Nikon ED60 Fieldscope -worth the extra weight? (1 Viewer)

[frootz]

Hello,

I have been considering getting a Nikon ED50 for a while and had all but decided on it.

But then went for the ED60 fieldscope iii (angled) as one came up second hand! Most the views on the forum I've read seemed to prefer it as an option over the ED50, especially as it will be my only scope.

Using it today my shoulders ached a little. (I know I'm a bit of an optics wimp I admit it!). Is this something you get used to? The views from the scope were fantastic.

Or would I be better downsizing to the ED50 as I can carry it with ease. Or am I going to regret the loss performance significantly?

I guess the main question is whether people find the 8mm more aperture worth the 720g increase in weight?

Thanks in advance if you take the time to post

 

[dantheman]

Size is an important feature to consider too - the ED50 is small! Optically it's great, but compared to a larger aperture scope you just don't get such a bright view at dusk/poor light conditions. The smaller field of view may also be a bit restricting in certain conditions (eg seawatching, although saying that, I like it).

Oh, and as it's small and lightweight you can also use a lighter weight tripod. My Ed50 and tripod both fit in a small daysack if I want them to when out birding and not in actual use.

 

[etudiant]

Really a different experience with the ED50

The ED50 is uniquely portable, the only scope that I feel comfortable carrying on a sling, sans tripod, for hand held scans and views. It is light enough to be relatively unobtrusive, yet the 27xDS provides the detail often impossible to get with even a 10x glass.
A monopod for the beach where longer scans are often required is a useful adjunct.
Although my Velbon Ultra Luxi remains as a lightweight tripod when doing a seawatch, it is not getting much action. The original 3 way head was replaced by a ball head, much lighter and easier to use.
As with 'dantheman', this all fits easily into a small backpack and is a comfortable and unobtrusive carry, even if you go the tripod route. Normally scope and mono and/or tripod go into the bag with my binocs, for the 90 min subway ride to Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge.
The 60mm is much more a regular scope, 50% more light, twice the weight, lots longer, needs a bigger tripod. If seawatches are part of your rounds or if you like to monitor gull colonies, situations where long observations are routine, you'll appreciate the easier view the 60mm provides. But for quick extra punch without hassle, the ED50 is your scope.

 

[looksharp65]

good stuff

Couldn't agree more. Why carry a heavy tripod for a featherweight scope?
I'm using the ED50A 27x Wide as a bridge between binoculars and my 82 mm scope.
I owned a Pentax 65 mm scope but was surprised to see how close the ED50A was in performance (that's why I sold it for buying the ED82A).

The ED82A has a wonderful view and balances perfectly on the video head - something the EDII's and EDIII's can't do unless equipped with a very long quick release plate.
I'd actually like to have an EDIIIA too. But I wouldn't sell the ED50A to buy one, and if I had had the EDIIIA I wouldn't sell it to buy the ED50A.
Hope this helps.

//L

 

[looksharp65]

The smaller field of view may also be a bit restricting in certain conditions

:h?:

The ED50, which has a shorter focal length, has a wider TFOV with the same eyepiece, compared to an EDIII.
The eyepieces have the same AFOV's regardless of which body they are fitted to, but the greater magnification with the larger scopes means the TFOV is smaller with them.

//L

 

[frootz]

Thanks everyone for revisiting an already well discussed topic on the forum.
I have a good list from the previous posts and this posts comments to help make the final decision.

dantheman and etudiant thanks very much your reasoning is very good and helped me think about it all from another perspective.

etudiant, your last sentence if very succinct "But for quick extra punch without hassle, the ED50 is your scope". I think you could sell that to Nikon!

looksharp65 thanks also for the sound advice. It is interesting you swapped the Pentax 65 for the ED50. Also, the AFOV isn't something I'd worked out!

 

[mayoayo]

The EDIII is a great scope with enormous capability .. With its long focal of 450mm ,f/7,it is better corrected that most scopes I have tried, much better than an average Pentax PF65...So lets not mix all 65 scopes in the comparison,because the EDIII is pretty much as good as it gets and you would need to pay quite a bit more to improve the image or build quality .Truly tops the mid size.
But If you felt tired after carrying it,and You need to ask If its worth It,---dont think twice..It is not worth the weight,,really..
The ED50 will satisfy You day in day out,you will use it more,see more birds,and truly love it..I went for a walk in a nature reserve with a friend the other day,and He had forgotten his bins,so I let Him carry My ED50 /carbon tripod while we walked..He is a very casual birder,not into optics really,but by the end of the day He mentioned how nice the ED50 was,probably because He didnt expected the level of performance in such a small scope..

 

[frootz]

Thanks mayoayo. That's really helpful and reassuring, I agree the ED60 was amazing to look through but also, if you aren't comfortable it isn't worth it overall.

I have decided to go for the ED50 afterall!

Now I just have to decide on my first eyepiece! 27x or the zoom. Oh and on which tripod to go for...

 

[joannec]

Frootz: Like you I am female and have an EDIII. I love this scope and do not hanker after a more powerful one. I also have a Mighty Midget for travelling (which is not as good as the ED50). I think you would be disappointed in the optical quality if you downsized to an ED50. I have a Cley Spy backpack scope carrier which is perfect for me with the EDIII. It takes the strain and I don't come home with aching shoulders. Before I got the carrier I used to carry the tripod over my shoulder and that did hurt after a few hours. Before you actually sell your EDIII, I recommend trying a scope carrier.

 

[etudiant]

Thanks mayoayo. That's really helpful and reassuring, I agree the ED60 was amazing to look through but also, if you aren't comfortable it isn't worth it overall.

I have decided to go for the ED50 afterall!

Now I just have to decide on my first eyepiece! 27x or the zoom. Oh and on which tripod to go for...

Unfortunately, the ED50 is out of production and is getting hard to find.
The eyepieces are similarly limited in availability.
The basic 13-30x zoom that the scope comes with usually is only decent. It has pretty short eye relief. Most users seems to prefer the wide angle 20x and 27x, but they are getting scarce, out of production along with the old Fieldscope line. My 27xDS was purchased via Tenso from Japan, as that was the only place they were still available. ( http://www.tenso.com/en/ )
There is more detail on this aspect in another thread, suffice it to say it was easy and quick, as well as cheaper than any domestic second hand source.
Tripods are more difficult, they get pretty pricey if you want compact and light. Even the head is a discrete investment. Fortunately, a monopod serves pretty well. Folded, it works as a finnstick, extended it stabilizes adequately.
Absent that, the Nikon stay-on case is actually quite enough for hand holding the scope.

 

[frootz]

Thanks for the information joannec I really appreciate your comments, unfortunately, a scope carrier was out of budget due to the price of the scope initially as it was the very top of my budget.

I think, perhaps, I will go for the ED50 for now and, if I find the need to upsize try the mulepack. I will have some money left over if I do this now as I can resell the ED60 for a the price I paid for it. I will always be able to use the eyepieces later on if I think I need the extra reach the ED60 gives instead.

etudiant, a few dealers in the UK still have the ED50 scope and the eyepieces in stock and it is in this year's UK Nikon catalogue. So I guess we are lucky over here. It is a shame it has been discontinued in the US. Perhaps, it might be over here too when the stocks are lower.

The ED60 has definitely been discontinued and replaced with the Monarch with different eyepieces as has been discussed on another thread. I'm not keen on the modular idea for a scope so would prefer the older Fieldscopes over that design for sure.

Thanks everyone, the opinions have led to a balanced discussion as always and have helped make my mind up without me feeling I haven't considered all the options!

 

[Hermann]

I think you would be disappointed in the optical quality if you downsized to an ED50. [...] Before you actually sell your EDIII, I recommend trying a scope carrier.

I've got all three Nikon (ED50, EDIIIA and ED82), and the differences are quite obvious in the field. Size *does* count, with scopes at least. I wouldn't really want to use the ED50 as my main scope, no way. It's nice, but the EDIIIA is quite clearly better, at any magnification. In fact, I find the EDIIIA so good it's my bread-and-butter scope I use for anything, whenever I think I need a scope I use the EDIIIA.

And it's a really tough scope, whereas the ED50 is much more fragile. The ED50 is to my mind more for suitable for specialized pursuits: I take it along when I don't expect to need a scope but don't want to be without one just in case, or on trips when a lot of walking in difficult terrain is involved.

So I think I'd keep the EDIIIA. It's good enough for almost any purpose. The ED50 isn't in my opinion.

Hermann

 

[Alexis Powell]

I've got all three Nikon (ED50, EDIIIA and ED82), and the differences are quite obvious in the field. Size *does* count, with scopes at least. I wouldn't really want to use the ED50 as my main scope, no way. It's nice, but the EDIIIA is quite clearly better, at any magnification. In fact, I find the EDIIIA so good it's my bread-and-butter scope I use for anything, whenever I think I need a scope I use the EDIIIA.

And it's a really tough scope, whereas the ED50 is much more fragile. The ED50 is to my mind more for suitable for specialized pursuits: I take it along when I don't expect to need a scope but don't want to be without one just in case, or on trips when a lot of walking in difficult terrain is involved.

So I think I'd keep the EDIIIA. It's good enough for almost any purpose. The ED50 isn't in my opinion.

Hermann

My feelings are much the same, though since I use my ED78 (or 82) most of the time, it's my 60 that gets the least use. The ED50 gets use when I'm traveling light. If I didn't have the big scope, I'd use the 60 over the 50 except when traveling really compact/light.

--AP

 

[mayoayo]

My advice to frootz is given with her previous posts in mind..She has been interested in the ED50 for a while, and has complained about other scopes,much lighter than the EDIII,being heavy ..She has even returned binoculars based in weight considerations...With that concept in mind,and although I agree with all of You about the EDIII being extraordinary,I think the ED50 would not dissappoint Her either..It might not score a bingo view in that perfect moment,as the EDIII would,or maybe wont cut through 1 km at 40x with ease,but can accumulate enough merits ,day after day,to qualify as a perfect one-and -only scope as much as the EDIII .My point is that is not worth to have a stellar scope,is you gonna feel lazy about using..better to have a stellar scope that you are going to use a lot...

 

[frootz]

Yes I think there is a consideration re weight in my case! I am a bit of an optics wimp and like to walk around a lot when viewing. I did return the Hawke Frontier EDs because they were too heavy even though the view was amazing.

The question is, I guess, could I get used to it / use a mulepack to keep the amazing view or would it be better to try the ED50 and have more freedom overall and see if I find it lacking? The eyepieces will always be useable in future if I find I really miss the ED60 view.

Still deciding really. And it will also depend now on a second hand ED60 coming up at the same price as a new ED50 (the other ED60 has now been sold on while the offer was there just to give me more time to consider it all!).

Thanks everyone for all your input.

 

[looksharp65]

Emma,

this is my personal opinion and I know others may disagree. But if you decide to swap for an ED50A, do NOT erase the weight advantage by using a tripod.
Small, lightweight tripods don't provide the necessary stability.
I'm using the ED50A with a three-section Manfrotto monopod and a medium-sized ballhead.
I put a bike barend at the lower end to prevent rotation shake. Thanks to this, I get the perfect resistance while panning with the ballhead. It is very stable too, but if I'm standing in the strong wind that moves me, the scope/monopod will also move.
I can live with that thanks to the excellent portability, speed of use and very light weight. And when I come to a location that's crowded with birders with tripods,
I can easily find enough space since it occupies less than a quarter of a square foot.

//L

 

[dantheman]

:h?:

The ED50, which has a shorter focal length, has a wider TFOV with the same eyepiece, compared to an EDIII.
The eyepieces have the same AFOV's regardless of which body they are fitted to, but the greater magnification with the larger scopes means the TFOV is smaller with them.

Ok I'm certainly no optics buff. To the point were the above doesn't really make much sense to me unfortunately!



What I was thinking was that if I'm seawatching with the 27x on my ED50, I'll be seeing less sea in my eyepiece than someone sat next to me with a 60mm or 80mm objective scope with a 30x eyepiece on?

(c.30x seems to be what a lot of people go for on seawatching ... )

 

[looksharp65]

Ok I'm certainly no optics buff. To the point were the above doesn't really make much sense to me unfortunately!



What I was thinking was that if I'm seawatching with the 27x on my ED50, I'll be seeing less sea in my eyepiece than someone sat next to me with a 60mm or 80mm objective scope with a 30x eyepiece on?

(c.30x seems to be what a lot of people go for on seawatching ... )

If there was a 30x eyepiece for the ED50A that had exactly the same apparent field of view (AFOV), it would certainly show exactly the same cutout as an 82 mm scope with the 30x eyepiece.

However, the 27x has 10 % less magnification and the same AFOV. Hence, it will show a slightly larger cutout. In fact, 11% wider. (30x/27x = 1.11).

Or, simply look at the chart:

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/scopes/mc/spec.htm

and you will find that the 27x Wide MC has a 47 m FOV with the ED50A, while the 30x for the ED82A has a 42 m FOV.

47:42 = 1.12 ...

//L

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I own both the ED50 and ED III. If you can manage the extra weight I think the 60mm scope is much better. Unfortunately, it seems that I have a problem with the extra weight as carrying the ED III and tripod over my shoulder has rendered my right arm pretty much useless for several weeks now.

For anyone in the UK who is interested, Uttings are currently advertising new straight versions of the ED III for £399. That has to be a terrific bargain. They also have most of the MC eyepieces in stock too.

Ron

 

[frootz]

Sorry to hear that about your arm Ron, I hope it gets better soon. Thanks also for your post and for the information it is much appreciated.

That is a really good deal! I might regret letting that one go.

I know the ED60 is better optically and more robust but even so I still think the ed50 is the right one for me overalll. I will get more use from it, and I won't have to think about whether I should take it or not on a day out. I think a day without aches and pains is preferable in my case - especially if you are on a weeks holiday using the scope everyday.

If I find the view lacking I can always reconsider and still use the same eyepieces.

Thanks everyone for your posts.