Nikon Fieldscope 82 ED Eyepieces. (1 Viewer)

I am using a Nikon Fieldscope 82 ED for birding. It seems to compare well with other scopes in its price range and even more expensive scopes from what I have seen under favorable conditions and lighting.

The eyepiece I am currently using is the 25-75x zoom with the 82. The zoom works well. There is significant brightness drop off above 40 power. I think this is normal performance for this magnification at this price point. I am sure for double the price I could get 10% better performance…

My question is – would switching to a fixed magnification eyepiece provide any improvement in image quality, brightness or other advantages? With a fixed magnification eyepiece I would be giving up the ability to of finding the subject at 25 power then zooming in for a closer look.

If you have compared these 2 eyepieces I would be very grateful for your experiences and opinions and preferences. Other experience and insights are welcome too.

When compared to other scopes the diameter of the Nikon pupil lens seems to be much smaller than the Swarovski and Leica. Not sure how effects the final image or enjoyment factor.

The big advantage of fixed magnification eyepeices is their MUCH wider FOV (esp. comparing the Nikon zoom to fixed). They also have better eye-relief. I have the 78 mm Fieldscope ED with 30, 50, and 75x fixed, as well as 25-75x MCII zoom. I do much scoping under a variety of conditions, distances, times of year etc and find that I use the 30x fixed about 98% of the time, the 50x fixed about 1.9% of the time, and the zoom about 0.1% of the time (I don't use the 75x for birding). I'm making up the numbers, but they probably aren't far from the truth. I'll admit to being a lover of a wide FOV and to doing much scanning (ducks on the water, gulls on the lake/ice, longspurs in the fields, shorebirds on the mudflats, plovers and Burrowing Owls in the p-dog towns). I find it rare that conditions are such that I can't ID birds at 30x or that I can see any more detail beyond 50x (because of atmospheric limitations). The 50x has about the same FOV as the zoom at 25x, so it's just as easy to point (though shallower DOF).
--AP

Tvc15_2000 said:

If you have compared these 2 eyepieces I would be very grateful for your experiences and opinions and preferences. Other experience and insights are welcome too.

When compared to other scopes the diameter of the Nikon pupil lens seems to be much smaller than the Swarovski and Leica. Not sure how effects the final image or enjoyment factor.

Click to expand...

I have a Swaro AT80HD, 20-60x zoom and a fixed 20xSW. I have also occasionally used a friend's Nikon 78ED with the 25-75x & 30x eyepieces.
If I wanted to "enjoy" of the nice image quality (or digiscope...), I would definitely choose a fixed, wide-angled eyepiece. I agree with Alexis that the significant differences are in fields-of-view and eye-relief (not in sharpness, contrast or brightness) which make finding & viewing the target much more comfortable. However, in my practical birding use the zoom's ability to bring the bird 3x closer is even more important than an enjoyable, wide-angled field-of-view and that is why I just tend to use the zoom.

The eye lens often limits the angle of light bundle coming out from the eyepiece, which means that either field-of-view or eye-relief (or both) are smaller with eyepieces that have small eye lenses. One "disadvantage" in viewing comfort of the Nikon zoom is its higher power, which reduces the size of exit pupil and makes the eye placement more critical. OTOH higher power may be an advantage for many birders.

Best regards,

Ilkka

I agree. I think the Nikon zoom lens is poor. The fixed lenses have a much wider field of view and the brighness of light is much,much better. I never really use my zoom lens now

markgrubb said:

I agree. I think the Nikon zoom lens is poor. The fixed lenses have a much wider field of view and the brighness of light is much,much better.

Click to expand...

It's certainly not poor, quite to the contrary. It is one of the finest lenses as far as color fidelity and general image quality are concerned. With two major exceptions, which may be the reason for your judgement: narrow FOV and limited eye-relief.
However, brightness, in my opinion is primarily a matter of magnification used. Thus, a 30xW is darker than a 20x zoom, though a 30x zoom is a bit darker than a 30xW.

I have a 30xW and a zoom eyepiece both for my Leica Apo77 and for my Nikon 60mmEDIII. And I keep coming back to the zooms despite my enjoying the wider FOVs.

I've got a Nijkon ED78 with a 30XW and a 25-75X Zoom (plus a few others eyepieces). I use the 30XW 99% of the time, only exception being for incredibly distant birds in very good light i.e raptors on holiday - me on holiday that is, not the raptors.
HTH

Nick

I bought an ED82 earlier this year with the 30x eyepiece, I tried the zoom as well before making my decision & the zoom just didn't have the same 'wow' factor for me. I can't say that ever feel that I'm missing anything by not having the zoom as the view through the 30x is so stunning. I also have the 50x with my ED50, (27x on the 50), & this is also excellent on the 82 for those times when I need more power & as has been mentioned above has the same angle of view as the zoom at 25x!

John.

My son has that scope along with the 25-75x zoom and 30xW; I have the ED50 with the 27xW (i.e. the 50xW on the ED82 scope). I also use the Zeiss 85 with its 20-60x zoom.

I would say there are two areas in which the Nikon zoom is different from other top-end zooms: its field of view, particularly at low powers, is rather narrower and its eye relief is a touch shorter thus making it a little less easy for spectacle wearers (although no zoom has sufficient eye relief for easy use with spectacles, in my experience).

Regarding its brightness, the Nikon is, I feel sure, at least the equal of other models using a zoom eyepiece, e.g. Leica, Swaro or Zeiss. The Nikon image is also probably the sharpest there is and its colour rendition is as faithful to nature as I believe exists (better than Leica, Zeiss or Swaro in my view). I do not believe that you will find even 10% improvement if you were to compare with other top makes.

With a wide fixed magnification eyepiece, say the 30xW, the Nikon scope does, I believe, come into its own par excellence. This combination is truly a view that always causes me to think, "Hey, this is so good!". Between the lines, I feel you are worrying the Nikon is not quite "up there" with the top models. Have no fear - it is.

markgrubb said:

I agree. I think the Nikon zoom lens is poor. The fixed lenses have a much wider field of view and the brighness of light is much,much better. I never really use my zoom lens now

Click to expand...

This is not my experience. I have access to Nikon, Zeiss and Swaro and could never use the word "poor" to describe the Nikon zoom. Perish the thought, in fact! To me, it's bright, clear, contrasty and as sharp as they come. It's a superb birding scope.

The important areas in which the Nikon zoom is different from others is in field of view (but really noticeable only at lower magnifications) and in eye relief which is a couple of millimetres less than some other makes. Zoom eyepieces are, in general, quite narrow in their field of view with only the Zeiss being truly "wide".

Where I can agree fully is that the wide-angle Nikon eyepieces are stunning and do have the "Wow!" factor. The ED82 with 30xW is a delight to use.

Thank You all for your excellent input. The different prespectives helps me look at this from more than one train of thought. It is very helpful.

I am somewhat confused (despite my research) on he 30x eyepieces. If they only had one it would be easy. I am in the New York area and B&H has several 30X eyepieces available. If anyone has experience or can sort out the differences, it would be a great help.

I scanned the 30X on B&H and found this one listed as the brightest in the specifications. Its almost double the other 30x options. If anyone is using it or has another recommendation – please do comment!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...=accessory_detail&addedTroughValue=278365_REG


THANK YOU!
T

Tvc15_2000 said:

Thank You all for your excellent input. The different prespectives helps me look at this from more than one train of thought. It is very helpful.

I am somewhat confused (despite my research) on he 30x eyepieces. If they only had one it would be easy. I am in the New York area and B&H has several 30X eyepieces available. If anyone has experience or can sort out the differences, it would be a great help.

I scanned the 30X on B&H and found this one listed as the brightest in the specifications. Its almost double the other 30x options. If anyone is using it or has another recommendation – please do comment!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=details_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=374593&is=REG&addedTroughType=accessory_detail&addedTroughValue=278365_REG


THANK YOU!
T

Click to expand...

You need the 30xW MC eyepiece; the one you're looking at is especially adapted for photography work.

Here is a link to the Nikon webpage:

http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1135/overview.html

scampo said:

The important areas in which the Nikon zoom is different from others is in field of view (but really noticeable only at lower magnifications) and in eye relief which is a couple of millimetres less than some other makes.

Click to expand...

I hate to disagree Steve but the Nikon FOV isn't narrower at low magnifications. For instance on the EDIII the FOV at 20x is 2.0 degs whereas the Swaro HD65 its 2.06. Where the Nikon falls down is when you zoom in at 60 the FOV drops to 0.96 whereas the Swaro is 1.14. The problem with the Nikon on the 82 is the minimum mag is 25x so its is perceived to be worse. agree about the eye relief.

The zoom image on the ED50 is brilliant. I suspect that optically it is good as the Leica and Swaro but I don't think it is as user friendly.

I would agree though that Fixed eyepieces give a better image but then zooms have more flexibility. You pays your money.......

pduxon said:

I hate to disagree Steve but the Nikon FOV isn't narrower at low magnifications. For instance on the EDIII the FOV at 20x is 2.0 degs whereas the Swaro HD65 its 2.06. Where the Nikon falls down is when you zoom in at 60 the FOV drops to 0.96 whereas the Swaro is 1.14. The problem with the Nikon on the 82 is the minimum mag is 25x so its is perceived to be worse. agree about the eye relief.

The zoom image on the ED50 is brilliant. I suspect that optically it is good as the Leica and Swaro but I don't think it is as user friendly.

I would agree though that Fixed eyepieces give a better image but then zooms have more flexibility. You pays your money.......

Click to expand...

I thought the Nikon zoom (on the ED82) was rather narrower throughout its whole range but only really noticeably so at the lower end. Didn't the Alula review disuss this - or one of the reviews?

scampo said:

I thought the Nikon zoom (on the ED82) was rather narrower throughout its whole range but only really noticeably so at the lower end. Didn't the Alula review disuss this - or one of the reviews?

Click to expand...

Steve

you are sort of right.

My point is that on the EDIII at 20x the zoom has a comparable FOV to the Swaro scopes so it isn't narrow. If the ED82 provided a 20-60 it would be the same. So at low mags the Nikon is capable of a decent FOV BUT because Nikon have gone for power it "seems" narrower. So it is the scope and not the lens.

I think you'll find I've argued before that Nikon made a mistake in going for 25-75.

you may be right about Alula. If you read the ED82 review Optically he likes the zoom its the userbility that he criticises. quite rightly in my view. if Nikon can produced fix lenses as good as the others in ALL aspects why not zooms

I received the 30X fixed magnification eyepiece and have an afternoon of comparing it to the zoom.

Opinions on optics are a little fickle. Some people see a major difference and some don’t. see any difference at all. For some the improvement vs the cost of the improvement are debatable. It’s always helpful to see for yourself, and understand your priorities. For me good image quality is a priority. Based on the excellent feedback I received I felt comfortable going forward and I was not let down.

The zooms obvious advantage of variable magnification is useful. The zoom quality is good and I am not giving up the zoom.

I am bent in the direction of preferring the best quality image I can get (within my budget). The fixed 30X lacks the zoom but makes up for it in quality. I agree with the other posters who feel there is justification for a 30x in my optics. If you are obsessed with the quality of the image, the difference (to me) is quite large between the zoom and the fixed 30X. The 30X colors, sharpness and brightness, all add up to an eye popping image! If I set the zoom to 30X and did not tell you which eyepiece I had in the scope I believe you could tell which was which on the first comparison, and subsequent comparisons.

There are times when more magnification does make a difference for me. But far more often (for me) it’s a change in lighting conditions or the position of the subject that plays a more important role in identification. As my experience grows with these 2 eyepieces I expect given my preference for quality, I will settle on a fixed eyepiece. But I will still keep the zoom for those time when I need it. I can’t afford to purchase several eyepieces. I am wondering how the 38X compares to the 30X if anyone has done that comparison.

I am a little short on technical jargon but I won’t let that stop me.

When comparing the actual eyepieces the rear most element or lens on the zoom is smaller in width than the 30x. The wider rear most element makes viewing easier. I have noticed on Swaro and Leica the rear element of the zoom is much bigger than on the small element of the Nikon zoom. I am not sure why that is. I have seen a similar situations it on some binoculars too. Someone who knows more about this can possibly provide more information. From what I know the front element size is divided by the power to provide the exit pupil size. So my assumption is even though there is more glass on the rear of some optics the amount of light coming out of the pupil is the same as the same scope with a smaller size rear element??? The Nikon element on the zoom is small when compared to Swaro and Leica. The Nikon 30x is larger than the Nikon zoom but still smaller than the Swaro and Leica.

Viewing the 82 through the 30x has canceled all ideas I had getting better quality by switching to another of the top scopes to improve image quality. In practical terms the cost of switching to a Swarovski or Leica scope to improve the image quality would coast me 10 times what the eyepiece cost me or more. The 82 had a lot more performance lurking inside and just needed a better eyepiece to provide it.

Thank you all for your help! Your combined help made it possible for me to sort this all out.

Tvc15_2000 said:

...

Viewing the 82 through the 30x has canceled all ideas I had getting better quality by switching to another of the top scopes to improve image quality. In practical terms the cost of switching to a Swarovski or Leica scope to improve the image quality would coast me 10 times what the eyepiece cost me or more. The 82 had a lot more performance lurking inside and just needed a better eyepiece to provide it.

Thank you all for your help! Your combined help made it possible for me to sort this all out.

Click to expand...

I expect you're pretty pleased, eh? It is a super eyepiece and coupled with the ED82 matches the very best available.

Can't compare like for like 30x and 38x as I've only got the old style rubber eyecup 30/38xW eyepiece to compare against the newer 24/30xW eyepiece. However the main thing against the greater magnification was actually locating the birds, especially on seawatches. The 24/30xW eyepiece is superb.
HTH

Nick

Nikon eyepieces!

Tvc15_2000 said:

I am using a Nikon Fieldscope 82 ED for birding. It seems to compare well with other scopes in its price range and even more expensive scopes from what I have seen under favorable conditions and lighting.

The eyepiece I am currently using is the 25-75x zoom with the 82. The zoom works well. There is significant brightness drop off above 40 power. I think this is normal performance for this magnification at this price point. I am sure for double the price I could get 10% better performance…

My question is – would switching to a fixed magnification eyepiece provide any improvement in image quality, brightness or other advantages? With a fixed magnification eyepiece I would be giving up the ability to of finding the subject at 25 power then zooming in for a closer look.

If you have compared these 2 eyepieces I would be very grateful for your experiences and opinions and preferences. Other experience and insights are welcome too.

When compared to other scopes the diameter of the Nikon pupil lens seems to be much smaller than the Swarovski and Leica. Not sure how effects the final image or enjoyment factor.

Click to expand...

To answer your questions, yes, switching to a fixed magnification would be the way to go. Like you said, the ocular lens is rather small on our eyepieces. Now, this doesn't effect the final performance of the scope (in terms of image quality), however, will make it much more difficult to view through. You may have to strain your eyes more then the average zoom lens. I use the fixed 30x wide eyepiece on my 82 mm scope. Furthermore, zoom is really an attribute that is overrated. On all eyepieces that are manufactured you will naturally lose much light and field of view as you magnify. 30x is a great medium magnification. Give it a try and let us know what you think!

Cheers,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

mfreiberg said:

To answer your questions, yes, switching to a fixed magnification would be the way to go. Like you said, the ocular lens is rather small on our eyepieces. Now, this doesn't effect the final performance of the scope (in terms of image quality), however, will make it much more difficult to view through. You may have to strain your eyes more then the average zoom lens. I use the fixed 30x wide eyepiece on my 82 mm scope. Furthermore, zoom is really an attribute that is overrated. On all eyepieces that are manufactured you will naturally lose much light and field of view as you magnify. 30x is a great medium magnification. Give it a try and let us know what you think!

Cheers,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Click to expand...

Having used both, I really can't say I agree that the Nikon zoom "strained" anything or was "much more difficult".

mfreiberg said:

To answer your questions, yes, switching to a fixed magnification would be the way to go. Like you said, the ocular lens is rather small on our eyepieces. Now, this doesn't effect the final performance of the scope (in terms of image quality), however, will make it much more difficult to view through. You may have to strain your eyes more then the average zoom lens. I use the fixed 30x wide eyepiece on my 82 mm scope. Furthermore, zoom is really an attribute that is overrated. On all eyepieces that are manufactured you will naturally lose much light and field of view as you magnify. 30x is a great medium magnification. Give it a try and let us know what you think!

Cheers,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Click to expand...

Mike et al,

I tried a Nikon zoom on an ED82 and instantly decided I would never like it. Yes, it delivers an optically stellar image, BUT there's not enough eye relief for eyeglasses and the FOV is too narrow for my tastes.

I employ the 30X DS eyepiece almost exclusively on our E82 and I often stand in line to use my own scope! People regularly comment on its wide FOV, brightness and, most of all, clarity of image. I absolutely love the fact that I can effortlessly track birds on the wing with the 30X. It's one thing to study sedentary birds and quite another to track short-eared owls hunting in twilight. I once had three eagles in my FOV with two of them locked in a freefall.

I also use a 50X DS eyepiece when weather is optimal OR when I want perfect close-ups. Imagine long-eared owls at 50' through a 50X wide-angle eyepiece! I find the 50X most useful for getting really wonderful views of birds that aren't very distant.

Usage is probably 95%/30X and 5%/50X. If Nikon builds a worthy zoom I'll buy it along with another scope for my wife. Until then, we're perfectly happy with the 30X on the ED82 scope.

John

PS
When is Nikon going to put SE optics in a watertight porro similar to the Leupold and Minox offerings?