New MM4 50 vs part-used Nikon ED50 (1 Viewer)

[Peregrine Took]

Hi,

I'm trying to decide on a small spotting scope and need some advice as I'm going around in circles. 50mm vs 60mm, one brand vs another brand and so on. Nothing new I guess. I think 50mm would be best for my use - which would not be dedicated bird watching, but walking, always with my Zeiss Conquest bins, with the scope to get closer if I see something I want to get closer to (mainly birds, but also deer and hare).

My budget is up to about £700.00. I started out thinking I'd only spend £250-300.00 - Hawke non-ED, Opticron MM3 - and still haven't abandoned that possibility.

An option I've just found is:

• Opticron MM4 50mm with HDF-T EP (I've read lots of reports that people can't tell the difference between this and the SDLv3)
• Nikon Fieldscope ED50 with used 13-40 EP (I appreciate that a lot of people like the 27mm EP, but I could get that later).

I can get either combination for £550.00, so which would you honestly choose and why?

Red herring alert: just found out I can't get an 'in stock' Nikon ED50 (body only) in the UK for three weeks - now they tell me. I want it for a trip next week.

Amended question. If the Nikon was £140.00 more than the Opticron, would you prefer it?

Thanks.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I had a second hand Nikon 50mm 'scope - didn’t like it.
Changed to an MM4 50mm, I felt it was a definite improvement.
Looked through an MM4 60mm at Bird Fair and traded the 50 for a 60mm.
Now I have an 80mm Swarovski ATS and an Opticron MM4 60mm.

I seem to say this all the time but, honestly, try to find a shop where you can look at/through these little 'scopes.

I now have 3 friends who own the MM4 60mm.
They also have "full size" ‘scopes but have invested in the Opticron equipment as they’re ageing (all 70+) and find carrying the smaller 'scopes long distance easier (despite using mule packs)

 

[Peregrine Took]

I seem to say this all the time but, honestly, try to find a shop where you can look at/through these little 'scopes.

Thanks Mike. I can do that with the Opticron (today), but not with the Nikon. I've left it a bit late, as I want to take whatever I buy to Suffolk next week.

The Nikon interest was simply because I saw an EP going cheap, which brought the price down to that of an MM4.

Is the 60mm MM4 really much bigger, in the real world (out and about), than the 50mm version? Doesn't look it. I thought the 60mm option might be the 'only scope I'll ever need'. With the 50mm I'll still be tempted to buy something bigger, later.
.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Personally I am a huge fan of the Nikon kit, but it is becoming harder (and more expensive) to find eyepieces - for that reason, the Opticron is a more attractive option, though the weight of the MM series is considerably higher than that of the ED50.
If you are hoping to get the scope ahead of a trip, perhaps this will be of interest, as it represents a considerable saving on the cost of a new body, and you can buy the eyepiece of your choice to pair with it.
Another option which seems to be popular is the new(ish) Kowa 501, which although lacking ED glass is highly regarded, and may be a good budget option to see how you get on with a smaller scope, particularly if you have a view to purchasing a larger obj. in the future.

Hope this helps!

 

[Mike Crawley]

Thanks Mike.

Is the 60mm MM4 really much bigger, in the real world (out and about), than the 50mm version? Doesn't look it. I thought the 60mm option might be the 'only scope I'll ever need'. With the 50mm I'll still be tempted to buy something bigger, later.
.

.
it isn’t much bigger, you are correct, I’m sure there’s a straightforward calculation that shows the increase in light entering the ‘scope somewhere. If you intend to be out at dawn and dusk, every bit of extra light helps.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Thanks Daniel, and for the link. I was considering the Kowa 501, but the only concern I've read about appears to be eye relief, which would spoil it. But I can check one out locally. I guess if I tried that and no other I'd be perfectly happy and save £400.00 in the process. Too many choices.
.

 

[Peregrine Took]

.
...I’m sure there’s a straightforward calculation that shows the increase in light entering the ‘scope somewhere.

I found that stat last night - a 60mm lens has an extra 44% light capture over a 50mm. Convincing enough.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Okay... so I bought the secondhand MM4 60 from Bass & Bligh via the link that Daniel provided. I'd never have found them otherwise, so BIG thanks. Nice people at B&B and they price-matched an EP, so the package came to a fair bit bit under £500.00. I get it tomorrow!

Thanks again guys.
.

 

[asp09]

Peregrine, I chose the Opticron for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. As you have found out, it is impossible to try the Nikon in the UK as optics retailers do not stock it. More importantly, Opticron have excellent customer service; from what I hear, this is not the case with Nikon optics (I believe this is actually why optics retailers no longer sell the ED50.) The MM4's are heavier, but they are armoured and have a rotating tripod ring which the Nikon lacks. And finally, as Dwatsonbirder has pointed out, the Opticron has a far better range of readily available eyepieces.

Personally, I think the MM4 60 makes more sense unless you really need the small size of the 50. And yes, it absolutely can be used as an only scope - I have a larger scope (Kowa 823) but hardly ever use it. The limitations of a 60mm objective lens do mean that you will have to accept lower magnifications in winter, though. My preferred eyepiece is the 23x. It has a nice wide FOV and hits the sweet spot between light gathering/magnification. It is also smaller and lighter than the zooms. I think the main advantage of the SDL zooms is that they are fully waterproof, unlike the HDF. Given that the stay-on-case is not very good, I prefer to use my scope without one and therefore appreciate this feature of the SDL.

 

[Peregrine Took]

.... My preferred eyepiece is the 23x. It has a nice wide FOV and hits the sweet spot between light gathering/magnification.

Is light transmission better with the 23x, than the zoom set at the same magnification? Is that true for any 'prime' EP over a zoom? I might buy the 23x EP.

 

[asp09]

Is light transmission better with the 23x, than the zoom set at the same magnification? Is that true for any 'prime' EP over a zoom? I might buy the 23x EP.

Congratulations on your purchase, I'm sure you'll be happy with it!

No, the zoom will have the same size exit pupil at 23x as the fixed eyepiece, so light transmission will be broadly the same. The main difference optically is the much wider field of view of the fixed eyepiece, which really does make it more enjoyable to look through. It is also much smaller, making the whole package even lighter and more compact. I definitely recommend getting one as a complement to your zoom.

 

[Peregrine Took]

... The main difference optically is the much wider field of view of the fixed eyepiece...

That makes sense, mechanically, thanks. I might order one tonight.

 

[wllmspd]

I lightened my scope setup recently and was going for the kowa ts501, but secondhand and other things resulted in me getting a 60MM4ED. The low end of the zoom is a bit narrow. I’d like a fixed 27x, but as noted a little lower power gives a brighter image for those dim situations, which is more use than the fractional magnification difference. Looks like I might need the 23x?!
Sharp images and so easy to sling over your shoulder on a light tripod.

Peter

 

[Peregrine Took]

Timely mention of slinging things over the shoulder on a tripod, Peter...

Can anyone recommend a tripod for the MM4 60mm? I have an old Manfrotto 055 PRO B, which is 2.4 kg, that I used to use for architectural photography. I might be a reasonably strong and fit (touch wood) 60-something, but it's a bit of a lump for casual use. And I ain't getting any younger.

I bought a Manfrotto Compact Advanced that's about 1.5kg, but it's got a plastic head with plastic sprung hot shoe keeper... rubbish, to be honest. So that's going back for a refund. I like Manfrotto, so I was thinking of a 290 or an older 190, but I'm open-minded brand-wise because you guys obviously know what you're doing! I don't mind it being up to about 50cm closed, and around 1.6kg. I can utilise my Manfrotto ball-head for now, even though that is heavy duty.

Budget - up to £150.00 and I much prefer lever operated legs.

Thanks.

 

[SteveClifton]

About 18 months ago I sold my Nikon ED 50 and replaced it with an Optician MM4 ED60 with the wide angle eyepiece that gives 32x (sadly now discontinued, and I probably got the last one available in the country). If that wasn't possible then I'd have gone for the 23X, but I really wanted something that slightly bettered the 27x of the Nikon.

When I originally bought the Nikon over 10 years ago I thought it was an optical marvel, and in fact it still is. Compared to my much larger Swarovski 80mm scope it could almost match the view in good light, as long as you are happy with lower powers. But I'm now very happy with the Opticron. I planned to eventually get a zoom ep, but so far haven't bothered. One day maybe...

For a couple of weeks I had both scopes simultaneously, and made some detailed comparisons, which might be helpful in making a choice. In summary, neither is a bad choice! In fact both are excellent in different ways.

Nikon ED50 (27x ep) compared to Opticron MM4 60 (32× ep).
Comparisons were made on a cloudy February day, with sunny intervals.

Nikon has slightly wider field of view (27× vs 32x). It's a travesty that the Opticron 32x eyepiece is no longer available, but then I've never tried one of the zooms on it?

Distant viewing: Nikon view overall is slightly less contrasty, with a very slightly warmer sepia cast to the image (but I must stress-this is only noticeable in direct comparison, and otherwise I wouldn’t have noticed it at all).

Opticron has noticeably better brightness (larger aperture) and contrast, & its colours are more vivid and true (see above). Yet it is doubtful that much more detail is visible through the Opticron compared to the Nikon. Going back and forth between the 2 scopes, when focused on the same subject there was very little between them. Once your eyes become adjusted to each one, then either provides very good views.

Viewing at closer range, the Nikon is perhaps easier on the eye: hard to explain why but probably down to the Nikon eyepiece design having a flatter field? The Opticron provides a slightly more 3D image, and is a little more finicky to get correct eye placement (I’m sure I will get used to this in time). For more distant work e.g. scanning a lake, the Opticron is just as easy on the eye.

Both are very sharp right to the edge.

Perhaps a tiny amount more detail is available to the eye through the Opticron, and this is probably more to do with the extra magnification, and also the extra brightness/contrast, but the Nikon gives up very little to the Opticron once your eyes adjust to it.

Dual focuser of the Opticron is genius. The outer fine-focus wheel works beautifully, allowing for very fine adjustments. In the event of an updated/improved future design I feel that the 9:1 ratio dual focus system would have been better with something like 6:1 or 5:1. I hardly ever use the coarse focus part of the wheel.

Yet the Nikon’s focuser still snaps right into focus very easily and smoothly: simple and effective!

The Opticron is obviously heavier and a little longer. The ability to rotate the scope using the mounting collar is a very useful feature for car/hide use that is lacking in the Nikon.

Weight comparison:
Nikon ED 50 716g
Including scope, objective cap on, 27x eyepiece (no cap)
It also had a Kiwifotos 100mm Arca plate attached. Filter off (I usually have a 55mm filter to cover the objective lens).

Opticron MM4 60 ED 1123g
Including scope, objective cap on, 32x eyepiece (no cap)
It also had a Kiwifotos 150mm Arca plate attached. No filter as there is no filter thread.

(407g difference in weight) *note that the q/r plate is 5cm longer on the Opticron

Other observations: I never cleaned the objective lens of the Nikon as it always had a filter on. In my view this made a negligible affect on the view. The above observations were made without the filter on.

The Opticron objective is very easy to clean and water seems to run right off it (is there an oleophobic or water-repellant coating on the glass?). A shame they didn't include a filter thread at the objective end!

I like that Opticron provided 2 mounting holes in the scope foot. Seems more secure to me and with less risk of twisting on the quick release plate.

 

[Richard D]

Timely mention of slinging things over the shoulder on a tripod, Peter...

Can anyone recommend a tripod for the MM4 60mm? I have an old Manfrotto 055 PRO B, which is 2.4 kg, that I used to use for architectural photography. I might be a reasonably strong and fit (touch wood) 60-something, but it's a bit of a lump for casual use. And I ain't getting any younger.

I bought a Manfrotto Compact Advanced that's about 1.5kg, but it's got a plastic head with plastic sprung hot shoe keeper... rubbish, to be honest. So that's going back for a refund. I like Manfrotto, so I was thinking of a 290 or an older 190, but I'm open-minded brand-wise because you guys obviously know what you're doing! I don't mind it being up to about 50cm closed, and around 1.6kg. I can utilise my Manfrotto ball-head for now, even though that is heavy duty.

Budget - up to £150.00 and I much prefer lever operated legs.

Thanks.

The Manfrotto BeFree Advanced might work for you - the BeFree range is much better constructed than the Compact range.

 

[Peregrine Took]

The Manfrotto BeFree Advanced might work for you - the BeFree range is much better constructed than the Compact range.

Thanks, but I can't see a BeFree with bigger diameter legs than the Compact Advanced, so I'm not sure how much better it will be. It may be that the BeFree's circular(?) legs will be more robust than the Compact legs, which are ovalised. The BeFree head will certainly be better. I might just buy a fluid head for my 055B for now and get something lighter when I've got time to go and see some tripods in the flesh.

My gut feeling is to not worry too much about how small the tripod is when collapsed and go for one of these:

290 light aluminium tripod with befree live fluid video head

This version of 290 light is a tripod with head for vlogger and mobile journalist that features the new Befree live fluid video head. This video tripod kit combines great performances and innovative design touches with total durability. The new befree live video head provide professional...

www.manfrotto.com

.
.

 

[wllmspd]

I use a 190 for my larger kit, but with the 501ah it’s a brute to carry. Replaced with a Befree live. Yes it’s not as stable and one axis lock knob is easily confused with the clamp release (I’ve added tape so my fingers don’t adjust the wrong one). But it fits in the backpack nice and easily and is much lighter. I did try a monopod, but it’s just harder to get really stable images. There are other carbon tripods that I am sure are better, but they mostly see me to be a little bigger and are much more costly. Some people use ball heads, I’ve not tried this.

Peter

 

[asp09]

I highly recommend the Sirui VA-5 fluid head- it's a perfect match for the MM4 60, compact and light.

Finding the right tripod is more complicated. I think I've found the perfect match in the discontinued Gitzo GT2531, but even used it cost me twice your stated budget. I think the Manfrotto 190 is probably a good choice; I haven't tried it myself, but I know somebody who uses one with his Swarovski ATS65 scope and is happy with it. I don't much like the look of the 290 - it is only 146cm tall WITH the centre column; for maximum stability you'll want to use the centre column as little as possible. Even the 190 is a little short, but at least it gets you to to 135cm without the column (and 160 with).

 

[dwatsonbirder]

Benro stuff is decent, the heads are good too - S2 would be a good match.