-
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.
Older 30x WF eyepiece - how does it compare to current DS or MC? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter b-lilja
- Start date
I have a second question. There are plenty of DS 30x eyepieces on ebay, but no MC's. It sounds like they are different optically. Has anyone compared them? How is the handling of the DS eyepieces? It looks like there is a rubber sleeve that covers the eyepiece, but no screw out cups. In practice, is it comfortable to use? I do like the rubber eyecups on the WFs, they give you something to mash up against and keep a little distance from the eyepiece. Thoughts?
Hermann
Well-known member
My mother is still using the first version of the WF eyepiece on her scope. I've got the newer, multi-coated version with the screw-out eyecup. I don't have the 30x DS eyepiece but I do have the multi-coated 24x DS eyepiece (along with the first WF version and the version with a screw out eyecup), so I think I can comment on the DS as well.
I think you're absolutely right in saying the first version isn't as contrasty as the later versions. I find it still very good though, and it's definitely more compact than the later versions, especially the DS. In a direct comparison between my mother's 30x WF and my newer version the difference is clearly visible. However, the old WF is still good, very good actually. Whenever I look through her scope I don't really feel I'm missing too much.
The DS eyepieces are IMO not as comfortable in use as the older versions, just like you said. They probably work very well with eyeglasses though. I personally prefer the other two versions, although the DS version is optically the best of the lot IMO, at least with the 24x eyepieces. I usually use one of the other eyepieces on my scopes.
BTW, the contrast of the current zoom is exceptionally good. I remember Kimmo once commented that the zoom actually has better contrast than the fixed wideangles. I agree with that assessment.
You need to be a bit careful with the rubber eyecups of your 30x WF. The rubber breaks quite easily.
Hermann
Addendum: I just realized that you seem to use the 30x WF on the ED50. I never use the 24x DS on the ED50 - it's just to heavy and large for that tiny scope in my opinion.
I think you're absolutely right in saying the first version isn't as contrasty as the later versions. I find it still very good though, and it's definitely more compact than the later versions, especially the DS. In a direct comparison between my mother's 30x WF and my newer version the difference is clearly visible. However, the old WF is still good, very good actually. Whenever I look through her scope I don't really feel I'm missing too much.
The DS eyepieces are IMO not as comfortable in use as the older versions, just like you said. They probably work very well with eyeglasses though. I personally prefer the other two versions, although the DS version is optically the best of the lot IMO, at least with the 24x eyepieces. I usually use one of the other eyepieces on my scopes.
BTW, the contrast of the current zoom is exceptionally good. I remember Kimmo once commented that the zoom actually has better contrast than the fixed wideangles. I agree with that assessment.
You need to be a bit careful with the rubber eyecups of your 30x WF. The rubber breaks quite easily.
Hermann
Addendum: I just realized that you seem to use the 30x WF on the ED50. I never use the 24x DS on the ED50 - it's just to heavy and large for that tiny scope in my opinion.
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
In that case: Get yourself one of the "modern" 30x, like the DS. It *is* optically somewhat better than what you've got. But keep the old 30x WF, it's ideal for the ED50. Makes for a much more balanced combination.
BTW, I usually use my old 24x WF on the ED50, the 24x multi-coated on the ED IIIA, and the 24x DS on the ED 82 ...
The weight of the 24x WF is 119.5 gr., of the weight of the 24x multi-coated (with screw-out eyecup) is 145 gr., and the weight of the 24x DS 172.5 gr. Not a huge difference but not a small difference either.Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Well, you won't get too close to the eyepiece glass other than by accident because the DS has long eye relief so you need to keep a healthy distance ... :t: The rubber rim is so wide that I can rest the eyebrow on the rim to get some stability, that works rather nicely for me. May not work for everyone though.
Still, a "real" eyecup is of course much more better.
Hermann
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
I used to use a fixed x 30w on a Fieldscope III. I believe it was coded as MCII but these have been out of production for a while but occassionally come up second hand.... with twist up eyecups, much easier for eye placement and optically brighter than the originaleyepieces.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
This is a confusing thread. Here's a grab-bag of miscellaneous replies/reactions:
The eyepiece shown in the first post is the 24/30x WF. It is shown on a 50ED where it functions as a 16x but with vignetting of the objective (and thus is not recommended for use as a 16x by Nikon).
b-lija--when you say you found the performance of this eyepiece inferior to the zoom, do you mean as a 16x on the 50ED or as a 30x on the 82ED? I would be surprised if you weren't happy with its performance on the 82ED.
Forgive me if I am wrong about this Hermann, but I think your description of early (less contrasty) versus later versions of the 30x WF are descriptions of the 20/30/38x WF eyepieces. I think you are describing use of those eyepieces as 30x on the 60ED.
As far as I know, there were not early and late versions of the 24/30x WF. The 24/30x WF has a very simple optical formula (few glass elements) so is quite bright and contrasty. I think it is at least partly multicoated. The optical design of the 24/30x MC is identical (only the metal housing and eyecup assembly is different), but it likely has updated multicoatings. I doubt you would find it better than the 24/30x WF.
The optical design of the 16/24/30x DS is unique. That eyepiece is huge (the largest of all traditional Fieldscope eyepieces). It is nice on the 82ED but is a monster on the 50ED. It is slightly better for digiscoping than the WF and MC 24/30x eyepieces because the field is slightly more flat. However, I find it less comfortable for viewing because it requires that the eye be perfectly centered for best performance (the 24/30x eyepieces are more forgiving). I wear glasses, so the eyecup design (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to me. If you don't wear glasses, keep in mind that the eye relief is very long--about 18 mm versus 16 mm on the older eyepieces as I recall.
To preserve the eyecup of your 24/30x WF, use ArmorAll (original formula). I didn't treat the first one I owned and it cracked after only ~2 years. The next eyecup, which I treat once a year or so, hasn't cracked after ~24 years of heavy field use.
My favorite eyepiece on the 50ED is the 40/50x WF, which functions as a 27x. It doesn't have the latest coatings, but it has the same optical formula as the 27/40/50x DS and is _much_ more compact.
I agree that the 25-75x is super sharp and contrasty, but I don't find it significantly better than the fixed eyepieces, even the WF series. I think some people who find it significantly better are fooled by the fact that, because of its narrow AFOV, it presents a very bright sharp contrasty view quite dramatically against a large field of black.
--AP
The eyepiece shown in the first post is the 24/30x WF. It is shown on a 50ED where it functions as a 16x but with vignetting of the objective (and thus is not recommended for use as a 16x by Nikon).
b-lija--when you say you found the performance of this eyepiece inferior to the zoom, do you mean as a 16x on the 50ED or as a 30x on the 82ED? I would be surprised if you weren't happy with its performance on the 82ED.
Forgive me if I am wrong about this Hermann, but I think your description of early (less contrasty) versus later versions of the 30x WF are descriptions of the 20/30/38x WF eyepieces. I think you are describing use of those eyepieces as 30x on the 60ED.
As far as I know, there were not early and late versions of the 24/30x WF. The 24/30x WF has a very simple optical formula (few glass elements) so is quite bright and contrasty. I think it is at least partly multicoated. The optical design of the 24/30x MC is identical (only the metal housing and eyecup assembly is different), but it likely has updated multicoatings. I doubt you would find it better than the 24/30x WF.
The optical design of the 16/24/30x DS is unique. That eyepiece is huge (the largest of all traditional Fieldscope eyepieces). It is nice on the 82ED but is a monster on the 50ED. It is slightly better for digiscoping than the WF and MC 24/30x eyepieces because the field is slightly more flat. However, I find it less comfortable for viewing because it requires that the eye be perfectly centered for best performance (the 24/30x eyepieces are more forgiving). I wear glasses, so the eyecup design (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to me. If you don't wear glasses, keep in mind that the eye relief is very long--about 18 mm versus 16 mm on the older eyepieces as I recall.
To preserve the eyecup of your 24/30x WF, use ArmorAll (original formula). I didn't treat the first one I owned and it cracked after only ~2 years. The next eyecup, which I treat once a year or so, hasn't cracked after ~24 years of heavy field use.
My favorite eyepiece on the 50ED is the 40/50x WF, which functions as a 27x. It doesn't have the latest coatings, but it has the same optical formula as the 27/40/50x DS and is _much_ more compact.
I agree that the 25-75x is super sharp and contrasty, but I don't find it significantly better than the fixed eyepieces, even the WF series. I think some people who find it significantly better are fooled by the fact that, because of its narrow AFOV, it presents a very bright sharp contrasty view quite dramatically against a large field of black.
--AP
Hermann
Well-known member
I find that Nikon recommendation, well, "strange". Because there is some vignetting, sure, but it's not something you notice at first sight, and I use the 24/30 WF all the time on my ED50. I really like low magnifications in the woods. So, I I think Nikon may well have been a bit conservative there, possibly because that vignetting will show up it you use that eyepiece for digiscoping. Been there, done that.
You're right. I should have made that clearer. The differences between the 20/30/38x WF with the rubber eyecup and the version with the screw-out eyecup ist quite noticeable - but the old WF is still a very nice eyepiece.
Well, in a direct comparison I can see a difference between these eyepieces. It's smaller than the differences between the two versions of the 20/30/38x but the later version has more contrast.
I only ever use it on the ED82. Certainly not on the ED50, and also usually not on the EDIIIA.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I wouldn't call it "significantly better" but it sure is good. What about "a bit better" optically? If it weren't for the small field of view I'd leave it on my scopes all the time.
BTW, Alexis, do you know the tiny 27/40/50? Very short eyerelief, very small eyepiece lens, AFOV of only 40 degrees. It may well be an orthoscopic eyepiece, it "feels" like one. An interesting eyepiece, and very small and light.
Hermann
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Hi Hermann, at the risk of going into Fieldscope trivia beyond the interest of others, here's a query and a reply.
Thanks for the clarification/confirmation about the 20/30/38x, but I think that I remember learning from you that (apart from the differences between the WF folding eyecup and MC twist-up versions) there are actually two different versions of WF that have different glass (perhaps e.g. differing in whether the eye lens is convex vs concave). Am I remembering that incorrectly?
I know that there is also a physically short non-WF 30/38x of the same era as the WF, also with folding eyecup.
Yes, I know that eyepiece. A very old design, but for some reason they kept making it, even updating it to have multicoatings. Maybe intended to appeal to some 50ED users? I never liked it because it doesn't work with glasses. There was also a 60/75x version of similar design, but it was discontinued after the 60/75x WF was released.
--AP
Thanks for the clarification/confirmation about the 20/30/38x, but I think that I remember learning from you that (apart from the differences between the WF folding eyecup and MC twist-up versions) there are actually two different versions of WF that have different glass (perhaps e.g. differing in whether the eye lens is convex vs concave). Am I remembering that incorrectly?
I know that there is also a physically short non-WF 30/38x of the same era as the WF, also with folding eyecup.
Yes, I know that eyepiece. A very old design, but for some reason they kept making it, even updating it to have multicoatings. Maybe intended to appeal to some 50ED users? I never liked it because it doesn't work with glasses. There was also a 60/75x version of similar design, but it was discontinued after the 60/75x WF was released.
--AP
Well, I for one love the eyepiece deep dive...
I have a number of responses...not so good with the quoting though...
Re vignetting, that explains things on the 50 - I agree it is not the end of the world though.
Re the 24/30 WF vs. zoom contrast/pop on the 82 - Alexis I agree that the zoom narrow FOV highlights the image, but I still agree with Hermann that it is better. I was reflecting on that exact question. However - on balance I think I prefer the WF for the wider view - the zoom on the 82 is really pretty tight FOV wise even a low power, and reflecting back I think explains the difficulty I've been having finding things on it fast.
I had not thought about the 40/50 WF on the 50, I will check that out further (I have one).
It seems like some sort of custom eyepiece for the DS 24 is in order.
I have a number of responses...not so good with the quoting though...
Re vignetting, that explains things on the 50 - I agree it is not the end of the world though.
Re the 24/30 WF vs. zoom contrast/pop on the 82 - Alexis I agree that the zoom narrow FOV highlights the image, but I still agree with Hermann that it is better. I was reflecting on that exact question. However - on balance I think I prefer the WF for the wider view - the zoom on the 82 is really pretty tight FOV wise even a low power, and reflecting back I think explains the difficulty I've been having finding things on it fast.
I had not thought about the 40/50 WF on the 50, I will check that out further (I have one).
It seems like some sort of custom eyepiece for the DS 24 is in order.
Hermann
Well-known member
No, you're right. The 20/30/38x are different. Both versions of the 16/24/30x are the same (except for the coatings).
I know that one as well. I had one many years ago but lost it.
Maybe. Optically it's very good actually. BTW, I've got both versions, the old one without multi-coatings and the new one with multi-coatings. Despite the simple design the multi-coated version is more contrasty. I got the multi-coated version for a ridiculously low price, something like 40 € new in box. Works well with the ED50 but it sure doesn't work for eyeglass wearers.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Did you try Kimmo's cable tie trick? Works very well indeed: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=99084
Hermann
