Errant high mag rumblings. (1 Viewer)

[William Lewis]

Just after some general, from experience advice.

I think I'm pretty typical in carrying some bins and a scope whenever I go birding. I'm thinking of changing my swaro ctc 30/75 scope for something different - it's just not coming out of the birding bag with it's monopod very much so I'm just toying with the idea of flogging it and getting something else instead.

Whatever high mag option goes in the bag it has to fit in a bag roughly 40cm long with whatever stability device it needs and some sarnies and a cup of t.

Quick reasons I'm not getting the CTC out much. I need to attach it to the mono pod when it comes out of the bag for the first time before it can hang on the strap supplied, most i.d's I get with the bins instead on my local patch as well as a good view of them with adequate field craft.

The vast vast majority of my birding is done straight from my front door on foot. Getting a really good idea of whats appearing, nesting, leaving or moving through my local area as well as seeing what it's up to, there is much more to everyone's local eco system than we'll probably ever understand but I enjoy scratching the surface immensely. With a relatively busy work and family life this is usually shuffled to either end of the day, dawn and dusk. My local views rarely exceed 1 kilometer but i do visit larger vistas during the summer months, probably for a month a year total, I have a sturdy tripod for these occasions but 99% of the time I spend just using a monopod as it fits in the birding bag.

So scope options, it's got to have a big enough aperture and low enough mag to work well in low light, I've got a dob for the stars so I'm tempted to return to a the zoom for flexibility.

It's either European or Japanese build, USA built means Japan and so does a large proportion of European optics and China means China, no problem with China though if there's a gem I'm not aware of.

Contenders,

Nikon Monarch FS 60ED-A​

MEOPRO 80 HD Angled​

Why no opticron? I'm vain, to be honest I don't like the look of them, shoot me.

Suggestions welcome.

-The Nikon can be equipped with a 20-48 zoom, good for my local area as well as when I go away and will have reasonable twilight performance at 20x as well as a decent optical configuration and quite low rates of sample variation from my research but less than ideal warranty support from my experience.

-Meopta has more aperture and a decent optical configuration.

Budget means no swaro, Leica, zeiss top end models, diminished returns per £ etc and I don't want to dip below 60mm aperture.

Areas I'm hoping to improve on the CTC in with these 2 would be more versatility with zoom as well as better low light performance with less zoom. And c.a, the CTC is not great on c.a, and with it's stay on case you can't easily have a tripod foot attached so attaching to support is trickier. I probably wouldn't get them out of the bag any more locally though but would have a more versatile scope for occasional use.

Or i.s bins. I'm sure if use them more than I'd use a scope locally, just for the occasional soaring raptor, birds at the tops of trees a distance away, no set up time. But they would need to be great optically (I'm quite picky), waterproof, 15+ mag and durable, buy cheap buy twice etc. Either the cannon 18x50 or kite 16x42 spring to mind, I like the kite's, hated the cannons ergonomics but see potentially more longevity with them. Also if it's the bin that's not often glued to my eyes could I cope with the terrible ergonomics?

My current thought is to just reach for the lazers and get the cannons as I know I'd use them more and they'd help me enjoy my local area more....

Will

 

[bartd]

I have the Meopta MeoPro HD 80 and I'm very happy with it. I looked thru a lot of spotters before choosing the Meopta, many costing a lot more. For the price, Meopta brings you a lot of quality.

 

[tenex]

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how a zoom scope is going to start coming out of the bag as your CTC hasn't (unless something about its extended length is a problem), and for higher magnification you'd need to carry a full tripod. So it would just be more useful for astronomy, specifically lunar/planetary, which you'll do how much of? Do you even know how good your local seeing typically is?

On the other hand, 15-18x IS does sound like it could add something in practical terms, however much you dislike its limitations.

 

[William Lewis]

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how a zoom scope is going to start coming out of the bag as your CTC hasn't (unless something about its extended length is a problem), and for higher magnification you'd need to carry a full tripod. So it would just be more useful for astronomy, specifically lunar/planetary, which you'll do how much of? Do you even know how good your local seeing typically is?

On the other hand, 15-18x IS does sound like it could add something in practical terms, however much you dislike its limitations.

Astro's no worries, I've got the dobsonian for that as mentioned, local seeing's like most places - variable, not absolutely terrible for light pollution but not much use in going over 200x even on the best nights, it's an occasional hobby, not my main interest, just passes otherwise dull long winter evening better than the telly!

Yes I doubt a zoom scope would make an appearance more regularly when I'm walking out of the front door, although I did cycle out to one of my other regular spots today, nice ride through the fields, and took the scope and used it a lot. A zoom would be more versatile in terms of low light performance at lower magnification (larger exit pupil etc) and get better detail at larger ranges when I'm away in the summer by the sea etc, I have a sturdy tripod but still prefer to carry the monopod and would be happy to use it up to the 50x mag a 60mm scope would be useful to.

Will

 

[Tringa45]

Will,
For low light performance you want more aperture, not less.
If walking longer distances I usually carry my ATM65 HD with 30x W, but realized that the 2,2 mm exit pupil would be a handicap while looking for Short-eared owls yesterday at dusk. Instead I took my Kowa 883. At 25x magnification (same FoV as the Swaro at 30x) it was easy to follow Hen harriers in flight as at a typical 1 m altitude I didn't have to search in the vertical.
The only stationary target observed was a Short-eared owl sitting in the field. In very poor lighting 35x magnification was an acceptable compromise for a detailed view. That represents an exit pupil of 2,5 mm, exactly the same as your CTC!
And if you can use 50x on a monopod, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

John

PS:- In those conditions your and my favourite binocular performed superbly.

 

[William Lewis]

Will,
For low light performance you want more aperture, not less.
If walking longer distances I usually carry my ATM65 HD with 30x W, but realized that the 2,2 mm exit pupil would be a handicap while looking for Short-eared owls yesterday at dusk. Instead I took my Kowa 883. At 25x magnification (same FoV as the Swaro at 30x) it was easy to follow Hen harriers in flight as at a typical 1 m altitude I didn't have to search in the vertical.
The only stationary target observed was a Short-eared owl sitting in the field. In very poor lighting 35x magnification was an acceptable compromise for a detailed view. That represents an exit pupil of 2,5 mm, exactly the same as your CTC!
And if you can use 50x on a monopod, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

John

PS:- In those conditions your and my favourite binocular performed superbly.

Thanks John. Wise words as always!

I was thinking of the zoom more in terms of larger exit pupil at lower mags as when its dark and higher mags being more useful when it's bright.

It's my use profile that rules out most larger scopes which like you say would be better. As I'm always walking for a good few miles or cycling for a good few more when I'm birding and I'll always carry the scope (don't see the point having one unless I have it with me all the time when I'm birding) That's why the CTC is proving such a tricky one to replace and why I've had it longer than any other optic I've owned. At 20x or less the Nikon would have usefully more exit pupil than the CTC and at 48x in good light usefully more detail gathering.

Budgeting desires necessitates selling something. The other consideration would be to get hold of the 15x50 cannon, I'd have 8x 15x and 30x then which would suit most of my uses. The trickiest birds I miss most is the small passerines at the tops of trees or bushes and that's where I think the cannon would be most useful, possibly the idea optic for filling the gap...

 

[William Lewis]

Fun and games today schlepping up and down the Ouse washes, cracking days birding.

Got me thinking how my kit's come together over the years like most keen birders has (I'd assume) based on where I spend most of my time birding.

It was fine, didn't miss much with the kit I usually carry, I knew it would be quite a lot of scope work and scanning large areas as well as a fair bit of walking so took the CTC 30/75 and the little Nikon e2's to save on weight. The e2's were great, no complaints except a bit of misting (external eye piece misting, gone in a flash, no panic!) and the large fov helped me follow some peregrine's from peak altitude all the way through their stoop down to whizzing and jinking amongst ducks and waders at water level. The scope found its limits early though, good for scanning, less so when trying to reach out at distance accross the wash for the ducks on the other side!

Most birders seemed to have a similar idea to me with relatively small 30/32mm bins but wisely paired them with a damn big zoom eye piece scope and a sturdy tripod.

They had a zoom scope bolted to the railings in one area for visitor use, I saw a pair of avocet on the wing through the Nikon's, probably around 5/600m off. Set the CTC up (doesn't take too long) still not really able to get a good look at them so had a peek through the (quite tired feeling) zoom scope on the rail, cranked it up to 54x, the Fov got tiny, the view went dim but there they were - 2 avocet and a couple of great white egret with spoon bills close by. It reminded me of all the things I liked and disliked about zooms in a moment.

Horses for course of course. I'm not hugely keen on carting one of the big beasts of the scope world about my local area or on the bike but for the odd occasion I need it I might be tempted to grab a decent doubler, a minimal investment for the minimal amount of time I spend birding on the washes and fens, however excellent the birding is there.

Will

 

[William Lewis]

Conclusions

Nikon Monarch ed 82 with 20-60 zoom, the eye piece has the widest true fov of the standard fitment ones at it's lowest mag as well as the largest exit pupil but still goes all the way to 60x for distant targets, horses for courses but on paper this should be the best compromise for my uses, I don't like swapping eye pieces in the field.

With a spot of flipping some underpriced 10x42 fl's, the sale of my ctc 30/75 for a fair price and finding a good deal on an x Nikon demo monarch 82 with the 20-60 zoom complete with a full 10 year warranty I've managed to change scopes without investing a penny more in my optics. Chuffed with that, happy wife happy life!

But now the problem, the CTC is a great scope, optically good but so field worthy, you can just chuck it in a bag in its excellent case and a monopod and forget you have a scope till you need it, safe in the knowledge it will come to no harm. The monarch is a different kettle of fish. Mainly unarmoured and generally needing a good tripod so my challenge is how to make that set up as unobtrusive and tough as the CTC.

I've had a go - here's what I started with - Not especially tough looking, the lens caps have no retaining mechanism or anywhere to clip a lens keeper to. Other than around the prism housing there's no armour at all and you can't carry a scope over your shoulder and use binoculars with any agility - which lets face it is what most birders will use most of the time so here what I've done - This is I believe normally called gun wrap, usually camouflaged but I managed to find it in black for less than a £5er. I've used it to cover the front section of the scope with a separate section for the extending sun shield. It adheres well to itself but has no glue etc (think velcro) so leaves no residue and should protect most of the unarmoured section of the scope from knocks and scratches.
Secondly lens caps, I've managed to get hold of some with an elasticated fabric band, again less than £5 for many more than I need so no more pocketing lens caps and tediously long set up time! Happy days.

Thirdly how to carry the whole lot? I'm not a fan of mule packs - I've tried them, set up time can be long and they don't seem to balance well so the tripod strap it is - £24. Bit of an investment. It wraps around the legs of the tripod and I have it between the scope and the scope foot so it doesn't impede the centre column adjustment. It comes with a very wide grippy section for your shoulder and means you can extend the tripod legs with the scope still on the shoulder strap before unclipping the lowest of the straps to extend the legs -

Why no stay on case? For one the cheapest I can get it is around £130 and with the style of the focuser and the case it means the focus will be impeded slightly and I'm not a fan of the sail like lens guards shaking around in the wind or taking time to clip them back. Also the straps and clips they come with are generally a bit dodgy for carrying a heavy tripod with as well, you will invariably be relying on them to support both the scope and tripod weight and relying on remembering to tighten up the tripod foot securely or carrying the tripod separately - it's a no go on various counts.

Unlikely to get out for much birding this weekend so opportunities to try it all out properly will be temporarily slim but it looks like it may well work. I do hope so.


Will

 

[wllmspd]

Tripod strap? Interesting. I can sling my light scope and compact tripod over one shoulder quite easily, but this doesn’t work for the heavier one, but that strap looks like a good find.
I put a few sheets of foam mat at the bottom of my bag and a wrap of the mat around my scope so it is protected. I used the stretch wrap on a metal scope as much to stop it freezing my fingers in the cold!

Peter

 

[KaterinBortle9]

I use neoprene op/tech usa Hood Hat lens cover for the 60mm objectives and I believe a sort of lens pouch for the eyepiece. They fit snugly and still easy to take off and on. The smaller pouch on the table fit the MEP 38W eyepiece nicely and tightly on the MEP 20-60. For the MEP 30-60W eyepiece, a slightly larger pouch is needed, as shown on the scope.

View attachment Neoprenes_1.jpg

I don't have them on a string as I do not want unwanted stuff to swing in the wind. Attaching strings and stitching velcro on to the neoprene covers and onto straps on the scope to secure them can be an option.

 

[William Lewis]

I use neoprene op/tech usa Hood Hat lens cover for the 60mm objectives and I believe a sort of lens pouch for the eyepiece. They fit snugly and still easy to take off and on. The smaller pouch on the table fit the MEP 38W eyepiece nicely and tightly on the MEP 20-60. For the MEP 30-60W eyepiece, a slightly larger pouch is needed, as shown on the scope.

View attachment 1498573

I don't have them on a string as I do not want unwanted stuff to swing in the wind. Attaching strings and stitching velcro on to the neoprene covers and onto straps on the scope to secure them can be an option.

Thanks Katerin

I'll have a look at the one for the eye piece, I'm using the little draw string case it came in when the scopes in the bag at present.

Your post reads like you have all the eye pieces and the 60mm scope, apologies if I've got that wrong. Do you have any preferences or comments about the zooms or does the fixed get used more?

Also did you compare the 60 to the 82 when purchasing? I would have preferred the 60 for portability but couldn't find an angled version within my budget.

Will

 

[KaterinBortle9]

Hi Will, I have the 60mm version and only have the 38W and the 30-60W zoom now. Sold the 20-60 eyepiece to an interested stargazer. Wearing glasses, the eye relief of the 20-60 becomes unusable as I increase the magnification. Tried the 38W fixed magnification, 75° AFOV is very good and comfortable to view for long viewing sessions. I avoided the 30-60W zoom eyepiece due to the stated short eye relief of 15.2-14.2mm till recently (thanks to Ruff-Leg and a 10% off the MSRP at a local shop), and found its eye relief in actual use is acceptable. The ample 60-72° AFOV it provides do make the 38W (75°) redundant and outclass the 20-60 eyepiece (42-60°), but you sacrifice the larger exit pupil and depth of field at 20x. I'm currently only using the 30-60W eyepiece (24-48x on the 60mm) as the AFOV is still as immersive as the 38W (30x on the 60mm) and might be slightly optically better than the 20-60. However, I find reflections (the sky and sun) on the eye pieces a little annoying when capturing videos with a mobile phone. When just viewing with a hat on, no particular problems.

It was a leap of faith as I had to order mine blind and nowhere to compare 60 to a 82, as camera shops here do not have the monarch scopes on display. Upgrading from a 56mm celestron mini scope, the full featured but heavy (due to the prism) 60mm seems just the right size for my type of casual bird watching and occasional star gazing.

Take your time evaluating the 82 and if it performs optically without significant flaws day time and at the night sky, it should be a keeper. When you are very sure its a keeper, then and only then, you can consider the 30-60W wide angle zoom eyepiece (skip the 38W fixed).

Do share with us your experiences too!

 

[William Lewis]

Thank for the tips. I does seem to be pretty good optically, star tested well enough and works well in practical use.

Like yourself I couldn't try them back to back but was told by the vendor I bought from that as you say the '60 is quite chunky for it's aperture due to sharing all it's components from the tripod foot back with the 82 so most of his customers were just going for the '82.

I've had it out with the set up above with the kids this afternoon for a couple of miles - they were impressed and it carried very well so, so far, it seems to be a keeper but I'll have to use it a bit more first to be sure.

Thanks again

Will

 

[jring]

Hi William,

congratulations to your new scope - it seems you got a keeper!

Nikon does offer a stay-on-case for the Monarch 82 but Uttings wants 190 quid... less terrible if you order from France (90€) or Singapore (118 SGD). But of course HM Revenue & Customs might want a share plus whatever they want for postage...

If you want to keep your diy armouring (which I like a lot), I would certainly also cover the prism housing on the back... while a chip in an objective lens might be invisible in daylight use (and add some minor spiking with bright objects at night), the prisms are a lot closer to the focal plane so defects with them will be a lot more visible plus if they break free from their mounting it's time for an expensive repair...

Joachim

 

[William Lewis]

Hi William,

congratulations to your new scope - it seems you got a keeper!

Nikon does offer a stay-on-case for the Monarch 82 but Uttings wants 190 quid... less terrible if you order from France (90€) or Singapore (118 SGD). But of course HM Revenue & Customs might want a share plus whatever they want for postage...

If you want to keep your diy armouring (which I like a lot), I would certainly also cover the prism housing on the back... while a chip in an objective lens might be invisible in daylight use (and add some minor spiking with bright objects at night), the prisms are a lot closer to the focal plane so defects with them will be a lot more visible plus if they break free from their mounting it's time for an expensive repair...

Joachim

Thanks Joachim

I did think about the case Nikon makes, soo pricey though!

I had a scheme for the top of the prism housing involving some 3m double sided self adhering tape and a sheet of rubber, I may well action that after your suggestion.

I think this scope should see me for a good few years but maybe not this particular example of it, it's not quite right unfortunately, good but not as good as it should be. Did some in depth star testing at the weekend and it only really showed well on one side of focus, I'm going to have a look at another example in the shop i (mail) ordered it from in person in a few days. It will be fine if the other ones no better but I suspect having read Henry's excellent analysis that may not be the case - we'll see!

 

[KaterinBortle9]

The stay-on case came together with scope and 20-60 eyepiece FOC but I deem it effectively useless for an angled scope due to the frequent need to use the rotating collar. Definitely not worth that money.

Adhere a sticker to your own eyepiece for identification and swap eyepieces in the shop to check too. If both scopes exhibit the same problems, hopefully you can get your money back and seek alternatives.

 

[William Lewis]

The stay-on case came together with scope and 20-60 eyepiece FOC but I deem it effectively useless for an angled scope due to the frequent need to use the rotating collar. Definitely not worth that money.

Adhere a sticker to your own eyepiece for identification and swap eyepieces in the shop to check too. If both scopes exhibit the same problems, hopefully you can get your money back and seek alternatives.

I'm hoping given the type of high numbers of good samples of this scope that the other one should be good, it's the main reason I went for this model of scope in the first place.

 

[henry link]

I've yet to see a truly poor Monarch 82, but I've only tested seven specimens. Five of the seven were unusually well corrected, better than diffraction limited. One was a little off from that standard but close to diffraction limited and one was worse than that, but still about average for a high end scope. Knowing how good these scopes can be would make me dissatisfied with with any unit that isn't at least diffraction limited.

 

[William Lewis]

Hi Henry.

Yes I've based my purchase in no small part on your assessments, not many people's views I'd base a purchase on but yours i thoroughly respect.

I'll be interested to see another sample tomorrow to see if there is any difference.

I was initially slightly concerned it was difficult to find best focus at maximum magnification so I star tested it at the weekend. Made a fake star with a tiny hole in some tin foil covering a torch at 40m range. 60x mag. There were nice clear concentric circles on one side of focus but none on the other side at all, looking to at the real stars it was a similar story. Scope had cooled for a while. It doesn't seem terrible, the trapezium was nicely resolved in Orion for example.

I must add a caveat that I've been using a CTC draw tube for a while although did use an 82mm zoom spotter before so maybe my perceptions aren't quite as refined as they used to be!

Will

 

[jring]

Hi,

keeping fingers crossed that you can find a cherry tomorrow and there's no fuzz to change your example for it, if you do...

Saw that the night was clear enough for some quick star tests of my main TSN-3 (looked better than I remembered it when cooled properly - that's the one with the queue on a well visited birdwalk) and my 601 (a bit of stig but still very usable at 47x in daylight).

Joachim