definitive list of eyepieces for FSII/III (1 Viewer)

andyotter · May 11, 2013

As a newbie looking to buy a first proper scope, I'm homing in on used Nikon or Kowa scopes in the 60ED bracket.
My problem is that when I see Nikon models advertised, I know a little about the scopes on offer but am unsure about the EPs. For example, are there different vintages of 30xWides?
I'd find it really useful to have a chronology of eyepieces preferably with model numbers and salient features (e.g. "has turn-slide rubber eyecup"). Can anyone point me to useful sources for this?

NoSpringChicken · May 12, 2013

I don't know if this page will help. As far as I know, lenses 1, 2, 3 and 7 are all older models, with 1 and 7 having fold down rubber eyecups. All the others are the latest versions. I am sure somebody will correct me if this is wrong.

Ron

andyotter · May 12, 2013

NoSpringChicken said:
As far as I know, lenses 1, 2, 3 and 7 are all older models, with 1 and 7 having fold down rubber eyecups. All the others are the latest versions. I am sure somebody will correct me if this is wrong.

Ron

thanks, Ron- So they've kept some EPs (say 24x/30x wide MC) same thro'out it's history, just introduced new ones?
Do they have model nums?

looksharp65 · May 12, 2013

The 24x/30x Wide MC is another optical design than the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS and is not recommended with the ED50.

andyotter · May 12, 2013

Thanks, for comments so far.
I wonder if others would add info to this thread so that it can make useful ref for other beginners like me; which lenses are good for what, any drawbacks/limitations people have found with specific models, etc.
Any contributions greatly appreciated (assume the reader, like me, knows nooothing!:t

.

looksharp65 said:
The 24x/30x Wide MC is another optical design than the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS and is not recommended with the ED50.

Thanks, LookSharp! I noticed this footnote on the Nikon page; any idea why it's not recommended for the ED50?
PS. Liked the Visby link in your signature (I originally thought the title referred to vikingoptical.co.uk!), I'll have to include them in our first visit to Sweden. I was amused by the line "most have aspheric surfaces,[2] demonstrating that knowledge of optical design had been much further developed in the Middle Ages than previously assumed."; why do we 'moderns' assume that our technological advances negate the possibility that others may have achieved similar results by (say) empirical means? Epistemological rant over....

looksharp65 · May 12, 2013

andyotter said:
Thanks, LookSharp! I was amused by the line "most have aspheric surfaces,[2] demonstrating that knowledge of optical design had been much further developed in the Middle Ages than previously assumed."; why do we 'moderns' assume that our technological advances negate the possibility that others may have achieved similar results by (say) empirical means? Epistemological rant over....

Similar lenses have since been found in many countries around the Baltic Sea, and the Swedish Wikipedia site assumes their origin may be the southeast Baltic region. They also assume that they were manufactured by a trial and error method since there were no mathematical formulas for lenses developed at that time, but I question that.

I'm rather thinking that the Vikings, who had a major trade route to Constantinople, may have imported the lenses from the Arabs, who were fantastic mathematicians those days. They may also have enlisted or kidnapped optical craftsmen, and subsequently learned to grind the lenses themselves.

//L

looksharp65 · May 12, 2013

To make things easier: If you decide to go with a 60 mm Fieldscope, go for the ED versions of the II or III.
Since ~30x magnification is pretty standard, go for the 20x/30x/38x Wide MC. If you can live with 24x, the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS is very nice, and the 24x/30x Wide MC should also be fine.
You could complement the setup later if necessary, and the MC II 20-60x zoom might be useful if you have the 30x. If you choose a 24x, you could go for a 27x/40x/50x too, but only if it is an ED scope. I had a non-ED and at 40x, the CA was quite awful now and then.

If you find an ED78/A or an ED82/A, you can expect even more satisfying views, in particular if you want 40x or more magnification. But a 60 mm will easily be capable of handling >90% of the birding situations, as long as you don't exceed 40x unless you have very good light conditions.

andyotter · May 12, 2013

looksharp65 said:
To make things easier: If you decide to go with a 60 mm Fieldscope, go for the ED versions of the II or III.
Since ~30x magnification is pretty standard, go for the 20x/30x/38x Wide MC. If you can live with 24x, the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS is very nice, and the 24x/30x Wide MC should also be fine.
You could complement the setup later if necessary, and the MC II 20-60x zoom might be useful if you have the 30x. If you choose a 24x, you could go for a 27x/40x/50x too, but only if it is an ED scope. I had a non-ED and at 40x, the CA was quite awful now and then.

If you find an ED78/A or an ED82/A, you can expect even more satisfying views, in particular if you want 40x or more magnification. But a 60 mm will easily be capable of handling >90% of the birding situations, as long as you don't exceed 40x unless you have very good light conditions.

Thanks, looksharp; that's a concise & very useful summary. I'd already settled on an ED, thinking it wiser to start with a 60 and go large if I find the need. Now I just need to settle the Nikon/Kowa question!

RJM · May 12, 2013

I have an excellent Kowa 774 Prominar w/20x-60x zoom I can sell for US$1500 shipped. Also have the 30x Wide I can let go too.

Alexis Powell · May 13, 2013

andyotter said:
thanks, Ron- So they've kept some EPs (say 24x/30x wide MC) same thro'out it's history, just introduced new ones?
Do they have model nums?

All of the eyepieces on that page are "recent" production, but some are very old designs, only updated with better coatings and with markings for scopes that came out after their initial introduction (e.g. the 50ED). The other current eyepieces for the traditional fieldscopes are the DS models http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/scopes/ds/index.htm

All of the MC series eyepieces that have twist-up eyecups were preceded by optically identical (but much more compact) WF "wide field" models, which had folding eyecups. By optically identical, I mean the WF have the same optical formula (glass) as the MC, but the coatings on the MC versions are likely slightly better (Note that many of the WF eyepieces were multicoated).

I have a mix of Nikon fixed wide-angle eyepieces of various vintages (WF, MC, and DS models), and I don't find that the newer ones are, practically speaking, better than the older ones for viewing. The DS 16/24/30x has a slightly flatter field than the WF and MC 24/30x, so it is slightly better for digiscoping. I use the 27/40/50x WF on my ED50 rather than the MC version because the WF provides the same view but is more compact than the MC version, and so is a better physical match to that tiny scope.

--AP

andyotter · May 14, 2013

Alexis Powell said:
All of the eyepieces on that page are "recent" production, but some are very old designs, only updated with better coatings and with markings for scopes that came out after their initial introduction (e.g. the 50ED). The other current eyepieces for the traditional fieldscopes are the DS models http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/scopes/ds/index.htm

All of the MC series eyepieces that have twist-up eyecups were preceded by optically identical (but much more compact) WF "wide field" models, which had folding eyecups. By optically identical, I mean the WF have the same optical formula (glass) as the MC, but the coatings on the MC versions are likely slightly better (Note that many of the WF eyepieces were multicoated).

I have a mix of Nikon fixed wide-angle eyepieces of various vintages (WF, MC, and DS models), and I don't find that the newer ones are, practically speaking, better than the older ones for viewing. .

--AP

Thanks Alexis, very useful info ( one of the FSs I'm looking at has the 30 w rubber cups)

andyotter · May 14, 2013

Which DS eyepiece for a FS60 when digiscoping?

I was trying to better my understanding of EPs and read a comment here
which made me wonder whether a smaller mag model like the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS would be better for digiscoping with a FS60 than say a 27x/40x/50x Wide DS (better depth of focus?).
Can anyone throw some light on this? Thanks.

Hermann · May 14, 2013

Alexis Powell said:
All of the MC series eyepieces that have twist-up eyecups were preceded by optically identical (but much more compact) WF "wide field" models, which had folding eyecups. By optically identical, I mean the WF have the same optical formula (glass) as the MC, but the coatings on the MC versions are likely slightly better (Note that many of the WF eyepieces were multicoated).

The multicoated versions have just slightly more contrast. It's really not much, but visible in the field in a direct comparison. The only eyepiece where the difference between the older and the MC version is clearly visible is the old zoom (20x-45x on the EDII/EDIII). The multicoated version is definitely better than the old version in my opinion. I use that on the ED50 because it works well and is smaller and lighter than the new zoom.

BTW, my mother has got a 30x WF on her scope that is optically different from the later versions. It's got a concave eyepiece lens. A very nice eyepiece, actually. She got that immediately after the wideangle eyepieces came onto the market here, so it must be one of the first fixed wideangles.

Hermann

RJM · May 15, 2013

andyotter said:
I was trying to better my understanding of EPs and read a comment here
which made me wonder whether a smaller mag model like the 16x/24x/30x Wide DS would be better for digiscoping with a FS60 than say a 27x/40x/50x Wide DS (better depth of focus?).
Can anyone throw some light on this? Thanks.

For digiscoping, the closer the scope magnification is to ~30x the less vignetting you will have with the camera at its "normal" focal lengths ~35-50mm effective.

andyotter · May 15, 2013

RJM said:
For digiscoping, the closer the scope magnification is to ~30x the less vignetting you will have with the camera at its "normal" focal lengths ~35-50mm effective.

thanks, rjm, I'm looking to get a scope w a 30 wide MC so I'll try handheld with that to start.
Of the DP pieces, tho, which would be easier for a P&S to autofocus with?

woodhornbirder · May 15, 2013

did you win archery gold at the last olympics?

if not then hand holding a 30x steady will be pretty tricky.

tbh i know nothing about cameras

looksharp65 · May 15, 2013

andyotter said:
thanks, rjm, I'm looking to get a scope w a 30 wide MC so I'll try handheld with that to start.
Of the DP pieces, tho, which would be easier for a P&S to autofocus with?

Forget handholding it. It is difficult enough without a camera, but with it it's simply not doable.
From my own experience with the ED82A w/ 30x Wide DS, I get the best results when I choose Scene>Infinity on the camera. If the camera is focused to infinity, then it's the scope's focus you use. Take a pic to determine where the focus is and adjust if necessary. I found that with that camera (the Sony DSC-H20), I need to focus closer than when looking through the scope.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owugkw0tray3kek/DSC02225.JPG

//L

andyotter · May 16, 2013

looksharp65 said:
Forget handholding it. It is difficult enough without a camera, but with it it's simply not doable.
From my own experience with the ED82A w/ 30x Wide DS, I get the best results when I choose Scene>Infinity on the camera. If the camera is focused to infinity, then it's the scope's focus you use. Take a pic to determine where the focus is and adjust if necessary. I found that with that camera (the Sony DSC-H20), I need to focus closer than when looking through the scope.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owugkw0tray3kek/DSC02225.JPG

//L

Thanks again, looksharp* (and very funny,woodhornbirder!). I was thinking of handholding the camera

to try to get some rough and ready snaps from the scope on a tripod; the point being that I'm likely to have a 60 scope with a non-DS EP so can't use one of the FSB adaptors and don't want to get a generic bracket when I hope to go down the DS+FSB adaptor route (see next para).
I still can't get my head around which DS EP would be best for a 60 scope; most people here talk about using a 30x with a 80 scope, but of course the options when scaled down to a 60 scope are 24x and 40x. Sorry to keep banging on about this but I can't afford an expensive mistake!

*lovely shot, btw, what sort of distance was that?
PS> moderators, am aware I've sort of highjacked my own thread; should I re-ask the question in Digiscoping?

Winterdune · May 16, 2013

looksharp65 said:
Similar lenses have since been found in many countries around the Baltic Sea, and the Swedish Wikipedia site assumes their origin may be the southeast Baltic region. They also assume that they were manufactured by a trial and error method since there were no mathematical formulas for lenses developed at that time, but I question that.

I'm rather thinking that the Vikings, who had a major trade route to Constantinople, may have imported the lenses from the Arabs, who were fantastic mathematicians those days. They may also have enlisted or kidnapped optical craftsmen, and subsequently learned to grind the lenses themselves.

//L

I didn't realise the vikings were such serious birders. It figures though - even today many of the best birders are Scandinavian...

looksharp65 · May 16, 2013

seanofford said:
I didn't realise the vikings were such serious birders. It figures though - even today many of the best birders are Scandinavian...

Wasn't aware of that! :brains:

andyotter said:
Thanks again, looksharp* (and very funny,woodhornbirder!). I was thinking of handholding the camera to try to get some rough and ready snaps from the scope on a tripod; the point being that I'm likely to have a 60 scope with a non-DS EP so can't use one of the FSB adaptors and don't want to get a generic bracket when I hope to go down the DS+FSB adaptor route (see next para).
I still can't get my head around which DS EP would be best for a 60 scope; most people here talk about using a 30x with a 80 scope, but of course the options when scaled down to a 60 scope are 24x and 40x. Sorry to keep banging on about this but I can't afford an expensive mistake!

*lovely shot, btw, what sort of distance was that?
PS> moderators, am aware I've sort of highjacked my own thread; should I re-ask the question in Digiscoping?

Thanks! About 30 meters, I think. In fact, I hand-hold the camera against the eyepiece, which has a big, flat surface.
The 16x/24x/30x Wide DS is a lot easier to use this way than the 27x/40x/50x. My camera is a compact superzoom and is not perfect for digiscoping. Perhaps another camera would work better with the 27x/40x/50x.

My advise is you go with the 16x/24x/30x for digiscoping and complement with the 27x/40x/50x for when the 24x magnification is insufficient for long-distance watching.
If you have a camera with high resolution/many MPix you could crop the image to something similar as my shot above.

//L

definitive list of eyepieces for FSII/III (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread