If you do get your hands on the Opticron mm3/4 50 HD and can compare it to your Nikon 50ED, I‘ll be very much looking forward to your findings!
(I would also love to compare them, but that doesn’t seem possible here in Belgium.)
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New MM4 50 vs part-used Nikon ED50 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peregrine Took
- Start date
(I would also love to compare them, but that doesn’t seem possible here in Belgium.)
Thank you! Looking forward to it 
I'm really in doubt between the mm3/4 50mm and 60mm too. It is meant to complement my 82mm Kite and 65mm ATX for travelling light, also woth a lighter tripod, but I found out the 50mm is not stocked at the shops in the Netherlands (no Opticron resellers in Belgium where I live) and the 60mm seems to be only 100g heavier according to Opticron's website. And I'm even wondering if the little increase in length of the 60mm couldn't actually be a benefit for use on a light tripod, due to potentially being better balanced.
If I didn't have an excellent (though heavier) 65mm I guess the 60mm might make more sense, but now I'm in doubt. And I have no place to test it first :-(
I'm really in doubt between the mm3/4 50mm and 60mm too. It is meant to complement my 82mm Kite and 65mm ATX for travelling light, also woth a lighter tripod, but I found out the 50mm is not stocked at the shops in the Netherlands (no Opticron resellers in Belgium where I live) and the 60mm seems to be only 100g heavier according to Opticron's website. And I'm even wondering if the little increase in length of the 60mm couldn't actually be a benefit for use on a light tripod, due to potentially being better balanced.
If I didn't have an excellent (though heavier) 65mm I guess the 60mm might make more sense, but now I'm in doubt. And I have no place to test it first :-(
Hi Mike,
Could you share your experience about the 50mm versus the 60mm, having compared them directly ánd own(ed) them both?
(Wondering both about the optics as well as about the weight and size difference.)
Peregrine Took
Well-known member
I didn't compare the 50mm to the 60mm when I got my 60mm, but it strikes me that the major benefit of the 60mm will be light capture. At those times of day when birdwatching can be most rewarding, you'll get an extra half hour or so of watching at each end of the day, especially in winter, when I'm guessing good birdwatching light will be in limited supply.
Personally, I think if I'd have got the 50, I would be left wondering whether I should have gone bigger. Whereas, since buying mine, I haven't even given the 50mm a second thought.
.
Personally, I think if I'd have got the 50, I would be left wondering whether I should have gone bigger. Whereas, since buying mine, I haven't even given the 50mm a second thought.
.
Peregrine Took
Well-known member
Really? I thought that with a like-for-like EP, a larger object lens would increase light capture. That seems to be the way bins work.
With Opticron's sdl zooms there's also the benefit of higher mags on the 60mm, 15-45x vs 12-36x on the 50mm. Imo that gives just that edge for longer range viewing.
Hermann
Well-known member
Mike Crawley
Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
Aa the weight difference between the 50mm and 60mm is approximately 100g I wouldn't consider that to be significant
The apparent brightness is related to the exit pupil (aperture divided by magnification), though in the day your eye pupil is often smaller and thus effectively aperture limits your optics. As it gets darker you pupil gets bigger and hence you want to have as large an exit pupil as you can to fill it. Astro binoculars tend to have exit pupils of 5-7mm, daytime ones 3-5mm. Spotting scopes, given their higher magnifications have smaller exit pupils, which doesn’t matter unless it gets dull. Larger apertures normally have longer focal lengths as faster optics are harder to make, so the focal ratios tend to be similar. You’ll note that for different apertures the magnification range an eyepiece provides is different (though manufacturers don’t publish focal lengths often).
Peter
Peter
Pete Gamby was very helpful in checking the specs as 100g seemed very small as a difference. It appeared the 60mm was a little bit heavier: MM4 60 scope is actually 779g resulting in a difference of 160g. Still a very small difference though. :-s
The size for storing it in a backpack, cycling bag with other stuff etc. seem to be a bigger difference.
Peregrine Took
Well-known member
You mention reinforcing the Nikon seals with epoxy (because they are prone to falling apart).
It was this recurring theme that decided me in favour of Opticron, but after the first flush of ownership, I do wonder if I should have just bought an inexpensive 50mm-ish scope (maybe a Hawke 9-27 x 56) that can be hand-held, as I find I prefer carrying and using my Zeiss binoculars in most situations.
(This is just me talking to myself - I don't think it will help anyone making their own decision.)
.
Peregrine Took
Well-known member
Sorry, I understood that. Having read your review and switched threads I then used the wrong word - seals instead of seams. Thanks for the clarification... hope I didn't mislead anyone.
I'm right now comparing an Ed50 with mcii zoom to a mm4 60 Ed with SDLv2 and that's quite interesting. Because they don't differ that much in optical quality. Besides the slightly increased brightness of the 60mm, the Opticron is a little bit sharper, colours seem somewhat more natural there vs a tiny bit warmer/more saturated on the tiny Nikon. For the rest differences are even more marginal. Edge sharpness is a bit less on the Ed50, fov a little bit larger on the mm4.... The fast focus of the Opticron is a fast, light and bit too precise to me; I get ultimate focus with the coarse one easily.
The main difference is the eye placement and ease of view; the small eye relief of the Nikon zoom ep really shows in a comparison like this. And of course size is very different. I know the mm4 50mm is about as tiny as the Nikon, the 60mm is quite a bit larger.
I'm wondering if the advantages of the larger aperture/brightness, better build quality, waterproofing and way better ease of view on the zoom really do compensate the disadvantage of larger pack size... Great scopes, both.
The main difference is the eye placement and ease of view; the small eye relief of the Nikon zoom ep really shows in a comparison like this. And of course size is very different. I know the mm4 50mm is about as tiny as the Nikon, the 60mm is quite a bit larger.
I'm wondering if the advantages of the larger aperture/brightness, better build quality, waterproofing and way better ease of view on the zoom really do compensate the disadvantage of larger pack size... Great scopes, both.
Last edited:
Peregrine Took
Well-known member
Those things, plus a wider FOV and better edge sharpness (amplified by an objective lens that is 10mm larger) would make me choose the Opticron over a lighter pack size. Otherwise, I'd probably be buying a Kowa TSN-501 rather than the Nikon - it's fully waterproof, costs less and is a tiny bit lighter (its fixed EP might not appeal to everyone).
.
Similar threads
