Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten (1 Viewer)

[jring]

Hi,

as Henry has pointed out, the astigmatism is not terrible. Neither is the SA. The rings don't look too concentric which might be an issue - or not, because it is an artifact. The in focus image looks quite ok to me.

I am not so confident that indoors means no problems with seeing effects - to the contrary, in a heated room, you can have quite terrible seeing. On the other hand an unheated basement with the instrument in thermal equilibrium might indeed be close to optimal.

Please try to make images outside on a cool overcast morning with the instrument out for an hour or so if an unheated basement is unavailable.

Joachim

 

[Joker9937]

I apologize, but this is the best I can do with my phone. I have the scope at 60x, and the phone camera at 4x optical zoom. I then cropped it to get this size image. I tried to keep the exposure as low as possible, but regardless the image showed up slightly smeared on the phone screen. I de-focused approximately 1/8th turn both directions.

The image at the ep is much crisper. The "oblongness", vertically outside of focus, and horizontally inside, is definitely present as at the ep. Other than the smearing of the rings, everything is pretty true to life in these photos.

I believe the rings are actually truly concentric, meaning that they are evenly spaced from each other as they expand from the center. Sort of like an actual bullseye target, but that is roughly oval rather than perfectly circular.

Due to the "rays" spiking off of the outer ring, I wonder about roughness, which might not be a huge deal. (?).

Also, inside vs outside shows more of the "roughness" and broken lines or zones (?) in the outside image.

Obviously, there is the brighter image inside vs the outside, which is not good, but how bad is it?

For what it is worth, the in focus star shows a bit of the classic seagull type pattern as it comes to focus. More pronounced coming into focus from one way vs the other. I tried looking at the image with and without my glasses. It looks the same to me. So, I am guessing that it is the optics and not my eye.

How bad is it, if you can even tell from these images? Thank you!

 

[henry link]

From those two photos it looks to me like the only thing you really have to worry about is the astigmatism, which looks to be a bit stronger than it did in your earlier images. For myself I would want a cherry unit, which, judging from my experience is not an unreasonable goal with the Nikon Monarch EDs. Only you can decide whether the astigmatism is degrading the image more than you find acceptable. I know that's not easy to determine without a non-astigmatic specimen of the scope for comparison.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your earlier question about the Baader zoom's AFOV vs the Nikon standard Monarch zoom. In my opinion the increase in AFOV of the Baader is worthwhile, especially at magnifications above 40x where the Baader ranges from about 6º to 8º wider and isn't too far from the AFOV of the wide field Nikon zoom.

Henry

 

[mskb]

@henry link , @jring , I am also facing difficulties obtaining reproducible star test images. Can the star test images be sensitive to position of the star in the scope and the camera's field of view? That is, do we need to make sure the star is right in the center of the scope's view and also the camera's view? Thanks!

 

[jring]

@henry link , @jring , I am also facing difficulties obtaining reproducible star test images. Can the star test images be sensitive to position of the star in the scope and the camera's field of view? That is, do we need to make sure the star is right in the center of the scope's view and also the camera's view? Thanks!

Hi,

the star should be in the center of the scope as off axis we get more aberrations - some of them as compromises in the design. When using a real star, polaris has its advantages (doesn't move) and disadvantages (not very comfortable with a spotting scope).

Not quite as important is the position of the star in the camera image... but I would try to get it close to the center too...

As for Scott's scope - some astigmatism, probably still a bit better than diffraction limited... so no cherry but probably ok for the normal use w/o astro EPs or extenders.

Joachim

 

[Joker9937]

Thank you for the help deciphering things with this scope. It is much appreciated. I was already leaning towards a return, but did not want to rush it. So, the input from you guys has been helpful.

While there is much to like about this particular example (for the price), but enough problems for me to decide to return it. I notified Nikon of my concerns on the 14th day of the 14 day return period. But, so far, they have not given me the RMA. I will be really disappointed with them if they do not accept it.

It really does have nice glass, and if not for the issues I mentioned in my first post about the scope, which seemed to get worse the more I used it, as well as the results of the star test, I would have found a way to keep it. I think there are more issues than just the astigmatism, but that is enough to turn me off by itself. I do believe I notice it at higher powers. At lower powers it really has a nice image and seems to snap, but still just not quite "there". So, it is very close to being a good scope. But, at higher powers, in bright light, in dim light, and for digiscoping, it seems to fail. Bummer.

I think I am going to make a trip to Time and Optics in Ohio to try my next scope in person. I need to be patient. I do not care if it is Nikon, Kowa, Swaro, Zeiss, Leica, or any of the other up and comers, I just want a scope that performs like it should. I am not looking forward to the 3.5 hr drive one way, but it should be worth it to get a great specimen.

I will definitely be trying out a Nikon in the store. We will see.

 

[sillyak]

Are the new Monarch fieldscopes Made in Japan?

 

[henry link]

Are the new Monarch fieldscopes Made in Japan?

China

 

[sillyak]

China

Ugh... Nikon has pushed almost everything to China or Thailand in the last 15 years. Not to get in the country of origin debate, but it's disappointing.

 

[countryman george]

Looks like the "$4000" scopes are closer to $5000 now, at least for the 95mm versions. That's a lot for a small refractor. If the optics were exquisite and the performance of each unit were guaranteed to something like at least 1/8 wave the price might be justified. I think what we have now is more like $2500-3000 scopes overpriced at $5000 and you still have to avoid the lemons and meh units in search of a cherry. Cherry Kowa 88s seem to be priced about right and a cherry Nikon Monarch is an amazing bargain in the current market.

Henry

Hello! I'm fairly new to spotting scopes. My First thought is when I looked through a nikon monarch ED82-A, I couldn't imagine ever needing to buy and upgrade to a new one once I do get it but, after reading you talk about avoiding lemons on 6 kowas with 2 of them being straight up lemons I became nervous getting it online, what are the chances of getting a lemon nikon monarch ED82-A?

 

[henry link]

The number of scopes I test is too small to make very good predictions. Four of the five Nikons I tested were excellent and one was bad enough to be called mediocre. That's quite good for any sample of five spotting scopes, but the next five Monarchs might include multiple lemons. When you order a scope you just have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst by making sure the dealer has a really good return policy. That applies to all brands, no matter how expensive.

 

[countryman george]

The number of scopes I test is too small to make very good predictions. Four of the five Nikons I tested were excellent and one was bad enough to be called mediocre. That's quite good for any sample of five spotting scopes, but the next five Monarchs might include multiple lemons. When you order a scope you just have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst by making sure the dealer has a really good return policy. That applies to all brands, no matter how expensive.

Wow I'm out of luck, I usually pay it on amazon and have it shipped to my relative in the US and then processed by sending it to me through a balikbayan box which takes 3-4 months because I'm in the other side of the world.. Why can't most spotting scopes be close to perfect everytime instead of just a nervous gamble, is there a reason for that?

 

[Birder_7]

I am also thinking about this scope. Thank you for the tips. Will be careful about samples variation.

 

[countryman george]

I am also thinking about this scope. Thank you for the tips. Will be careful about samples variation.

Oh yea it's an excellent scope if you have a budget of 1400-1600$ this is possibly the BEST one.

I am also thinking about this scope. Thank you for the tips. Will be careful about samples variation.

I will cross my fingers and just risk it, I will get it by April or May.. Will start test it and provide feedback.

 

[T_P85D]

Hello Everyone! Joined this forum driven by my desire to get my first scope....Almost settled today for getting a Kowa 883 when I started reading this thread. So now I think Im going to get the Monarch. Feel a bit pissed for missing their December sale, but still...I already have the Bader Hyperion Mark IV (got it with my telescope a couple of years ago) and since you cant get the Monarch in US w/o the eyepiece will have some choices. My concern is with doing the start test etc to make sure I wont get a lemon....Need to read up on that.

Are we still having the same opinion about the Monarch as initially described by Henry (thanks), excellent?
Must confess I'm confused on what pieces work and what adapters are needed....

Lastly: For those who got it, what case you use?

Best to All!

 

[T_P85D]

Hello Everyone! Joined this forum driven by my desire to get my first scope....Almost settled today for getting a Kowa 883 when I started reading this thread. So now I think Im going to get the Monarch. Feel a bit pissed for missing their December sale, but still...I already have the Bader Hyperion Mark IV (got it with my telescope a couple of years ago) and since you cant get the Monarch in US w/o the eyepiece will have some choices. My concern is with doing the start test etc to make sure I wont get a lemon....Need to read up on that.

Are we still having the same opinion about the Monarch as initially described by Henry (thanks), excellent?
Must confess I'm confused on what pieces work and what adapters are needed....

Lastly: For those who got it, what case you use?

Best to All!

Dead thread, lol...

 

[henry link]

Maybe not quite dead, but getting a bit long in the tooth.

Go back to post #139 on page 7 of this thread where I list the parts needed to adapt the Baader MK IV to the Nikon scope. If you continue to page 8 you'll find other parts combinations for adapting some 1.25" and some 2" eyepieces. The Baader MK IV performs extremely well with the Monarch body.

The scope continues to impress. As far as I can tell there simply are no spotting scopes with better corrected optics available now no matter how much you spend.

 

[T_P85D]

Maybe not quite dead, but getting a bit long in the tooth.

Go back to post #139 on page 7 of this thread where I list the parts needed to adapt the Baader MK IV to the Nikon scope. If you continue to page 8 you'll find other parts combinations for adapting some 1.25" and some 2" eyepieces. The Baader MK IV performs extremely well with the Monarch body.

The scope continues to impress. As far as I can tell there simply are no spotting scopes with better corrected optics available now no matter how much you spend.

Thank you Henry! I was actually looking to see if an extender would work, I have the Baader but it doesn't give much more that the orig EP as far as zoom other than better AFOV, correct ?

 

[henry link]

The Baader goes to about 63x and has lower lateral CA than either Nikon zoom. For higher magnification you’ll need to use the Baader ultrashort 1.25” eyepiece clamp and the Telescope-Service short Nikon/T2 adapter combined with some short focal length eyepiece that can reach focus, or you can use a booster behind the zoom eyepiece. I use a Zeiss 3x12 monocular adapted to press fit snugly inside the Baader eyecup for quick looks at high magnification.

 

[T_P85D]

The Baader goes to about 63x and has lower lateral CA than either Nikon zoom. For higher magnification you’ll need to use the Baader ultrashort 1.25” eyepiece clamp and the Telescope-Service short Nikon/T2 adapter combined with some short focal length eyepiece that can reach focus, or you can use a booster behind the zoom eyepiece. I use a Zeiss 3x12 monocular adapted to press fit snugly inside the Baader eyecup for quick looks at high magnification.

Appreciate your answer Henry and definitely your time. I wish Nikon had one or something to offer a more seamless integration such as Kowa offers.
Still trying to digest what you said: that a cherry copy of this Monarch is better than 4-5k scopes?