[Humboldt Jim]

Just ordered the scope from Eagle Optics and a 701rc2 head and mounting plate from B&H Photo. I think I can convert my old (and very cool) Fliplock tripod.

While this may not be a top line scope, I prefer to spend mt $ on a ticket to Costa Rica for the difference. I also have several eyepieces that should work well with the scope.

Thanks to all of you (some temporarily lost in the site crash) that have provided their opinions on this scope. The other deciding factor is my trust in Pentax for providing very good optics at reasonable prices.

[HokkaidoStu]

Originally Posted by Humboldt Jim

While this may not be a top line scope, I prefer to spend mt $ on a ticket to Costa Rica for the difference. I also have several eyepieces that should work well with the scope.

Thanks to all of you (some temporarily lost in the site crash) that have provided their opinions on this scope. The other deciding factor is my trust in Pentax for providing very good optics at reasonable prices.

Hi Jim. I've had this scope a couple of weeks now and am very happy with it (mine were some of the posts lost when the site crashed).

Agree re the price tag. I'd reckon (purely subjectively of course!) you get over 95% of the quality of a top line scope at less than 50% of the price.

Enjoy your new scope..................

[Andy1]

Originally Posted by Humboldt Jim

Just ordered the scope from Eagle Optics and a 701rc2 head and mounting plate from B&H Photo. I think I can convert my old (and very cool) Fliplock tripod.

While this may not be a top line scope, I prefer to spend mt $ on a ticket to Costa Rica for the difference. I also have several eyepieces that should work well with the scope.

Thanks to all of you (some temporarily lost in the site crash) that have provided their opinions on this scope. The other deciding factor is my trust in Pentax for providing very good optics at reasonable prices.

Jim - I'd be very interested in your opinions on this scope after you get a chance to use it. I am also considering purchasing it but have not found any reviews on it and am looking for more information. Actually, this site has had the most info of anyplace on the web.

I'd especially like to hear if anyone has used it with the dedicated eyepieces designed by Pentax. The price of the Pentax sounds almost too good when compared to other similar scopes on the market. I am also considering the Nikon Fieldscope 60 ED, so I am wondering how this scope compares to the competition. Unfortunately, I am not able to find any of them at local retailers.

I'll be watching in the future.
Thanks.

[HokkaidoStu]

Originally Posted by Andy1

I'd especially like to hear if anyone has used it with the dedicated eyepieces designed by Pentax. The price of the Pentax sounds almost too good when compared to other similar scopes on the market. I am also considering the Nikon Fieldscope 60 ED, so I am wondering how this scope compares to the competition. Unfortunately, I am not able to find any of them at local retailers.

I'll be watching in the future.
Thanks.

Hi Andy. I use the XF12 which is a nice eyepiece (and half the price of the XW ones). Bright, clear, no yellow edges, longish eye relief (with 4 click stops so everyone's eyes can be accomodated). I don't think it's waterproof though and the field of view isn't as wide as the more expensive Pentax eyepieces.

Vixen, Meade and various companies do wide-angle astro eyepieces cheaper than Pentax. I'm thinking of getting a Vixen zoom eyepiece later this year-the Pentax XF zoom has inadequete eye relief and the XW zoom is more expensive than the 65mm scope itself (at least it is here in Japan-dunno about the US).

I haven't looked through the Nikon for a while but from what I remember of the image (it was almost a year ago) it isn't much better (if at all) than the Pentax. The flexibility of choosing different eyepieces gave the Pentax the edge for me-I wear glasses and the Nikon eyepieces (esp the zooms) are not so eyeglass friendly I recall. In Japan the Nikon with 30X e/p retails at around $900 and the Pantax at around $600.............

A lot of people love the Nikon though. If the eyepieces (specifically the zooms) had more eye relief I would have considered gettting one myself on its reputation alone.

[Larry Birder]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post. I'm looking into a 65ED angled, and I'm curious what the recent posts that were lost in the crash had to say about this scope.

Any big concerns raised about this scope? So far what I've seen is pretty positive.

Thanks!

[Humboldt Jim]

Originally Posted by stuprice68

Hi Andy. I use the XF12 which is a nice eyepiece (and half the price of the XW ones). Bright, clear, no yellow edges, longish eye relief (with 4 click stops so everyone's eyes can be accomodated). I don't think it's waterproof though and the field of view isn't as wide as the more expensive Pentax eyepieces.

Vixen, Meade and various companies do wide-angle astro eyepieces cheaper than Pentax. I'm thinking of getting a Vixen zoom eyepiece later this year-the Pentax XF zoom has inadequete eye relief and the XW zoom is more expensive than the 65mm scope itself (at least it is here in Japan-dunno about the US).

I haven't looked through the Nikon for a while but from what I remember of the image (it was almost a year ago) it isn't much better (if at all) than the Pentax. The flexibility of choosing different eyepieces gave the Pentax the edge for me-I wear glasses and the Nikon eyepieces (esp the zooms) are not so eyeglass friendly I recall. In Japan the Nikon with 30X e/p retails at around $900 and the Pantax at around $600.............

A lot of people love the Nikon though. If the eyepieces (specifically the zooms) had more eye relief I would have considered gettting one myself on its reputation alone.

From what I have seen of various eyepieces, the field of view "wow" factor is based more on the diameter of the occular (eyepiece lens next to your eye) than the actual angle of view of the instrument. A wide occular allows the eye to move around in order to see the whole field. This makes for less eyestrain and the illusion of a wide FOV whether the scope is "seeing" 10 or 50 meters at 1000 meters. This concept took me a while to grasp, so don't give up!

As a birder, I primarily want the widest actual FOV at a given magnification and just enough apparent FOF to make viewing comfortable. This might allow me to watch a pair of Perigirine Falcons each eating their own Least Sandpiper at the same time instead of looking at them one at a time (had that pleasure last week!).

So, when describing FOV's of optics its very helpful to say whether it is actual or apparent.

I also considered the Nikon but my budget spoke to me.

[todd.benko]

[quote=Humboldt Jim]
As a birder, I primarily want the widest actual FOV at a given magnification and just enough apparent FOF to make viewing comfortable. This might allow me to watch a pair of Perigirine Falcons each eating their own Least Sandpiper at the same time instead of looking at them one at a time (had that pleasure last week!).

Jim

For your information There was an eyepiece that I briefly tried called a speers waler 10mm that at first appearence blew my mind, so to speak, on my pentax 65mm. When looking through the eyepiece I actually had to move my eye around to see the outer edge limitations of the image that was presented. I've never ever encountered such a wide field of view previously. I do have one reservation and that is that I did not fully test the eyepiece out on various distant objects. I was looking for something with 28mm eyecup threads to be able to thread right into my CP4500 camera and hence prematurely dismissed this eyepiece. There is a concern with many eyepieces that when used with the pentax they might not always reach infinity focus. Hence I will have to go back and perform some more tests with that eyepiece. Either way I was really impressed with the image it presented on my little scope. I will probably go and purchases that eyepiece this summer at some time. For those that are interested here is a couple of links I found that discuss these eyepieces in better detail than I could ever.

Todd Benko


http://www.cloudynights.com/eyepieces/speers10.htm
http://www.cloudynights.com/lab/eyepieces/speers.pdf

[zack2]

Originally Posted by todd.benko

There is a concern with many eyepieces that when used with the pentax they might not always reach infinity focus.

I've been trying to find out all I can about this scope, and this is the first I've heard that there's a potential problem with focus travel when using some non-Pentax eyepieces. I'd be curious to know where you heard this, and whether you have you actually run into this problem yourself?

Thanks for the note about the Speers-Waler 10mm. I've been very curious about this eyepiece, and also about some other 'off-brand' wide-view astro eyepieces that are floating around -- someone posted to this board (unfortunately, the post was lost in the recent crash) highly recommending super-view eyepieces sold by (I think) Owl Services. Unfortunately, I don't remember the focol lengths or other details, and the post is forever lost in the ether!

Zack

[todd.benko]

Originally Posted by zack2

I've been trying to find out all I can about this scope, and this is the first I've heard that there's a potential problem with focus travel when using some non-Pentax eyepieces. I'd be curious to know where you heard this, and whether you have you actually run into this problem yourself?

Thanks for the note about the Speers-Waler 10mm. I've been very curious about this eyepiece, and also about some other 'off-brand' wide-view astro eyepieces that are floating around -- someone posted to this board (unfortunately, the post was lost in the recent crash) highly recommending super-view eyepieces sold by (I think) Owl Services. Unfortunately, I don't remember the focol lengths or other details, and the post is forever lost in the ether!

Zack

Zack

It's not that there is a problem. All the pentax scopes have a pin down at the bottom of their 1.25 eyepiece recepticle that lines up with a slot on their eyepieces. When one takes an eyepiece made by someone else it only goes down as far as this pin and hence keeps the eyepiece about 1-2mm further out and can affect the available range of focus with that eyepiece. This is not a problem because it usually can be handled in one of two ways. The first is that if the barrel of the eyepiece is long enough one can create a slot in the eyepiece barrel to accomodate the pin. If the eyepiece barrel is already short one can install a telenegative lense in the bottom eyepiece threads which effectively changes the focus range and slightly increases the eyepiece magnification. Take for instance I have the scopetronix WA18 lense and for the pentax this eyepiece requires a scopetronix maxpower lense to be installed.

Probably in true fairness I would probably suspect that the pentax system may offer the widest range of possible eyepieces availility to use third party eyepieces. I have absolutely no regrets for my purchase or selection. Actually I feel I've got possibly one of the best situations available due to fact that I can pick and choose the combination which is best suited for the purpose I have in mind. If I'm bird watching with this scope or decide to star gaze with it at night, I can change my eyepiece to best suit the purpose of choice at the time. Take for example my brief try of the speers waler10mm, If a problem does present itself I'm pretty sure that one of the two stated options should allow a usable situation. Not every eyepiece will have a problem. The same can be said with any other scope that can adapt 1.25inch eyepieces to their scope. Some will work others will not and chances are the available focus range will be the affected concern besides quality of image, eye relief, field of view, etc.

With spotting scopes I am really coming to the opinion that what really sets one out from another has a lot to do with the quality of the eyepiece alone. Granted there is the much to do with the type of glass and placement in the scope that can affect the image quality. However if you take two scopes that have quality Extra Low Dispersion (ED) optics installed, the most probably difference in image quality will probably be with optical quality of the eyepiece.

I again iterate that I have no regrets of any which my choice on this scope, even though I had a couple of trials and tribulations during the aquisition and availability. If you are thinking of image quality and brightness and I would have no reservation in suggesting you go with the 80 or even the 100mm scope. I accept the tradeoff of image quality at 60x on the 65mm as compared to 60x on the 80mm scope. Personal view point is the image is slightly softer. Again I think most of this is attributed to the zoom eyepieces.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation. I would recommend that you try your prospective scopes out if you can and make the choice based on what your willing to accept. It might be cost, form factor, weight, versitility, ultimate clarity, all depend on your intended usage. If you go with pentax or any other that can accept astro eyepieces I would suggest as someone else in another form has done and that is to go down to an astronomy store and try every eyepiece they had in the store with your scope. You will find what works and what does not. You have to remember some of these eyepieces can cost as much or more than the scope for the high quality eyepieces.

Todd benko

[Humboldt Jim]

Originally Posted by todd.benko

Zack

It's not that there is a problem. All the pentax scopes have a pin down at the bottom of their 1.25 eyepiece recepticle that lines up with a slot on their eyepieces. When one takes an eyepiece made by someone else it only goes down as far as this pin and hence keeps the eyepiece about 1-2mm further out and can affect the available range of focus with that eyepiece. This is not a problem because it usually can be handled in one of two ways. The first is that if the barrel of the eyepiece is long enough one can create a slot in the eyepiece barrel to accomodate the pin. If the eyepiece barrel is already short one can install a telenegative lense in the bottom eyepiece threads which effectively changes the focus range and slightly increases the eyepiece magnification. Take for instance I have the scopetronix WA18 lense and for the pentax this eyepiece requires a scopetronix maxpower lense to be installed.


Probably in true fairness I would probably suspect that the pentax system may offer the widest range of possible eyepieces availility to use third party eyepieces. I have absolutely no regrets for my purchase or selection. Actually I feel I've got possibly one of the best situations available due to fact that I can pick and choose the combination which is best suited for the purpose I have in mind. If I'm bird watching with this scope or decide to star gaze with it at night, I can change my eyepiece to best suit the purpose of choice at the time. Take for example my brief try of the speers waler10mm, If a problem does present itself I'm pretty sure that one of the two stated options should allow a usable situation. Not every eyepiece will have a problem. The same can be said with any other scope that can adapt 1.25inch eyepieces to their scope. Some will work others will not and chances are the available focus range will be the affected concern besides quality of image, eye relief, field of view, etc.

With spotting scopes I am really coming to the opinion that what really sets one out from another has a lot to do with the quality of the eyepiece alone. Granted there is the much to do with the type of glass and placement in the scope that can affect the image quality. However if you take two scopes that have quality Extra Low Dispersion (ED) optics installed, the most probably difference in image quality will probably be with optical quality of the eyepiece.

I again iterate that I have no regrets of any which my choice on this scope, even though I had a couple of trials and tribulations during the aquisition and availability. If you are thinking of image quality and brightness and I would have no reservation in suggesting you go with the 80 or even the 100mm scope. I accept the tradeoff of image quality at 60x on the 65mm as compared to 60x on the 80mm scope. Personal view point is the image is slightly softer. Again I think most of this is attributed to the zoom eyepieces.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation. I would recommend that you try your prospective scopes out if you can and make the choice based on what your willing to accept. It might be cost, form factor, weight, versitility, ultimate clarity, all depend on your intended usage. If you go with pentax or any other that can accept astro eyepieces I would suggest as someone else in another form has done and that is to go down to an astronomy store and try every eyepiece they had in the store with your scope. You will find what works and what does not. You have to remember some of these eyepieces can cost as much or more than the scope for the high quality eyepieces.

Todd benko

Thanks Stu, Todd, Larry:

This is getting to be a highly informative thread!

My 65 mm Pentax an 12mm xf eyepiece are on their way from Eagle Optics and my special stainless steel (macinist was out of 1" bras rod)bushing to adapt an old scope to be able to use a manfrotto 701rc2 head should be ready when I ge the scope.

The slot makes a lot of sense for zoom eyepieces and no that we know about the pin, modifying other astronomical eyepieces will not detract from their utility.

I currently have a 10mm Vixen Lanthanum eyepiece that I use in my Celestron C90 with excellent results, and intend to use it as my high power occular in the pentax. My decision to get the Pentax was finalized when the eyepiece and erecting prism fell out during a field trip. Mt C90 with all the add-on parts will be restricted to astonomy and stationary, fair weather birding from now on. The Pentax will be my field scope.

Speaking of Fieldscopes, I am boycoting Nikon for cowtowing to the National Rifle Association per article by Ted Williams in February Audubon Magazine.

Back to optics; I'll be interested to see more eyepiece test results and opinions and will offer a feview of my now scope at first opportunity. I am planning on getting a 20 mm eyepiece to round out my collection and for the low power option for on the Pentax.

[Humboldt Jim]

Sorry Zack. Didn't mean to leave you out.

Thanks

[todd.benko]

Originally Posted by Humboldt Jim

Thanks Stu, Todd, Larry:

This is getting to be a highly informative thread!

My 65 mm Pentax an 12mm xf eyepiece are on their way from Eagle Optics and my special stainless steel (macinist was out of 1" bras rod)bushing to adapt an old scope to be able to use a manfrotto 701rc2 head should be ready when I ge the scope.

The slot makes a lot of sense for zoom eyepieces and no that we know about the pin, modifying other astronomical eyepieces will not detract from their utility.

I currently have a 10mm Vixen Lanthanum eyepiece that I use in my Celestron C90 with excellent results, and intend to use it as my high power occular in the pentax. My decision to get the Pentax was finalized when the eyepiece and erecting prism fell out during a field trip. Mt C90 with all the add-on parts will be restricted to astonomy and stationary, fair weather birding from now on. The Pentax will be my field scope.

Speaking of Fieldscopes, I am boycoting Nikon for cowtowing to the National Rifle Association per article by Ted Williams in February Audubon Magazine.

Back to optics; I'll be interested to see more eyepiece test results and opinions and will offer a feview of my now scope at first opportunity. I am planning on getting a 20 mm eyepiece to round out my collection and for the low power option for on the Pentax.

Jim

I'll be interested in hearing about your adventures with the XF12 eyepiece and comparisons with the Vixen. Any idea on when yours will be arriving? For an overall general purpose I like having the zoom lense around and the XFzoom is nearly half the size of the 80mm zoom eyepiece. Looking forward to your posts and experiences.

I hope you have as much success as I have experienced.

Todd