What's wrong with the Zeiss Harpia?? (1 Viewer)

[Limpias]

So I bought a Harpia 85mm the day before yesterday. Thanks you all for your support. Was thinking back and forth, hope I did not make a mistake...

Tried it yesterday for the first time bird watching at a lake at dawn... could see a lot of things I couldn't with my SF 8x42. Still have problems with the view through the eye piece though, need to get used to looking through a scope which is a little harder than expected - especially compared to viewing with the SF. The bino wins in terms of ease of view at the moment...

Furthermore, in terms of brightness, the SF also wins big time (especially before and after sunset - but I guess that's apples and oranges). The direct comparison made me remember, how good the SF really is... but: accidentally, I have seen a Nutria swimming in front of the reeds which was invisible for the naked eye with and without bino. I have also checked the moon which was at maybe 10% that night ... OMG what a view!! So I am really looking forward to using the Harpia...

Keep in mind also that you will need a good tripod and ideally a gimbal for a 85mm scope, which will severely impact portability. A 50mm scope with a straight tube like the Kowa 554 or Opticron MM4/50 will be much more mobile. Or even an ultra lightweight if less than optically perfect Kowa TSN-502.

Have an older RRS carbon tripod (Versa Series 2) with a nice Gitzo fluid head (GHF2W). So in terms of support I should be ok - it is really a very nice setup... but I agree on your point on portability. That was actually the reason for the 85 - the 95 would have been quite bulkier even though it is on paper not a lot bigger. But overall it really is!!

So I guess I need to work on my view - any hints maybe on how to improve ease of view with a scope??

Thanks again an all the best

Andreas

 

[forent]

So I bought a Harpia 85mm the day before yesterday.(...)

Congrats!

(...) So I guess I need to work on my view - any hints maybe on how to improve ease of view with a scope?? (...)

Peeping with one eye through a small hole is - and will be - cumbersome, period. To improve things, practice patiently and persistently. Start with the lowest magnification and determine the appropriate height of the eyecup. Learn to position your eye perfectly and support your face with your hand while embracing the eyepiece. Train your muscle memory. If nothing else works - squinting is difficult for some - try to use an eye-patch.

Hope this helps. But if you don't come along you should consider whether the ocular of your scope actually matches your physiognomy. Eyes are different and so are eyepieces. Therefore, if the former exercises fail check different scopes. Possibly you could detect that another product fits you better. Unfortunately you will lose some money this way but eventually you could find a satisfying solution. Been there, done that. Good luck!

 

[Will K]

I’m enjoying reading this thread a year later.

I’m considering a Harpia myself, and would like to hear more user opinions (including, of course, those who have experiences to share who may not own one, specifically. All views are welcome!).

Anyone have new views to add? 🙂

 

[Rotherbirder]

I’m enjoying reading this thread a year later.

I’m considering a Harpia myself, and would like to hear more user opinions (including, of course, those who have experiences to share who may not own one, specifically. All views are welcome!).

Anyone have new views to add? 🙂

It may also be interesting to others why you are considering the Harpia (above other models/marques?) given that the initial enthusiasm for the scope on release seems to have dropped off significantly. Why not a Swarovski or a Kowa 88, which seems to be the 'chosen one' by birders at the moment.

RB

 

[Will K]

I’ve yet to look through a Harpia myself, because they are very hard to find in the shops in my area.

Last year I bought a Vortex Razor, which I’m enjoying using very much, but I’m still looking to upgrade to superior glass when I can afford it. I have heard a broad range of good and bad opinions regarding both the Harpia and the Swarovski ATX, but I’ve still got a lot of research to do before I decide which is best for me.

One other consideration is the fact that I’ve never owned any Zeiss optics before, and I’m curious to see the best they have to offer. I already own an NL Pure, so I’d like to have some variety and get to know the alpha glass brands a little better. Not sure if that’s really a sensible reason. Maybe 🙂

Kowas don’t appeal to me, for some reason. I have very limited exposure to them, however.

 

[Rotherbirder]

I’ve yet to look through a Harpia myself, because they are very hard to find in the shops in my area.

Last year I bought a Vortex Razor, which I’m enjoying using very much, but I’m still looking to upgrade to superior glass when I can afford it. I have heard a broad range of good and bad opinions regarding both the Harpia and the Swarovski ATX, but I’ve still got a lot of research to do before I decide which is best for me.

One other consideration is the fact that I’ve never owned any Zeiss optics before, and I’m curious to see the best they have to offer. I already own an NL Pure, so I’d like to have some variety and get to know the alpha glass brands a little better. Not sure if that’s really a sensible reason. Maybe 🙂

Kowas don’t appeal to me, for some reason. I have very limited exposure to them, however.

I have always found Zeiss binoculars to be good optically but the construction/finish often seems a bit cheap and 'plasticky' and lets down the optics, certainly when it comes to the armouring, eyecups and lens caps/rainguards. Swarovski has the upper hand here IMHO. Scope-wise I can't really comment.

RB

 

[Will K]

I have always found Zeiss binoculars to be good optically but the construction/finish often seems a bit cheap and 'plasticky' and lets down the optics, certainly when it comes to the armouring, eyecups and lens caps/rainguards. Swarovski has the upper hand here IMHO. Scope-wise I can't really comment.

RB

That seems to be a pretty common view RE Zeiss and build quality. Its partly why I’m curious to see a Harpia in person. The Victory line tends to combine excellent glass, usability, and lightness with a somewhat rough finish - that vague ‘cheap’ and ‘plasticity’ quality which makes them pale in comparison with Leicas and Swaros as objects to hold and own. That’s one general consensus, as far as I can tell. When comparing the alphas last year, it was for that reason that my preference was: 1) NL, 2) Noctivid, 3) SF.

Again, I’ll need to hold a Harpia in my hands to know if that’s really going to be an issue for me. In the meantime, I’m interested to hear others’ opinions 🙂

 

[tenex]

One other consideration is the fact that I’ve never owned any Zeiss optics before, and I’m curious to see the best they have to offer.

As mentioned above Harpia is a controversial design, maybe not the best place to start. (If you want to explore a different scope brand, consider Meopta S2.) Regarding binoculars, in the last few decades I've generally found Zeiss exterior designs unappealing, and/or correction of aberrations in the outer field unsatisfactory. But I recently picked up a 10x32 FL I'm very impressed with and would highly recommend, to experience the famous Zeiss center sharpness in a better rounded package. (The 8x32 may be nearly as good, anyway highly regarded here. I did not like FL 42s; others say 56s are better.) I think FL is the best looking modern Zeiss too, and handles very well. Just food for thought.

 

[Hermann]

I have always found Zeiss binoculars to be good optically but the construction/finish often seems a bit cheap and 'plasticky' and lets down the optics, certainly when it comes to the armouring, eyecups and lens caps/rainguards. Swarovski has the upper hand here IMHO. Scope-wise I can't really comment.

Armouring ... Well, I know a handful of people who are less than happy with the armour Swarovski has been using lately. And that's putting it mildly, especially now that they don't get repairs done due to their computer problems reported here and elsewhere.

Hermann

 

[Will K]

Thanks for the suggestion that I take at look at the Meopta S2, Tenex. There don't seem to be that many scopes which go up to 70x (without an extender, at least), which I do find appealing.

I've come to associate Zeiss with an impressive ability to keep weight down - the handful of their binos I've tested always seem impressively light - but I'm not sure if that is a quality shared by their spotting scopes. The Zeiss website states that the Harpia is about 68oz (85mm) and 73oz (95mm), which seems on the heavy side. My Razor 85mm is only 65oz, which is even heavier than a comparable ATX, I believe. The Harpia also seems very large for a scope (from what I can gather, anyway). Part of the reason I like the Razor is how small it is, being easy to pack in a bag, etc.

I also like the idea of a Leica Televid APO (a reported 53oz), but high magnifications seem to be only possible with a 1.8 extender (50x basic max; 90x with booster). That’s an extra £700, over £2200 for the scope and £500 for the eyepiece. It would certainly bring the price into Harpia territory! Leica build quality is always wonderful, of course, so I'm sure it will be a pleasure to test, but Leica are not the go-to brand for wide FOV at the moment.

The big feature about the Harpia that still appeals is that non-tunnelling zoom effect. I love wide FOV, so that's the thing which is still drawing me to the Harpia. Does anyone know of other scopes which have this feature (aside from the S2, I believe)?

 

[Hermann]

The big feature about the Harpia that still appeals is that non-tunnelling zoom effect. I love wide FOV, so that's the thing which is still drawing me to the Harpia. Does anyone know of other scopes which have this feature (aside from the S2, I believe)?

You may want to look at the Nikon Monarch (60mm or 82mm) with the MEP 30-60W eyepiece (24-48x, 60°-72°AFOV on the 60mm).

Hermann

 

[wllmspd]

The monarch (and meopta) can also adapted to astro eyepieces that can provide more power and wider fields if you need. There is a fairly wide constant width zoom from APM, but I don’t know what power range it would give with the above noted scopes.

Peter

 

[Will K]

Thanks for the suggestions. Although I wonder if the Nikon and Meopta would have better glass (e.g. edge to edge clarity, brightness, contrast) than the Vortex Razor I already own? (Not that contrast is the Razor’s strongest feature anyway, of course).

I’ll try and find them in the shops.

 

[Nethero]

Thanks for the suggestions. Although I wonder if the Nikon and Meopta would have better glass (e.g. edge to edge clarity, brightness, contrast) than the Vortex Razor I already own? (Not that contrast is the Razor’s strongest feature anyway, of course).

I’ll try and find them in the shops.

Answering your question, yes. Both will top either generation of the razor. I will note that I preferred the first generation razor over the second one, but both of the Meopta MeoStar and Nikon Monarch spotting scopes will beat the razor in clarity, brightness, and contrast. At least from my experiences they will.

That is having having handled/used three copies of all mentioned scopes.

 

[Will K]

Answering your question, yes. Both will top either generation of the razor. I will note that I preferred the first generation razor over the second one, but both of the Meopta MeoStar and Nikon Monarch spotting scopes will beat the razor in clarity, brightness, and contrast. At least from my experiences they will.

That is having having handled/used three copies of all mentioned scopes.

Thanks for the feedback!

Just out of curiosity: I’m wondering why you preferred the old Razor to the new one? I never got a chance to try the old gen-1 myself, but I really like the new version.

It will take something very special to make me think upgrading is really worth the trouble, hence my interest in the Harpia, S2, Televid etc.

It’s easier said than done to actually try some of these scopes in the shops (I once drove over 100 miles just to visit a retail outlet which stocked the Razor). So, in the meantime, these kind of threads are useful to me 🙂

 

[Nethero]

Thanks for the feedback!

Just out of curiosity: I’m wondering why you preferred the old Razor to the new one? I never got a chance to try the old gen-1 myself, but I really like the new version.

It will take something very special to make me think upgrading is really worth the trouble, hence my interest in the Harpia, S2, Televid etc.

It’s easier said than done to actually try some of these scopes in the shops (I once drove over 100 miles just to visit a retail outlet which stocked the Razor). So, in the meantime, these kind of threads are useful to me 🙂

In regards to the two razor generations, as all of these comparisons are, it was personal preference.

The second generation’s barrel focus felt less precise than Meopta, Nikon, or Swaro barrel focus rings. I was always hunting for that razor sharp image. While with the first generation I could achieve a sharp center image with the dual focus. But I will say the second generation had a noticeably wider field of view. And I mean it was noticeable without having to look for it, too.

At the end of the day neither of these are “bad” scopes and will both do exactly what you need them to do. It’s only when you can’t stop asking “what am I missing with the others” will you start to get yourself in trouble and spend too much money, trying too many optics, to fix a problem that was never there, all born from curiosity 🤣. Speaking from personal experience.

But back to the very first topic of this thread, regarding the Zeiss Harpia, that is one scope I have never tried. I have never had the opportunity to do so, and it certainly is a lot of money to spend on something just to experience a wider FOV.

 

[Troubador]

Harpia 95: A Review on a Scottish Island

Lee