If the Nikon thread is Nikon specific, how easily would an astronomy eyepiece fit and would it come to focus?
I'm reluctant to invest without a solid indication that the pieces are compatible.
-
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.
Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter henry link
- Start date
If the Nikon thread is Nikon specific, how easily would an astronomy eyepiece fit and would it come to focus?
I'm reluctant to invest without a solid indication that the pieces are compatible.
Because 24.5mm eyepieces are thin they fit most things, although an adapter or something cobbled up is needed.
They are only really useful in short focal lengths, giving higher magnifications.
I don't think that longer focal lengths will improve on Nikon's own eyepieces.
Old 24.5mm fit eyepieces might be $20 or less.
They may need cleaning but are pretty simple.
I have orthos, Kelners, Erfles, Berteles, Monocentric, Tolles, Triplanes etc.
With some scopes with 45 degree prisms, I just put them loose in the drawtube. They work even slightly off centre just held with my fingers.
B.
They are only really useful in short focal lengths, giving higher magnifications.
I don't think that longer focal lengths will improve on Nikon's own eyepieces.
Old 24.5mm fit eyepieces might be $20 or less.
They may need cleaning but are pretty simple.
I have orthos, Kelners, Erfles, Berteles, Monocentric, Tolles, Triplanes etc.
With some scopes with 45 degree prisms, I just put them loose in the drawtube. They work even slightly off centre just held with my fingers.
B.
Excuse me for being an eyepiece novice, but if you say 24.5mm eyepiece would fit (not screwed in maybe, but placed inside), what would happen if you used an "adaptor for 1.25" eyepieces to 24.5 mm / 0.965" focuser"? Wouldn't 1.25" then fit, or would there be a problem with the focal length of eyepiece to first scope lens? ( it says "optical length 30mm" of the 24.5mm bit)
(sorry if my physics is dumb and flawed and less than zero, it sure feels like it...)
(sorry if my physics is dumb and flawed and less than zero, it sure feels like it...)
Ries,
I have 24.5mm to 1.25 inch adapters and vice versa.
The problem is that they add length, so the eyepiece probably won't come to focus.
24.5mm eyepieces generally haven't been made for decades, although there are some cheap Indian and Chinese ones.
The Japanese ones were good, but occasionally contained thorium glass, so ideally they should be monitored at a physics lab, for instance, before use.
I suspect that some of the circle T Japanese orthos may have contained thorium as they are very well regarded performance wise.
B.
I have 24.5mm to 1.25 inch adapters and vice versa.
The problem is that they add length, so the eyepiece probably won't come to focus.
24.5mm eyepieces generally haven't been made for decades, although there are some cheap Indian and Chinese ones.
The Japanese ones were good, but occasionally contained thorium glass, so ideally they should be monitored at a physics lab, for instance, before use.
I suspect that some of the circle T Japanese orthos may have contained thorium as they are very well regarded performance wise.
B.
Aha! I thought there would be a catch! Thank you, B :t:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Wide zooms are a nice innovation and are certainly the way of the future as the default eyepiece on scopes. However, for the sort of birding that I do, which has the primary goal of IDing birds (i.e. it is birding, not bird watching), I don't find magnifications above 30x very useful (except in a few circumstances, e.g. shorebirds on mudflats on the very rare day that the air is stable). In general, when a bird attracts my attention, I am able to identify it with a 30x scope if I can't already ID it with 8x bins. And it's not as if I don't pay attention to distant birds--when I'm birding with other people, I am able to ID, at 30x, nearly everything that anyone points out. Sure, the birds may be small in the view, but the details are there. On those occasions when the details are not there and I need to see better, I usually find that increasing the magnification 2x (to 60x) is generally not enough of a boost to help me [It is quite modest, no?, ...compared to eyes to binos being an 8x boost, and binos to 30x scope being a 4x boost.], or else that atmospheric conditions do not support seeing any more detail at the higher power.
I think that most birders zoom much more than is necessary. It's a bad habit to constantly fiddle with the zoom. Of course those with old narrow-field zooms are _forced_ to zoom to low power (15x or 20x) to find the birds, then zoom in to 30x to get the needed magnification [I think they would be better off instead using a wide-angle 30x and dispense with zooming to gain FOV.], but I note that birders with the new wide-field zooms often do the same. At least they have the option of leaving their zoom at a good all-around power and still enjoying a decent FOV. I notice that most zoomers have a habit of zooming in on a bird of interest beyond what is needed for ID. I consider that a bad habit as it doesn't help with the ID and, by needlessly restricting the FOV, hinders stumbling across other individuals, potentially of other species, near the focal individual.
I do, these days, make heavy use of a wide-angle zoom (the 25-60x as a 40-96x using 1.6x extender on Kowa 884), but not for birding. I use it for digiscoping map turtles to document the presence of several species during visual surveys as a component of my research. The heads of these turtle are quite small compared to most birds, the differences in head patterning are the best means of identification, and the camera benefits from spreading the image over as many pixels as possible, so high magnifications are very useful for that work even though most sighting are within 120 m distance and the magnification isn't needed for ID by eye through the scope. Because the distances aren't very great, atmospheric stability isn't usually an issue.
--AP
Last edited:
I sent a question to Baader last week via the hyperion zoom page and got an answer today:
Your Question: Is there a way to use this on (earlier) Nikon Fieldscopes? Adapter maybe?
Thanks!
Answer: Sorry, we have not started to do Nikon adapters yet. We also noted that Nikon has designed the field stop position of their spotting scopes in a way to maximize prevention for other manufacturers to add their accessories.
Your Question: Is there a way to use this on (earlier) Nikon Fieldscopes? Adapter maybe?
Thanks!
Answer: Sorry, we have not started to do Nikon adapters yet. We also noted that Nikon has designed the field stop position of their spotting scopes in a way to maximize prevention for other manufacturers to add their accessories.
mayoayo
Well-known member
Hi Alexis..I like the compactness of single focal eyepieces ,and since I do most of my birding at 38x i could easily go by with my humble 12mm Explorer...But I have the Baader Zoom and I like to push those extra 20x ,all the way to 57x(the limit on my scope)when conditions allow,specially for sketching.I would not use a conventional narrow Field zoom as my primary eyepiece,I would rather use a fixed wide anytime,but the Baader offers great fov,so for me is a win-win..
The astro eyepieces I adapted for the Fieldscopes work great. I used the same 12 mm BST Explorer, and the 16 mm BST "Flat Field".Myself i used crude but effective home made adapters ,but after posting about It in the forum,a few members got interested,and i know adapters were made and there are a couple of threads about it...I would have to look for the threads..I magine with 3D printing making adapters would be quite easy
The astro eyepieces I adapted for the Fieldscopes work great. I used the same 12 mm BST Explorer, and the 16 mm BST "Flat Field".Myself i used crude but effective home made adapters ,but after posting about It in the forum,a few members got interested,and i know adapters were made and there are a couple of threads about it...I would have to look for the threads..I magine with 3D printing making adapters would be quite easy
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Here are a couple of the threads that I remember best on adapting astro eyepieces to the fieldscopes:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2881206
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=322702
--AP
Hi mayomayo,
Based on your experience, do you think an adapter could be jury rigged just by wrapping sufficient layers of tape around the Baader barrel?
The thought would be that it could screw into the Fieldscope with the female threads on the scope forcing their way into the tape.
mayoayo
Well-known member
That would be imposible.As I explained earlier the Nikon mount has a very narrow passage for the light Path, and the barrel of the Baader Zoom (or any other zoom besides the Nikons) would not go in...You can not get the eyepiece even close to any position that would allow attaching It to the scope
Thank you very much.
On measuring, the barrel opening diameter for the ED50 is about 0.9", too little for any other brand of eyepieces.
That clears it up for me.
I'm still considering the Baader for my recently acquired Pentax PR65, but sadly it won't be able to enhance the Nikons.
Microscope eyepieces were traditionally around 23mm or 0.9 inch barrel.
I did measure these but cannot remember the sizes, but it may be a bit under o.9 inch barrel with some.
However, these eyepieces are usually Huyghenian working at f/12 or slower.
I suppose they might work with a Barlow lens.
It may be that Huyghenians don't even reach focus.
There may be microscope eyepieces in 0.9 inch barrel that do work at f/5 or f/6.
The barrels on the astro 0.965 inch eyepieces are usually removable and some orthos or other types might reach focus on a Nikon 50ED.
Regards,
B.
I did measure these but cannot remember the sizes, but it may be a bit under o.9 inch barrel with some.
However, these eyepieces are usually Huyghenian working at f/12 or slower.
I suppose they might work with a Barlow lens.
It may be that Huyghenians don't even reach focus.
There may be microscope eyepieces in 0.9 inch barrel that do work at f/5 or f/6.
The barrels on the astro 0.965 inch eyepieces are usually removable and some orthos or other types might reach focus on a Nikon 50ED.
Regards,
B.
Hi Binastro,
Thank you for the extra insight.
Microscope eyepieces I would not have thought of as an option.
Although intriguing, the idea is a bridge too far for my circumstances.
I'm resigned to the reality that, short of extraordinary effort, Fieldscopes and longer eye relief zooms don't match up.
Passerine Dream
Passerine Dream
Hi guys,
Im interested in the 60ed or 82ed monarch as my first scope. I am an eyeglass wearer so I am wondering specifically about the eye relief of the eyepiece and wether anybody who wears glasses are experiencing any issues. I think the posted eye relief is 16.8mm. Thanks for any advice on the matter.
cheers
Im interested in the 60ed or 82ed monarch as my first scope. I am an eyeglass wearer so I am wondering specifically about the eye relief of the eyepiece and wether anybody who wears glasses are experiencing any issues. I think the posted eye relief is 16.8mm. Thanks for any advice on the matter.
cheers
henry link
Well-known member
Ries,
Eye relief is longer on the new eyepiece, but unfortunately AFOV through the zoom range is virtually identical to the old eyepiece (see post #53).
Henry
Eye relief is longer on the new eyepiece, but unfortunately AFOV through the zoom range is virtually identical to the old eyepiece (see post #53).
Henry
Steve Babbs
Well-known member
I chose the 30 - 60X WA eyepiece. In Europe this scope does not come with the 20 - 60X as part of the bundle. The 30 - 60x is more expensive but still the scope + eyepiece came to about £1500 which is about half the cost of a Swarvoski.
Last edited:
