Nikon ED82 Fieldscope vs Monarch 82ED with Hyperion Zoom (1 Viewer)

[Astroguy2000]

Hi

Thinking of upgrading my ED82 Fieldscope to a Monarch 82ED with Hyperion zoom.

Anyone had a direct comparison, how does a good ED82 Fieldscope with 25-75 zoom compare to a good Monarch ED82 with Hyperion zoom?

Mainly talking about optical image quality and the fov differences between the 25-75 zoom and Hyperion zoom.

Ability to adapt astro eyepieces would be great as I do use my Fieldscope for Astro a fair amount.
The ability to get a bit more mag would be great.

Thanks

 

[sillyak]

Upgrade in FOV and comfort, but at best side grade optically, most likely a slight downgrade optically.

I don't have the monarch, but do have an 82ED and MCII zoom EP (As well as a 38x wide MC) and I have the APM adapter to use the field scope eyepieces in my telescope, so I have compared them to many astro eyepieces (Televue mostly).

The Nikon EPs are exceptional optically, the MCII zoom AFOV is very narrow, and has poor eye relief as you zoom in, but optically it is superb.

A good 82ED is also top level optically even today. Lots of scopes offer better/more modern features, but the optics are still among the best on the market.

 

[Astroguy2000]

Upgrade in FOV and comfort, but at best side grade optically, most likely a slight downgrade optically.

I don't have the monarch, but do have an 82ED and MCII zoom EP (As well as a 38x wide MC) and I have the APM adapter to use the field scope eyepieces in my telescope, so I have compared them to many astro eyepieces (Televue mostly).

The Nikon EPs are exceptional optically, the MCII zoom AFOV is very narrow, and has poor eye relief as you zoom in, but optically it is superb.

A good 82ED is also top level optically even today. Lots of scopes offer better/more modern features, but the optics are still among the best on the market.

Returned the Monarch and Baader zoom.
Side by side compared, my old ED82 with MC2 25-75 zoom was optically better.

Baader zoom had better eye relief but the overall package felt like an optical downgrade.

Have to agree that the MC2 zoom is a superb eyepiece.
I have 3d printed a M32.5 to 1.25 adapter and have been using it in my astronomy scope and it has the best image of all my eyepieces.

 

[henry link]

Side by side compared, my old ED82 with MC2 25-75 zoom was optically better.

Baader zoom had better eye relief but the overall package felt like an optical downgrade.

Could you expand a bit on those two statements? How exactly was your old scope and eyepiece "optically better" and why did the Baader zoom "feel like an optical downgrade?"

 

[Astroguy2000]

Could you expand a bit on those two statements? How exactly was your old scope and eyepiece "optically better" and why did the Baader zoom "feel like an optical downgrade?"

Hi

I found the image at higher mags on my old Fieldscope ED82 with MC2 25-75 zoom was sharper with more contrast.

The Baader zoom was great with good eye relief and a wider fov but I think the Monarch ED82 sample I had was worse than my old Fieldscope ED82 so as an overall package it was not as good.

I have an adapted 5mm astronomy eyepiece which I use with my Fieldscope ED82 which works well for general Astronomy use, I tried this on the Monarch ED82 and could definitely see a difference between the scopes.

I also 3d printed an adapter to use my MC2 zoom with the Monarch 82 and side by side I preferred my old ED82.

Star testing them I couldn't see much difference ( I don't have much experience with this)

Could only tell looking through them both that I preferred my old ED82.

Was really hoping to get a good sample that was better than my current Fieldscope ED82, being able to use it with more astronomy eyepieces would of been great.

Couldn't justify the £1400 for the scope and zoom with what I think was a average sample of the Monarch 82.

 

[Astroguy2000]

A few adapters I printed for my Mc eyepieces.
Finding they are superb in my Tak astronomy scope.

MC2 zoom M32x0.75 thread to T2 thread for use in Monarch with T2 to bayonet adapter.

MC2 to 1.25 inch for use in astronomy scopes.

 

[henry link]

Looks like you had bad luck with the Monarch. Most of the eight Monarchs I've tested have had remarkably low aberrations and resolving power limited only by the aperture.

I have both the Baader and Nikon zooms. Like all good eyepieces neither is the limiting factor for axial resolution on any telescope, but the Baader has the advantages of much wider fields through the zoom range, longer eye relief and lower axial color. My only complaint when it's used on the Monarch is the 63x magnification limit.

 

[William Lewis]

Talking of using spotting scopes for a bit of casual astronomy it is very annoying that they can't be easily adjusted for a range of 1.25 eye pieces to reach focus. When I go away i'll take my scope, primarily for birding but it would be nice if I could chuck a couple of 1.25's in a bag for a clear night.

On that front I find the most annoying thing about using a spotting scope for astronomy is actually the targeting as it's tricky to fit a finder etc. I did find this though which may well end up coming along on my next trip. It has an attachment to fit onto the tripod plate.
Baader Sky Surfer III Red Dot Finder

 

[Astroguy2000]

I 3D printed a red dot mount for my Fieldscope.
Works great for astronomy use and chasing planes, birds etc.

 

[Hermann]

I 3D printed a red dot mount for my Fieldscope.
Works great for astronomy use and chasing planes, birds etc.

There's a far easier solution that works very well during the daytime, i.e. for birding: Make your own simple sight (aiming) device for telescopes: illustrated instructions

Hermann