[scampo]

I've compared it against a Swarovski 80ED and Leica Apo-televid 77, as well (and far more) against a Swarovski 65ED. The first thing you notice is that the Nikon zoom is about half the weight of the other major manufacturer's zoom eyepieces - thus keeping the overall weight more comfortable to carry around (although the Swarovski body is lighter than the Nikon's).

The Leica and Swarovski zooms offer a somewhat wider field of view at their 20x setting when compared to the Nikon at its lowest 25x - but the Nikon's extra magnification is bound to lead to a reduced field of view. Certainly this is a point to consider - it might or might not be relatively important to you. But field of view per se is not the be all and end all as the overall view provided by the Nikon is seriously good.

On your scope, though, you would get a wider field than with the ED82 - because of the different focal length of the EDIII which produces a 20x, rather than a 25x minimum magnification.

The new Zeiss is famed for its wide field of view at 20x - but reviewers have suggested that this is at the expense of overall edge-edge sharpness. The Nikon zoom is pin sharp edge to edge and gives a completely flat field of view; again there's little practically to choose between them on that score.

The Nikon zoom is as bright and clear as the Swarovski, and, to my eyes somewhat better than the Leica - but again, all of these scopes are on a par optically for all practical purposes. What is important about the Nikon is that it offers a significantly higher top magnification of 75x - and this seems to me to be important because, after all, it is one of the main reasons to choose a zoom as against a fixed wide angle. Trained on two distant peregrines the other day, in bright clear light I admit, even at 75x the view and detail were simply superb.

The Nikon scope stands out for me because it is has an 82mm objective lens in a very compact design indeed - incredibly no longer than the Swarovski 65.

Now - when you put Nikon's 30x Wide on its scope you know you have an amazing scope in your hands. I do think that you need both a zoom and a wide angle to give the very best options to suit different circumstances. The Nikon is also very well priced when put against the Zeiss and the Swarovski.

[dogfish]

Scampo, is the 20x75 zoom on your 82mm Nikon a new eyepiece; ie, a second attempt at the MC design with the screw-down eyecups? I think I recall your review of the scope mentioned a Mk 2 eyepiece.

I got a MK1 MC for my ED111A, which has a disturbing halo effect at low magnification. Would certainly be tempted by the 82mm if the zoom is noticeably better.

[scampo]

The 25-75 / 20-60x MCII was launched at the same time or thereabouts as the new ED82 scope. It is a similar outward design but an overall clear improvement optically compared with the earlier eyepiece. Nikon seem to have corrected a number of issues - colour fringing and flare being two I have read about. I think it is overall without doubt an A1 optic (as it should be for the price...); my only slight gripe is that it would have been useful to have a somewhat wider field of view - the Leica and Swaro zoom eyepieces score a touch better on that count. But... in terms of sharpness, clarity, brightness and faithful colour balance the Ninon more than makes up for this slight lack.

[dogfish]

Thanks for that. I shall take a look at a Nikon 82 soon.

[Scott Crabtree]

Greetings from Kent Island, Maryland, USA, on the partially frozen Chesapeake Bay. I'm new to Bird Forum, and this is my first post, so I hope this goes through alright.

I purchased the Nikon 82mm Fieldscope ED (angled eyepiece) about three months ago. As soon as Eagle Optics had them. Mine is serial number 209. I had a Swaro At-80 for 12 years, and since it had vacationed twice to Austria in the last three years for internal fogging, I decided it was time to replace it. Having used Nikon binos for over ten years, and having been largely impressed with the old 78mm Fieldscope, I decided to purchase the new 82mm as soon as it was available. I have not had a moment's regret.

The scope is sharp, edge-to-edge, bright, compact, and appears to be quite rugged. Every feather is tack-sharp. Not a hint of chromatic aberration. Side-by-side comparison with the Zeiss 85mm showed that the Nikon was equally as bright (in the light of that day), and that particular Zeiss, at least, showed remarkable softness at the edges.

I have two eyepieces. I had found that with the Swaro 20-60x zoom, I would scan at 20x, and then immediately zoom up to a power somewhere between 30 and 40. So, I went with the 38X fixed eyepiece, due to its great eye-relief, and field of view. The fov is the same as the 25-75X zoom's fov at 25X. Of course, 38X can accentuate heat shimmer, so I also got the zoom as well. The higher powers on the zoom are emminently useable under the right conditions. 82mm divided by 75X doesn't give you much exit pupil, but like I said, under the right conditions, it gives great views.

The view-through case is pretty well engineered, providing better protection from the elements than I've seen in other cases. One can operate the focus while covered, keeping precipitation off of the scope, even though it's fully waterproof.

The first thing out of the mouth of others who look through the scope is, "Wow, that's bright! And I can see every feather."

The scope does have its warts. The knurled nob for operating the zoom is pretty narrow, and with gloves on, a little difficult to get one's fingers on. The focus goes from close to inifinity in about 3/4 of a turn, so can be a little demanding to get the right focus at higher powers. Both are something one just has to get used to, and I've done so quickly.

At several hundreds of USD less than the comparable Swaro or Zeiss, and with a view as good or better, all high end scope purchasers owe it to themselves to check out this scope, however difficult it is to get your hands on one. You won't be disappointed.

Scott Crabtree
Chester, Kent Island, MD, USA

[John Cantelo]

An interesting review, Scott. I'd agree that for fixed magnification eye pieces there nowt between the Nikon & the much touted Swarovski .... other than a hefty discount on what you pay. Optically they're very, very close. I think the Swarovski zoom is definitely better. The biggest drawback to the Nikon seems to be the hypercritical focusing; I'm interested that it's something that you found that you could cope with. It's certainly far better optically than the Leica 77m.
John Cantelo (Kent not-an-island, UK)

[scampo]

Hi Scott

From one Nikon devotee to another, welcome! And thanks for a good review (you can read mine on the same scope on this site, if you like:

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/sho...php?product=54

We share another connection - my son has a Swaro scope, so I know how favourably the Nikon compares. I'm rather surprised that John feels that the Swarovski's zoom is "definitely better" than the Nikon's. I use both regularly and one one parameter only I can recognise a difference that is sometimes useful - the Swaro offers a somewhat wider field of view; but, against this the Nikon offers a sometimes very useful top 75x magnification.

I can say that I have met no one yet who seems to prefer the view through the Swaro when they compare it to the Nikon. Even Nick, my son, finds the Nikon gives such an "easy" and comfortable view - maybe it's the brightness, the faithfulness of the colour, neither of us can put a finger on it. It would certainly be unbeatable if it were that bit wider - but when I need real width I put the 30xW on and, well, I doubt there's a better eyepiece on the market. I almost went for the 38x as it, too, is wonderful to look through, but at the time, I thought the 30x a more useful companion to the zoom.

[coloshrike]

On the ergonomics of focusing with the Nikon scopes I can offer my comments based off of a Fieldscope III 60mm ED. I love the large easy to grip focusing ring and on balance prefer the quick snappy focusing in the interest of speed.

However, a good friend finds the speed of the focusing ring much too fast and compressed. I think if Nikon would add a fine focus knob it would address the issues folks like my friend have with the scope. If they added that and then introduced a zoom with adequate eye relief imho it would be hard to beat a Nikon scope for anyone's tastes.

[John Cantelo]

Scampo wrote "I'm rather surprised that John feels that the Swarovski's zoom is "definitely better" than the Nikon's. I use both regularly and one one parameter only I can recognise a difference that is sometimes useful - the Swaro offers a somewhat wider field of view; but, against this the Nikon offers a sometimes very useful top 75x magnification". This was certainly the impression I had when peeking through a Nikon with a zoom attached, however, it wasn't a side by side comparison so my impression may well be mistaken or that particular zoom was a dud. Scampo's experience is clearly a better guide in this matter, John

[dogfish]

Scampo, are you comparing like with like? I thought your son's scope was a Swarovski 65mm. So the 82mm Nikon has rather an unfair advantage when zooms are compared. Only a comparison of the Swarovski 80 v the Nikon 82 would be a true guide to the relative excellence of the zooms.

[scampo]

That's true and it's interesting because the Nikon is the same overall length as the Swaro 65 and costs the same - that's 82mm worth of quality optics for the same length and price as 65mm.

But I was talking about the Swaro 80mm which is owned by a couple of birders I meet up with regularly. One of them has had the Swaro AT80HD for about a year or so now (as well as their 8.5ELs! Lucky so and so to have that much money to spend on kit!) - he rates it very highly indeed.

It was that friend who was so impressed with the view through the Nikon compared to his Swaro. The Nikon seemed to be its equal except being just beaten by the Swaro on field of view, but the roles were reversed on maximum magnification (Nikon 75x / Swaro 60x); also, an intangible, but noticed by me and commented on by sufficient people now for me to think there's something genuine in it - the Nikon view and image feel extraordinarily "right".

Regarding the Swaro 65, though, comparing it with its big brother doesn't show a deal of difference (although I have to say I have only done this once and I was more interested in the long-tailed ducks at the time than the two scopes' qualities). They are based on the same design except for objective lens size. As I recall, their exceptional optical qualities match except for improved brightness noticeable in the dim light.

Overall, I think it has to be a case of swings, roundabouts... and pockets. I'm sure that Swaro, Zeiss, Kowa, Nikon or Leica would fit the bill for most people - and all but the first, for significantly less money. One scope that stands out a touch in that group might be said to be the Leica as it is a rather long and heavy scope compared with the newer designed products - but this might or might not matter a jot.

It does seem interesting to consider that such as the Nikon ED82 can be bought as a kit from Warehouse Express with Nikon's superb stay-on case, a scope/camera adapter, a tripod and a superb Nikon digital camera all for significantly less than the Swaro 80 scope on its own.

[dogfish]

the virtues of the various scopes aside, I think there's certainly something to be said for birders taking a stand against optic inflation. I'd say £1,500 is at the outer edge of what I'd be prepared to pay for a scope and eyepiece and others will consider it beyond the pale. Especially as no one is saying that the new Swav is a step change in optical quality, even those who would regard it as the best choice. It looks like Swarovski and Leica are also telling dealers they can't advertise discounted prices on the new ranges. Which means you have to ring them all up to find the true price. A pain.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by dogfish

the virtues of the various scopes aside, I think there's certainly something to be said for birders taking a stand against optic inflation. I'd say £1,500 is at the outer edge of what I'd be prepared to pay for a scope and eyepiece and others will consider it beyond the pale. Especially as no one is saying that the new Swav is a step change in optical quality, even those who would regard it as the best choice. It looks like Swarovski and Leica are also telling dealers they can't advertise discounted prices on the new ranges. Which means you have to ring them all up to find the true price. A pain.

However, the new Swaro scopes - including the 80 - seem to sell very well going by the number I see about so Swaro must have done something right. I'm sure their bank manager agrees.

I do though wonder about the point of the rubber armour. Doubtless it adds weight and cost, and yet it does not protect the entire scope so people still use a SOC. It does look nice though.

Given that the main advantage over the Nikon 82ED is weight (unless I am mistaken), I wonder whether users really notice that 300g difference?

[iporali]

Originally Posted by Leif

I do though wonder about the point of the rubber armour. Doubtless it adds weight and cost, and yet it does not protect the entire scope so people still use a SOC. It does look nice though.

I see the rubber armouring in Swaro A/STS as a compensation to its light "tube material". When Kowa released its composite 820-series, it quite soon had to add some rubber bumpers with 820M. Perhaps customers don't like a quality scope to be "too" light.

Ilkka

[scampo]

Originally Posted by Leif

However, the new Swaro scopes - including the 80 - seem to sell very well going by the number I see about so Swaro must have done something right. I'm sure their bank manager agrees.

I do though wonder about the point of the rubber armour. Doubtless it adds weight and cost, and yet it does not protect the entire scope so people still use a SOC. It does look nice though.

Given that the main advantage over the Nikon 82ED is weight (unless I am mistaken), I wonder whether users really notice that 300g difference?

That is an advantage - and shouldn't be forgotten. The Nikon is, however, extrordinarily compact - packing in an 82mm into the length of a Swaro 65mm (I think Zeiss is similar).

[scampo]

Am I alone or slowly cracking up? I keep receiving emails saying I have received a reply posting but when I click on the link - the posting isn't there?

[Andrew Rowlands]

Originally Posted by scampo

Am I alone or slowly cracking up? I keep receiving emails saying I have received a reply posting but when I click on the link - the posting isn't there?

Both?

Turning off notification would cure it.

Andy.

[scampo]

Always that fine sense of humour, Andrew - lovely stuff!

But I want notifications - so how would that work?

[Andrew Rowlands]

Originally Posted by scampo

Always that fine sense of humour, Andrew - lovely stuff!

But I want notifications - so how would that work?

It would reset it.

Turn it off.

Logout.

Turn it back on.

Andy.

[scampo]

Thanks, Andy. Now there's a thing - I didn't do anything but it's working well now. Hmm. Gremlins in cyberspace?

[goldfinch]

As far as fixed eyepieces go....

how does the Nikon 15x (#7772) measure up against say... the 20x ??

will it fit other Nikon scopes?

(by the way are Nikon eyepieces interchangeable with other scopes?)

thanks!

[scampo]

No optics are interchangeable between brands - but the Nikon's can be used on the 60mm, 78mm and new 82mm Fieldscope ranges.
#
I didn't know there was a 15X in the MC series?

[Edward woodwood]

to my eyes I can't see a difference between the ED78 (available for £450 from Warehouse Express) and the new 82 Nikon or Swarovski - both considerably more exensive. The ED78 takes the new MC eyepieces, is compact and must be the optical steal of the year.

[dogfish]

Blimey, are you Scampo in disguise? That's supposed to be a smiley face by the way

[Leif]

Originally Posted by dogfish

Blimey, are you Scampo in disguise? That's supposed to be a smiley face by the way

There's only one Scampo!

I tried the Swaro 80 HD and the Nikon 82ED today. Both were lovely, but I'm sure the Nikon had the slightly better brightness and/or contrast. I would need to check that again, but there's no way I'm paying an extra £300 for the Swaro. The Nikon zoom was awesome and very useable at 75x in today's viewing conditions. Oh no. I'm starting to sound like Scampo! :)