• 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.

Celestron Regal F-ED65 (1 Viewer)

Kevin Purcell:

Tried four (4) listed coupon codes for netshops: 15% off, 10% off, $15 off and $10 off.
None worked. Does not appear that they are accepting codes at this time, at least not for what I'm going to purchase (It's already significantly discounted). Oh well, didn't lose anything.
 
Whoa!!! Been away to long, eyeballed this one along time ago! Still think I'll keep my PF-65A!!! The newer Vixen zoom works better to me than the XF, for a zoom. Wish Pentax would design another zoom for that scope!!??? Hard to beat the Pentax for portability and image with the XW EP's, and for the money! The deal breaker it sounds for the Celestron is it's inability to actually use wide-field 1 1/4 EP's??? Bryce...
 
The deal breaker it sounds for the Celestron is it's inability to actually use wide-field 1 1/4 EP's???
Click to expand...

Oh, it can use them....it is just that a small percentage of the bottom of the field of view is blocked. I plan on taking the 80 mm up to the local hawkwatch tomorrow to see how much the obstruction with the XW 20 really affects use out in the field.
 
That is a pretty lofty comparison. Despite my enthusiasm for this scope I would be genuinely surprised if they compared favorably with those two bins. I will be heading to some of the local hawkwatches in the next week or two for the start of the migration period. I know at least one of them has a Swarovski scope always on hand.

I will see what I can do.
 
FrankD said:
That is a pretty lofty comparison. Despite my enthusiasm for this scope I would be genuinely surprised if they compared favorably with those two bins. I will be heading to some of the local hawkwatches in the next week or two for the start of the migration period. I know at least one of them has a Swarovski scope always on hand.

I will see what I can do.
Click to expand...

For it´s price I don't expect it to be better or even nearly as good in any optical aspect, but it would be interesting to hear how it compares. I mean for the price it has everything to win.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
You guys are making assumptions based only on brand and cost. The sad fact is that individual telescopes are very variable no matter what the brand or price.

You'll never be able to determine with certainty how good a scope of unknown quality is by comparing it to other scopes of unknown quality. You have to actually test the optics and compare the results to a theoretically "perfect" telescope. For us backyard optics testers that means learning how to measure the resolving power and how to properly perform and interpret a star test. Then you will know exactly how good or bad the basic optical quality of any telescope is in about two minutes.
 
Well...the pentax 65ED is Not ALL that far from Swaro itself..At least from the NON HD (or was it HD?)version of the older habitch monster(compared them side by side a while back)..And it wasnt that far either from the Kowa TSN824 *...So if the regals offers more contrast,it should be within reasonable distances..
*All these comparisons ,at low power, don't really mean much,And are more meaningful at HIGH power,..and then YES ,there are differences between the Kowa TSN824 and Pentax PF65ED
 
He should be able to up the magnification to over 40x on both. Naturally it will show some type of results. I doubt the sample variation on the ats65/80 is that big. I have looked through quite a few and all has offered excellent images. Diascope is infamous for big differences however.
 
I understand where you are coming from Henry. Based on my limited experiences with this scope and several others I feel fairly confident I have either an average or a "good" unit. I cannot find any optical defects in this particular unit...at least nothing obvious.

As for what I compare it to....that I cannot say. I doubt anyone is going to let me stick a booster up to their Swaro/Kowa and or do artificial star tests on them.

I understand where Kristoffer and Manuel are coming from though. It would just be enjoyable to see how they compare. Heck, for 1/4 the price I would be happy if just the center of the field image was comparable in most aspects.
 
Ok, Frank. I give up. I'll stop pestering you for information that clearly isn't coming. I will say, however, that everything you've presented about this scope so far could apply equally to a good or a mediocre scope. I'm afraid neither you nor any of us reading this thread can tell which one it is in the absence of some basic optical tests and measurements.

BTW, I star test other peoples' scopes all the time, sometimes without bothering to tell them I'm doing it. It takes only a few seconds. All you need is a tiny glitter spot of sunlight at a sufficient distance (like the shiny trim of a parked car). You don't need a booster. The highest magnification of a typical zoom will do.

Henry
 
Henry, can you tell me more in detail how to do this? I cant see why anyone would not want to know the quality of their instrument. If you saw that my scope was of sub-standard I would sell it and buy a new second hand ;) How big can this variance be? Depends on brand I guess. I have never noticed any big difference on different swaro ats65/80 scopes at least. 5%?



henry link said:
Ok, Frank. I give up. I'll stop pestering you for information that clearly isn't coming. I will say, however, that everything you've presented about this scope so far could apply equally to a good or a mediocre scope. I'm afraid neither you nor any of us reading this thread can tell which one it is in the absence of some basic optical tests and measurements.

BTW, I star test other peoples' scopes all the time, sometimes without bothering to tell them I'm doing it. It takes only a few seconds. All you need is a tiny glitter spot of sunlight at a sufficient distance (like the shiny trim of a parked car). You don't need a booster. The highest magnification of a typical zoom will do.

Henry
Click to expand...
 
Henry,

You were not pestering me at all. You have my apologies if I offended you in some way. That was not my intention.

I know we (you, I and several others) went back and forth over a variety of issues. What specific information were you still waiting for?

I have two weeks left before heading back to work so I should still have some time to do it.
 
Kristoffer,

Doing a star test is easy. Interpretation is the hard part. There is plenty of information available if you Google "telescope star-test" or something similar. For a quick evaluation of a spotting scope in daylight a reflection of sunlight in a small round shiny object at least 20-30m distant is good enough. As I mentioned before the trim on cars in sunlight has many little star point reflections of the sun. 60x is low for a star test, but enough to reveal the usual problems in birding scopes: astigmatism, pinched optics, coma, poorly made roof prisms and excessive spherical aberration. Often more than one problem is present. Here's a site with a few examples to get you started:

http://www.spacealberta.com/equipment/refractor/startest.htm

Frank,

Hard information is what I'm after. Things like measured resolution, detailed descriptions of star-tests, high magnification images of a CA target compared to other scopes.

Henry
 
Ok Henry. I will see what I can do about getting you some resolution numbers and listing a detailed explanation of a star test on this scope. If I shut off the auto-focus on my camera then maybe I can actually take some pics of the star test on both sides of focus.
 
Frank to me the hardest part of doing these tests is measuring the distance. I did have some areas marked off in my grass with spray paint. For spotting scopes with my old "target" I had to go out almost 100yds. The lens testing kit I bought off Ebay have better USAF resolution targets and I can use it down to group 1 element 6. The "resolving power chart" I bought off of Edmunds is supposed to go down to group 1 element 6 but I only ever used it to group 0 element 3 and that was a stretch, better to use -1 down to 6. This is the same one I sent Kevin P.
Regards,Steve
 
Steve,

You might have just answered one of my questions when using the chart.....exactly what distance to put it at.

I still have one of the ones you sent me but I am curious as to whether I should order a larger one from somewhere. I see you mentioned Edmunds but it seems you aren't entirely satisfied with it. Any other suggestions?
 
Frank, Which chart do you have? Does it look like this one? This is the better one, the other one is cut out from a Edmund's bigger target. I wish I had wrote down some of my distances I used, but I know I used the old target for spotting scope at 100yds, the newer target would be able to be used closer. A good place to go would be a football field.;)
Regards,Steve
 

Attachments

  • IMGP0533 (Small).JPG
    IMGP0533 (Small).JPG
    32.2 KB · Views: 183
Last edited:
Frank with the better chart seeing group 1 element 6 you would need 120ft. for 1.58 arcsec.
This is 120 ft.=1440 inches 1440 x 3.56 [group 1 element 6] = 5126.4 and you divide that into constant 8121 = 1.584 arcsec
same distance with group 1 element 5 = 1440 x 3.17=4564.8 divide that into 8121=
1.779 arcsec

If you have the old chart you would need at least 250 ft. and that would be group 0 element 5 and this is where this chart is starting to loose it a little. Someone else can chime in here if they want. :)
Regards,Steve
 
Last edited:
element values

so that would be how far in inches times element value and this divided into 8121 = resolution
the Edmund's cut out is ok to use but just have to move chart out further. As far as needing a larger chart, this power resolving chart is a bunch of the USAF 1951 charts in different colors and is not user friendly, that is why I ended up cutting pieces out of it. You really need a "better" chart with smaller groups like 2 and 3 for shorter distances. This time of year the heat and mirage could really make a difference testing at 250 ft.
Frank I can only find one of my good charts right now, if need be I can send you another if you want. The better charts off Edmund's start to get kind of high priced. These are made from some kind of glass.

Regards,Steve
 

Attachments

  • LastScan test chart info (Small).jpg
    LastScan test chart info (Small).jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 164
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

E
Celestron Spotting Scope advice please?
Replies
9
Views
304
jring
J
K
Nikon Monarch Fieldscope vs Celestron Regal M2 80ED vs Vortex Diamondback - tough choice
Replies
19
Views
1K
jring
J
S
My three spottingscopes
Replies
3
Views
1K
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
R
Choosing my first spotting scope, budget around 1000€
Replies
9
Views
1K
Gzoladz74
G
S
Kowa 66a vs 773
Replies
14
Views
2K
StephenL
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top