Living Bird 2008 Scope Review (1 Viewer)

FrankD posted this on another site. I thought it would be of interest here to.

FrankD said:

For you folks with an interest in or who are shopping for spotting scopes I just noticed this link from the EO website....

http://www.livingbird.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=272&srcid=265#top

A pdf copy of the results is here....

http://www.livingbird.org/netcommunity/bbimages/lb/pdf/ScopeChart2008.pdf

Click to expand...

Of interest to me was the inclusion of the Bushnell Elite in the "mid-priced ($1000-1500)" category when I've never seen it sell for anything more than $700. I suppose that's Bushnell's fault for listing MSRPs that are just ridiculously out of whack with their products' actual real-world price points. (I've never seen anyone do this nearly as blatantly as Bushnell always has.) The Nikon ED 50 and Pentax PF 65II also seem to be similarly mis-placed in the same "mid priced ($1000 - $1500)" category.

Also of note were the fairly damning comments about the Vortex Skyline series as well as the equally high praise given to the Stokes Sandpiper.

I'm not sure I agree with everything the author posted but, I was certainly pleased to finally read a review where honest opinions were shared as opposed to the watered-down, always complimentary, virtual advertisements we normally get to read.

Bravo, Cornell and Living Bird.

Hi lucznik,

Thanks for the great post and links. Thanks also to FrankD, and another "Bravo" to Cornell and Living Bird.

I noticed that the eyepiece used for testing the Nikon scopes was the 13-40x (50mm)...20-60x (60mm)...25-75x (82mm). There are many posts in the Nikon sub-forum stating the low eye relief for that particular eyepiece. I also noticed that the Nikon rankings suffered the most in that category. I suspect that they would have placed higher with either the WA eyepiece or the 16-45x (50mm) eyepiece.

Thanks again,

Ron

lucznik said:

Of interest to me was the inclusion of the Bushnell Elite in the "mid-priced ($1000-1500)" category when I've never seen it sell for anything more than $700. I suppose that's Bushnell's fault for listing MSRPs that are just ridiculously out of whack with their products' actual real-world price points. (I've never seen anyone do this nearly as blatantly as Bushnell always has.) The Nikon ED 50 and Pentax PF 65II also seem to be similarly mis-placed in the same "mid priced ($1000 - $1500)" category.

Also of note were the fairly damning comments about the Vortex Skyline series as well as the equally high praise given to the Stokes Sandpiper.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I will definitely add it to my collection of reviews. I have learned to take these reviews with a grain of salt though, especially because of the variability among individual scopes of the same model, and in the past we have seen dramatic differences in the conclusions of reviews (e.g. some reviews stating that the Pentax 80 mm has the best optics while others indicating it is second rate--this review does not even rate that scope, by the way). This review conflicts with several other reviews, for example, in rating the Zeiss below the Swarovski's and the Leica; other reviews that came out before the new Kowas have rated it tops in resolution. But it was interesting to see another review that claimed that the Kowa 773 was also one notch above every regular spotting scope except the 883.

Regarding the Vortex Skyline, it should first be emphasized that almost all the other scopes in the review cost more than the skyline. There were only two scopes that cost as much or less than the non-ED skyline, and of those only another vortex produced scope (the Stokes Sandpiper) was rated higher. But the Sandpiper has a maximum zoom of 45x, and its image at maximum zoom was compared with the image of 60x scopes, like the skyline, at 60x, so the comparison was skewed in favor of lower power scopes. The skyline was also rated higher than three scopes that cost more. With respect to the textual comments regarding the skyline they say:

"The two bulky Vortex Skyline 80 models were definitely outclassed by all of the Vixens and the Sandpiper, with the ED glass version barely improving image quality."

All the vixens cost more than the Vortex Skyline non-ED; moreover, the two top-rated vixens have a maximum zoom of 48x, so were given an unfair advantage over the Skyline in the maximum zoom comparison. (By the way, I had never heard of this brand before, and they do not seem to be widely available in the U.S.). In any event, the review does nothing to challenge the non-ED skyline's position as arguably the best scope under $500 (which one review site dubbed it) -- at least if you want a 60x scope. But the Sandpiper, which the article suggests may be the best buy of all, definitely looks worthy of consideration if you do not mind sacrificing the upper zoom range.

Jim

P.S.: Having compared a skyline directly with a Kowa 883 and Swarovski 80, I found it comparable, though of course not equal, to both those scopes at 20x. Thus, I suspect that the reviewers may have had a bad sample of the skyline-- even though, fairly interpreted, I think it came out fairly well in the ratings considering its price. I have also read reports of a lot of sample variation among the Bushnell elite scopes, so I wonder if they may have had a particularly good sample there.

I should probably hold my tongue about this latest Living Bird optics "test", but these things never fail to irritate me. As usual, none of us can tell whether their rankings mean anything because they don't know what they have actually tested. Are some of these scopes unusually good samples and others lemons? They have no idea because they failed to carry out any basic objective optical tests.

henry link said:

I should probably hold my tongue about this latest Living Bird optics "test", but these things never fail to irritate me. As usual, none of us can tell whether their rankings mean anything because they don't know what they have actually tested. Are some of these scopes unusually good samples and others lemons? They have no idea because they failed to carry out any basic objective optical tests.

Click to expand...

Those are good points to emphasize. The basis of this review seems to be nothing more than taking a preference poll among a bunch of birders just looking through a bunch of scopes. There was not even an attempt to provide the testers with any sort of ready way to compare resolution, such as a chart placed at a distance. The following quotes reproduce what little is said about methodology:
But on the other hand, I think both formal and informal tests have merit. Birders do not conduct star tests or other objective tests while birding, so knowing what scopes a bunch of birders prefer in informal interaction with the scopes is not useless information. (Though sample variation could skew this type of subjective test also; and as you say, objective tests could provide clues as to whether sample variation was a problem).

Jim

henry link said:

I should probably hold my tongue about this latest Living Bird optics "test", but these things never fail to irritate me. As usual, none of us can tell whether their rankings mean anything because they don't know what they have actually tested...

Click to expand...

So true. It also falls down w/respect to providing some fundamental details of good, practical advice. And the number of bone-headed comments it contains is disturbing.

Including composite ratings (ranks) in reviews is a ridiculous practice that serious reviewers should pledge to refrain from doing. Using manufacturer-supplied close-focus and FOV specs is an irritating practice as well, and grouping models by their list price is nothing short of ridiculous. Also, even if tests are done with zoom eyepieces, it would be very useful to know whether fixed power eyepieces are available as these are increasingly rare, especially for inexpensive models.

Reviewers should do their homework, at least for anything that they take the trouble to comment on. For example, I'm baffled by the high praise for the Nikon 50ED followed by the caution (twice given in the article) that it doesn't work for glasses wearers. The bright image up to 30x is noted, but the fact that the zoom maxes out at 40x is not mentioned. A much better analysis would have mentioned the availability of the 27x WA fixed eyepiece, which delivers nearly all this little scope is capable of to glasses wearers and non-glasses wearers alike (and a wider FOV to boot). Another example is the attention given (twice in the article) to the 66mm Kowa scopes based on the performance of the new big Kowas. The former have been out for some years now, have been reviewed, and are known to be a weak offering, especially for their price.

Just my random comments, expressed with enough precision to suggest accuracy,

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

Another example is the attention given (twice in the article) to the 66mm Kowa scopes based on the performance of the new big Kowas. The former have been out for some years now, have been reviewed, and are known to be a weak offering, especially for their price.

Click to expand...

Those comments puzzled me also. I wondered if they were a reference to some new Kowa models that I had not heard of, but I think you are right and the author must just be misinformed about that issue.

Jim

The 80mm Swaro with zoom and case will cost you $3000 (USD)

A Nikon ED82 with a 25-75 zoom, case AND a gorgeous 30X wide eyepiece will cost you about $1600. Nikon's 25-75 zoom is optically superb, but much too short on eye relief and general user-friendliness. The 30X DS eyepiece on my ED82 scope, however, never fails to amaze me. Sure, I miss an ID now and then, but for pure enjoyment it’s unbeatable. One could bird a lifetime with this combination...you'll never read that in any review.

John

John,

I thought we might be hearing from some aggrieved Nikon owners. The "testers" seem to have disliked the FOV and eye relief of the current Nikon zoom eyepiece so much that they were completely blinded to the quite excellent basic optics of the Fieldscopes (provided the samples they tested were good ones).

Putting aside odd findings and errors about particular scopes and the thoroughly stupid system of rankings, this article is peppered with errors and misconceptions about basic optics. "bone-headed comments", as AP eloquently put it. It's shameful that a bunch of smart people at Cornell continue to do such a bad job with these optics tests. Alas, in spite of their shortcomings they are still taken very seriously by many birders, who simply go to the top of the list to make their purchase decisions.

Henry

henry link said:

John,

I thought we might be hearing from some aggrieved Nikon owners. The "testers" seem to have disliked the FOV and eye relief of the current Nikon zoom eyepiece so much that they were completely blinded to the quite excellent basic optics of the Fieldscopes (provided the samples they tested were good ones).

Putting aside odd findings and errors about particular scopes and the thoroughly stupid system of rankings this article is peppered with errors and misconceptions about basic optics. "bone-headed comments", as AP eloquently put it. It's shameful that a bunch of smart people at Cornell continue to do such a bad job with these optics tests. Alas, in spite of their shortcomings they are still taken very seriously by many birders, who simply go to the top of the list to make their purchase decisions.

Henry

Click to expand...

Hi Henry,

I am not sure you are being completely fair here. The optical quality rankings clearly show the Nikon fieldscope near the top of the heap. At 20x (which is actually 25x in the case of the fieldscope), it is shown as second only to the Kowas, the Swarovskis, and the Televues. So anyone for whom optical quality is the top concern, who takes the time to read the chart, will clearly be informed that the Nikon is a scope to take very seriously -- especially considering its relatively low price.

Regarding criticizing birders for taking such tests seriously, I think the problem is better and/or additional information is not readily available-- especially up-to-date information. Not every birder has the time to read this forum every day, or subscribe to multiple birding journals, or perform their own tests on multiple scopes, for example. I am sure I am not the only one who would be happy to see more information available on the Internet. But I think the Cornell people do a useful service by supplying an up-to-date survey where the only other survey I am aware of that is available on the Internet was done around 2004. And of course, it is not like the Cornell people are getting paid to do this. (At least so far as I know).

Best,
Jim

P.S.: And if birders simply go to the "top of the list" to make their decision based on the chart here, they will be getting what even optics aficionados agree is optically the best scope out there.

I have a few issues with this review.

They always test these with the zoom eyepiece. Many of us don't like/want a zoom eyepiece. Some of these scopes attain their greatness with a fixed focal length EP.
If they targeted 30x (or there abouts) as the point of reference to compare these scopes, zoom EP or not, it might make a more useful comparison.

One example I have is I use to have a Fujinon ED80 scope that came with the standard 20-60 EP. Pretty mediocre. When I replaced that EP with the 30X wide field the scope became a superstar. Comparing favorably with the best scopes of the day.

And BTW, I'd hold up my Pentax PF80 with the XW14 eyepiece (36X) to any scope they have and I'd bet it wouldn't be bested.

Oh, and just where was the PF80? Kind of a glaring omission, wouldn't you say?

Editorial: The quality of the view, ease of use, and sharpness mostly comes down to eyepieces. Among the major players with ED optics there probably isn't a huge difference in the optics of the scope body. They are actually quite simple instruments. The key are the eyepieces.

Hi Jim,

The Nikon ED82 is ranked 13th which I think practically eliminates it from consideration by most people. Image quality at 20x strikes me as a useless category. It might as well be called "image quality at a magnification too low to tell whether a scope is good or not". If you look at 60x the Nikon receives a score of 3.9 which is lower than several much smaller scopes (Swaro 65-4.3, Zeiss 65-4.0 and even the TeleVue 60-4.7!). Image quality scores are said to be based on "sharpness, brightness, color, etc.". The Nikon's downfall must be its performance in the "etc" category since, based on aperture alone, it will be considerably sharper and brighter than the 60-65mm scopes at 60x and Nikon color accuracy (if that's what "color' means) is excellent. The Cornell tests have been full of oddities like this since the first one I read 20 years ago.

I'm sure the new Kowas are good, but the lower rankings and especially the lower price ranges are more problematical, almost certainly in many cases based on nothing more than comparing strong specimens of some scopes to weak specimens of others.

Henry

henry link said:

The Nikon ED82 is ranked 13th which I think practically eliminates it from consideration by most people. Image quality at 20x strikes me as a useless category. It might as well be called "image quality at a magnification to low to tell whether a scope is good or not".

Click to expand...

Hi Henry,

You are pretty funny when you get riled up. ;-) But I think what clearly drags the ED82 down is the eye relief score; it is by far the lowest in the group (at least if we eliminate the other Nikon scope). This does make it unsuitable for probably the majority of birders who could afford it -- since I would expect the majority of those wear glasses.

For those who do not wear glasses, the author makes a point of emphasizing it may be a suitable choice:

"Rounding out the most expensive category were the Nikon Fieldscopes and the smaller Optolyth models. Nikon says that their scopes were designed “with the birder in mind,” and optically these scopes are sharp and bright, but their design is not as user friendly as some of the other scopes—especially for birders who wear eyeglasses. The focus ring is stiff, and the narrow ring on the zoom eyepiece is hard to find and turn and even harder to read. Worse still for eyeglass wearers is the pinhole of an objective opening that creates tunnel views, even at lower magnification. But because the Nikon Fieldscopes are easy to find at discounted prices, they may offer the non-bespectacled birder an excellent image at half the cost of the other top scopes."

(Emphasis added). Now if birders only look at the chart, and only at the aggregate rankings, they may be misled about the Nikon. But I do not think we can blame the author for those who do not read the review or bother to understand the chart.

Cheers,
Jim

Hi all,

Interesting posts and opinions. I still maintain that the zoom eyepiece used to test the Nikons was one of the worst (out of eyepiece options), especially for eye relief, but also for performance at the high end of magnification. I am almost certain that if one of the fixed eyepieces (especially the WA or WA Digi) were used for the tests, then the results for the Nikons would have been sustantially higher.

I am glad that Cornell made the effort to test the various scopes, and I do find some merit in the results. I do wish that more effort had been put into reviewing the scopes with more than one eyepiece. Even just testing each model with one zoom and one fixed eyepiece would have been beneficial to most in search of purchasing a scope. I think that most of the scopes tested would rank differently depending on which eyepieces were used, some better, some worse. I think that the Nikons would have scored significantly higher with one of the eyepieces mentioned above.

Ron

One of the problems I think any reviewer will inevitably run into is that they will never be able to do true, comprehensive, scientifically valid tests. The time, effort, money, etc. involved in such an endeavor would be prohibitive and besides, almost noone would read it.

They are writing to the masses here, not really to optics "fanatics." They have to tailor the writing to the audience. I was just pleased to see some less-than-glowing remarks made about the kings of the pack as this kind of objectivity is sorely lacking in most magazine articles. This alone is a big step for a magazine to make and I, for one, am happy to see their efforts. Whether I agreed with every opinion offered is beside the point. What's important is that an actual, real opinion was expressed opening the way for an interesting conversation.

Writing about fixed eyepieces involves another, similar problem. Although there is a lot of praise given fixed eyepieces on message boards such as this one, reality is that the vast majority of people buy scopes with zoom eyepieces and then never make any changes. This is one of the reasons very few scopes are even offered with fixed eyepieces as a standard feature. Such scopes just don't sell in sufficient numbers to justify taking up space on the store shelf. In this they are not unlike the 7x30 binocular wish you so often read about here. People "in the know" sure might like them but, they're aren't enough of such people nor do they buy optics in sufficient quantities to justify the expense of mass marketing them. So, to do a review on fixed eyepieces eliminates a lot of your audience because most people will simply think, "this doesn't apply to me because my scope has a zoom."

What you guys are asking for is highly technical, highly specialized reviews to be published in magazines that are generally marketed to a much broader audience. This just won't happen. Here's the bigger challenge; put together a magazine filled with the kinds of optics articles you are asking to be able to read and then see how large of a readership you attract. (I'll give you a hint: it won't be enough to keep your publication in mass circulation.)

Jim,

We can speculate, but we can't actually tell what was found wanting in the image of the ED82 at 60x since the score is based on the absurd practice of combining completely different kinds of qualities (some unspecified!) into a single number. Eye relief shouldn't have been used as one of the unnamed "etc' items contributing to the "image" score since it's the main item in the "eye" score. Two score downgrades should not occur for the same thing, but the thinking is so sloppy I suppose it's possible.

Henry

This sentence caught my eye:

"If you’re on a tight budget, however, and high power is not essential, choosing an inexpensive scope with a fixed, low-power eyepiece might be the best option."

There are few inexpensive scopes with fixed low-power eyepieces. The Pentax line allows you to use any 1.25" eyepiece, but I wouldn't call these inexpensive scopes. The classic Bushnell Spacemasters offer a 25x wide-angle eyepiece, but it sucks for eye relief.

In fact, inexpenisve scopes *should* be the ones that offer fixed, low-power eyepieces. A quality eyepiece (and admittedly a good prism) is the most important part of the optical equation. Slapping together two crown and flint glass elements for the objective and giving them some decent multicoatings is simple and inexpensive for a manufacturer. What ruins most inexpensive scopes is a zoom eyepiece with bad resolution and shallow eye relief that is virtually useless at anything other than its lowest power.

Personally, I would love to own 60mm scope with a fixed 20x eyepiece with good field of view and eye relief. And if more birdwatchers were educated that they could have excellent optical quality if only they gave up their belief that ZOOM is better, more good inexpensive scopes would be offered.

The problem is that consumers are used to relatively inexpensive video and still cameras that have ZOOM lenses with ridiculous ranges. Also people are impressed with BIG numbers.

Pretty much, amateur optical educators (AOEs) have convinced new birders to ignore zoom binoculars -- because of bad field of view, bad eye relief and bad resolution. AOEs have also had some success in convincing birders (and other nature observers) that 7-10x is sufficient for the average binocular user.

Why then do we tolerate the notion that zoom lenses in expensive scopes is a good idea?

henry link said:

Eye relief shouldn't have been used as one of the unnamed "etc' items contributing to the "image" score since it's the main item in the "eye" score. Two score downgrades should not occur for the same thing, but the thinking is so sloppy I suppose it's possible.

Click to expand...

I meant eye relief is what dragged the scope down in the overall ranking; I was not referring to the image quality score.

Jim

trashbird said:

Pretty much, amateur optical educators (AOEs) have convinced new birders to ignore zoom binoculars -- because of bad field of view, bad eye relief and bad resolution. AOEs have also had some success in convincing birders (and other nature observers) that 7-10x is sufficient for the average binocular user.

Why then do we tolerate the notion that zoom lenses in expensive scopes are a good idea?

Click to expand...

Hi trashbird,

I think increasing magnification on a binocular has limited benefits because you need a tripod with even a modest increase in magnification. So if there is even a modest deterioration in image quality, it will not be worth it (zoom binoculars are also typically heavy and rarely waterproof). However, with almost any scope, you are already going to be using a tripod, so you do not have to worry about hand shake and can take advantage of much greater increases in magnification. Moreover, I have found about 80 to 90% of the zoom range even on fairly inexpensive scopes (the Vortex Skyline and others) is quite usable and useful for identifying birds. The image through the upper end of the zoom range may not always be pretty (which I think is probably the most important thing to optics aficionados!), but it does have practical use, and that is why I would recommend a zoom eyepiece even on an inexpensive scope for practical birding purposes. I think an argument might be made for sacrificing the upper end of the zoom range. And that is why I am starting to think the Vortex Stokes Sandpiper, which received high praise in the review, might be a good option as a first scope. I believe it goes up to 48 power.

In summary, I think the versatility of a zoom eyepiece makes it preferable for birding despite its less-than-perfect optics. (Digiscoping is another matter of course).

My two cents,
Jim

Jim, thanks for your response. And you make some good points. I will say, though, that from what I've read, people with inexpensive scopes use their zoom lenses almost exclusively at their lower range.

A compromise might be, then, to offer inexpensive scopes with more realistically ranged zoom lenses, but even more severely restricted than you seem to suggest. Say, 12x-30x for a 60mm scope. This gives an exit pupil of 5mm to 2mm across the zoom range. Anything less than a 2mm exit pupil seems useless to me. Perhaps a zoom with this range would be inherently better optically and less expensive to manufacture.

Also, make the scope with the option to replace the zoom lens with a low-power fixed lens. The Bushnell Spacemaster 50mm does this and it seems like a popular feature.