Fieldscope ED 11 (1 Viewer)

I have a 60mm ED Fieldscope 11 with the original 20x and 20-45x zoom, I later added the 30x wide angle eyepiece (rubber turn down eye cup) .
The scope is in good condition so is it worth upgrading any of the eyepieces? I tend to use the 30x mainly and very occaisionally the zoom.

How much better optically is the Mk111 body compared to the Mk11?

When I tested it briefly last time, the ED III has more contrast and well control CA than the ED II

The EDIII might balance better with the mount foot in front of the focuser instead toward the eyepiece behind the focuser.

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=179395&d=1233455962

The EDIII has slightly better contrast due to better coatings, especially on the prisms. This is noticeable in the field. Other than that the optical quality is very similar. The EDII is front-heavy, the EDIII is back-heavy, they both don't balance well on the tripod head. No real difference there. Nikon says the EDIII is waterproof, the EDII isn't, so you'll have to be a bit more careful with the EDII in typical British weather ...

Eyepieces: The newer, multi-coated wideangles are slightly better. The difference is once again the contrast and noticeable in the field, especially when you compare them side by side in the field. The zoom is a different matter, the 20-60x is clearly better than the 20-45x, especially at higher magnifications. That's the one I'd get.

Is it worth upgrading your kit? I'm not sure, actually. After all, the EDIII (and the ED82) are on the way out, even today eyepieces are difficult to find. The eyepieces can't easily be used with the new, much heavier Nikon EDG, so I'd think long and hard about investing in a new EDIII and/or eyepieces. The EDII you already have is a good scope, even by today's standards. What I'd probably do is just try to get a good used 20-60x, because it allows you to use the scope at higher magnifications that are sometimes very useful.

Hermann

Thank you all, your replies were useful to me.

Robert

I have both scopes. I agree with the previous comments, however, the differences between the EDII and EDIII are small. I would not trade up the EDIII unless the scope being water proof was important. I do wish the EDII had a lens hood.

Thanks Bob.
I have a stay on case which I regularly treat with a "waterproofing agent" and so I do not see waterproofness of the Mk 111 has a significant advantage. I also have a good quality 67mm filter which I would use in inclement conditions.
People have commented on the balance of the two models but if I am being a "legger" rather than an "arser" (to quote the late Desmond Nethersole-Thompson) I use a monopod and have no problem with balance. With regard to lack of lenshood I did buy a Hoya lenshood but never use it.