Why not get the 27x fixed eyepiece, which is excellent on the ED50?
-
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.
ED50 Delight (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter narawood
- Start date
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
The "zoom of doom" comment is just a bit of fun really and the phrase was invented by someone who is actually very pleased with the scope and zoom combination.
I think the 13-40 lens suits the scope very well. The fixed eyepieces, especially the 20x might have a wider angle of view and better eye relief, but the zoom is very bright and clear at its widest settings. Towards the extremity of its range it does get a bit darker but I find it perfectly acceptable if I just want to zoom in for a closer look. If you were working at the higher magnifications most of the time it might be worth checking out the 27x or 40x eyepieces to see if they are better, but I feel it defeats the purpose of a tiny, lightweight scope if you have to carry a collection of eyepieces around with you.
As you say, the best way is to try out as many eyepieces as possible and see what suits your requirements.
When I bought mine I compared it to a Kowa 601 (non ED) with a zoom lens. The Kowa was all right until I zoomed in and then purple fringing appeared all over the place. For me the Nikon completely blew it away and that was using the notorious "zoom of doom".
Ron
Last edited:
gandytron
Well-known member
Thanks for clarifying Ron.
To Answer Andrew's point about the 27x, yes, this would be my first choice if I was birding in the UK - I've used ttwo different Kowa 27x and they are good (especially the old wide angle that was sold on the TS1 back in the old days) but now I live in Thailand and do a lot of birding in forest, where a fixed e.p. may not suit as well as a zoom (my thinking is: locate birds on 16x and then zoom in), and I'm under the impression that zooms have got much better in recent years.
To Answer Andrew's point about the 27x, yes, this would be my first choice if I was birding in the UK - I've used ttwo different Kowa 27x and they are good (especially the old wide angle that was sold on the TS1 back in the old days) but now I live in Thailand and do a lot of birding in forest, where a fixed e.p. may not suit as well as a zoom (my thinking is: locate birds on 16x and then zoom in), and I'm under the impression that zooms have got much better in recent years.
SteveClifton
Well-known member
Hi Dave. It's a difficult one this, choosing just one all-round eyepiece for the ED50. My personal feeling is that the real strength of this scope is its tiny, take-anywhere size, though this very small size does present some problems if you want easy, comfortable higher mag viewing as well.
I used to own the 13-40 MC zoom when I first bought my ED50, but quickly swapped it for the 27x wide-angle as I didn't like the zoom at lower powers, and there isn't that much difference between the scope at 13x and 8 or 10x binoculars anyway.
The reason I didn't like the zoom at lower powers is the same with all zooms, it's that feeling that you're looking at an image projected down the end of a dark tube. When you zoom up this impression disappears as the image appears to get closer to your eye and comparatively wider in angle relative to the magnification (even though you actually see less FOV when zoomed up). Perhaps you could get used to this over time-only you can tell. The Nikon zoom unfortunately suffers from this effect more than most other top makes (because of its comparatively narrow FOV and limited eye-relief) which is probably why its been known as the 'zoom of doom'. In all other respects it's an excellent eyepiece with superb image quality.
The 27x wide is a good all-round eyepiece, and I don't think you'd miss much with it that you could see with the zoom at 40x, though that depends how much viewing you do at longer distances. My one reservation with it (and perhaps this doesn't bother others as no-one else ever mentions it) is the reduced depth of field with this eyepiece (which is actually quite a high mag eyepiece on this scope for such a small objective). The result is that I am constantly adjusting and tweaking the focus wheel when looking at closer objects, though it's not such a problem with distance viewing when focus is at infinity. It may also be too dark for extended viewing in forests, and I wonder if the 20x (or even 16x)wide might be a better compromise for you.
Ideally you should have two eyepieces, perhaps the 20x wide and 13x-40x zoom. I'm very tempted by the 20x myself, but can't justify the extra expense at the moment as this is my second scope. In actual fact I use my ED50 very little, mainly for the reasons already mentioned. To sum up, you can't have higher powers, good depth of field and wide, bright images from such a small objective-well not all at once at any rate. Choose which of these are most important to you, and select your eyepiece(s) accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, as you might get the impression I don't like my ED50. I too think this is a fantastic scope for its size, but felt it worth pointing out some of its limitations before you make your choice.
I hope some of this helps, and hasn't confused you further in your choice.
I used to own the 13-40 MC zoom when I first bought my ED50, but quickly swapped it for the 27x wide-angle as I didn't like the zoom at lower powers, and there isn't that much difference between the scope at 13x and 8 or 10x binoculars anyway.
The reason I didn't like the zoom at lower powers is the same with all zooms, it's that feeling that you're looking at an image projected down the end of a dark tube. When you zoom up this impression disappears as the image appears to get closer to your eye and comparatively wider in angle relative to the magnification (even though you actually see less FOV when zoomed up). Perhaps you could get used to this over time-only you can tell. The Nikon zoom unfortunately suffers from this effect more than most other top makes (because of its comparatively narrow FOV and limited eye-relief) which is probably why its been known as the 'zoom of doom'. In all other respects it's an excellent eyepiece with superb image quality.
The 27x wide is a good all-round eyepiece, and I don't think you'd miss much with it that you could see with the zoom at 40x, though that depends how much viewing you do at longer distances. My one reservation with it (and perhaps this doesn't bother others as no-one else ever mentions it) is the reduced depth of field with this eyepiece (which is actually quite a high mag eyepiece on this scope for such a small objective). The result is that I am constantly adjusting and tweaking the focus wheel when looking at closer objects, though it's not such a problem with distance viewing when focus is at infinity. It may also be too dark for extended viewing in forests, and I wonder if the 20x (or even 16x)wide might be a better compromise for you.
Ideally you should have two eyepieces, perhaps the 20x wide and 13x-40x zoom. I'm very tempted by the 20x myself, but can't justify the extra expense at the moment as this is my second scope. In actual fact I use my ED50 very little, mainly for the reasons already mentioned. To sum up, you can't have higher powers, good depth of field and wide, bright images from such a small objective-well not all at once at any rate. Choose which of these are most important to you, and select your eyepiece(s) accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, as you might get the impression I don't like my ED50. I too think this is a fantastic scope for its size, but felt it worth pointing out some of its limitations before you make your choice.
I hope some of this helps, and hasn't confused you further in your choice.
Last edited:
pduxon
Quacked up Member
Steve
curiously I have the opposite view!! I like the view less the more you zoom in!
At 13x the fov is pretty decent.
The fov on the Nikon is similar to the Swaro Zoom at minimum magnification but not at maximum. The Nikon fov deteriorates at a greater rate the more you zoom in. And I dislike the eye relief. BUT the image through the zoom is fine
Be a dull world wouldn't it.....
curiously I have the opposite view!! I like the view less the more you zoom in!
At 13x the fov is pretty decent.
The fov on the Nikon is similar to the Swaro Zoom at minimum magnification but not at maximum. The Nikon fov deteriorates at a greater rate the more you zoom in. And I dislike the eye relief. BUT the image through the zoom is fine
Be a dull world wouldn't it.....
SteveClifton
Well-known member
Pete
Just goes to show everyone likes different things about optics, and wanted to point that out to other potential buyers as it could be an issue.
I also have the Swaro zoom, but dislike using it at powers less than 30-40x for the reasons mentioned in my post about the Nikon zoom (feeling of looking down a long tube). It's fine at higher powers when there is a greater 'wide-angle feeling'. I guess I just prefer wide-angle eyepieces.
Just goes to show everyone likes different things about optics, and wanted to point that out to other potential buyers as it could be an issue.
I also have the Swaro zoom, but dislike using it at powers less than 30-40x for the reasons mentioned in my post about the Nikon zoom (feeling of looking down a long tube). It's fine at higher powers when there is a greater 'wide-angle feeling'. I guess I just prefer wide-angle eyepieces.
pduxon
Quacked up Member
Hi Steve
oh yes always try before you buy.
On the 60mm Swaro scope the zoom FOV goes from 2.06-1.14 and on the Nikon FSIII 2.0-0.96 which shows that the Nikon zooms relative FOV deteriorates to a greater degree than the Swaro.
I much prefer fixed eye pieces because of the wider FOV but those zooms are so convenient.
I use low powers for scanning (because of the greater FOV) and then zoom in for id purposes.
oh yes always try before you buy.
On the 60mm Swaro scope the zoom FOV goes from 2.06-1.14 and on the Nikon FSIII 2.0-0.96 which shows that the Nikon zooms relative FOV deteriorates to a greater degree than the Swaro.
I much prefer fixed eye pieces because of the wider FOV but those zooms are so convenient.
I use low powers for scanning (because of the greater FOV) and then zoom in for id purposes.
Last edited:
I find the zoom fine, the narrow FOV isn´t such an issue for me when I use a shoulder-pod because it´s so versatile I can "pan" around the field pretty easily anyway. It´s a bit different when I use it on a light tripod, I prefer the 27xw ep. Spoiled for choice, aren´t we?
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I think the short eye relief on the zoom is a real problem if you wear glasses. I had a cheap Acuter 65mm scope with a zoom eyepiece before and my OH could use that with no problems. However she can't see anything through the Nikon. It gives me exclusive use of the scope but makes it harder to justify my purchase!
Ron
Ron
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
I've just remembered something about the ED50 which puzzled me concerning the 'notorious' tripod attachment foot.
There are two holes in the bottom: the threaded socket for the mounting screw and the socket for the anti-swivel pin. However the latter socket is much larger in diameter than the anti-swivel pin on the quick release plate fitted to my Opticron tripod. This pin fitted my Acuter scope perfectly and I assumed they would be a standard size.
I overcame the problem by unscrewing the pin from the quick release plate, inverting it and screwing it partly in so the threaded base of the pin is sticking up. The diameter of this fits the socket in the base of the scope snugly but it seems rather a crude solution to the problem.
Has anyone else experienced this or am I missing something obvious? I am keen to eliminate any movement between the scope and quick release which might lead to problems with the tripod mount thread.
Ron
There are two holes in the bottom: the threaded socket for the mounting screw and the socket for the anti-swivel pin. However the latter socket is much larger in diameter than the anti-swivel pin on the quick release plate fitted to my Opticron tripod. This pin fitted my Acuter scope perfectly and I assumed they would be a standard size.
I overcame the problem by unscrewing the pin from the quick release plate, inverting it and screwing it partly in so the threaded base of the pin is sticking up. The diameter of this fits the socket in the base of the scope snugly but it seems rather a crude solution to the problem.
Has anyone else experienced this or am I missing something obvious? I am keen to eliminate any movement between the scope and quick release which might lead to problems with the tripod mount thread.
Ron
Last edited:
