Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

60mm or 82mm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Thursday 10th January 2013, 18:16   #1
rrepp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Huntington Beach Ca
Posts: 13
60mm or 82mm

I realize there's no correct answer here, but I'd like to hear from those with experience if the extra pound in weight is worth the effort of luggin it around, just in general. Of course the lighter scope is better for long hikes, and the 82mm is great for low light, etc. But just in general what is the opinion of those who have used both. Right now there is only a $50.00 difference in price between the two Nikon scopes, and I'm going to get one or the other. And the 60mm scope is about (1) lb lighter. Is this (1) lb a huge difference when walking around birding for a few hours? Or is the 82mm scope worth the weight because it's just that much better to bird with?? Thanks for your opinions!

Bob
rrepp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 10th January 2013, 19:25   #2
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,179
I'd say it is worth carrying the big 82. You'll always get more resolution with the big un.

My friend has the 60ed and I have the 82ed and we were both looking against the sun to a pool with waders. I could make out a couple of Grey Plovers whereas he was unable to make them out.

The 60mm is great but I'd go for the 82 and maybe add the 50mm at a later date for hiking.
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 10th January 2013, 21:35   #3
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,532
An excellent sample 82mm might have a limit of 1.4 arc seconds of resolving power compared to 1.9 arc seconds in a 60mm [Dawes Limit]. I have both the Nikon 50ED and 60ED and "wish" I had the 82ED. The 50ED can't be beat for light wt. take along and would go great with the 82ED. I have tried the 82 ED and liked it a lot. The 82 seems to hold its value better as well. In other words I am cheap and haven't found one of the 82ED Nikon spotters cheap enough for me.

In other words I agree with dipped!

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment....5&d=1192754561

Last edited by mooreorless : Thursday 10th January 2013 at 21:41.
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 10th January 2013, 22:13   #4
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
BF Supporter 2019
 
Kevin Conville's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of Chaos
Posts: 2,128
I like the responses so far.

The 82 has the horsepower and isn't much heavier than the 60. It will support high power if you want it and give bright views at moderate powers. If you want to dabble with digiscoping, the 82 is best there as well.
It also better compliments the ED50, or vice versa, IMO. The smaller scope being so light and portable while being able to share EPs with the big scope.

Now the problem for you is where to find eyepieces.
__________________
my bird pics

Scott's Miracle Grow KILLING Birds, for Years!
read this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=226714
Kevin Conville is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 10th January 2013, 22:30   #5
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooreorless View Post
I have both the Nikon 50ED and 60ED and "wish" I had the 82ED. The 50ED can't be beat for light wt. take along and would go great with the 82ED. I have tried the 82 ED and liked it a lot. The 82 seems to hold its value better as well.
I've got all three, and there's no doubt in my mind that the ED82 is optically better than the smaller scopes, even at low magnifications. Size *does* matter, at least when it comes to scopes ... :-) And the ED82 allows you to use high magnifcations above 60x with the zoom, that can be pretty important.

That said, the ED 82 needs a really stable tripod with a good head, so the weight difference between the ED60 and the ED82 is only part of the story. When I'm birding in an area where I expect to do a lot of walking I therefore tend to take the ED60 with a light tripod. Not the ED50, I see the ED50 more as a scope I take when I'd normally leave the scope at home. The optical differences between the ED50 and the ED60 are pretty obvious in the field, just like the differences between the ED60 and the ED82.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 18th January 2013, 19:30   #6
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,126
I have all three, and vote for the 82 over the 60. Get the 50 some day later if you want something really light weight. I'd only go for the 60 if the marginal difference in packed size were important to you, and if you were confident that you would never get the 50ED.

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st February 2013, 20:50   #7
Julian61
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 92
Just ordered an ED82

After years of using an old and cheaper Kowa, I've decided to take the plunge and treat myself to a better scope. At my local optics shop I got advice to go for a ED82 with MC30xW. This seems to have been backed up by what I've read in various threads. But I haven't tested one, just ordered it. So, I'm not answering your question in any way but throwing caution to the winds and hoping! Thought about the zoom but figured I could get that later if really necessary. This is my first meaningful (?) post so any response would be v. reassuring.
Julian61 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 23rd February 2013, 07:54   #8
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
BF Supporter 2019
 
Kevin Conville's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of Chaos
Posts: 2,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian61 View Post
At my local optics shop I got advice to go for a ED82 with MC30xW. This is my first meaningful (?) post so any response would be v. reassuring.
Good choice IMO. The zooms are plentiful and fixed wides are not. You can always get a zoom later, if you want.
Let us know what you think. I'm confident that with the fixed/wide EPs, the ED82 is about as good as it gets. The only reason I would want any other scope would be for one of the new wide angle zooms, but for the thousands of dollars that zoom would cost....well.
__________________
my bird pics

Scott's Miracle Grow KILLING Birds, for Years!
read this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=226714
Kevin Conville is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 26th February 2013, 17:46   #9
Odradek
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: thuringia
Posts: 129
I received my 25-75x zoom eyepiece today. On one hand it is very impressive to watch birds at the 75x magnification. But on the other hand i wont keep it and send it back. At least for me, even with the 25x magnification panning is not as easy as it is with my actual 38x eyepiece. The first thing i noticed was like i was looking through a pipe. The view through my 38x is a lot more enjoyable compared to the zoom eyepiece. When i skip back from the zoom to the fixed eyepiece it is like crawling out from a tiny box into a big room. Dont get me wrong, i dont want to spoil it. The image is very sharp and i am more than sure that the 75x magnification can be extreme helpful. But the fixed 38x "feels" better to me.

Maybe i will try the 50x a bit later. For now, i am lucky with my fixed 38x.

I think you made a very good choice with the 82 ED. Last weekend i was on a trip to count birds. There where a few others with Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski scopes. As they have seen the Nikon scope they where curious and tested it. And the image was good enough to impress them a lot. I cant imagine that the image quality is far away from the "big ones". Regarding the sharpness i could not see a real difference through the Swarovski. I wont shar my Nikon against another scope for 1500 or more. For me it was a good decision. And i have no doubt you think the same after you received it.

By the way, in some reviews they call it ugly. I like the design alot. Unfortunally i am afraid to scratch it therefore i always use the stay on case and cant see the body anymore
Odradek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th February 2013, 18:41   #10
Julian61
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 92
Many thanks for responses. Haven't heard much at all that's negative about the scope - now I'm just waiting for it to arrive. You've whetted my appetite!

I'll let you know how it goes when I get my hands on it.
Julian61 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th March 2013, 21:18   #11
Julian61
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 92
My new ED82

So, I excitedly went along to collect my new scope and wonderful it looks (despite what a few have said about its appearance). Sadly, up here in the Pennines, we've been wreathed in fog ever since! I did manage a clear bright image of a wall about 50 yards away but not much else. I'll report on performance when the mists disperse...this is the definition of frustration!!
Julian61 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th March 2013, 21:46   #12
Perry Grin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrepp View Post
I realize there's no correct answer here, but I'd like to hear from those with experience if the extra pound in weight is worth the effort of luggin it around, just in general. Of course the lighter scope is better for long hikes, and the 82mm is great for low light, etc. But just in general what is the opinion of those who have used both. Right now there is only a $50.00 difference in price between the two Nikon scopes, and I'm going to get one or the other. And the 60mm scope is about (1) lb lighter. Is this (1) lb a huge difference when walking around birding for a few hours? Or is the 82mm scope worth the weight because it's just that much better to bird with?? Thanks for your opinions!

Bob
82mm for sure. I have the 82, a friend has the 60. Whenever I've had a look through his scope when we have been out I have always been surprised at how much brighter and sharper my 82 is. I've recently added the 50 for family holidays and reckon this combo is perfect.

I traded up from a lightweight opticron scope and tripod to the 82mm Nikon and aluminium Manfrotto tripod - about an extra 1.5kg. The extra weight is noticeable, but with a good neoprene tripod strap is perfectly fine, though I rarely walk over 2-3 miles at a time.

Perry
Perry Grin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 12th March 2013, 18:52   #13
Julian61
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 92
So far I've only had the opportunity to use my new ED82 out of our house windows - across the valley, into the garden...the resolution is stunning, light capture a million miles away from my old Kowa TS (though it's served me well for many years). The guy at the optics shop told me looking through the 30xW lens would feel like I was falling through it - great way of summing up the experience. I thought magnification was all important before buying this but now realise that image quality and light are what really matter for most birding. At some point in the future I might look at getting a zoom though I'm not convinced from what I've heard concerning FOV. Might look into a 50XW, but for the time being, and maybe for a long time being, what I've got seems pretty magical.
Julian61 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 18th March 2013, 14:44   #14
mikefreiberg
Registered User
 
mikefreiberg's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrepp View Post
I realize there's no correct answer here, but I'd like to hear from those with experience if the extra pound in weight is worth the effort of luggin it around, just in general. Of course the lighter scope is better for long hikes, and the 82mm is great for low light, etc. But just in general what is the opinion of those who have used both. Right now there is only a $50.00 difference in price between the two Nikon scopes, and I'm going to get one or the other. And the 60mm scope is about (1) lb lighter. Is this (1) lb a huge difference when walking around birding for a few hours? Or is the 82mm scope worth the weight because it's just that much better to bird with?? Thanks for your opinions!

Bob
Bob,

If you are thinking of going with the ED82 Fieldscope III then I would say "go for it." The 82 is actually quite compact and the extra objective size is noticeable in darker light right when you would need it.

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist
mikefreiberg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best price on 82mm ED? Alexis Powell Nikon 2 Monday 5th November 2007 02:35
EDIII 60mm or 82mm? merbella Nikon 5 Tuesday 11th September 2007 02:14
New Nikon 82mm & 60mm Scopes Gregory Sargean Nikon 7 Thursday 20th July 2006 21:13
82mm setup chrisduval Nikon 1 Wednesday 6th July 2005 15:48
Nikon Fieldscope III 60mm vs. 82mm or Pentax 80 Jeff B Nikon 0 Wednesday 6th April 2005 07:33

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19069099 seconds with 26 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34.