My new e/ps on PF65-ED II A. (1 Viewer)

I ordered some new e/ps to try out and took them birding a couple of times recently. Thought I'd post my impressions.
They are:

Vixen LVW 17mm
Baader Hyperion 17mm
Baader Hyperion 13mm

I bought them to compare to a Pentax XW14mm on a PF-65-ED II A, in order to come up with a pair to keep for birding use. One of the 17mm ones and either the 13mm or 14mm to go with it.
If you've read my posts of a couple of months ago, you'll know that I find the XW14, at 28x, too high a mag for general use so I was looking for a 17/18mm to get around 23x mag. I hoped that the LVW 17mm would match the quality of the XW14 but with an easier view due to the lower mag and better depth of field. If the Hyperion 13mm was good enough quality, I would keep that for when I need a bit more power and sell the XW14 to recoup a bit of cash.

Both days I tried them out were very overcast and slightly misty in the distance. The first thing I did was to compare the LVW17 to the BH17 and the XW14 to the BH13.

The upshot is that I have nothing unexpected to tell you. The expensive e/ps are better than the BHs. They out resolved the BHs (seeming to cut through the grey misty weather) but not in the same ratio that their prices differ. The BHs are amazing though because they cost less than half the price of the LVW and XW but give 90% of the performance. They are just not quite as sharp and don't have the edge to edge quality of the others. If you're on a budget, they are fantastic.

So having decided this in very little time at all, it soon became clear that the main question was how does the LVW compare to the XW. Is it worth the money? Do I want to keep it?

Optically, the LVW is the pretty much equal of the XW so I am happy with it. I could see hardly any differences between them. The LVW is crisp right to very nearly the edge, the XW is a tiny bit better in this respect but I didn't notice until I looked for it. The most interesting difference was that the LVW provided sharp images of distant twigs just as well as the XW even though it was 23x versus 28x. Why would that be? Would the misty weather have played a part?

The main differences between them are mechanical rather than optical:
The fov is only 65* compared to the XWs 70* but what's 5* between friends? In use I didn't notice the difference until I looked for it.
The LVW isn't waterproof, the XW is. This is the only difference that I actually count against the LVW but I can live with it (and be careful with it).
The LVW has a fold down rubber eyecup. The XW has an infinitely adjustable twist up one. I wear glasses so they are right the way down all the time anyway.

I'm not as technical as many on here when it comes to assessing optics. My tests don't involve charts or measurements. I just take them birding and see how I get on. If you want a technical much more in depth opinion, have a look at this comparison on Stargazers Lounge.

http://stargazerslounge.com/equipment-reviews/116712-comparing-baader-hyperions-vixen-lvws.html

So the LVW 17mm and the XW 14mm are the keepers.

For now at least. I am thinking of either looking for an e/p around 32x mag to replace the XW14 (23x and 32x make a great combo) or trying out the Pentax 8-24mm zoom.
The zoom is appealing because I would have the LVW17 as a wide angle and the zoom for higher mags and to use on its own for travel.

Anyone got any experience of the Pentax 8-24mm zoom on this scope? I have searched here on BF but been baffled by the amount of (sometimes conflicting) info.

Best wishes
Martin

a poster on this forum somehwere claims the televue powermate works in the pf65 scope....worth exploring. [however best combo would be 24mm+ 2.5x powermate] eps in the 22mm -30mm wide can be tad expensive tho.
AM guessing that even with a vixen lanthumum ep, the pf65 wont perform very well past 50x.

`Pentax 8-24mm zoom `

better off buying the baader hyperion mk II zoom for £130.??

personally i found the 17mm baader ep to be too heavy, i had straight through pf65 and it made it unbalanced, maybe easier to deal with in an angled tho.

is the vixen 17mm lighter than the baader? Its pretty bulky too right?

woodhornbirder said:

a poster on this forum somehwere claims the televue powermate works in the pf65 scope....worth exploring. [however best combo would be 24mm+ 2.5x powermate] eps in the 22mm -30mm wide can be tad expensive tho.
AM guessing that even with a vixen lanthumum ep, the pf65 wont perform very well past 50x.

`Pentax 8-24mm zoom `

better off buying the baader hyperion mk II zoom for £130.??

personally i found the 17mm baader ep to be too heavy, i had straight through pf65 and it made it unbalanced, maybe easier to deal with in an angled tho.

is the vixen 17mm lighter than the baader? Its pretty bulky too right?

Click to expand...

Wow- never heard of the powermate. Another new gadget to get my head round. I'll look into it (but not literally, yet).

The BH zoom- I have read on here that it doesn't work on the PF-65. Or does it?
I am very curious about the Pentax zoom, despite its cost, because a retailer told me it is amazing and I don't think it was a sales pitch because he doesn't stock them.

The 17mm LVW works well on the angled scope, I find. It is heavier than the BHs and it is huge. BHs are listed as 395g. My LVW is 340g according to my kitchen scales so not much difference. The scope is so tiny that I don't mind the size or weight of the large e/ps. Not if they give me a lovely view. Which they do.

There are photos showing the comparative sizes in the review on Stargazers Lounge.

Nice write up, Martin.

It will work but you have to make a mod to the scope (change the compression washer to something thinner so the Baader zoom can reach infinity focus).

Described in this forum (if you can find it!)

EDIT: e.g mayomayo and others did it

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=750030&postcount=15

Or adding a corrector though that might bump the mag more than you want it

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1678487&postcount=15

Martin:

If your looking for 32x for your PF-65 (focal length 390mm), then EP's with focal lengths between 12 and 13 mm will achieve your goal. A 12 mm EP will yield 32.5x in your little Pentax, while a 13 mm EP will yield 30x. There are even 12.5 mm EP's available yielding 31.2x. Vixen makes a 13 mm WLV, that should provide results similar to your 17 mm WLV. The Tele Vue Radian series has a 12 mm EP that provides excellent resolution and fairly good depth of field in my Pentax PF-65EDa; however, the AFOV is only 60 degrees.

If your happy with the Vixen 17 mm, then you might consider comparing the Vixen 13 mm WLV to your Pentax 14 mm XW? Both the Vixen WLV and the Tele Vue Radian series EP's have 20 mm of eye relief. This is very important to me, as I wear eyeglasses. I like Vixen NLV EP's; I presently have two (9mm and 15mm). The Vixen NLV's are small, lightweight and provide excellent resolution in my scope. I do not mind their limited FOV (50 degrees AFOV), but that could be a major negative for others.

Televue Powermates have excellent reputations; however, the 2.5x will increase magnification of your 17 and 14 mm EP's way beyond 32x. My PF-65 seems to not support EP's with focal lengths shorter than 9 mm as performance (depth of field, ease of focus and resolution) falls off quickly above 45x +/-.

The chief, perhaps only negative of the Baader Hyperion Zoom is it's poor eye relief. Not good for those of us who wear eyeglasses. Good luck.

bearclawthedonut

As an eyeglasses wearer I don't find the Baader zoom all that bad for ER. It's tight in the middle (the most useful bit of the range) but I can still see the whole field if I "push". A bit more ER would be good but I find it (and the similar "Plano" EP on the Promaster ELX scope) to be completely usable.

The optimal ER for you depends on your eyeglasses' fit and the prescription. For example being a myope (i.e. having a negative prescription extends the ER!). Bigger isn't always better.

If one doesn't mind the 55 degree AFOV the Celestron XCel EPs are inexpensive ($50ish) with a nice view. I suspect they're aimed at the same market as the Vixen NLV.

Optimal magnification for scopes seems to give a 2.7mm-ish exit pupil. Around 25x-ish on a 65mm scope seems about right though 20x is bright and rather easier to keep the eye in the > 3mm exit pupil.

Kevin:

I very much agree that ER requirements depend on the individual. While I can get away with 16 to 17 mm of ER on some binoculars that I hold up to my eyeglasses; I greatly prefer 20 mm of ER when using a spotting scope where I bring my eye behind my eyeglasses to the EP. For some reason my glasses are always at an angle to the EP, thus extending my ER requirements. 20 mm is comfortable for me. I looked thru a zoom that had 35 mm +/- of ER at the low end and it was a bit difficult keeping my head/eyeglasses/eye at the appropriate distance. So I also agree, too much ER is about as bad as too little. I would very much like to use a Baader Hyperion Zoom, just not enough ER for me. Both my WO Zoom and my Vixen CS Zoom leave me wanting additional ER above 30 to 35x.

Celestron XL EP's do have a very good reputation, particularly in regard to quality for price. Orion Edge, Flat Field's are also supposed to be very good; although I have not had the oportunity to try them. Some Orion's have a Lanthanum lens; I'm not sure about the Edge? Both have 20 mm of ER.

My PF-65 is fine with my 9mm NLV EP (43.3x) above that the depth of field becomes too shallow, it makes focusing difficult. Every scope should have fine focus, sure wish mine did! Someone, perhaps it was you, described the need of having safe-crackers fingers when focusing at higher magnifications. It would be nice to have those also. 43x is fine, resolution is surprisingly good, of course it's not as bright as 32x or 26x.

bearclawthedonut

Kevin Purcell said:

Nice write up, Martin.

It will work but you have to make a mod to the scope (change the compression washer to something thinner so the Baader zoom can reach infinity focus).

Described in this forum (if you can find it!)

EDIT: e.g mayomayo and others did it

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=750030&postcount=15

Or adding a corrector though that might bump the mag more than you want it

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1678487&postcount=15

Click to expand...

Thanks Kevin,

would changing the compression washer or adding a corrector make changing e/ps more difficult? I am new to astro e/ps so don't know how these things work yet. Do they affect image quality?

bearclawthedonut said:

Martin:

If your looking for 32x for your PF-65 (focal length 390mm), then EP's with focal lengths between 12 and 13 mm will achieve your goal. A 12 mm EP will yield 32.5x in your little Pentax, while a 13 mm EP will yield 30x. There are even 12.5 mm EP's available yielding 31.2x. Vixen makes a 13 mm WLV, that should provide results similar to your 17 mm WLV. The Tele Vue Radian series has a 12 mm EP that provides excellent resolution and fairly good depth of field in my Pentax PF-65EDa; however, the AFOV is only 60 degrees.

If your happy with the Vixen 17 mm, then you might consider comparing the Vixen 13 mm WLV to your Pentax 14 mm XW? Both the Vixen WLV and the Tele Vue Radian series EP's have 20 mm of eye relief. This is very important to me, as I wear eyeglasses. I like Vixen NLV EP's; I presently have two (9mm and 15mm). The Vixen NLV's are small, lightweight and provide excellent resolution in my scope. I do not mind their limited FOV (50 degrees AFOV), but that could be a major negative for others.

Televue Powermates have excellent reputations; however, the 2.5x will increase magnification of your 17 and 14 mm EP's way beyond 32x. My PF-65 seems to not support EP's with focal lengths shorter than 9 mm as performance (depth of field, ease of focus and resolution) falls off quickly above 45x +/-.

The chief, perhaps only negative of the Baader Hyperion Zoom is it's poor eye relief. Not good for those of us who wear eyeglasses. Good luck.

bearclawthedonut

Click to expand...

Hi bearclawthedonut,

the radian 12mm looks interesting, as do the NLVs despite their narrow fov. I like the 20mm e/r very much. I have come to thinking that 20mm is the best for me with my thick glasses.
Would you say that the only diifference between a 12mm radian and a 12mm NLV is the fov. As I would be using the 12mm e/p to get up close after finding a bird with the LVW 17mm, the fov is not critical and a 50 afov would be ok I think.

Thanks for the pointers.
Martin

`My PF-65 is fine with my 9mm NLV EP (43.3x)`

sounds about right.

I had a nikon zoom in my pf65, and it worked with perfect clarity upto 36x then after 38x image started to get dim/soft and depth field became very shallow.

NLV eps come up for sale all the time in various channels....sometimes go for $80.

imo a pentax zoom is a complete waste of money. Certainly dont get one unless you can try it out in your scope first: its gives you nothing that you cant get from the right fixed mag eps.

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=86

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380284624781&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

As said earlier, these best used with 24/28/ 30mm ep

bearclawthedonut said:

Celestron XL EP's do have a very good reputation, particularly in regard to quality for price.

Click to expand...

There's the new X-Cel LX too. 60* afov but only 16mm e/r. Can't find much being said aboutthem on the web (other than speculation).
I did try an X-Cel 18mm briefly a while back. I liked the view but was put off by the 55* afov. I have thought since i may have judged too quickly and would like another look. The new oneswith 60* afov could be what I'm looking for. If I can get on with the 16mm e/r.

[/QUOTE]My PF-65 is fine with my 9mm NLV EP (43.3x) above that the depth of field becomes too shallow, it makes focusing difficult. 43x is fine, resolution is surprisingly good, of course it's not as bright as 32x or 26x.[/QUOTE]

Good hear that the little scope can cope with that high a mag. Seldom ever used an e/p that high inthe past but good to know that I could if i wanted to.

Martin Fagg said:

Thanks Kevin,

would changing the compression washer or adding a corrector make changing e/ps more difficult? I am new to astro e/ps so don't know how these things work yet. Do they affect image quality?

Click to expand...

I've not tried either.

The corrector could reduce the contrast but it's designed for astro binoviewers so I suspect not by much.

I doubt they change how easy it is to change EPs. The corrector just screws onto the EP making it a little longer.

I'd not heard of the 60° X-Cels LX Interesting: "The X-Cel LX series is offered in the following seven sizes: 2.3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, 9 mm, 12 mm, 18 mm and 25 mm". Twist-up eyecup. MSRP $75. Street $65.

http://www.celestron.com/c3/category.php?CatID=37

The older 55° X-Cel came in the same range of focal lengths (2.3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, 9 mm, 12 mm, 18 mm and 25 mm) with a fold down eyecup. Looks like they might be on closeout at $50ish.

http://www.celestron.com/c3/category.php?CatID=37

I speculate they're the same EP (the original X-Cel appear to have had LaK ... XL seems to be a pun on LX) but with a slightly wider field stop.

See also

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=4173300
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/1,2,3,4,5,8/Number/3932476/Main/3932254

I think the only complaint with the X-Cel was too much ER leading to kidney beaning for some.

The Orion Epic ED-2 seem to be very similar (the same?) EPs

http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=259

Martin:

I removed the factory compression ring in my PF-65 in order to install my WO Zoom. It was not difficult to do, the instructions posted about two years (?) ago on birdforum are easy to follow. I could not find the correct sized pvc pipe rubber ring, so I simply cut down a larger ring to fit. This modification allows the WO Zoom EP to fit and then slip further down into the scope body by about 1/16", which is enough to allow the WO Zoom and I assume the Baader Hyperion Zoom to focus to infinity. You could also just remove the factory compression ring and slip the BH Zoom into your body for a test - but be aware nothing will be holding your EP in place. Don't turn your scope upside down or the EP will fall out! By installing the home made compression ring it does grab the EP and provides some measure of protection (from losing the EP) although not as much as the factory compression ring. Do not lose the factory compression ring after removal!

The home made compression ring does complicate changing EPs. You must be careful not to lose your much smaller homemade compression ring when you remove an EP as this small ring generally comes out with the EP and will drop off of it. It is a pain. As my WO Zoom did not live up to it's factory specs (20 to 18 mm) in regard to ER. I supplemented it with a Vixen Click Stop Zoom. Same quality of resolution (generally very good down to 8.5 mm +/-), same ER (dissapointing above 32x +/-) and it works with the factory compression ring in place. It's worth mentioning that the highest magnification fixed EP that Pentax offers for the PF-65 is their XF 8.5 mm (18 mm of ER) which produces approximately 46x in the little Pentax scope. Their XW line is really made for their 80 and 100 mm scopes.

In regard to the TV Radian 12 mm versus the Vixen NLV 12 mm, I have not been able to find a Vixen NLV 12 mm (or the Vixen NLV 10mm) for sale on Astromart. So I can not compare these 2 EPs. I do have a 12 mm (and a 8 mm) TV Radian. It's FOV is noticably larger than the FOV's of my NLVs (15 and 9 mm). I strongly suggest that you look through a Vixen NLV EP - BEFORE BUYING one. The difference in FOV between a Pentax XW (70 degrees) and a Vixen WLV (65 degrees) is not that much. The difference in FOV between a TV Radian (60 degrees) and a Celestron X-Cel (55 degrees) is not that much. But the difference between a Pentax XW (70 degrees) and a Vixen NLV (50 degrees) is tremendous. It's like night and day. It does not bother me. But make sure that you can accept 50 degrees of FOV prior to purchasing! The smaller FOV along with the 20 mm of ER makes these Vixen NLV's very easy and comfortable to use. No black outs, no kidney beaning, no problems with eye placement - at least not for me. But I'm willingly giving up 20 degrees of AFOV.

I do not believe that the new Celestron LX-Cel series of EP's are available - yet. They were supposed to be released in late December 2010. So they are not exactly late - yet. They are priced very attractively.

bearclawthedonut

Kevin and bearclawthedonut,

thanks for all this advice. From it I have decided to avoid the zoom route. The Pentax is too expensive and the others too fiddly- I can't be dealing with changing compression rings, especially not in the field.

So fixed mag it is. The LVW 17mm I already have as my main e/p and I'll try the Celestron X-cel LXs when they come out. 12mm and 9mm as cheap backups for when I want a little more reach.

Thanks
Martin

Martin...I also changed the Compression ring to infinity focus my Swarovski astronomy zoom..Swaro made a few of their older zooms fitted with 1 1/4 astro barrel,and I bought a used unit a few years back..t was my only eyepiece at the time,so i had to make it work!!,it didnt matter that changing eyepieces was a pain without the compression ring,because I never changed the eyepiece..I just used the zoom at all times..narrow field of view but the swarovski had a little edge in contrast with other zooms I have used,so I was satisfied..It gave a great view all the way up to 45X.That unit of the PF65 was also better that a second one I owned briefly last year.I eventually replaced the Swaro with a Vixen LV zoom,and I liked it as much..ER is as good or better than any other zoom you are going to find,and the image very usable in all the range up to 45X.Zooms are handy,if not as pleasant visually,they can get you a bit closer in those couple of seconds that the bird wouls stay there!!
Another Zoom that I would mention is the Pentax PF zoom...I sold my first unit,and was convinced,as many other reviewers,that the eyepiece was not good.. I was able to use it again not that long ago,and IT IS NOT A BAD EYEPIECE...the short eye relief was my main complain,(and can be a bit uncomfortable )but IQ is very good.I think most reviews dont make justice to the fact that this is a HIGH power zoom,that grants 20-60X in the PF65!!!....

This modification allows the WO Zoom EP to fit and then slip further down into the scope body by about 1/16", which is enough to allow the WO Zoom and I assume the Baader Hyperion Zoom to focus to infinity.

Click to expand...

this modification worked for the WO Zoom but it did NOT work with the Baader zoom! AFAIK nobody has ever gotten the Baader zoom to reach focus in a Pentax PF65 (without changing the optical properties, e.g. by screwing on a corrector on the front lens).

So the LVW 17mm and the XW 14mm are the keepers.

Click to expand...

personally, I find this to be a fairly inefficient combo. I don't think there is enough of a difference between 23x and 28x to warranty carrying two hand-grenades!!

as you noted, there is barely any difference in detail, and other differences (like FOV) will be more apparent than the slight difference in magnification.

eitanaltman said:

personally, I find this to be a fairly inefficient combo. I don't think there is enough of a difference between 23x and 28x to warranty carrying two hand-grenades!!

as you noted, there is barely any difference in detail, and other differences (like FOV) will be more apparent than the slight difference in magnification.

Click to expand...

Hi,

to my eye the difference is significant enough.

The key difference being depth of field.
23x is enough mag for most waders and wildfowl but the extra depth of field of the 23x is much better for looking for small nearby birds like passerines in undergrowth compared to the 28x. For me the 23x is a great all-rounder.
The 28x is good for distant waders and wildfowl but lacks enough depth of field for woodland birding.
I intend to get a 32-35ish x for really distant birds.

Also when mist or heat haze are around the 23x outperforms the 28x because it doesn't amplify the atmospheric pollution anywhere near so much.

I agree they're hand grenades but with one on the scope and one in a pocket/rucksack they're no problem. If I get a 32 or 35x e/p, I'll be carrying that too. And the scope is so small it only needs a lightweight tripod.

A case of swings and roundabouts. I'm happier carrying this set up than my previous 80mm scopes with smaller e/ps and heavier tripod and the view is much much better.

eitanaltman:

I yield to your greater knowledge as I have never tried to install a BH Zoom in my PF-65; thus, I should not have assumed it was possible. I have a vague recollection that someone on birdforum has tested the BH Zoom in Pentax spotting scopes, but I do not recall if or how they were able to get it to focus to infinity in the 65? Curiously, my WO Zoom would not even fit (too big) into the PF-65 body unless the factory compression ring was removed. I guess all 1.25" EP's are not all 1.25" in diameter?

Martin:

The PF-65 is wonderfully small, but be carefull using a lightweight tripod. As I'm sure you are well aware when using spotting scopes tripod stability is at least as important, if not more so, then having a scope with excellent resolution. Big, heavy tripods are a pain, but they are stabil.

bearclawthedonut

Curiously, my WO Zoom would not even fit (too big) into the PF-65 body unless the factory compression ring was removed. I guess all 1.25" EP's are not all 1.25" in diameter?

Click to expand...

no, it's a standard fitting. are you SURE? did you have the collar loosened completely? I have two WO Zooms and they both fit fine with the factory compression ring in place.... they just can't come to infinity focus!!