Vortex Skyline 80mm ED versus Nikon Fieldscope 82mm (1 Viewer)

[trexhunter]

Hi all,
I'm looking for inputs on the comparison of the aforementioned two scopes. Has anyone tested these two scopes. Unfortunately, I can't test the Vortex as no-one carrys it locally. I can test the fieldscope locally.

I have received almost opposite feedback from other sources; i.e. (1)"The fieldscope is significantly better optically and worth the extra cost" and (2) "Not only is the Vortex a better value it is a slightly better scope".

Uses will be for general animal and bird viewing with my family and of course trying a little digiscoping.

Thanks for your help.

 

[MattM]

I'd say the Nikon is significantly the better scope, but I'm not sure what the Vortex retails for so can't really judge it for value. And don't get me wrong - it's a nice scope itself.

 

[Jim M.]

Hello and welcome to the forum. I used the vortex for several weeks. It is an excellent scope for the price ($430), but every review I have read of the much more expensive fieldscope ($1400) clearly suggests it is superior optically, and one of the top scopes optically overall. But it has one big drawback -- it has very limited eye relief, so it will not work well if you wear glasses and use them when viewing through the scope.

Best,
Jim

 

[trexhunter]

Hi,
You can generally get the Vortex with ED glass for USD680 versus USD1300 for the Nikon Fieldscope, both with zoom eye pieces. (I think I can get the Nikon for $1100 for a few days at one place here in town.)
I know the Vortex with ED glass is fairly new so I'm having trouble finding too many people who have actually looked through it.

thansk for your inputs.

 

[Jim M.]

Hi,
You can generally get the Vortex with ED glass for USD680 versus USD1300 for the Nikon Fieldscope, both with zoom eye pieces. (I think I can get the Nikon for $1100 for a few days at one place here in town.)
I know the Vortex with ED glass is fairly new so I'm having trouble finding too many people who have actually looked through it.

thansk for your inputs.

I think the vortex with ED glass would be preferable for digiscoping, but one review found there was not much difference between the two versions for ordinary viewing. It is also heavier than the non-ED version.

It would be helpful if you made clear whether you want a scope that will work well for people who wear glasses.

Jim

 

[Alexis Powell]

The Nikon 82 is one of the best scopes ever. It is a super-rugged, tried and true design, has consistently ranked among the very best scopes optically (as does its 60mm and 78mm siblings/forebearers), and there is a full range of eyepieces available for it. The Skyline is a "budget" scope for which there are no alternate eyepieces. I consider the Nikon a far better value. A really good scope is potentially a once in a lifetime purchase because scope optics aren't likely to improve significantly in the future (they really haven't improved very much in decades), so I'm inclined to get the best and be done with it.

The Nikon zoom has been criticized for having poor eye-relief for glasses wearers, particularly when set to intermediate powers where it drops to ~13 mm, and for having a narrower FOV at its lowest (25x) setting than competing eyepieces at their lowest (20x) setting. Keep in mind that these gripes are in comparison to its optical peers from Swarovski, Kowa, Zeiss, and Leica. Many of the cheaper scopes have even poorer eye-relief and a narrower FOV. The eye-relief of the Skyline is listed as 19-18mm, but those specs are for lowest and highest mag. Like all zooms, it undoubtedly dips in the middle (where it is used most) but I don't know by how much, and therefore how it compares to the Nikon zoom. It is likely, based on every other cheap to moderate priced zoom I've seen, that the difference between them in terms of eye-relief at ~35x is very little.

I personally wouldn't even consider the Skyline or Skyline ED for the reason that it offers no interchangeable eyepieces. Why pay so much money for that objective lens cell if you can't use it to its full potential? I just can't imagine spending that kind of money on such a limited scope (For about the same money, I'd go for a Pentax 65 instead). Alternate eyepieces for the Nikon are widely available, and amongst them is a wonderful 30x, the most useful all-around magnification for terrestrial scoping. Note that the eyerelief on all these fixed power WA eyepieces is just fine for most glasses wearers, and they will work better for digiscoping than any zoom.

--AP

 

[mrbobb]

Have a look at Vortex vs Prostaff thread
Bob

 

[Jim M.]

I found the skyline to have adequate eye relief except when I really zoomed in; it is above average in this respect for budget scopes. I know eye relief is typically supposed to be lowest in the middle zoom range, but that was not my practical experience. Moreover, the zoom is usable all the way to 60x (though of course not as clear of course as top-of-the-line scopes); and for practical birding purposes (as opposed to seeing pretty optics) I definitely prefer a zoom because it will allow you to identify more birds. But fixed magnification eyepieces are going to be preferable for digiscoping or if you prefer superior optics to the versatility of a zoom. Nevertheless, many people do use the skyline for digiscoping, though it is going to be best at 20x. And at 20x, the view through the skyline is not that much different from top-of-the-line scopes.

As for the small Pentax, I read that it has serious eye relief deficiencies also (though this depends upon the eyepiece). But it also is not available for the "same money" as the non-ED skyline; the lowest price I could find, which included a zoom eyepiece with very poor eye relief, was $849. That is twice the price of the non-ED skyline. And if you want multiple eyepieces, that is even more money.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Alexis Powell]

As for the small Pentax, I read that it has serious eye relief deficiencies also (though this depends upon the eyepiece). But it also is not available for the "same money" as the non-ED skyline; the lowest price I could find, which included a zoom eyepiece with very poor eye relief, was $849.

Yikes, I sure wouldn't go for that combo! Instead, I'd take the 65 ED (body only) for $450, plus the Baader Hyperion 13 mm for $100. This yields an ED scope with wonderful eye-relief, a super-wide FOV, and at 30x (and so long as you know your birds), plenty of magnification to identify nearly any bird close enough to be seen within the limits of atmospherics. You can always get a zoom with long eye-relief, or any other eyepiece you might want later, even decades later, because this scope takes standard 1.25" astro-eyepieces.

--AP

 

[Jim M.]

Yikes, I sure wouldn't go for that combo! Instead, I'd take the 65 ED (body only) for $450, plus the Baader Hyperion 13 mm for $100. This yields an ED scope with wonderful eye-relief, a super-wide FOV, and at 30x

Well if you can get a good eyepiece for that cheap (which is several hundred dollars less than Pentax eyepieces), that certainly makes a difference. But Eagle Optics sells the angled body for $600, so I am not sure where you are getting your prices from. The eyepiece you mention also seems to go for around $130, so far as I could tell.

In any event, the recent thread on that scope does not suggest there is complete satisfaction with it: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1134562

Jim

 

[FrankD]

Well if you can get a good eyepiece for that cheap (which is several hundred dollars less than Pentax eyepieces), that certainly makes a difference. But Eagle Optics sells the angled body for $600, so I am not sure where you are getting your prices from. The eyepiece you mention also seems to go for around $130, so far as I could tell.

In any event, the recent thread on that scope does not suggest there is complete satisfaction with it: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1134562

Both Adorama and Cameralandny had the original 65 mm ED scope body for $420 when I purchased mine. I bought from CLNY because I trust Doug and his opinion. I went the route of picking up one of the Pentax XW fixed eyepieces ($300 most places) which would bring the total to around $720. Interesting enough I had originally picked up three fixed power astro eyepieces at about $35 a piece from a local retailer. They are not the equal to the XW in terms of distortion reduction or CA control but they do provide an amazingly bright, detailed and wide image.

Also note that there appears to be a general consensus that the original Pentax 65 offers noticeably better optical performance to the new ED II version. At least that is the impression I am getting from the Pentax forum here on bf and from the Cornell review. If I remember correctly the original Pentax 65 (with the XW eyepieces) was compared directly to the more expensive Euro scopes by more than one individual.

 

[Jim M.]

Both Adorama and Cameralandny had the original 65 mm ED scope body for $420 when I purchased mine.

Thanks. Adorama has the more recent version for $500 now. That is a pretty low price.

Jim

 

[Alexis Powell]

Also note that there appears to be a general consensus that the original Pentax 65 offers noticeably better optical performance to the new ED II version. At least that is the impression I am getting from the Pentax forum here on bf and from the Cornell review. If I remember correctly the original Pentax 65 (with the XW eyepieces) was compared directly to the more expensive Euro scopes by more than one individual.

Careful Frank, I've seen you write this before but I'm concerned that it is potentially the beginning of an unjustified rumor (and there seems to be a tendency on Birdforum for rumors about the superiority of discontinued versions of optics to perpetuate). I see three posts reporting lemon PF-65ED II (one of them my own), but the sad truth is that there are reports of lemons in many well regarded brands/models and we tend to hear about them more in the top-end stuff. As for the Cornell tests--they're so random and they lack internal consistency to such a degree I don't think comparisons across tests is meaningful.

--AP

 

[FrankD]

Point taken Alexis. It appears I am going to have to see if I can find a retailer locally that carries the newer model and ask to compare a few units directly to my original.

Curious though, I do remember seeing similar comments (noticeable sample variation) with the original 80 mm model but I do not remember reading much in that regard for the original 65 mm.

 

[trexhunter]

Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that the Nikon does not have good eye relief but I don't consider that a large problem for us. I am the only one that wears glasses in our family and I don't mind taking them off. As far as the eyepiece, We would probably use the variable one the most but it would be nice to have the option of getting a fixed one if needed.

My big issue is that I can't test the Vortex though I have been able to test the Nikon albeit the straight version on a crappy tripod. That's why I was trying to find someone who had actually been able to look through both.

My understanding from your posts is that Jim has used the Vortex Skyline non ED but nobody has tested the Skyline with ED glass. Is this right?

thanks,

 

[Jim M.]

My understanding from your posts is that Jim has used the Vortex Skyline non ED but nobody has tested the Skyline with ED glass. Is this right?

thanks,

Look at the thread referenced in post #7 (which is in this same forum). Some of the posters on that thread have the ED version and give you their evaluations.

Jim