica, Zeiss or Swaro would do the job better and not come much more expensive?

Thanks for ideas!
Florian

Zeiss 65:
mit 23x: 600 E
mit 15-45x: 900 E
nicht zu über- bzw. unterbieten.

[dalat]

Danke!
Yes, also thought about the Diascope, as I heard a lot of good things about it and it is the most reasonably priced among the Germans and Austrians. That's why Kristoffers critisism of the yellow cast made me wonder. Well, obviously I'll have to look through a couple of scopes myself now...

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by dalat

Danke!
... That's why Kristoffers critisism of the yellow cast made me wonder. Well, obviously I'll have to look through a couple of scopes myself now...

There is nothing to wonder about as this claim to any "colour bias" is pure nonsense. I have a Diascope, and its colour rendition is absolutely indistinguishable from my Swarovski binocular.
It's a psychedelic delusion on Mr. K's part.

[dalat]

Ok, no need to continue that discussion here I conclude that different people see different things and I have to look through some scopes myself...

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by dalat

Ok, no need to continue that discussion here I conclude that different people see different things ...

Wenn ich ein Rapsfeld anschaue, sehe ich mit meinen Diascope auch "gelb".

There may be slight overall differences in the colour rendition between companies but the claim that any of the high end companies has a "colour bias" is ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
Leica, for example, has slightly (and I mean slightly) stronger colours (i.e. a slightly stronger colour contrast) which I think is due to the fact that they are mainly a photographics company.
Zeiss and Swarovski on the other hand are more hunting-oriented. And all of these companies have to my eyes - left and right - a totally neutral colour rendition without any bias. The "Colour philosophy" may be faintly different (higher contrast vs. highest possible total transmission, for example) but a "bias" is something very, very different.
Single-coated instruments of the 70s had colour biases, but that#s an entirely different dimension.

T

[kristoffer]

the zeiss is yellow. Read any test or try it. It is really annoying when you for instance need to pick out yellow legs. The kowa or swaro is neutral. Other then that the zeiss is a fine scope, cheaper but not quite as good as the kowa or swaro.

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

the zeiss is yellow. Read any test or try it.

I can try it any day for I happen to have one. It's green on the outside
That's the only "colour bias" it has.

"Read any test"?
What then?
Foolishly repeat nonsense, like a parrot?
Some people have a predilection to talk about things they have no real knowledge about. I am not like that.

happy yellow legs

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by ThoLa

I can try it any day for I happen to have one. It's green on the outside
That's the only "colour bias" it has.

"Read any test"?
What then?
Foolishly repeat nonsense, like a parrot?
Some people have a predilection to talk about things they have no real knowledge about. I am not like that.

like when you claimed to know that the trinovid was gasfilled? dont worry, i have tried it many times. All diascope, apart from yours, is biased yellow. No need to debate it further. After all, you are as close to a troll we get here on bf. Have you found any good offers yet dalai?

[ThoLa]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

like when you claimed to know that the trinovid was gasfilled?

got it wrong again: it was not me who claimed it. Leica claims it in their brochures. That's a difference. But it shows what you get if you repeat what other people write! Suppose it rings no bell?

Originally Posted by kristoffer

After all, you are as close to a troll we get here on bf.

Careful with your insults, Mr. Parrot!

[mooreorless]

Some eyes are just different and opinions are different.:-)

Hi Florian, Get the Nikon 50ED and a nice, light weight good tripod. You will use it more than a bigger scope.
"My main birding here is rain forest birding" There you go, it is hot and this little 50ED would be just the ticket to carry around in the rain forest. You won't work up a sweat as much and you will be more inclined to take this scope along.
Regards,Steve

[Kevin Purcell]

A bit bigger than Dalat is looking for but Birdingwatching (UK) review of "top 80mm-ish scopes"

Kowa TSN-883
Leica APO Televid 77
Zeiss 85T FL
Nikon ED82
Meopta S1-75

http://www.ehlert-partner.de/Birdwat...April%2007.pdf

Note the comments about the yellow cast for the Zeiss from those clueless Brits. What could they know.

[dalat]

Hi Steve, thank's for bringing the thread back to my question

I agree with you that a small scope is probably the best way to go for me. Could be later complemented by a big scope, if I ever move to a location that will allow frequent water bird watching... ok I stop, not yet bought the first scope, already dreaming of the next one...

I'm also curious to hear the first impression of the new Opticron 50 to expect later this month...

Cheers, Florian

[FrankD]

It surprises me a bit that we have gotten this far into the thread an nobody has suggested the Pentax 65. It is certainly compact and lightweight. Couple the body with any number of 1.25 inch eyepieces and you certainly have a wonderful image for a fair price. If you want to utilize the scope's true potential then consider the Pentax XW series of eyepieces or the SMC zoom. Either of those combinations could still be had for under $1000 and the 65 mm objective would give you a little more versatility than a 50 mm model.

Just something to consider.

[pravman]

Originally Posted by FrankD

It surprises me a bit that we have gotten this far into the thread an nobody has suggested the Pentax 65.
Just something to consider.

I'm also on the lookout for my first scope and the contest was between the Nikon ED50 and Pentax65ED.. The Pentax seems more value for money ..found a sweet deal in Adorama in NYC.

Except Ziess, nothing is available here in Chennai, India.

[Kevin Conville]

The Pentax 65 is a very good scope indeed, especially with the much lauded XW14, but IMHO has a drawback for wet climes. The collet attachment method for the EPs is not waterproof. The scope is waterproof, the Pentax EPs are waterproof, but the connection is not waterproof.

The ED50 is waterproof, the EPs are waterproof, and the EPs screw-on with an O-ring seal that is WATERPROOF. The Pentax 65 is compact alright, but the ED50 is downright tiny. Granted this last issue is not of great import to everyone and I get that.

Both are terrific scopes but if size or absolute water resistance are important, I come down on the side of the Nikon.

[horukuru]

I owned Nikon ED82 and ED50. At this moment, for longer hike in the rainforest, I used the ED50 because of the weight. After several years carrying the ED82, glad I bought the ED50 with 13-40x zoom eyepiece.

The ED82 now mostly for short walk, digiscoping and waders watching

[KorHaan]

It is too easy to proclaim that 'colour bias' does not exist in Zeiss telescopes.
I've looked through an 85mm Diascope on a field excursion and it had the worst yellow bias I had ever experienced, and I've seen lots of scopes including alpha brands.

I have owned a Zeiss 65mm Diascope myself that had no yellow colour bias.

Two scopes, same eyes, different outcome.
Unless there is a different optical system in 85mm vs. 65mm scopes, I can't conclude anything else than that there is sample to sample variation.
Which is not a good thing in a top brand, but that is another matter.

Best regards,

Ronald

[dalat]

Thanks all for you the further recommendations! I'll have to try getting my hands on an ED50 then...

[kristoffer]

Originally Posted by Kevin Purcell

http://www.ehlert-partner.de/Birdwat...April%2007.pdf

Note the comments about the yellow cast for the Zeiss from those clueless Brits. What could they know.

Yeah, really strange everyone sees the yellow cast cept mr troll

And yes, the diascope is infamous for huge sample variations when it comes to performance. But the yellow cast is not due to variation, it is by design afaik.

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by dalat

Thanks all for you the further recommendations! I'll have to try getting my hands on an ED50 then...

I have no experience with the little 50ED, but from all I have read it would be a good choice.

Some people on here calling names seems to be like they are turning into what they are calling the other person. Just my opinion of course. We are all here to help and try to get along as much as we can.
Regards,Steve

[Kevin Purcell]

Originally Posted by KorHaan

It is too easy to proclaim that 'colour bias' does not exist in Zeiss telescopes.
I've looked through an 85mm Diascope on a field excursion and it had the worst yellow bias I had ever experienced, and I've seen lots of scopes including alpha brands.

I have owned a Zeiss 65mm Diascope myself that had no yellow colour bias.

Two scopes, same eyes, different outcome.
Unless there is a different optical system in 85mm vs. 65mm scopes, I can't conclude anything else than that there is sample to sample variation.
Which is not a good thing in a top brand, but that is another matter.

Unless they're adjacent or same batch serial numbers (Zeiss sequential serial numbers are a win!) there nothing you can say about "sample to sample" variation from that anecdote

What you could be seeing is differences in design revisions of scope that reduce the yellow bias.

One clear example of this recently over on the bins forum is FrankD and the Meopta 8x42 bins that were replaced. The replacements were a lot less yellow (and had other improvements). Same with the Meopta 8x32 that came out of the original 8x42.

So coating changes (which do happen over the life of a product) can change sytematically not randomly especially for a feature that is commonly noticed (and is perceived a detriment).