-
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.
Is Pentax a contender? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Birdbox
- Start date
For the 65mm, they were priced at a point that for a name brand ED scope was very compelling. They have ramped up their prices some and the value is not as strong. There are still deals to be had, however. The original 65ED was a great performer but compared to a top model like Swaro or Nikon, is noticeably less sharp. Most of my observation is based on the original 65ED, not the 65EDII. The latter is said to be sharper and less CA. Personally, I'd wait to find a good deal on a used Nikon or other name brand ED. I sold my Pentax. Bear in mind, the view was great, but when I saw the views from other similar models, it was a reality check.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
"Is Pentax a contender?"
I think so. My brother has a PF65 and it doesn't quite compare with my PF80, but my recent experiences with a PF65II show it compares very well against the PF80. That is to say, excellent.
The PF65's come with the XF zoom when purchased with an eyepiece. These are not Pentax' best EPs. To extract what these scopes can do you must use the best EPs and in Pentax' line those are XWs. If you get a chance to try a PF65II with the XW14 EP which yields 28x, I think you'll be impressed.
I don't think Pentax scopes are well represented in the UK but they are fairly popular here in the US. I read some mixed reviews of Pentax scopes but because they take virtually any 1 1/4" EP there are a lot of variables and, again, the XF EPs are not the best.
BTW, what attracted me to Pentax originally was that being an amateur astronomer, I had a comprehensive collection of EPs including a half dozen Pentax. Pentax XLs and now XWs are considered some of the very best EPs available, period.
Give 'em a try.
I think so. My brother has a PF65 and it doesn't quite compare with my PF80, but my recent experiences with a PF65II show it compares very well against the PF80. That is to say, excellent.
The PF65's come with the XF zoom when purchased with an eyepiece. These are not Pentax' best EPs. To extract what these scopes can do you must use the best EPs and in Pentax' line those are XWs. If you get a chance to try a PF65II with the XW14 EP which yields 28x, I think you'll be impressed.
I don't think Pentax scopes are well represented in the UK but they are fairly popular here in the US. I read some mixed reviews of Pentax scopes but because they take virtually any 1 1/4" EP there are a lot of variables and, again, the XF EPs are not the best.
BTW, what attracted me to Pentax originally was that being an amateur astronomer, I had a comprehensive collection of EPs including a half dozen Pentax. Pentax XLs and now XWs are considered some of the very best EPs available, period.
Give 'em a try.
Last edited:
Oregon Jim
Member
I feel the need to echo what Kevin had to say. I have the PF65IIa and the PF80a, and love them both, thanks to the wonderful Pentax XW20, XW14 and XW10 eyepieces! I also have the SMC Zoom, but it doesn't get much use. For me, trading the "convenience" of a zoom eyepiece for a bright, sharp and extremely wide field of view is an easy choice. I may even sell the Pentax SMC zoom one of these days.
There have been several occasions while birding where people have commented that they've never seen such a stunning view through a spotting scope after a peek. One couple even ran back to their car and returned with a pen and paper to write down exactly what I had so they could order the same thing. I was using the PF65IIa with the XW14 that day.
Since the sharpness, brightness, contrast etc. seem relatively comparable to other high end scopes (at least to this rank amateur), it has occurred to me that many, if not most of these folks may have never looked through a wide angle fixed eyepiece/scope combo before. Certainly most people opt for zooms.
In my opinion, it's the XW eyepieces that makes Pentax a contender.
There have been several occasions while birding where people have commented that they've never seen such a stunning view through a spotting scope after a peek. One couple even ran back to their car and returned with a pen and paper to write down exactly what I had so they could order the same thing. I was using the PF65IIa with the XW14 that day.
Since the sharpness, brightness, contrast etc. seem relatively comparable to other high end scopes (at least to this rank amateur), it has occurred to me that many, if not most of these folks may have never looked through a wide angle fixed eyepiece/scope combo before. Certainly most people opt for zooms.
In my opinion, it's the XW eyepieces that makes Pentax a contender.
medinabrit
Well-known member
I have all 3 of the Pentax PF scopes .I also have the Nikon fieldscopes plus 2 Takahashi 1 televue & 1 Vixen scope .
With the exellent XW EP,s the Pentax are equal to anything in their size range.
They are a great value.
But of course they dont have the snob appeal of the Euro 3.
Brian.
With the exellent XW EP,s the Pentax are equal to anything in their size range.
They are a great value.
But of course they dont have the snob appeal of the Euro 3.
Brian.
Oregon Jim
Member
TKL - My PF65IIa is almost always wearing the XW14 (28x), and I find it to be a near perfect match. The XW10 gets far less use, with an image that's significantly dimmer. In my opinion, any increase in resolving capabilities with the XW10 is minimal, particulary considering what you're giving up.
I would definitely go with the XW14!
I would definitely go with the XW14!
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
If you don't need 20mm of eyerelief, the Tele Vue Nagler 13mm Type 6 might be a better choice than the 14mm XW. Smaller, lighter, wider apparent FOV and usually cheaper too. The 10mm and 7mm XW are definitely the WRONG choice for this scope. The 8.5mm and 12mm XF's will give you a slightly wider TRUE FOV, are 2.5x lighter/smaller and at about 1/3 the price of a XW.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
"If you don't need 20mm of eyerelief, the Tele Vue Nagler 13mm Type 6 might be a better choice than the 14mm XW. Smaller, lighter, wider apparent FOV and usually cheaper too."
Have you tried a type 6 Nagler on a spotter? I have. Both the 11 and 13mm type 6s. Though you're correct about the smaller, lighter, wider, and even cheaper part, ...they exhibit noticeable distortion. They won't work well with glasses, and are not waterproof. They also don't have that great infinitely adjustable eye cup that only XLs and XWs have. Neither Naglers nor XFs allow the rear section of the eye cup to be unscrewed exposing a 39mm thread for attaching digiscoping doo-dads directly, as on the XWs.
"The 10mm and 7mm XW are definitely the WRONG choice for this scope."
Why is that? Yeah the 7 will give too much mag but what's wrong with the 10? I wouldn't have it as my primary EP, I'd pick the XW14 for that, but it's a good option when 39x is usable and desirable. My brother keeps one on his PF65 and thinks it's great.
"The 8.5mm and 12mm XF's will give you a slightly wider TRUE FOV, are 2.5x lighter/smaller and at about 1/3 the price of a XW."
IMO the XFs aren't in the same league, at all. In the US the XWs are about twice the price of the XFs.
As inexpensive high power EPs go, one can use Plossls from say 8-12mm that can be had very inexpensively and are optically great. Yeah they have mediocre eye relief and most have a 50 degree AFOV but they'll get you to 40 or 50 or 60x with good sharpness for that occasional use. They are also quite small and can be tucked away easily and almost forgotten until you need that extra reach.
Have you tried a type 6 Nagler on a spotter? I have. Both the 11 and 13mm type 6s. Though you're correct about the smaller, lighter, wider, and even cheaper part, ...they exhibit noticeable distortion. They won't work well with glasses, and are not waterproof. They also don't have that great infinitely adjustable eye cup that only XLs and XWs have. Neither Naglers nor XFs allow the rear section of the eye cup to be unscrewed exposing a 39mm thread for attaching digiscoping doo-dads directly, as on the XWs.
"The 10mm and 7mm XW are definitely the WRONG choice for this scope."
Why is that? Yeah the 7 will give too much mag but what's wrong with the 10? I wouldn't have it as my primary EP, I'd pick the XW14 for that, but it's a good option when 39x is usable and desirable. My brother keeps one on his PF65 and thinks it's great.
"The 8.5mm and 12mm XF's will give you a slightly wider TRUE FOV, are 2.5x lighter/smaller and at about 1/3 the price of a XW."
IMO the XFs aren't in the same league, at all. In the US the XWs are about twice the price of the XFs.
As inexpensive high power EPs go, one can use Plossls from say 8-12mm that can be had very inexpensively and are optically great. Yeah they have mediocre eye relief and most have a 50 degree AFOV but they'll get you to 40 or 50 or 60x with good sharpness for that occasional use. They are also quite small and can be tucked away easily and almost forgotten until you need that extra reach.
Last edited:
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Hi Kevin,
Yes, I have Nagler 13mm T6, as well as the XFs and a few XWs (focal lengths come and go with my astro scopes, but the 10mm is generally considered the best. I can get them relatively cheap here unlike Naglers).
My issue with XWs and the PF65ED is strictly one of size and weight. At close to a pound and the size of a soda can, the 10mm and 7mm look silly hanging off the PF65ED.
I respectfully disagree about the XFs. Many of my astro buddies find them to be excellent planetary eyepieces in binoviewers. The same qualities that make them great astro eyepieces make them great for birders.
Here is an astronomical review of the XF, http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1438
cheers,
Rick
Yes, I have Nagler 13mm T6, as well as the XFs and a few XWs (focal lengths come and go with my astro scopes, but the 10mm is generally considered the best. I can get them relatively cheap here unlike Naglers).
My issue with XWs and the PF65ED is strictly one of size and weight. At close to a pound and the size of a soda can, the 10mm and 7mm look silly hanging off the PF65ED.
I respectfully disagree about the XFs. Many of my astro buddies find them to be excellent planetary eyepieces in binoviewers. The same qualities that make them great astro eyepieces make them great for birders.
Here is an astronomical review of the XF, http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1438
cheers,
Rick
mooreorless
Well-known member
Hi Rick, I thought Amalia's review of these eyepieces was excellent. Some of the comments about the review is one reason I think she doesn't post much on CN now. That is a shame.
I never tried any of the Pentax spotters, I have heard of sample variations is all.
Regards,Steve
I never tried any of the Pentax spotters, I have heard of sample variations is all.
Regards,Steve
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Rick,
The barrel distortion that goes unnoticed looking at stars with the Naglers is pretty obvious to me looking at birds on buildings and trees. Panning exacerbates the issue. I also found the Naglers showed much more false color, again in daylight.
I agree that an XW hanging off the end of a PF65 is a bit of a moose, and that is maybe it's only detraction.
What I found inferior about the XF12 vs say an XW14 was the greatly reduced sweet spot. The XF is fine on axis but falls off fairly quickly and that combined with a 60 degree AFOV vs the flatter 70 degree view of the XW makes it less attractive to me. I can see why binoviewer guys might like them though for they are sharp on axis, and are fairly small.
Hey, to each their own. :t:
Cheers,
Kevin
The barrel distortion that goes unnoticed looking at stars with the Naglers is pretty obvious to me looking at birds on buildings and trees. Panning exacerbates the issue. I also found the Naglers showed much more false color, again in daylight.
I agree that an XW hanging off the end of a PF65 is a bit of a moose, and that is maybe it's only detraction.
What I found inferior about the XF12 vs say an XW14 was the greatly reduced sweet spot. The XF is fine on axis but falls off fairly quickly and that combined with a 60 degree AFOV vs the flatter 70 degree view of the XW makes it less attractive to me. I can see why binoviewer guys might like them though for they are sharp on axis, and are fairly small.
Hey, to each their own. :t:
Cheers,
Kevin
Last edited:
Tero
Retired
Not everybody likes the Pentax zoom. I have a Vixen zoom, it was cheaper. I do not recommend going past 50x much as it gets dim.
The eye piece is a standard 1.25 inch diameter.
As others said, pick a fixed eye piece if you go with Pentax EP. I do use the Vixen zoom, as it is practical to locate a bird and zoom in. There is great discussion then as to which brand is the best zoom.
The XW do not need to be improved.
The eye piece is a standard 1.25 inch diameter.
As others said, pick a fixed eye piece if you go with Pentax EP. I do use the Vixen zoom, as it is practical to locate a bird and zoom in. There is great discussion then as to which brand is the best zoom.
The XW do not need to be improved.
Last edited:
Birdbox
staringin2thevoid
I think you've hit the nail on the head. None of the replies to this post have come from europeans. I'll be upgrading soon and wanted to know what alternatives there are to the "big three". Do US birders {and beyond) tend to opt for anything other than what we Brits do? (I'm talking top end stuff here).
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
I doubt it. I think it probably has more to do with what's being distributed and promoted. Opticron is a major player in the UK and Pentax more a player in the US.
The big (Euro) three are quite popular and well represented here, as they are in the UK.
Cactusdave
Well-known member
Here's an off the wall suggestion for something other than the "big three" available in the UK at competitive prices. Based on the reputation of their ED astroscopes, both the Celestron and the Williams Optics ought to be good glass. Interested to hear if anyone over here or in the US has any experience of them.
http://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/Catalogue/Spotting_Scopes.html
http://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/Catalogue/Spotting_Scopes.html
