ED50: 20x or 27x eyepiece? (1 Viewer)

[scopesurfr]

I just got an ED50 with the 13-30x zoom. Overall I'm really, really happy! I got the ED50 to complement my 10x32 bins, I specifically chose it because I want a scope that I can sling over a shoulder and not notice much. Currently I'm using it with a simple swivel "head" and a short carbon tube, pretty much as if I had a Finnstick. I have a Velbon monopod on order. Overall, all this keeps the weight under 800g. I have a 65mm Diascope on a tripod for when I feel like lugging a scope...

What I'm wondering is whether I'd be more happy with a 20x or 27x WF eyepiece... So far I'm using the zooming for two purposes: to locate the bird at low mag and then zoom in, and to view at lower mag to get a nicer and more stable picture. From what I can tell, the 20x WF has a wider FoV than the zoom at 13x, and the 27x's FoV is only a tad smaller. So I assume the first reason kind'a falls away.

My question now is how can I use the zoom eyepiece to test how the shake on the monopod is like at 20x vs 27x? There are only magnification markings at the 13x and 30x endpoints. How can I dial in 20x or 27x? Is the zoom range linear so I can just take a ruler to the eyepiece and measure? Any other trick?

I'm also wondering how good the view is with the 27x eyepiece. I find that at 30x with the zoom the view starts to fall apart. It gets dark, it no longer pops, dunno about the sharpness. It's not bad by any means, but not the pleasure of lower mags anymore.

 

[Boogieshrew]

I have the 16x DS, 20xMC and 27xDS eyepieces.
The 16x is my favourite, I wear glasses and can see the full fov very comfortably. Also being low mag it is easier to keep steady on my shoulder stock which is how I use it mostly so as to travel light.
The 20x is nice but I can only see full fov if I jam my glasses right up against it so it's not as easy to use as the 16x. Also the view just doesn't 'pop' like the 16x does. If it had a bit more eyerelief, I'd be very happy with it though.
The 27x I don't use much only for the occasional distant wader. It's too much mag for handheld but it's ok on a tripod. Like the 20x I have to jam my glasses up to it. Its noticeably darker than the other two.
I tend to take one of the lower mag e/ps and the 27x for just in case.

As you have the zoom for distant birds, I I were you I'd go for either the 16 or 20x. If you wear glasses go for the 16x.
I hope that's helpful.
The ED50 is a great little scope for travelling light.

 

[Alexis Powell]

I own all the Fieldscope eyepieces. I use only the 27x on the ED50. Why? Because when I use a scope, I want 30x. I'm not interested in a view that is only ~2x more than my ~8x bins--I want a ~4x increase to really move into a new realm of what can be seen. The view is not as bright/contrasty as that of the 16x or 20x on the ED50, or of 30x on my big scopes, but it is plenty high resolution and plenty bright, even in fairly low light. I find the eye-relief entirely comfortable with glasses and I enjoy the wide FOV and not having to mess w/ zooming.

As for testing using your zoom, 27x is only trivially different from 30x. 20x is roughly halfway between the marks. But if you wear glasses or enjoy a wide FOV, your zoom tests will give you a sense only of shake itself, not of how easy overall it is to see through the fixed wide angle eyepieces. They are a completely different experience from the zoom. So much easier.

--AP

 

[scopesurfr]

Thanks to both of you for the "contradicting" replies! It confirms my suspicion that I really want a 20x-27x WF zoom
I'll do some more testing and pondering... One advantage of the 27x is that I can actually press a buy button. Is there an older 27x WF that is smaller than the current DS, or is the only other WF variant the one of the same size but with twist up eyecups?

 

[Alexis Powell]

Thanks to both of you for the "contradicting" replies! It confirms my suspicion that I really want a 20x-27x WF zoom
I'll do some more testing and pondering... One advantage of the 27x is that I can actually press a buy button. Is there an older 27x WF that is smaller than the current DS, or is the only other WF variant the one of the same size but with twist up eyecups?

There is an older version, with folding eyecup, that is much smaller despite having the same optics inside the housing as the MC and DS versions. It is the 40/50x WF (which predated the ED50, so it isn't labeled as 27/40/50x). In fact, it is the one that I use on the ED50.

There was also a tiny 27/40/50x MC, but it has poor eye relief and isn't wide field. Doesn't work for me. It is shown on this web page along with the widefield MC version. Nikon | Sport Optics | MC Fieldscope Eyepieces for Observation

--AP

 

[Hermann]

I own all the Fieldscope eyepieces.

All of them? Wow. And I thought I had plenty ...

I use only the 27x on the ED50. Why? Because when I use a scope, I want 30x. I'm not interested in a view that is only ~2x more than my ~8x bins--I want a ~4x increase to really move into a new realm of what can be seen. The view is not as bright/contrasty as that of the 16x or 20x on the ED50, or of 30x on my big scopes, but it is plenty high resolution and plenty bright, even in fairly low light.

I fully agree with your summary of the view through the 27x on the ED50. I sometimes use the 27x DS on the ED50, and it works just fine - even though the view isn't anywhere close to 30x on the EDIIIA and especially the ED82.

However, I personally prefer a combination of one of the zoom eyepieces (usuallythe 13-30x MC on the ED50, simply because it's smaller than the 13-40x) + one of the 16x eyepieces for whenever I want or need a very wide field of view. I usually use the old 16x with the rubber eyecup, simply because it's nice and small.

Hermann

 

[Alexis Powell]

All of them? Wow. And I thought I had plenty ... ...

OK, I lied. I don't have all of them because I don't have the WF, MC, and DS versions of all of the eyepieces, but I do have (at least one, usually more, of) every focal length of the fixed, plus the zooms (several vintages), plus several of the 20/25x non-wide. Also, I no longer have the tiny 40x and 60x non-wide short-eye-relief eyepieces (gave them to folks who had no money and didn't wear glasses). I also have a thread adapter that can be used with some small astro eyepieces, but since my father died, I haven't really gotten in to that like I once planned (He had a lot of astro eyepieces and was interested in seeing what we could do with some of the little ones, which he never really used, on the Fieldscopes).

--AP

 

[Essex Tern]

I too have a nice selection of eyepieces - I have the 27xWF for my ED50, 30xWF for my ED82, the MCII zoom I swap in and out on both, and the 75xDS bought used at a good price for intrigue.

I have often wondered whether I am missing out on not having tried the 38x on my ED82 - I think 20x would similarly feel not enough on my ED50, but am intrigued if it is worth hunting down when I already have the 30x which I believe is a peach of an eyepiece.

……all a bit moot as the MC WF eyepieces are a bit like hen’s teeth, especially the 38x it seems, but interested in how the 38x stacks up in the collection.

 

[Alexis Powell]

I've not been tempted by 38x on 78ED or 82ED. Maybe if I did more with distant shorebirds or seabirds on a regular basis, it would be nice. I did use the 50x regularly in such a setting, and it was a bit too much, so if I'd had a 38x back then it might have been perfect. As it is, I use the 30x on the 78ED or 82 ED for almost everything and use the 25-75x zoom if I really need higher power, reserving the 75x fixed for specialty applications (e.g. sun projection). I use my 38x eyepieces exclusively as 30x on the 60ED scopes.

Another one that you might try is the 16/24/30x DS. It is a big chunk of glass compared to all other Fieldscope eyepieces, with an optical formula that is different from the 24/30x WF and MC versions (unlike the other DS which are optically the same as the WF and MC versions). The view is better corrected for field flatness (making it better for photography) and the eye relief is longer than the older versions; however, it seems to be more sensitive to eye centering for best results. All in all, I'm not sure that I like it better, but some do.

--AP

 

[Essex Tern]

I've not been tempted by 38x on 78ED or 82ED. Maybe if I did more with distant shorebirds or seabirds on a regular basis, it would be nice. I did use the 50x regularly in such a setting, and it was a bit too much, so if I'd had a 38x back then it might have been perfect. As it is, I use the 30x on the 78ED or 82 ED for almost everything and use the 25-75x zoom if I really need higher power, reserving the 75x fixed for specialty applications (e.g. sun projection). I use my 38x eyepieces exclusively as 30x on the 60ED scopes.

Another one that you might try is the 16/24/30x DS. It is a big chunk of glass compared to all other Fieldscope eyepieces, with an optical formula that is different from the 24/30x WF and MC versions (unlike the other DS which are optically the same as the WF and MC versions). The view is better corrected for field flatness (making it better for photography) and the eye relief is longer than the older versions; however, it seems to be more sensitive to eye centering for best results. All in all, I'm not sure that I like it better, but some do.

--AP

Thanks, I expect the 38x wouldn’t displace my 30x permanently, but sounds like it could be useful so will probably try and pick one up at some point, if I can. Would be nce to complete the magnification set.

Very interesting about the 30x DS - I hadn’t fully taken that point in re the different glass formula, but know some people have used 16x on the ED50 with good results. I have tried my 30x MC on the ED50 and the results were not satisfactory for my eyes, I think a relief issue maybe, but the DS actually being recommended at 16x on the eyepiece makes sense now Where Nikon * my eyepiece as not recommended.

 

[Hermann]

I have often wondered whether I am missing out on not having tried the 38x on my ED82 - I think 20x would similarly feel not enough on my ED50, but am intrigued if it is worth hunting down when I already have the 30x which I believe is a peach of an eyepiece.

I've got the 20/30/38x, both the old one (with the rubber eyecup) and the MC. I use that eyepiece mostly on the EDIIIA (30x), and sometimes on the ED50 (20x). On the ED82 it's sort of "in between" - too much magnification (and too little depth of field) for general use, but not enough for e.g. observation of shorebirds at really long distances. For that purpose the 27/40/40x DS works better for me.

Optically the 20/30/38x MC is just fine. Even the older version (without multicoatings) is a very nice eyepiece. My mother uses one all the time on her EDII.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Another one that you might try is the 16/24/30x DS. It is a big chunk of glass compared to all other Fieldscope eyepieces, with an optical formula that is different from the 24/30x WF and MC versions (unlike the other DS which are optically the same as the WF and MC versions). The view is better corrected for field flatness (making it better for photography) and the eye relief is longer than the older versions; however, it seems to be more sensitive to eye centering for best results. All in all, I'm not sure that I like it better, but some do.

I've got all three versions of the 16/24/30x eyepiece. Even though the DS version is the most modern of these versions and theoretically "better", I don't see any significant difference when using it and the MC on my scopes. (The first version - with the rubber eyecup, no multicoatings - is perhaps a bit less contrasty than the newer versions.) The DS is a bit sharper at the edge of the filed of view, but that's it. I personally don't need very high sharpness at the edge, so I usually prefer to use the old version or the MC rather than the much larger DS.

BTW, that includes the ED50. Nikon's "warning" that the old version and MC are not recommended for use on the ED50 is humbug IMO. Sure, these eyepieces are slightly darker at the edge, that's presumably the reason why Nikon doesn't recommend them, but for visual use that isn't of any importance. In fact, I prefer these eyepieces on the ED50 over the large and clumsy DS.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Also, I no longer have the tiny 40x and 60x non-wide short-eye-relief eyepieces (gave them to folks who had no money and didn't wear glasses).

I still have the tiny 40x. In fact, I have two of them, an old one and the MC. They aren't really easy to use, even if you don't wear glasses. But they do have a lot of contrast, presumably because of their construction. I guess they might orthoscopics. They can be fun to fool around with - but I wouldn't use them for "real" birding.

Hermann