• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Substitute for telescope (1 Viewer)

sandp

Member
For coastal birding I use a Swarovski on a tripod but am averse to carrying all that weight and bulk when inland (woods and fields). A telescope is useful sometimes and I have recently bought a Nikon 50ED and a strut/stock to mount it on. This hasn't been the success I hoped because I can't hold the scope still enough, even at low magnification. I'm wondering if IS bins would be better, say 15x. This would mean carrying two pairs of bins. Has anyone tried IS bins instead of a scope?
 
Which eyepiece are using...the zoom or a fixed power wide angle? I have used the Ed 50 with a shoulder stock and the 16x wide angle eyepiece and found the combination potent for when I wanted a little more magnification than my binoculars.
 
I'm using the zoom eyepiece, narrow field of view and always the temptation to zoom up. I hoped that 15x IS bins would be the equivalent of 20x handheld scope.
 
You may not need two sets of binoculars with the 15xIS.
At least judging by the experience of some of the local birders here in NYC, the big Canon 15x50IS is quite effective as an all round birding glass, even though its fairly narrow FoV (4.5*) puts a heavy premium on the users pointing ability when looking at warblers in the trees.
For out by the water's edge, looking through the peeps, 15x is wonderful. Ditto for the offshore crowd, ducks, scoters etc. Much more flexible than a scope and much more comfortable to use.
Of course, the glass is a brick, so a good harness is a must. Moreover, not everyone is comfortable using a 15x glass, even though the stabilization really helps greatly.
Maybe you can borrow a set for a test outing and see if they work for you?
 
Seconded with the canons. I've a pair of 12x36s and love them, fov I find is fine on those and rock steady to hold with IS engaged. Quite steady without too! Just make sure you take a couple of sets of AA batteries with you for spares.
 
Thanks everyone for the advice. Etudiant's point about using IS on the coast is something I hadn't thought of - I'll see if I can borrow a pair.
 
I use the 15X Canon for birding on the coast and my local estuary. Where these bins score is during strong winds/gales, the IS irons out all the vibrations you get with normal bins and idying birds becomes very easy. I find no problem using them in woodland either where I can lock onto and track birds very easily, plus I can bird all day with these around my neck.

Chris.
 
I thought I would check out the 12x36 IS for the Halibut. I've always been curious but yellow when it came to this model. Like the compactness and light weight, but going just 2x power up from the 10x30 is more than an incremental price increase, usually about twice the price, but now they are almost THREE times as much. Damn yen! That's what the 15x50s used to cost at one point!

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/canon/canon-image-stabilized-12x36-ii-binocular

<B>
 
Since buying my first telescope in 1975 (Nickel Supra) I have regularly used a monopod. Very useful in hilly country as it can be used as a trekking pole on awkward descents.
I am not suggesting a monopod is as good as a tripod (which I used where appropriate) but how many birders carry tripods on the hills or on longish treks? I currently use a Gitzo aluminium monopod which is particularly well made. My first Tiltall monopod lasted me over 30 years. It goes without saying that a stay on case and carrying strap is desirable. I use a Nikon 60mm Fieldscope or a 30x75 Swarovski draw tube.
 
Well, I've had a 15x50 for almost 10 yrs (Apr 03) and purchased it for the same reason you're considering one.....where I live is quite windy most of the time, which makes shorebirding at the local lakes tricky w/o the IS. I too, was using a scope/tripod but didn't like having to get it set up, etc, when I saw something a ways out. The big Canon has been just the thing. It has a few quirks & foibles, but what glass doesn't? I use it more than the other 5 in the stable by quite a margin....and it's worked flawlessly. It is, however, a battery eater if ya use the IS a lot.
 
I find the IS 10x30's stupidly good for astronomy under dark skies. They are always a hit at star parties. It's a different tool than a telescope, whether for birding, wildlife viewing, or astronomy but one I'm very glad to have.
 
I have used the Zeiss 20x60 S for more than 10 years now and it fits my needs to perfection.
Of course we're very much in compromise-territory here (we're compromising with all optical equipment of course but here especially so). So I'm aware the 20x60 binocular is probably not completely on the level of a top level scope but what I know is that the Zeiss is very, very sharp, it has an ocular for both my eyes (I simply refuse to look with only one), it has a far better FoV than a scope and last but not least I can take the beast anywhere with no problem at all. With respect to the latter, note that I don't own a car and do like cycling and hiking. My birding trips are usually long walks of 10 to 15 kilometers and 90% of the time I have the Zeiss with me, in the rucksack. Here in the Netherlands we're blessed with a couple of islands off the north coast and they're superb for birding. Consider sea watching: put on a tripod the Zeiss 20x60 is excellent for the task, but the thing I like to do is stroll the beach for kilometers on length, all on my own, no bather or birder in sight, no tripod on my back, just the stablilized, double-barrel 20x60. As far as I'm concerned birding doesn't come much better.

Renze
 
Last edited:
Renze,

As a long-time hater of scopes, due to many reasons, I have flirted with the idea of the 20x60 as a substitute.

How does the 20x60 compare, optically, to current alpha's, in terms of sharpness, contrast, brightness etc. I don't expect them to measure up in all categories but would like a very good instrument for the price they ask.

And, have your 20x60's proven to be durable? That is my big concern - breaking the things and having to spend $3000 to have them fixed!

Thanks...
 
I think it will easily outresolve any binocular handheld including the 50mm Canon IS.
the Takahashi 22 x 60 might be better but is more a binocular telescope and it is not stabilized.
No hand held held alpha has a hope of equalling the central resolution of the Zeiss.
The Zeiss will split a 6.5 arcsecond equal double star with good sight.
The 18 x 50 Canon IS perhaps 9 arcseconds.
This is for central resolution, it has a curved field, which may be o.k. for a young person.
The only thing you need is to be very strong as it is heavy and not as user friendly as the Canons.
It is close to astro quality.
As to longevity you have to ask a long time user.
If you cannot afford repairs, which it may not need, then maybe it is not for you.
As far as I know there is no binocular to equal it, however, it may not give as accurate colour renditions for birders as an alpha, as I am not a birder and don't know.
 
There is - and this is a serious option - using the eyepiece or screen of a Canon SX50 HS as something that will be useful for stuff out of good 10X42 range.

The IS is so good that it is easily usable to use handheld up to max zoom.

You can grab a pic too, while you are about it.

David
 
Binastro,

Thanks for your evaluation. With the scarcity of users, and so opinions, of the Zeiss 20x60S this is much appreciated.

James,

I concur with binastro that there could be 20x60 binoculars around with better optical performance than the Zeiss (but you'll need a tripod for these and so you're back on scope ground). The implication here is that there's room for improvement in the Zeiss and yes, that's true. I think that a second generation 20x60S would be considerably improved with the latest Schott glass as applied in the HT range of binoculars, as well as with coatings like those used in the FL range. Also, the eye-ocular interface with its Dialyt-type hard eyecups is uncomfortable, old-fashioned and yes, seriously obsolete.
That said however, it's still a miracle to me that I have been using the big Zeiss for so long without complaints. Note that the 20x60 is always used alongside state of the art 8x40 or 8x56 binoculars with considerable better light transmission. The 20x60 is by nature far dimmer than these low power, large exit pupil instruments, but I can't remember being seriously disappointed by that. I think it tells something about its resolution.
Another flaw is its susceptibility to lateral CA. One should be prepared to carefully keep the object in the center of the viewing circle to bring the best out of the instrument. Which brings me to a crucial factor involved in the use of the 20x60S in general: experience. This is definitely no point&shoot, grab&go binocular. The instrument has a character of its own, and so you'll have to learn to adjust to its idiosyncrasies. But why not, the reward is considerable.
With respect to price and costs of servicing, yes, this is necessarily a very expensive instrument. However there's a good second hand market where you'll pay 50% of the retail price, round about 2500 Euro or 3000 USD. Servicing is expensive as well because Zeiss will strip the instrument completely to make sure the stabilizing mechanism is behaving to perfection. If I'm not mistaken Zeiss asks 1500 Euro for it.
So there's the question of durability. How sturdy is the big Zeiss? Well, all I can say is that I'm surprised. My instrument is still in the same condition, optically and mechanically, as it was when I bought it. I'd say it's a well constructed optical instrument.

Renze
 
Renze and Binastro,
I enjoyed both astro and orno accounts of the 20x60 mythic beast.

6.5" sounds about right for 20x, but do you mean the stabilization is so good you can just stand there flatfooted and do that!? I can get 14" with 10x, but only well braced.

Strolling on a lonely beach with such a honking Zeiss is what I might be allowed to do in heaven, if I get my act on earth together real fast. Maybe better get it while I can...
Ron
 
Renze and Binastro,
I enjoyed both astro and orno accounts of the 20x60 mythic beast.

6.5" sounds about right for 20x, but do you mean the stabilization is so good you can just stand there flatfooted and do that!? I can get 14" with 10x, but only well braced.

Strolling on a lonely beach with such a honking Zeiss is what I might be allowed to do in heaven, if I get my act on earth together real fast. Maybe better get it while I can...
Ron

Ron,

I don't know anything about arc seconds but I do know that I'm able to stand flatfooted and enjoy excellent views with no help from a tripod. Although I'm shy with hurricanes I can take a breeze with ease. Sometimes I will take a tripod along if I'm observing from a fixed spot but the foremost reason here is to allow my arm muscels some rest and take longer views. There is no marked improvement in resolution although the combination of tripod and stabilizing mechanism will give slightly better results over the tripod alone (an indication of how subtle the mechanism works). Note that the stabilization mechanism is designed to cancel out a certain range of vibrations and leave others, notable those with higher ampliude, untouched. With the result that some people complain about sea sickness while using the 20x60S. To me this is yet another proof of the Zeiss' excellence, being able to detect ailments in people they wouldn't have encountered otherwise.

Renze
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top