Nikon 60mm fieldscope or Minox 62 ED (1 Viewer)

[hinnark]

I just returned from a mid-day jaunt to examine the Zeiss, an non-APO Leica and a non-ED Minox. The Zeiss (at least the example I looked through) still had yellow or gray cast which makes it appear not as bright as the Leica but the FOV was ever so slightly wider. The Zeiss had a much superior (easier) focus but maybe the Leica isn't broke in. The Minox was sharp but it has the same problem as all lesser spotters of a narrow FOV and critical to eye position. I was just notified by a wholesaler in the US that they have reduced there demo Zeiss 65's to $799. The Leica remains about $50 higher. Of course here in the US the Zeiss also has transferable warranty.
Anymore comments??? I am about to push the button on the Zeiss.
Dave

It's a pity that you didn´t try the ED Minox. In my eyes a good piece of optics for the price. But with the 65 Zeiss you can´t get wrong. Good birding with it!

Steve

 

[DHB]

It's a pity that you didn´t try the ED Minox. In my eyes a good piece of optics for the price. But with the 65 Zeiss you can´t get wrong. Good birding with it!

Steve

The non-ED Minox was similar in view to most lesser scopes in that the FOV is so small and eye position was so critical. The Leica and Zeiss were so much easier to look through. I have had three other spotters and this is why I always sold them, eye fatigue. I'm sure the ED version would've been sharp and bright but I'm also sure it would've suffered the other symptoms. Minox binoculars have never really impressed me much so I kind of have a negative notion regarding them. Although customer service at Zeiss N.A. hasn't been impressive on two occasions I have dealt with them either.
Dave

 

[scampo]

It is the "walk in" quality of the view through the top scopes that make them such a pleasure to use. It's easy to forget what it used to be like in the old days - your description reminded me, but in those days, there was no choice. I think Kowa started the trend but the Leica 77 with its newly desgined zoom really moved things forward. Swaro, Nikon and Zeiss soon followed suit, with the Zeiss, for me, now easily topping the league owing to its far wider than average view.

 

[hinnark]

The non-ED Minox was similar in view to most lesser scopes in that the FOV is so small and eye position was so critical. The Leica and Zeiss were so much easier to look through. I have had three other spotters and this is why I always sold them, eye fatigue. I'm sure the ED version would've been sharp and bright but I'm also sure it would've suffered the other symptoms. Minox binoculars have never really impressed me much so I kind of have a negative notion regarding them. Although customer service at Zeiss N.A. hasn't been impressive on two occasions I have dealt with them either.
Dave

Hi Dave,

if you have troubles with eye position with the non ed you´ll surely have this with the ed version too. I agree with you in respect of some of the binoculars of Minox. But I´ve learned to review every piece of optic for it´s own. Doing this I´ve found that their ed scope is very good especially with its price in mind. Fov of the 30x (38,6 m/1000 m) and 22x (52 m/1000 m) Minox eyepieces is pretty similar of the 30x (40 m/1000 m) and 23x (52 m/1000 m) Zeiss on 65 Diascope. But the Zeiss zoom ep is unbeatable in respect of fov.

Steve

 

[scampo]

The Zeiss fixed eyepieces are nothing special compared to other top makes - it is the Zeiss zoom that is a stride ahead, and merits serious consideration as the leading birding combination as field of view is so very important when trying to find a bird and see what else is going on around it.

 

[pduxon]

I got to try the Zeiss zoom on the 65 yesterday and well lets put it this way, I'm not changing my Leica!! Optically I thought the Leica gave a better image.

 

[scampo]

In what way, Pete? I would say the Zeiss 85 is the far superior scope of the two, though. The Nikon zoom is far narrower in comparison, but its colour balance is undoubtedly better and more faithful to nature and, I think probably, brighter.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Nikon 60 III ED is a fantastic little scope

small
light
great image
very portable indeed.

any slight proposed increase in optical performace in some of the other models quoted wouldn't win me over due to the plus points of the Nikon nted above

I don't have a Nikon 60 btw - my 'small' scope is the next best thing - a Kowa 613!

 

[scampo]

You've managed to confuse me - easily done. I wouldn't swap the Kowa or the Nikon either as both are great.

 

[pduxon]

In what way, Pete? I would say the Zeiss 85 is the far superior scope of the two, though. The Leica zoom is far more tube-like in comparison, but its colour balance is undoubtedly better and, I think probably, brighter.

can't comment on the 77 against the zeiss 85, not used either much. I take it Leif would disagree!!

I'll give you the FOV BUT the Leica 62 had better colours and appeared brighter to my eyes. FOV is great but not if the image is inferior.

Lets be honest all the best 60-66mm scopes are good and have something in there favour.

I admit a good 85mm scope will be brighter than a good little 'un BUT the ergonmoics of the smaller scope - WEIGHT for ME makes them a better buy. As Steve Ingraham said 95% of the time they'll be more than good enough.

There is no such thing as best there is the one that suits you best.

As an example I got to try the Ultravids x32 against the Trinovids x32 and though I preferred the optics of the ultravids I prefered the handling of the Trinovids and this together with the price would have made me buy the Trinovids. The optics weren't that much better.

 

[scampo]

I think you're right about colour (well, you are right...) but brightness? Hmm. Weight? Absolutely.

 

[Grousemore]

Nikon 60 III ED is a fantastic little scope

small
light
great image
very portable indeed.

any slight proposed increase in optical performace in some of the other models quoted wouldn't win me over due to the plus points of the Nikon nted above

I'd always go for a lightweight set-up myself,but as far as the Leica Apo 62 is concerned,it has all of the 'plus points' noted above and in fact is lighter (angled version)than the Nikon 60 111 ED.Price is similar.
Although I much preferred the view through the Leica,others may differ,so the old adage of try them all,once again applies.

 

[pduxon]

I think you're right about colour (well, you are right...) but brightness? Hmm. Weight? Absolutely.

its was very hard to compare them as they weren't side by side!! My own feel looking through the Zeiss was that the image wasn't so clear.

I did look through the 85 with x40 lens and that was more impressive.

Testing bins was easier as I had the Nikons to hand so to speak to give a comparison and I never picked the HGL's up what a dummy!!.