• 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.

Maven s.1 80mm or Nikon ED82a ? (1 Viewer)

yakyakgoose

Well-known member
I have the opportunity to buy one of these and I'm getting confused on the lens types each claim to have with a fluorite lens in the Maven and Nikons "Extra Low Dispersion" glass. Which one has better glass?
 
I dont know which scope uses the best glass..I know nikon ED glass is good,because their scopes are well corrected for CA..They advertise using Extra Low Dispersion glass and that is correct ,,on the other hand,Maven likes Hyper Hyped advertising ,so their Magnesium-polymer frame is POST SPACE AGE,and their objectives are made of Fluorite Glass,..This in itself is pure marketing,because the glass might contain fluoride in the composition,but no thing as fluorite glass really exists,as a class or type of glass..So,in my opinion,based in their marketing,Maven is trying to sell themselves as something better than what they really are.This can only be with one intention..OVERCHARGE YOU..Keep also in mind that this scopes are not made by Maven,but produced for them for a manufacturer that sells,or sold the same model for other brands,some of them already discontinued and forgotten.Some members of the forum have tested different units of the same scope ,with different brands,and I think quality control is not consistent with post space age standards..so go figure...on the other hand, Nikon Fieldscopes have achieved a classic status of proven value
my opinion
 
Last edited:
Don't know about the Maven, but five years of experience with the ed82a (with MC 30x ep) has been a joy. I know zooms take centre stage these days but the fixed 30x gives such a beautiful view that I don't think I'll be looking for anything else for a long, long time. Hope this one-sided view is of some assistance.
 
I have the opportunity to buy one of these and I'm getting confused on the lens types each claim to have with a fluorite lens in the Maven and Nikons "Extra Low Dispersion" glass. Which one has better glass?
Do you mind telling us what this Maven opportunity will cost you ? I ask because some here including myself have owned what appears to be the same scope in appearance that has been now discontinued. This scope also advertised the same attributes but fell short in its ability to live up to its promises and ended up selling for a fraction of what I last saw the Maven website asking for their scopes. When I say a fraction of the cost, in my case I spent less than $400. for a scope that looked exactly like the Maven.
 
Hi,

as has been said, ED means extra low dispersion and is the correct technical term. Fluorite glass is wrong. There is either fluorite crystal (as used by Kowa in their top offerings and some makers of expensive astro scopes) or glass containing fluoride ions - that is ED glass, btw.

The Nikon fieldscope ED series are known for very good quality, the Maven has not been reviewed and some seem to know the model under a different name with so so results.

Take your pick.

Regards,

Joachim
 
Ok, so I called Maven and had about a 20 minute conversation. I brought up my concerns about the different terms and was told that they are one of the few companies that use the florite crystal. They said them, Kowa, and some 60mm scope made by Zeiss were the only ones.

I also asked them about the similarities to Brunton and they said they did maintain some exterior similarities but the internals were completely different. I ask how and he said the Brunton one was only ed glass vs the Maven has the florite.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I called Maven and had about a 20 minute conversation. I brought up my concerns about the different terms and was told that they are one of the few companies that use the florite crystal. They said them, Kowa, and some 60mm scope made by Zeiss were the only ones.

I also asked them about the similarities to Brunton and they said they did maintain some exterior similarities but the internals were completely different. I ask how and he said the Brunton one was only ed glass vs the Maven has the florite.

That's very interesting. As I recall the Brunton was a very well built scope, at least the scope body was. As far as the zoom and I am not a big fan of zoom eyepieces, I decided to remove the zoom eyepiece and adapte a fixed power Pentax XW20 eyepiece to the Brunton scope body to see if a high end well proven eyepiece would take the Brunton scope to a different level then the original zoom with the same focal length setting . What I found was the Pentax eyepiece did indeed do exactly that, it was like looking thru a different scope. A member here now owns that Brunton scope with the adapted Pentax XW20 eyepiece. Now having said this, I would not purchase the Maven unless it could be returned or the price was at a level I could easily resell it and get back what I paid. The Plus to the purchase is Maven has gotten great praises here on this forum and others about their binoculars , so I suspect a Maven scope being sold at a reasonable price will get a lot of attention. I just checked and their is now a Maven scope being offered used on Ebay with about 5 Hrs left for under $800.
 
Last edited:
Hi Yak, I had the Brunton 20x60x80 ED and I sold it on Ebay . I ended up buying a used Nikon 82ED angled and love it. The Brunton was ok. I will keep the Nikon 82ED. I also have the little Nikon 50ED and extra eyepieces. The fellow on Ebay that bought the Brunton on his feedback said "Came as said"
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=341658

The Brunton spotter I had seemed to be made very well. It was not light wt. To be fair one of the reasons I sold the Brunton 80ED was that I purchased the Nikon 82ED spotter that I wanted in the first place.
 
Last edited:
No experience with the Maven (or any of its clones) but I am a user of the ED82, and can only echo the comments of others here. I've previously had the following high end scopes - Leica APO 77 & 62, Swarovski 65HD, Kowa 823 and Optolyth 80HD and personally I feel the Nikon ED82 aces them all. I have also used mine against a friends Leica 80HD scope, and at 30x there is little difference in the image, with perhaps the Nikon being marginally brighter. The only limitation is the zoom, which I struggle with at the top end (difficult to obtain a sharp image in certain atmospheric conditions) and as a result of the short eye-relief. It is an incredible scope with the 30x DS eyepiece.
 
Ok, so I called Maven and had about a 20 minute conversation. I brought up my concerns about the different terms and was told that they are one of the few companies that use the florite crystal. They said them, Kowa, and some 60mm scope made by Zeiss were the only ones.

I also asked them about the similarities to Brunton and they said they did maintain some exterior similarities but the internals were completely different. I ask how and he said the Brunton one was only ed glass vs the Maven has the florite.

"florite chrystal"? I doubt that. Fluorite crystal is expensive. Not sure why they would claim that. I guess they mean Fluoride glass. And in the end it's the result that counts, not the marketing terms. See review below.

CA seem to be good controlled but still a bit worse than Swaro ATX (ED/HD type glass), so not in the same level as scopes with "fluorite crystal" like Kowa Prominar 883.

http://www.rokslide.com/maven-s-1a-spotting-scope/

"Aberrations were well-corrected in the Maven. Even chromatic aberration was well corrected, although slight fringing was still visible when observing the high contrast resolution chart. In this area, the ATX was better corrected, but the difference was minor."
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I called Maven and had about a 20 minute conversation. I brought up my concerns about the different terms and was told that they are one of the few companies that use the florite crystal. They said them, Kowa, and some 60mm scope made by Zeiss were the only ones.

I also asked them about the similarities to Brunton and they said they did maintain some exterior similarities but the internals were completely different. I ask how and he said the Brunton one was only ed glass vs the Maven has the florite.

yakyakgoose,

I would recommend treating both of these claims with high skepticism. I don't know where they got the idea that there is a 60mm Zeiss Fluorite scope.

There are easy objective tests that can determine whether an objective lens is glass or Fluorite crystal and whether two scopes have "completely different" internals. I'd be willing to do that if Maven would like to send me one of their scopes for review.

I've reviewed two of this family of Kamakura scopes (Zeiss Gavia and Brunton ICON). Here's a link to the Gavia review, which contains a link to the Brunton review:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=341423

The optical problems I found with the Brunton did not include chromatic aberration from the objective lens, which is extremely well corrected for chromatic, but not spherical aberration. Keep in mind that there are a few ED glass types, like Ohara FPL-53, that have the very same potential for correcting chromatic aberration as Fluorite.

Henry
 
Last edited:
"florite chrystal"? I doubt that. Fluorite crystal is expensive. Not sure why they would claim that. And in the end it's the result that counts, not the marketing terms. See review below.

rl]http://www.rokslide.com/maven-s-1a-spotting-scope/[/url]

"

Pretty impressive review, but as said the zoom being attached(non removeable). For that kind of money there are many other high end spotters that can be had used & New. Personally I would not purchase any spotter or high end telescope unless it had other options for other eyepieces or at the least be able to remove the zoom & have the possibility of adapting other eyepieces yourself.
 
Last edited:
I have the opportunity to buy one of these and I'm getting confused on the lens types each claim to have with a fluorite lens in the Maven and Nikons "Extra Low Dispersion" glass. Which one has better glass?

Is this a used or new Maven ? I ask because if you are trying to save money buying used, I see there is a seller on Ebay who is selling a Used Nikon EDG 85 angled with one eyepiece for $1599. The seller is a Japan vender. I have purchased from Japan venders thru Ebay & never had a problem buying used or new. The scope looks to be as advertised " In New Condition ". The eyepiece looks to be the 25x or 30x power. Both have very large oculars, very comfortable to use with glasses.
 
The eBay one that you guys referenced was the one I was eyeballing but after being realistic with myself I'm having buyers remorse before I even buy it. I'm compromising on too many things and I'm not convinced it is what they say it is.

So now it's a question of what to get in the 80mm range. I currently have the Nikon Fieldscope 3 ed60 with the mc2 zoom lens. Planning on selling that and getting some change in my pocket. I found that I would really like better eye relief as I can be glassing for a few hours at a time. I'd also like something I could do very high quality digiscoping with a FF canon DSLR. Another thing I didn't like about the Maven was that it didn't have interchangeable eye pieces.

I could possibly swing 2k depending on how much I get for the Fieldscope but a little less would be great.
 
The eBay one that you guys referenced was the one I was eyeballing but after being realistic with myself I'm having buyers remorse before I even buy it. I'm compromising on too many things and I'm not convinced it is what they say it is.

So now it's a question of what to get in the 80mm range. I currently have the Nikon Fieldscope 3 ed60 with the mc2 zoom lens. Planning on selling that and getting some change in my pocket. I found that I would really like better eye relief as I can be glassing for a few hours at a time. I'd also like something I could do very high quality digiscoping with a FF canon DSLR. Another thing I didn't like about the Maven was that it didn't have interchangeable eye pieces.

I could possibly swing 2k depending on how much I get for the Fieldscope but a little less would be great.

For me it was the Nikon EDG Field Scope, whether the 65 or 85 you will not find a larger variety of fixed eyepieces that offer such spectacular views with their huge ocular lens & giving such nice eye relief. If you buy a new EDG scope you will certainly blow that budget from us sellers but when buying used or new thru venders on Ebay(USA & Japan) its possible to stay within your budget. Remember just because one scope has a larger objective does not always guarantee a better view. When I bought my EDG scope used but in new condition, with the 3 new eyepieces from Japan & the Mr StarGuy astronomy bag new I stayed within $2,000. Be patient, keep looking those smart buys are out there, who knows the right buy just might come from one of us here on BirdForum.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the Cabela's Euro HD the same as the Meopta S.2?? You'll never beat this:

I totally agree .... The right smart buy just came up, for that price with Cabelas great return policy .... Its in your price range, with reviews that make this a pretty good bet you will be satisfied.
 
Chill6x6 is essentially correct. The basic difference between the two is that Cabela's version comes with a non-removable 20-70X eyepiece. He is also quite correct in that it is a great bargain for a great scope.
Peter
 
Hi,

I have some doubts about the Maven having a fluorite crystal element in the objective - that would either mean that the whole lens assembly was built by Canon Optron (like for Kowa, Takahashi, Borg) or there's some new player on the market with the technology to do fluorite lenses.

The Cabela scope seems indeed to be a relabeled version of the Meopta S2 and the price is indeed very nice - it comes with the old 20-70 zoom fixed though and not with the 30-60 wide zoom. Otoh it costs in dollar roughly what we pay in euro for just the body, so one shouldn't be picky.

And there's only the straight version available...

Joachim
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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