• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Bird Watching magazine reviews (1 Viewer)

[As for ruggedness, I cannot say that the Nikon would survive a severe drop the same way a Leica or other scope would. I have not yet dropped my scope or had it topple over, and I simply don't know how well it would fare. I hope I don't have to find out, though plenty of birders have told me it is inevitable.[/QUOTE]


I have owned both the Nkon 60 ED2 and the 78 ED both of which survived unscathed when dropped onto a solid wood floor. Once was bad enough, twice means I must be careless!

Clive
 
Leif said:
Swissboy: Thanks for the link. I used an online machne translator. The article mentions that Swarovski can supply a rocket booster for the ELs. Nice idea! Mars next stop. Or perhaps the translator is not so good?

However, I did learn that the author considers the Swaro 8x32 EL and Leica 8x32 BN to be very close optically. This is interesting given the price difference. I have not tested the Swaro so cannot comment. He also seems to say that the Swaro 8.5x42 is no sharper than the Leica 8x32 BN which I know to be nonsense. The Swaro resolves quite a bit more detail. He also seems to say that the Swaro and Leica show similar colour correction. To my eyes the Leica 8x32 BN always shows rather a lot of false colour, and side by side with the Swaro, quite a bit more. (I have seen one other report agreeing that the Leica has poor colour correction.) Of course the macine translation I have is not so good so maybe I have mis-read the results?

The oddities in the Norwegian reports are the Zeiss 8x30 BGAT and the Zeiss scopes. They concluded that optically the Zeiss 8x30 is poor (relatively speaking) which is not true. It is roughly equal to the Leica 8x32 BN. (Better in some respects, not as good in others.) In fairness they did state that they did the test some years ago and the bins are likely to have been improved since, but still, could they really have improved so much? Does a model improve that much? Regarding the Zeiss scopes, they rate them poorly, which goes against the opinions of numerous other testers. (I have not tried them.)

Yes Leif, machine translations do create very funny results at times. We used to play around with that some time ago. But that booster in Dutch is pretty much what you call it in English. And the machine probably tries the most common usage. Overall, enhancer (of whatever) would probably fit, in this case enhancer of magnification.

As for the comparisons, I don't know sufficient Dutch to try to read all the text, so I use the tables primarily. And there, the sharpness etc is given by a point scale only. So both Swarovski 8.5x42 and Leica 8x32 have the maximum number of 5. But it is well known that larger objectives allow for higher resolution, and maybe they simply took that into account?

The price differences between Swarovski and Leica may in part result from a difference in company philosophy. Leica is known to be stingy when it comes to repairs under warranty, whereas Swarovski handles things more on a "no questions asked" basis. But they need their money as well. So it may simply be paid for at an earlier date, i.e. already when you buy their product. Thus, more expensive (at the time of purchase) does not have to mean better.

Concerning color corrections, we enter a thorny field. It is here where a lot of subjectivity comes into the game. I own a Leica 8x32BA and I have always been extremely pleased by the way colors are shown. The same holds for the Leica Apo Televid 77. My brother now has a new Swarovski ED80. We recently looked at the same distant object (a group of lapwings getting ready for the night, with a golden plover among them) in dull evening light. We both had our wide angle eyepiece on (30x for the Swarovski, 32x for the Leica). For one thing, that 2x difference was quite noticeable in the field. But as for the color rendition, the Swarovski picture was much bluer and therefore colder in appearance. (I had noticed this before under better conditions.) It also seemed darker. Personally, I prefer the Leica, but my brother does not mind. I think it is to a considerable degree a question of what you are used to. At least once we discuss things at this high a level. By the way, both scopes gave us the same limitations of what could still be discerned!

As for the Zeiss scopes, I think BVD did not give them as good a ranking as the Swarovski, again allowing for only subtle overall differences. (That was before Ingraham joined Zeiss, so it was presumably still a trustworthy test.) ;)
 
Swissboy: BTW when I referred to false colour, I was referring to fringing, rather than a colour cast. For example, view a bird in flight against a bright sky and you will probably see coloured fringes around the bird. The strength and nature of the fringes varies across instruments and can be quite noticeable. It also tends to be more prominant at the field edges, and is more obvious if you do not align your eyes with the optical axes of the binoculars.

You are not first to assume that false colour refers to a colour cast. I have always assumed - perhaps wrongly - that it was another name for chromatic aberration. Hopefully someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

The term 'booster' is indeed the one used by Swarovski, but without the 'rocket' part!

On the issue of scopes, I think the real advantage of the Swaro 80mm scope over the Leica is the light weight. But is that worth the 50% extra cost? I have to say that for me it is not. The Leica scope looks to be a bargain when compared with the competition. (Who would have thought that a Leica instrument could be described as a bargain?)
 
"Chromatic aberration" occurs when light passing through a lens, as well as being focused into a single plane, is also slightly split into its basic colours (ROYBGIV) with each colour being brought to focus on a slightly different plane, i.e. the lens acts not only to focus but as a prism, too.

By using an objective lens element within the construction of a somewhat different glass composition (such as fluorite), the colours can be brought back into a single plane of focus and hence produce an image free of any colour fringing.

I thought "false colour" referred to colour-cast, too. This is caused, I think, when not all of the spectrum of light can pass through the lenses - with some colour being "held back". Also, some light will always be lost by internal reflections and so on - but the light lost might not always be from the whole spectrum, thus the potential exists for the light reaching the eye to lack some of the colours of the full spectrum and so show as "warm" or "cold" or "yellowish". The way out of this is to coat the lenses with minerals that prevent reflections and which do not absorb light of one particular wavelength - or at least absorb all of the visible wavelengths equally.

The eye easily adjusts to colour casts - as any photographer finds out to his dismay when photos look oddly coloured, say under fluorescent lighting - but which was not noticeable to the photographer at the time. The older Swarovski binos always gave a yellowish colour cast, for example, but after a few moments use this "disappeared".
 
Last edited:
...(Who would have thought that a Leica instrument could be described as a bargain?)
The Opticron ES80 is the real bargain at £550-00. The Leica is a somewhat older design and, despite being brilliant optically, is quite bulky compared to its competition. The Nikon ED82 is as compact in length as the Swaro 65 yet has far larger light-gathering power (I think the Zeiss 85* is also very compact).

The Swaro 80 is, undoubtedly, very expensive for the improvement in weight it offers; but for many it is aspirational and to me, it looks superb. Optically there surely cannot be much of any practical consequence between any of the top ED scopes - Kowa, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or Swarovski.
 
Last edited:
Leif said:
On the issue of scopes, I think the real advantage of the Swaro 80mm scope over the Leica is the light weight.

Well, that was exactly the sole reason my brother changed from his Leica to the Swarovski. In this way he was able to avoid buying an extra leightweight travel scope while still having one that can be used in low light. From that point of view, the extra cost still makes a lot of sense. My own strategy is based on the dual scope route as I already have both. Thus, getting a better zoom for the Nikon ED III was the (hopefully) most cost effective option. That new zoom arrived today, but I have not yet been able to test it.

As for the Leica's supposed color fringing: I have never noticed any, but I'll check on that. If there should be any, it would hardly be a major problem, though, or I would have noticed long ago.

The different color casts of the various optics have a lot to do with the type of coating. Apparently, there is none that is completely neutral. :-C
 
Last edited:
One magazine in its review stated;
"A very slight blue cast adds to the overall brightness, but softens the overall colour and reduces contrast. A very slight yellow cast increased overall brightness, but softens the contrast slightly".
Surely it should be;
"Blue cast increases the overall colour (but softens contrast). Yellow cast increases contrast, but softens brightness and colour".
 
Quote: Posted by Swissboy - Tuesday 13th January 2004 at 16:35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thus, getting a better zoom for the Nikon ED III was the (hopefully) most cost effective option. That new zoom arrived today, but I have not yet been able to test it."

It would be appreciated if you would post your impression of the new Nikon zoom. I've been using the 20x60x zoom on a Fieldscope III ED 60 mm for several years ( I assume the zoom is still current) and am impressed with its optical sharpness, contrast and find that to my eyes compared to the previous Swarovski ED scope/zoom it is more color neutral and pleasing. Am not impressed with its eye relief at the higher powers.

I originally used Nikons Wide Angle eyepieces in 24x, 40x and 60x and although they offer the advantage of more eye relief and a wider field of view, I seldom use them on the Nikon scope any more. They are used on an astro scope.


Bob
 
Although I use the newer Nikon ED82 scope, I have found myself using their 30xW perhaps half of the time. The zoom is as good as you describe but the wide angle is such a genuine beauty of a lens that I find myself just enjoying the relaxed and comfortable view it provides - almost as if there is no scope between you and the bird. The same cannot be said for any current zoom lens on the market, in my view, owing to their inherently narrower field of view.
 
Last edited:
It's odd really because my main motivation to change my scope was because my son has the Swarovski with zoom and I thought how useful it seemed. He's now thinking of buying a 30x wide, too!

There are times when the zoom is worthwhile, of course. We were viewing some peregrines a week or two back and, with them bathed in evening sunlight, even though a great distance away, the zoom picked out their amazing plumage detail.
 
Bob D said:
It would be appreciated if you would post your impression of the new Nikon zoom. I've been using the 20x60x zoom on a Fieldscope III ED 60 mm for several years ( I assume the zoom is still current) and am impressed with its optical sharpness, contrast and find that to my eyes compared to the previous Swarovski ED scope/zoom it is more color neutral and pleasing. Am not impressed with its eye relief at the higher powers.Bob

Well, I could not resist a first try this morning. Results are a mixed first impression.
I compared it with my (usually) well serving Leica APO 77 Televid. Light conditions were on the dull side (overcast). Allowing for the smaller objective diameter the picture was bright and sharp. But when I compared the two scopes, the overall ease of viewing was decidedly better in the Leica. It is this hard to describe something that made the difference. Viewing through the Leica scope there was a kind of instant response of the eye to the picture, whereas looking through the Nikon seemed to put a strain on the eye first before the good viewing really started. And that seems to have happened time and time again.
Also, because the new zoom is heavier than the old one, the balance of the scope is off more than it was. It is now decidedly rear-heavy. I assume that the Nikon 82mm type does better in this respect.
OK, this is just a first impression, I only had about 20 minutes time. Eye relief is definitely not good for me as soon as we get above about 25x!
Now don't think that I am prejudiced against the Nikon; this morning the opposite should have been the case. I had my wide angle 32x on the Leica scope at first, and when I tried to take it off to replace it by the zoom, I had trouble with the bayonet mount. And in the end I had the whole fixture of the eyepiece unscrewed!! I was able to get it screwed on again, but I am worried that it will not be watertight any more at that point, as it is no longer adjusted the same way it was before. :C
 
Last edited:
RE: Comments by Swissboy on the Nikon Zoom

If you compared the Leica Zoom with the Nikon 20x60 zoom I would not be surprised that the overall viewing was better with the Leica. It is kind of a wide open effect, somewhat like one obtains with a wide angle eyepiece, even though the field of view is not as wide. It is hard to describe.

I used a Leica zoom on an TeleVue 85 for a while for terrestrial viewing at seashores & astro purposes. When the new Nikon 20x60 zoom became available I purchased it under the agreement that I could return the Leica Zoom for full credit (my Leica zoom had the lubricant problem and after three long months at Leica for repair they finally replaced it with a new zoom and provided a full warranty).

I spent considerable time comparing the Nikon zoom to Leica's at powers above 60X and could find no difference in sharpness/resolution. It however felt more constrained. I returned the Leica zoom because the Nikon zoom would serve both on my TV85 and my Fieldscope.

As others have said, the wide angle eyepieces provide a wonderful view. Before I purchased the Nikon zoom I routinely kept the 40X wide angle eyepiece on the scope as its field of view was almost that of a zooms 20X. Used my 24x WA primarily for scanning shorebirds and hawkwatching.

I have just become wed to the versatility of the zoom.

Bob
 
I think the Leica zoom does give a slightly wider field of view than the Nikon - but the Nikon is absolutely pin sharp across the whole field right to the edges - perhaps more so than the Leica and certainly more so than the Zeiss (which is very wide for a zoom).

Also, except on a 60mm scope the Nikon is 25-75x and this must be weighed against the 20-60x Leica (15-45x on the 62mm).
 
scampo said:
I think the Leica zoom does give a slightly wider field of view than the Nikon - but the Nikon is absolutely pin sharp across the whole field right to the edges - perhaps more so than the Leica and certainly more so than the Zeiss (which is very wide for a zoom).

Also, except on a 60mm scope the Nikon is 25-75x and this must be weighed against the 20-60x Leica (15-45x on the 62mm).


You are correct, Steve, but in my case they are both 20-60x, so that's what counts for me. As for being sharp right to the edge, I agree! (Always a far as my test has been able to go.) Have not had a chance to continue. Also, I never really use that very edge, anyway, as that is usually hindered by my wearing glasses.
 
scampo said:
I think the Leica zoom does give a slightly wider field of view than the Nikon - but the Nikon is absolutely pin sharp across the whole field right to the edges - perhaps more so than the Leica and certainly more so than the Zeiss (which is very wide for a zoom).

Also, except on a 60mm scope the Nikon is 25-75x and this must be weighed against the 20-60x Leica (15-45x on the 62mm).

I believe that there is 20-60x on the 62mm Leica but that Leica recommend the 16-48x. That is the implication of reading some of the reviews on the warehouse express site. I accept they are paid to write the reviews but I presume they are acurate techincally.
 
That might be but there wasn't a while back - that's why my son went for the Swaro. Apparently the focal length of the Leica 62 is the cause of the reduced magnification. The zoom is 20-60x on their 77mm scope.
 
You may be right Steve. I'm just quoting the review. It seems that the likes of Oddie and Nick Baker are using the 20-60x eyepiece from there 77's (well both get given both I imagine). The implication is that this is a totally different lens than the 16-48. Oddly though you can't order a 20-60 thru W/Express with 62....... any experts out there?
 
Not an expert,but to clarify,Scampo is correct in that the same (ostensibly 20-60)zoom eyepiece fits the 62 and 77 scopes,but the effective magnification on the 62 is only 16-48. The e/p is actually marked to that effect.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top