Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
ZEISS Summer Savings - Experience unique moments of nature. Save up to £250 on selected ZEISS Binoculars - limited time only!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 9th August 2019, 20:45   #51
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by jring View Post
I'm quite sure that an 1.25" adapter can be quite easily printed - if you can get measurements for the threading, I can try it and send to you.

Joachim
Thanks again for the offer, Joachim. I just saw the Monarch ED specimen I reviewed for the first time again yesterday. As I thought there are no threads on the back of the scope or on the eyepiece, only the bayonet mount.

The opening on the scope is large enough to easily accommodate 1.25" eyepieces, but I think a proper adapter would need to be formed as a mate to the bayonet on the scope body. Possibly a simple press-fit semi-soft tube just to span the space between the 1.25" OD of the eyepiece tube and the ID of the bayonet opening on the scope body would work in a pinch.

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 23rd August 2019, 20:51   #52
Taylor Ellis
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Point Reyes, CA
Posts: 7
Does anyone have experience with both scopes, the ED82 and the Monarch 82, to compare those with the standard zoom? Would you trade an ed82 for a monarch 82?
Taylor Ellis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 24th August 2019, 18:29   #53
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,395
I haven't directly compared the old Fieldscope 82ED scope to the new 82mm Monarch, but I did compare the old Nikon MC zoom used on the Fieldscope to the new standard field Monarch zoom in the first post of this thread. The new zoom is quite similar to the old one in most performance categories except for longer eye relief and for me it's also more comfortable to look through because of its larger eyecup. Looks like I forgot to include my eye relief measurements in the review, so here they are:

20x - 16mm

35-40x - 11mm

60x - 12mm

Measurements were taken from the eyecup rim. From the eyelens glass the eye relief is about 2mm longer.

Anyone with a cherry sample of the old Fieldscope 82ED would lose a useful 15x at the top end of the magnification range from switching to the Monarch and as always might wind up with a worse specimen from sample variation. The new wide field zoom for the Monarch might be an attraction, but it hasn't been tested in detail yet and since in the US the scope body can't be bought without the standard zoom (or a 30x fixed with reticle) the wide field zoom adds $500 to the cost of of the scope and then leaves the purchaser with an unwanted extra eyepiece.

Last edited by henry link : Saturday 24th August 2019 at 18:56.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 24th August 2019, 19:41   #54
mayoayo
Registered User
 
mayoayo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: El Garraf
Posts: 2,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
but those scopes do not have the option of a wide zoom. I don't find zooms very useful for birding,

--AP
The Nikon FS zoom has more reach than any other zoom,due to the long focal of the scope and the short focal of the eyepiece( 7-21mm),but the price in FOV and Eye relief is too high,and the eyepiece is hard to use at all focals... But a wide zoom with long eye relief is another thing Alexis,..I think is very useful for birding,..heck i dont know what can be more useful!..i also used fixed power eyepieces with my old 823 and loved It..Had the old 32x, the old 50x, the new 21x, Nikon WA eyepieces adapted and lately settled in a wonderful BST Explorer 12 mm granting 38x,.my favorite magnification alrounder,but then i got the Baader Hyperion zoom..same fov as most the eyepieces i mentioned at their correspondent magnifications, pretty much as bright and as sharp or sharper, and i can push the view to 57 x or get super bright image at 19x..
mayoayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 24th August 2019, 23:13   #55
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
The Nikon FS zoom has more reach than any other zoom,due to the long focal of the scope and the short focal of the eyepiece( 7-21mm),but the price in FOV and Eye relief is too high,and the eyepiece is hard to use at all focals... But a wide zoom with long eye relief is another thing Alexis,..I think is very useful for birding,..heck i dont know what can be more useful!..i also used fixed power eyepieces with my old 823 and loved It..Had the old 32x, the old 50x, the new 21x, Nikon WA eyepieces adapted and lately settled in a wonderful BST Explorer 12 mm granting 38x,.my favorite magnification alrounder,but then i got the Baader Hyperion zoom..same fov as most the eyepieces i mentioned at their correspondent magnifications, pretty much as bright and as sharp or sharper, and i can push the view to 57 x or get super bright image at 19x..
What does it take to adapt the Baader zoom to the Fieldscope series?
Is there an adapter available for purchase?
I use both the ED50 as well as the EDIII and agree that that the Nikon zooms are niggardly in terms of eye relief. So if there is better available, it would be very much of interest.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 25th August 2019, 08:12   #56
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
What does it take to adapt the Baader zoom to the Fieldscope series?
Is there an adapter available for purchase?
I use both the ED50 as well as the EDIII and agree that that the Nikon zooms are niggardly in terms of eye relief. So if there is better available, it would be very much of interest.
I'm curious about this too; what other zooms are compatible with the FS screw bajonet, with adapter or not? For myself looking for an (non Monarch)ed82 :) Read much about the fov and eye relief but also many people not minding it and just enjoying the sharp view.

Read the Mark III doesn't fit but there's a Mark IV now, maybe it has changed? What's the thread on the old and new Fieldscopes?

Last edited by Ries : Sunday 25th August 2019 at 09:00.
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 07:40   #57
mayoayo
Registered User
 
mayoayo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: El Garraf
Posts: 2,240
The Fieldscopes dont have bayonet,they use a 37.5 internal thread ,with narrow pitch..They wont accept any other zoom than their own,due to the narrow channel of the light path..I used astro eyepieces on the ED50,but none had a long "neck".Nikon Eyepieces all have barlow pieces but the bottom lens is super small in diameter,to fit this narrow path.I wonder if this narrow Field stop affects the fov of the zoom.
mayoayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 08:06   #58
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 122
Thank you for that info, mayoayo :) Too bad nothing else will fit besides their scarce own ep's
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 13:54   #59
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
The Fieldscopes dont have bayonet,they use a 37.5 internal thread ,with narrow pitch..They wont accept any other zoom than their own,due to the narrow channel of the light path..I used astro eyepieces on the ED50,but none had a long "neck".Nikon Eyepieces all have barlow pieces but the bottom lens is super small in diameter,to fit this narrow path.I wonder if this narrow Field stop affects the fov of the zoom.
Thank you for this clear explanation.
Guess the Nikon design is not readily compatible with other offerings.
How did you manage to use astro eye pieces despite that and how well does it work?
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 26th August 2019, 14:04   #60
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,528
24.5mm or 0.965 inch fit eyepieces work on most scopes.

B.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 17:25   #61
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
24.5mm or 0.965 inch fit eyepieces work on most scopes.

B.
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.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 26th August 2019, 18:47   #62
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,528
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.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 18:55   #63
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 122
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...)
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 19:06   #64
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,528
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.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 19:14   #65
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
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.


B.
Aha! I thought there would be a catch! Thank you, B
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th August 2019, 20:41   #66
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
...But a wide zoom with long eye relief is another thing Alexis,..I think is very useful for birding,..heck i dont know what can be more useful!...
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 by Alexis Powell : Monday 26th August 2019 at 20:43.
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th August 2019, 13:20   #67
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 122
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.
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th August 2019, 13:24   #68
mayoayo
Registered User
 
mayoayo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: El Garraf
Posts: 2,240
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

Last edited by mayoayo : Tuesday 27th August 2019 at 18:42.
mayoayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th August 2019, 17:52   #69
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LY+DG counties, Kansas, USA
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
...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
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
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th August 2019, 14:05   #70
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
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
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.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 28th August 2019, 22:53   #71
mayoayo
Registered User
 
mayoayo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: El Garraf
Posts: 2,240
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
mayoayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 29th August 2019, 14:51   #72
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayoayo View Post
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.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 29th August 2019, 15:19   #73
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,528
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.
Binastro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 29th August 2019, 22:48   #74
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
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.
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.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The nearly-perfect binos you've had- what would you change to make them 'perfect'? Sancho Binoculars 21 Wednesday 9th January 2019 14:32
Vortex Viper HD vs Nikon Monarch 7 vs Monarch 5 MrBJones Binoculars 3 Sunday 16th December 2018 00:41
Mrs Woodford's invalid Monarch alt. Florence's ditto Monarch ... !? Calalp Bird Name Etymology 3 Sunday 9th September 2018 13:35
Audubon Equinox vs. Nikon Monarch - Comments on Monarch? Jacamar Nikon 21 Thursday 18th May 2006 19:02

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18730688 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:25.