Nikon Prostaff WP 82MM (1 Viewer)

[mooreorless]

I just received the new Outdoor Life June/July issue and they picked the New Nikon Prostaff WP 82 MM as a great buy and said: "What impressed us most,however,was that this scope tied the much more expensive Zeiss scope in the low-light performance test and came quite close in image quality" . They didn't say anything about a problem with CA or if there was any problem that way.BTW the Zeiss was the Victory Diascope 85 T* FL Regards,Steve

 

[iporali]

I just received the new Outdoor Life June/July issue and they picked the New Nikon Prostaff WP 82 MM as a great buy and said: "What impressed us most,however,was that this scope tied the much more expensive Zeiss scope in the low-light performance test and came quite close in image quality" . They didn't say anything about a problem with CA or if there was any problem that way.BTW the Zeiss was the Victory Diascope 85 T* FL Regards,Steve

Looks like they have slightly stretched the definition of "quite close" . The Prostaff is a mid-range achromat and the Zeiss Diascope is a top-apochromat. Of course the price difference is larger than the optical difference, but really, there is a *huge* difference in CA.

Ilkka

 

[mooreorless]

Ilkka,No argument here that the Zeiss is a top flight scope.I think Bill McRae is talking strickly resolution test and that this Nikon Prostaff 82MM came close to the Zeiss and that is all.I just posted this to let people know this information.If the scope had a big problem with CA I'm sure they would post it because they do use the optics they test birding,as well as other wildlife.
Regards,Steve