What about the Prostaff scopes? (1 Viewer)

I have not read much about anybody using them for digiscoping and I don't know if there is a way to use DS and MC eyepieces on them, but they are much cheaper and lighter weighted, which can be an advantage for travelling to certain places.

Has anybody tried to digiscope with them?

I'm wondering about them also. I'm still not sure why the ED50 sells for more than some Prostaff 82 scopes. Is the quality bad on the 82 Nikon Prostaff scopes versus the ED50?

The main difference is size. The feedback on the Prostaff-5 is usually ecstatic, but they are far longer than
the ED50, for example. Going to ED and lowering the aperture to 50mm gives you lower CA, smaller size, or
both. A longer focal length makes the job much easier, and the mechanical tolerances more generous.
Short, high-performance optics end up with a lot of precision milled metal generally, which is quite dense.

In spotters, astros, or binoculars, the main (forgotten?) goal of high-performance optics is size.

OPTIC_NUT
which would you choose between those two (assuming same price and no concerns about size)?

Given a choice, I'd tend toward the Prostaff-5s. I understand the niceness of the small size and the excellent
sharpness on the ED50s, but they max out at a lower power, no doubt for light purposes and not resolution
troubles, and (since you granted a pardon on size) the 82mm light grab makes a big difference at higher power.

Bear in mind, I'm on a 70mm/f-10 astro kick right now, running 70x for eagles.
Extremely light, but not suitable for long-distance travel (focuser is too cheap).
I really need the long barrel but with nice multicoatings instead of single.
My spotter is a 60mm 3-element-objective Swift 839, at 12 inches, 20x and 40x. It's 3 lbs, though.
Similar niche, just not as extremely compact as the ED50, and not as comfortable pushed to 70x as the astro.
If you want the lower power to have a really large fov, the ED50 is still awesome. And---it's very small.