PF65EDAII - Is anyone getting great views at plus 35x?? (1 Viewer)

I took my PF65EDAII out for shore birding with a 14XW, an old japan EP I love, and a 5XW. I compared it to a Nikon 65ED with a zoom eyepiece and a TV85 scope using an 18mm TV Radian (33x).

The results were far from impressive. I find the pentax scope VERY soft in optical performance above 30x - unable to allow one to really enjoy viewing or discerning sandpipers, yellowlegs 100meters away.

I have no real objections to the views at 27x (14XW) except for - just ok contrast. The scope in no way compares to an 80mm scope as the Nikon 65ed blew the doors off it. I also find the focus a bit too coarse for comfort.

I have no doubt that the older pf65ed is a decent scope as I respect Better Views Desired testing. I do question the optical improvements of the new 65II.

I truly may have a bad one. I truly will be returning it. And I truly would love to hear some tack sharp reports in the range of 50x at least! Perhaps I'll reorder.

Thanks
Michael

Where is the new one made? The original was Japan, I reckon.

I did some extensive testing with mine today with the XW14 eyepiece and I agree 100% with the so-so contrast and the coarse focusing adjustment. I also get this annoying half moon black out effect when I try to pan even just a little bit and I have to have my eye at just the right distance from the scope or I do not get edge to edge crispness. If I extend the eyecup all the way out then this is not so much of a problem but if I move the slightest i get the effect. Also the eyecup is not the most ergonomic. In fact it kind of sucks!

I have the older PF65ED with a Vixen 8mm - 24mm Lanthanum eyepiece. I find the combination to be very sharp right out almost to the highest zoom. I did compare it to a Kowa 80mm scope and found that the chromatic aberation is worse on the Pentax.

As far as black-out, as I reported elsewhere on this site, the Vixen eyepiece has very bad black-out problems at the very lowest and highest zoom. But anywhere in between it is fine (at least for this glasses wearer with the eyepiece folded down). So, I just zoom in a little from the lowest zoom and I am fine.

Nightheron, perhaps you should get yourself a Vixen eyepiece and try it out. I think they hve come down in price some (only about $150 now). Seems a shame that you are having so much trouble with that expensive XW14 eyepiece. They're supposed to be great. Sounds like it has too much eye-relief.

Mike,
I know it's not relevant but just for the record...

My Pentax 100mm gives me good terrestial views out to 124x using Bugess/TMB planetaries (5mm).

My Pentax 80mm handles the Burgess/TMB Planitaries at 75x well (7mm)

Sparrow

Well, I can't say enough good about my PF65 EDA II and the XW 14. I just ordered the XF 8.5mm so I'll check that out next week.

I did some extensive testing with mine today with the XW14 eyepiece and I agree 100% with the so-so contrast and the coarse focusing adjustment. I also get this annoying half...

Click to expand...

That part is true, the focusing is too coarse, hard to get final best focus. But I am OK up to 49x.

Tero,

I have been out of the loop too long. When did you get rid of the Vixen and pick up a Pentax ED scope? I assume, based on your comments, that you have the ED II and not the original? Also based on the above comments I am glad I have the original model. I have not had any of the reported problems above at views up to about 50x with various astro eyepieces. I only have the Pentax XW in the 20 mm model and that I find absolutely stunning optically.

I haven't been around for a while either but I have the WO Zoom II on my 65 EDAII and it resolves fantastic detail at 7.5mm 52x.

I have the Pentax 65mm ED II. I would not say it has major problems, but the focus knob is a little too sensitive. My eye piece is Vixen, I can't say anything of the use of the Pentax zoom. My old scope is a Raven, and the full range from close to infinity is more turns of the knob.

defective PF-65 ED II

Here’s a relevant tale of Pentax PF-65ED optical quality at ~30x and higher.

Last month, based on my recommendations, some good friends ordered a Pentax PF-65ED II from Eagle Optics and a Baader Hyperion 13 mm eyepiece from another supplier. Their hope was to equal or better the view that they loved from my Nikon 78 ED with 30x WA but at a lower cost than the Nikon 82 ED (now only available with zoom eyepiece) plus 30x WA.

When they first looked through their PF-65ED II they were quite pleased with the view, but soon after (within minutes) began to suspect that something was wrong and that the scope wasn’t delivering the detail that it should. Though not optics fanatics, they have proven in the past to be hard to satisfy and to be quite wary of lemons when selecting binoculars. I dropped by the next day to have a look at the scope in hopes of assuring them that it was fine (they tend toward the paranoid side when evaluating new optics and often have second thoughts after making purchases).

The view through the Baader Hyperion was indeed impressive--wider and flatter than my Nikon 30x78ED in direct comparison (modern astro eyepieces sure are amazing for their quality and low prices in comparison to the proprietary designs of the birding scope makers). However, there was indeed something wrong. Although the overall view appeared to come into sharp focus, very fine details were lost and there was a lack of fine-scale contrast. When viewing black print on white paper it appeared as if the white was smeared into the black and vice-versa. Although we lacked any higher powered astro eyepieces at the time, we managed to temporarily install an eyepiece from a Bushnell Spacemaster as well as a Nikon 25-75x Fieldscope eyepiece, look at some artificial stars, and quickly conclude that the problem was with the scope body, not the Hyperion eyepiece. The diffraction patterns were bizarre in comparison to my Nikon scope and the star test pictures I’ve seen in books and on the internet. I don’t have enough experience, nor did we probably have enough magnification, to diagnose the exact nature of the problem but it appeared that at least severe coma and some astigmatism were involved. In addition, the distorted ring/blob defocused light point had a bright magenta coloration, especially around the outside, whereas in my Nikon it was rendered as fairly color-neutral rings of light.

I advised them to return the scope to EO and get a replacement (and keep doing that if necessary until they got a satisfactory unit). They did return the scope body, but in talking with someone at EO were told that their scope was not a lemon, but rather, a better than average sample. It seems these days that getting good and honest advice/info from EO is more hit and miss than it used to be (or at least I think it used to be). Based on this statement, my friends decided to give up on the whole project (very unfortunately, in my opinion—I wish they’d contacted me again for some encouragement to stick with getting a good PF-65), got a refund, went to Cabelas’, tried a bunch of scopes, and walked out with a Nikon Prostaff. Their expectations for it are lower, but they are satisfied that it is much better than the faulty Pentax and are happy to have saved a few dollars (at least for now).

--AP

I think it was a lemon. I have not found fault with my Pentax. Mine is straight, by the way, not angled.

Bummer on the bad scope. Mine is superb. I have used the Pentax XW14, XF 8.5 and the WO Zoom II.

Tried some digiscoping with the Vortex adapter and Nikon Coolpix L11. Goldeneyes fairly close, some 16-20x on the Vixen zoom, and a distant Bald Eagle with more zoom. The Coolpix did not focus very well on the eagle, it was quite clear in the scope to the eye, but dark due to backlight. The attachmnet with the VOrtex is not all that sturdy. And the zoom has to be set before, you can't zoom after the camera is on. My tripod, Manfrotto!, was less than ideal. The scope alone is fine, this throws balance out of whack.

Tero,
It looks like you are getting a lot of CA with that configuration.

SF

I could live with some CA. When viewing with the scope, it does not have as much CA as my Monarch 10x42 binoculars. But the focus is a problem. The camera is pretty simple. And it was not the best day, tripod was shaking in the wind. The eagle was a few hundred feet away at least.

This was a Vixen zoom. I am getting a Pentax fixed 30x in a week.

I now have my 12mm Pentax eye piece. I like it. I never had anything that worked with glasses on before.

The Vixen zoom is nothing to be ashamed of, and is at least as bright as the Pentax XF 12mm at 30x or so. I would not want a higher power, as it would be dim at the XF quality. The Vixen eye piece is till quite good to 45x, and slowly dims from 45x to 49x, its high limit. The only slight fault of the Vixen is the rubber eye cup. But I have it folded back at all times.

All very well for a 65mm scope. My 78mm Raven is worse for dimness past 45x. On the other hand, the Raven is not the worst, still OK at 45x. I have seen worse beginner scopes.

I took the 12mm out at sunset, and I had a hard time reading stickers on a licence plate. Maybe in full sunlight.

I will have to compare to the 78mm Raven at 30x. I only have one tripod now.

Tested the 12mm on the Pentax and my Raven at 30x. Both looked equally bright. The Pentax is more travel ready, compact. The Raven, of course zooms to 60x, and I did not see any more detail at 60x than 45x, but the tripod was way too shaky at 60x. I need to work on this tripod now, one leg fell off. Manfrotto!

A new tip for would be digiscopers: buy the eye pieces first, then the adapter. Similar diameter is good for eye pieces.

My Vortex Universal, which the internet store did a switch on me, is listed as 43-65mm, and it does not fit the 12mm eye piece. I adjusted it with card board and left the eye cup on. The Vixen zoom fit fine. Here is a digiscoped picture of a book cover with the 12mm, basement light was poor. I did not want to shop for a bunch of adapters, but may have to.

By the way, you can see CA on the edge of the book, but the bird looks fine.