Eyepieces for Nikon ED II (1 Viewer)

[AndrewC1]

Having been away from bird watching for a number of years I have come back to it fairly recently.

I have a Nikon Fieldscope ED II with both the x20 and x30 eyepieces. I was thinking of getting the 20-45x zoom.

Please could someone who has or had had this eyepiece comment on its image quality and ease of use compared to the x20 eyepiece.

Thanaks

Andrew

 

[AndrewC1]

Having been away from bird watching for a number of years I have come back to it fairly recently.

I have a Nikon Fieldscope ED II with both the x20 and x30 eyepieces. I was thinking of getting the 20-45x zoom.

Please could someone who has or had had this eyepiece comment on its image quality and ease of use compared to the x20 eyepiece.

Thanaks

Andrew

Also, how does this scope compare to the higher end of todays offerings?

 

[Hermann]

The scope (still, after all those years!) compares pretty well with the more modern offerings. Admittedly the EDIII is somewhat better (better coatings, i.e. fully multi-coated, better waterproofing), but the EDII is no slouch, even compared to the Swarovski ATS 65mm, probably the best scope in this class. I use scopes a lot when I'm out birding, and I tend to look at scopes very carefully. Up to now I never saw a reason to switch to another scope.

What did change over the years though is the quality of the zoom eyepieces. Most modern zooms have got much better fields of view, for instance the Swaro zoom. They're also better if you need to wear glasses.

That said, optically the 20-60x zoom is plenty sharp and contrasty. It IS somewhat better than the 20-45x you asked about, especially at the higher magnifications. If you decide to get the 20-45x, try to make sure you get one of the newer versions marked "MC". With that zoom the difference between the older versions without multi-coating and the new version with multi-coating is quite pronounced IME.

BTW, what eyepieces have you got? Is the 30x the WA eyepiece or one of the older, narrow ones originally sold with the Nikon Fieldscope ED? Maybe you can post photos of the scope and the eyepieces. If the 30x isn't the WA eyepiece, you may want to get a WA first.

Hermann

 

[AndrewC1]

The scope (still, after all those years!) compares pretty well with the more modern offerings. Admittedly the EDIII is somewhat better (better coatings, i.e. fully multi-coated, better waterproofing), but the EDII is no slouch, even compared to the Swarovski ATS 65mm, probably the best scope in this class. I use scopes a lot when I'm out birding, and I tend to look at scopes very carefully. Up to now I never saw a reason to switch to another scope.

What did change over the years though is the quality of the zoom eyepieces. Most modern zooms have got much better fields of view, for instance the Swaro zoom. They're also better if you need to wear glasses.

That said, optically the 20-60x zoom is plenty sharp and contrasty. It IS somewhat better than the 20-45x you asked about, especially at the higher magnifications. If you decide to get the 20-45x, try to make sure you get one of the newer versions marked "MC". With that zoom the difference between the older versions without multi-coating and the new version with multi-coating is quite pronounced IME.

BTW, what eyepieces have you got? Is the 30x the WA eyepiece or one of the older, narrow ones originally sold with the Nikon Fieldscope ED? Maybe you can post photos of the scope and the eyepieces. If the 30x isn't the WA eyepiece, you may want to get a WA first.

Hermann

Hermann,

Here are some pictures. I guess the x30 os not WA. I'm surprised that the 20-60x is better than the 20-45. I assumed that the longer focal range would have made it less good.

Andrew

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Hi Andrew, as Hermann has already said, the EDii is still a competent performer, and can be upgraded quite easily with the addition of a new eyepiece. If you wear glasses, the DS series is arguably the best fixed lens produced by any company - the 16x/24x/30x is very popular and with good reason, otherwise the 20x/30x/38x is excellent, but harder to come by. This thread has lots of useful information.

 

[Hermann]

Here are some pictures. I guess the x30 os not WA. I'm surprised that the 20-60x is better than the 20-45. I assumed that the longer focal range would have made it less good.

The 20x is quite ok for general use I'd say. Not spectacular, but usable. The 30x is the old, narrow eyepiece. Optically pretty good, but quite narrow.

I'd go for the 20-60x zoom if you're after high magnifications AND don't wear glasses AND if you can live with a fairly narrow field of view. The 20-45x is not quite as good optically. It's still pretty good, I often use it on the ED50 because it's so small and light.

The 20x/30x/40x WA (any version) is difficult to find. What's still available is the 16x/24x/30x DS. That's a brilliant eyepiece if you want a very wide field of view at relatively low power.

Hermann

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I'm surprised that the 20-60x is better than the 20-45. I assumed that the longer focal range would have made it less good....

No, the 20-60 is a much later design, maybe benefited from better optical engineering knowledge. It is the better of the two.

--AP