Tiny spotting scope. (1 Viewer)

[Pepitogrillo]

Hello,
Looking at a small spotting scope of about 50mm, light and handy but with good performance on a monopod, I see that there is the Nikon Fieldscope ED50 or the Opticron MM3 50ED, both are delivered without an eyepiece, and on the other hand the Celestron Hummingbird 50ED or 56ED with eyepiece and half the price, and finally the Svony ED56, half the price of the Celestron.
Even though they are all ED, there is a big difference in price between them, in terms of quality... would there also be a difference, that much??, in the image?
Has anyone tried them? compared?
Thank you
PG.

 

[Dyrlege]

I have an MM3 with an eyepiece that cost as much as the tube. This is important because it really affects the picture you see.
It is not as clear as a Swaro scope, but it does it's job. The Nikon in my opinion is better, but it also falls short of the Swaro. Both the MM3 and Nikon win on portability.
The MM3 with the zoom eyepiece opticron delivers is less than a fifth the price of a Swaro, about half the price of the Nikon, and good enough for bird work out to 2-300 yards, and in good conditions maybe further.
I like it, and had ample opportunity to compare the three on a four-day field trip with other birders. The portability is important if you move around.

 

[Brummie]

I have the Nikon ED50 with the 27x eyepiece. I think it's ideal as a compact spotting scope, and the body and eyepiece can be bought from Japan for not much more than $500 total. I have it set up on an Explorer Table Top tripod with a mini ball head. The whole set up weighs about 36 oz, and will get the eyepiece up to 3' from the ground - i.e. enough for sitting / kneeling or table-top use.

I've not tried any of the direct competitors, so can't give a head-to-head comparison. And personally, I wouldn't use a scope on a monopod, as I would still have too much shake to really benefit from the extra magnification.

 

[Hermann]

I have the Nikon ED50 with the 27x eyepiece. I think it's ideal as a compact spotting scope, and the body and eyepiece can be bought from Japan for not much more than $500 total. I have it set up on an Explorer Table Top tripod with a mini ball head. The whole set up weighs about 36 oz, and will get the eyepiece up to 3' from the ground - i.e. enough for sitting / kneeling or table-top use.

Yep. The ED50 is still the best small scope IMO. Unfortunately. Its main disadvantages are that some of the fixed eyepieces are increasingly difficult to find and that it's not very tough. You need to treat it with some care. It's optically better than the Opticron, and FAR better than the Celestron Hummingbird in its various incarnations.

I've not tried any of the direct competitors, so can't give a head-to-head comparison. And personally, I wouldn't use a scope on a monopod, as I would still have too much shake to really benefit from the extra magnification.

Depends on the monopod. Years ago a Swiss company called "Monostat" made monopods with a big rubber foot that works very well indeed. Much better than anything else I've seen. In fact, it works so well at stabilising the monopod I can easily use 30x magnification. My mother has been using her scope on a Monostat for many years now, and it works her exceedingly well, even now she's well over 80. In windy conditions I find it works better than a lightweight tripod.

Unfortunately Monostat went out of business when stabilised telephoto lenses became more common, before that virtually every sports photographer used them over here with their long lenses. One monopod with the Monostat foot is still available though: MONOSTAT Foto Joos Ravensburg

I've got a couple of the original Monostats, and I sure use them a lot with my smaller 50mm and 60mm scopes.

Hermann

 

[4John]

Yep. The ED50 is still the best small scope IMO. Unfortunately. Its main disadvantages are that some of the fixed eyepieces are increasingly difficult to find and that it's not very tough. You need to treat it with some care. It's optically better than the Opticron, and FAR better than the Celestron Hummingbird in its various incarnations.

Depends on the monopod. Years ago a Swiss company called "Monostat" made monopods with a big rubber foot that works very well indeed. Much better than anything else I've seen. In fact, it works so well at stabilising the monopod I can easily use 30x magnification. My mother has been using her scope on a Monostat for many years now, and it works her exceedingly well, even now she's well over 80. In windy conditions I find it works better than a lightweight tripod.

Unfortunately Monostat went out of business when stabilised telephoto lenses became more common, before that virtually every sports photographer used them over here with their long lenses. One monopod with the Monostat foot is still available though: MONOSTAT Foto Joos Ravensburg

I've got a couple of the original Monostats, and I sure use them a lot with my smaller 50mm and 60mm scopes.

Hermann

I agree with Hermann about monopods. I have used an ED50 on a monopod all the time for nearly 10 years. I tried lightweight tripods with the ED50 but they were too cumbersome and needed a rucksack hanging from the centre column to hold them down in a breeze, but I am 6 foot tall and prefer a straight scope ! If you are shorter and/or prefer an angled scope they could work for you, but I think a tripod is kind of a waste of the ED50’s small size and light weight !

I also agree with Herman that a monopod works better than a tripod in windy conditions. If the gusts of wind are strong enough to knock the scope on a monopod sideways I find the bird simply moves around in the field of view, which is a lot better than the high frequency vibration you can get with a tripod which blurs the image and makes it unusable.

The most difficult monopod motion to control is twisting. The foot of the Monostat monopod Hermann mentioned was designed to stop that, but it was expensive when I looked at it, and in any case it’s no longer available. I use a partly home-made very lightweight fold down foot and put my foot on it to stop the monopod twisting. This makes it easy to use 40X magnification with the zoom if necessary and light permitting.

ED50 eyepiece choice is often discussed on this forum, and the zoom lenses are often dismissed. However, FWIW I have both the 13-40X MC2 zoom and the 27X fixed eyepiece, but it’s the zoom that stays on the scope almost all the time because I usually only need less than 27X magnification, I occasionally need more than 27X, and most important of all, the lower magnification from the zoom is brighter towards the end of the day when the 27X becomes unusable. So try both if you can to see what works best for you.

 

[Brummie]

However, FWIW I have both the 13-40X MC2 zoom and the 27X fixed eyepiece, but it’s the zoom that stays on the scope almost all the time because I usually only need less than 27X magnification, I occasionally need more than 27X, and most important of all, the lower magnification from the zoom is brighter towards the end of the day when the 27X becomes unusable.

Well, if you used the ED50 on a tripod, then you'd appreciate the advantage of the 27x!

Only joking - different things work for different people. I don't personally find monopods a huge improvement because I still have enough lateral hand shake to miss full resolution. I do agree that a full-sized tripod is overkill on the ED50 - if you're going to carry one, you may as well carry a larger scope (a Opticron MM4 15-45x is only 10oz heavier). That's why I use a table top / sitting tripod. It's all a game of compromises, and different folks will compromise in different directions.

 

[Hermann]

The most difficult monopod motion to control is twisting. The foot of the Monostat monopod Hermann mentioned was designed to stop that, but it was expensive when I looked at it, and in any case it’s no longer available. I use a partly home-made very lightweight fold down foot and put my foot on it to stop the monopod twisting. This makes it easy to use 40X magnification with the zoom if necessary and light permitting.

It's a shame Monostat went out of business. That foot really does make an incredible improvement over conventional monopods. and it's just like you said: It dampens the lateral movement of the monopod - but you can still scan the horizon because the monopod turns in the foot.

ED50 eyepiece choice is often discussed on this forum, and the zoom lenses are often dismissed. However, FWIW I have both the 13-40X MC2 zoom and the 27X fixed eyepiece, but it’s the zoom that stays on the scope almost all the time because I usually only need less than 27X magnification, I occasionally need more than 27X, and most important of all, the lower magnification from the zoom is brighter towards the end of the day when the 27X becomes unusable. So try both if you can to see what works best for you.

Well, I also use the zooms more than an the fixed eyepieces. However, there are situations where I'm after a really wide field of view, e.g. when looking for raptors. In that case I use the 16x/24x/40x quite a lot, a brilliant eyepiece. And if I need more magnification quickly I use the Zeiss 3x12 as a tripler on the eyepiece. Works surprisingly well to get a quick ID. I'm not that fond of the 27x, it's a bit too much magnification as far as I'm concerned. I normally prefer ~24x for "normal" viewing,e.g. for scanning a meadow or whatever. I find 27x (and espeically 30x) is a bit much.

BTW, on the ED 50 I often use the older zoom simply because it's smaller and somewhat lighter. The multicoated version is pretty good and IMO better than the older versions without the multicoating.

Hermann

 

[THE_FERN]

And if I need more magnification quickly I use the Zeiss 3x12 as a tripler on the eyepiece.

Hermann

How does that work? Do you just hand-hold it to the eyepiece or do you have an adaptor?

... I'm interested in this because I need a bit more magnification than you get with the standard zoom

 

[Eranou]

Kowa TSN-500 and TSN-550 series are very compact too.

 

[Hermann]

How does that work? Do you just hand-hold it to the eyepiece or do you have an adaptor?

... I'm interested in this because I need a bit more magnification than you get with the standard zoom

Handholding works. Zeiss also had adapters with different diameters for use with their binoculars. I've got all of them, and some work with some of my eyepieces quite well. You can also make your own adapter, I reckon.

Hermann

 

[fazalmajid]

The Kowa TSN-502 is incredibly small and light compared to the 550 or the Opticron MM4 ED50. You don't get ED lenses or interchangeable eyepieces, and it's made in China, but the optical quality is very good for the price. A straight eyepiece makes more sense IMO than angled in this format, specially on a monopod.

 

[mbb]

I have an MM3 with an eyepiece that cost as much as the tube. This is important because it really affects the picture you see.
It is not as clear as a Swaro scope, but it does it's job. The Nikon in my opinion is better, but it also falls short of the Swaro.

Yep. The ED50 is still the best small scope IMO. Unfortunately. Its main disadvantages are that some of the fixed eyepieces are increasingly difficult to find and that it's not very tough. You need to treat it with some care. It's optically better than the Opticron, and FAR better than the Celestron Hummingbird in its various incarnations.

Hi,
You both seem to be amongst the few people who have directly compared the Nikon ed50 and the Opticron MM3 50mm, the two travel scopes I am considering (if I can find them here in Belgium,or the nearly identical MM4, ED in both cases). I have read in another thread someone saying, also based hands-on use, that the Opticron was optically better. Of course sample variation and other (also personal) things can influence such comparison.
I was wondering:

• was it the ED version of the Opticron or the non-ED (still produced MM3) version that you both compared to the Nikon?
• which Nikon and Opticron eyepieces did you compare them with? (Was it both with respective zoom eyepieces, or both with comparable fixed eyepieces?)
• could you further describe their differences regarding optical quality?

Any hands-on experience/comparison insight is welcome!

 

[Dyrlege]

Hi,
You both seem to be amongst the few people who have directly compared the Nikon ed50 and the Opticron MM3 50mm, the two travel scopes I am considering (if I can find them here in Belgium,or the nearly identical MM4, ED in both cases). I have read in another thread someone saying, also based hands-on use, that the Opticron was optically better. Of course sample variation and other (also personal) things can influence such comparison.
I was wondering:

• was it the ED version of the Opticron or the non-ED (still produced MM3) version that you both compared to the Nikon?
• which Nikon and Opticron eyepieces did you compare them with? (Was it both with respective zoom eyepieces, or both with comparable fixed eyepieces?)
• could you further describe their differences regarding optical quality?

Any hands-on experience/comparison insight is welcome!

The MM3 I have is the 60, no HD on the tube but multicoated lenses. Works well, it's light, and the eyepiece gives good quality viewing, but as sted, the Nikon i a touch better. The eyepiece is an Opticron EDF T Zoom and is excellent. I don't remember which eyepiece the Nikon had, but it was high quality.
The tripod and videohead are sirui and carbon, gives great stability og little vibration. And the whole setup is light.

 

[Jkloz]

Kowa TSN-500 and TSN-550 series are very compact too.

The celestron hummingbird 56 ed is better than the kowa 501 AFTER the factory eye piece is replaced on the hummingbird . The kowa was my first scope and the hummingbird my newest . If the ep was not replacable on the hummingbird the kowa is a much better scope . So far i have used the bh mark iv zoom, the factory supplied Regal m2 zoom and a celestron excel 18 mm all of which are a big upgrade to the factory supplied hummingbird zoom . The interchangable eyepiece capability of the hummingbird is a great feature . Both scopes image quality are good but both have a narrow fov out of the box . The hummingbird is built tougher than the kowa though i wouldnt say better , but if i had to fight off a bear or something i would rather use the hummingbird. The focus knobs on the Kowa are much smoother than the ring on the hummingbird . Both are good scopes but if you have telescope ep’s or like to buy them , the hummingbird is the way to go .

 

[Mike Crawley]

I had an old Nikon ED 50 which I really didn’t like.
I upgraded (using the Nikon as a trade in) for a second hand Opticron MM4 50 which I felt was a much better ‘scope/eyepiece combination.

To complete this “story” I now have an Opticron MM4 60mm as my travel/back-up ‘scope. As I’m approaching 70 years old I do tend to take the Opticron out when I’m yomping in preference to my Swarovski ATS80.

 

[Ratal]

I sold my Meopta S2 and travel / bird exclusively now with MM4 50ED and SDL V2 zoom.

I have zero regrets and can carry it all day up and down the wilds without even thinking about it.

 

[Ed T]

Consider the Kowa TSN-553 15-45x55 Prominar Spotting Scope. In terms of performance, nothing comes even closer to it. Good optics are expensive and you get what you pay for it.

 

[b-lilja]

Good timing, as I have had many Nikon ED scopes going back thirty years, including the ED50. I have tried the ED50 with many Nikon eyepieces (since I had them) and think the 16x wide is the best - but as I write this I realize I have not tried the 27x fixed. I recently bought an Opticron MM4 50mm with the SDL3 eyepiece to compare. For reference, my other scope is a top sample of the Kowa 884.

Here's my findings, some of which I've discussed before elsewhere:
Optically, the Nikon w the 16x wide surpasses the Opticron in pretty much every way. It is sharper, brighter, has a much wider field, and has a luminous quality that puts it into the upper echelons of scopes (though not the top). However, by memory, the Opticron is about on par with the Nikon when I used it with a zoom (several, old and new). This is all to say however the Opticron is very good - I like it a lot - but just not at the level of the Nikon.

I also prefer the Nikon focuser - it's a single, and easy to get just right - less fuss than the Opticron dual (which isn't bad, just a relative comparison of preference).

HOWEVER, there are other considerations.

The Nikon ED50 is known for poor quality control out the gates, and also to be delicate. I went through two previous ED50s prior to the one I have now. One had a sticky prism that would "judder" when focusing, and a trip back to Nikon didn't resolve it (it was not super noticeable but to me unacceptable, I think they thought it was fine). The second broke in half in my day pack - I still have no idea how it happened, as I wasn't being abusive, but also not being gentle. The third has been fine and optically the best of them as well. I tried the Opticron wondering if it would be on par optically, and if so keep it as a more durable alternative.

I have no experience with the Opticron durability, but it strikes me at least externally as tougher. I like the clamshell body design that resists pressure/breakage along the long axis. Terrific lens covers front and back (why can't everyone do those?). Just overall a sense of being better built (but I wouldn't go crazy - this is plastic at the end of the day).

Here's the bottom line for me: If you you need the small size, and are going to be using the scope a lot, or going on a major trip, esp one in the wilds (say a backcountry birding/wildlife trip), get the Opticron. It is a fine scope, and I think less likely to break/let you down - a very good scope is better than no scope, esp for a special trip. However, if you are mostly doing day birding/daypack etc. birding, or just want a lighter scope, and a return is no big deal, get the Nikon (I do note however I hate the semi-disposable aspect, esp after having the completely tough/legacy grade aluminum Nikon EDs). If maximum durability is a question, I'd actually probably find a top used Nikon ED3 60mm - that is a tough, waterproof scope.

Finally, my plan will be to epoxy the body seam on the Nikon. That's where it split before, I've heard others have that happen, and hopefully that will help (and also render the scope unrepairable, but whatever).

 

[b-lilja]

We are talking sample variation here sometimes, so hard to know...but I bought the TSN554 and compared it to my ED50/16xDS - the Nikon was substantially better. However, I don't think Kowa has very good QC, so maybe not a good sample.

 

[mbb]

Good timing, as I have had many Nikon ED scopes going back thirty years, including the ED50. I have tried the ED50 with many Nikon eyepieces (since I had them) and think the 16x wide is the best - but as I write this I realize I have not tried the 27x fixed. I recently bought an Opticron MM4 50mm with the SDL3 eyepiece to compare. For reference, my other scope is a top sample of the Kowa 884.

Here's my findings, some of which I've discussed before elsewhere:
Optically, the Nikon w the 16x wide surpasses the Opticron in pretty much every way. It is sharper, brighter, has a much wider field, and has a luminous quality that puts it into the upper echelons of scopes (though not the top). However, by memory, the Opticron is about on par with the Nikon when I used it with a zoom (several, old and new). This is all to say however the Opticron is very good - I like it a lot - but just not at the level of the Nikon.

I also prefer the Nikon focuser - it's a single, and easy to get just right - less fuss than the Opticron dual (which isn't bad, just a relative comparison of preference).

HOWEVER, there are other considerations.

The Nikon ED50 is known for poor quality control out the gates, and also to be delicate. I went through two previous ED50s prior to the one I have now. One had a sticky prism that would "judder" when focusing, and a trip back to Nikon didn't resolve it (it was not super noticeable but to me unacceptable, I think they thought it was fine). The second broke in half in my day pack - I still have no idea how it happened, as I wasn't being abusive, but also not being gentle. The third has been fine and optically the best of them as well. I tried the Opticron wondering if it would be on par optically, and if so keep it as a more durable alternative.

I have no experience with the Opticron durability, but it strikes me at least externally as tougher. I like the clamshell body design that resists pressure/breakage along the long axis. Terrific lens covers front and back (why can't everyone do those?). Just overall a sense of being better built (but I wouldn't go crazy - this is plastic at the end of the day).

Here's the bottom line for me: If you you need the small size, and are going to be using the scope a lot, or going on a major trip, esp one in the wilds (say a backcountry birding/wildlife trip), get the Opticron. It is a fine scope, and I think less likely to break/let you down - a very good scope is better than no scope, esp for a special trip. However, if you are mostly doing day birding/daypack etc. birding, or just want a lighter scope, and a return is no big deal, get the Nikon (I do note however I hate the semi-disposable aspect, esp after having the completely tough/legacy grade aluminum Nikon EDs). If maximum durability is a question, I'd actually probably find a top used Nikon ED3 60mm - that is a tough, waterproof scope.

Finally, my plan will be to epoxy the body seam on the Nikon. That's where it split before, I've heard others have that happen, and hopefully that will help (and also render the scope unrepairable, but whatever).

Thank you for sharing your experience!

In the meantime, I have received my MM4 50mm, and use it with the fixed HDF 40858 (25x or so) that I bought here second hand. I haven't been able to use it much yet, also only in good light, and I don't have my other scope at hand to compare it directly to now, but I am very pleased for now with its image and build quality. It seems to form a great light weight and compact day time setup with my Ultravid 8x32. (I only need to find the best way to carry it, but I'm getting inputs in another thread .)
The fixed eyepiece is really good. (I cznnot comment on how it compares with the zooms,as I don't have them, but Yarrellii shared some comparisons about them in otjer threads.) Its only problem, is that the eyecup is too loose to stay in place extended, but maybe I'll find some ring to put in between.
Maybe a personal preference/feedback: I find the noise of the velcro at each opening of the stay-on-case not ideal for discrete observation. I might put something in between in the future.

The build quality seems good and I wouldn't want to have to worry about the issues described here about the Nikon. The service from Opticron also seems very nice! These are things that I value (because of the investment, the reliability and also for sustainability reasons).

I will share further experience when I will have had the opportunity to use it more, or to compare it with my larger scope.