Greetings all. I've read little tidbits form other posts regarding this question but nothing that really answers it. How do older (say 20 years old) alpha spotting scopes compare to modern mid-range scopes? For example, you can find a 2000s Leica Televid-APO for around $1000. I remember coveting one of these when they were new and were among the best there was. I'm looking at new scopes now and while alpha scopes are in a much higher price range now, there are pretty good models in the $1000-$1500 range. What are people's thoughts on this comparison? Thanks!
-
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.
Older alpha vs newer mid-range scopes (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter razzouli
- Start date
This is great queistion and i am wondering the same thing . As kinda of a newbi myself ,I would say that older scopes can get haze inside them from mold on the prisms for one thing and the quality of the glass and multi coatings might not be as good as newer models . But i eagerly await to see what the experts say ,especially info on the older leica 77mm apo’s .
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
If in good quality without haze on the glass, should be good throughout. Modern scopes now has a wider and constant FOV of their zoom eyepiece let say from 20-60x
Ribbon
Being Phyllosophical
Great question. I'm now owning an Swarovski ATX 85 which is superb. One of my birding friends who started two years back acquired herself an APO Televid 77. When comparing it (whitout going full 'technical' on it) in the field the first noticable difference is the FOV, which is far greater on the ATX.
But apart from that for me personally there are not many other things justifying the €2000 (!) price gap between the two. Of course the newer alpha's are ahead in multiple ways, but choosing an APO (or similar scope) because of financial reasons is understandable for me.
But apart from that for me personally there are not many other things justifying the €2000 (!) price gap between the two. Of course the newer alpha's are ahead in multiple ways, but choosing an APO (or similar scope) because of financial reasons is understandable for me.
Hi,
sample variation of the objective will decide which is better.
An old cherry will beat a good (or worse - alpha lemons do exist!) example of any modern scope. As long as the objective is multicoated and well figured, it can be used... hell, even my not fully single coated but cherry TSN-3 body works perfectly fine - to the point of getting questions of what great scope is inside that (3rd party) SoC... while standing in a row of current alphas.
Whatever real progress has been made lately in spotters was on the eyepiece side by adopting wide angle zooms or super wide angle fixed eyepieces. Also coatings work per surface... a doublet objective has 4, the porro prisms plus half-penta prism has 6, a zoom EP has 15-20.
If you are fine with old wide angle fixed EPs (Nikon Fieldscope ED series comes to mind) or can combine an old body with a current zoom EP (from the same vendor which was nice enough to keep the mount the same or from a different vendor with adaption), that cherry old body will serve you just fine.
Joachim
sample variation of the objective will decide which is better.
An old cherry will beat a good (or worse - alpha lemons do exist!) example of any modern scope. As long as the objective is multicoated and well figured, it can be used... hell, even my not fully single coated but cherry TSN-3 body works perfectly fine - to the point of getting questions of what great scope is inside that (3rd party) SoC... while standing in a row of current alphas.
Whatever real progress has been made lately in spotters was on the eyepiece side by adopting wide angle zooms or super wide angle fixed eyepieces. Also coatings work per surface... a doublet objective has 4, the porro prisms plus half-penta prism has 6, a zoom EP has 15-20.
If you are fine with old wide angle fixed EPs (Nikon Fieldscope ED series comes to mind) or can combine an old body with a current zoom EP (from the same vendor which was nice enough to keep the mount the same or from a different vendor with adaption), that cherry old body will serve you just fine.
Joachim
Current alpha scopes are of course ahead of those made 10 or more years ago, BUT how much further ahead is the issue. I would argue that aside from the changes to the eyepieces others have already pointed out, they are not much further ahead at all. I suggest most people, most of the time, would find it hard to spot significant differences. The real big improvements IMO have come in the mid-range scopes which are now much closer to the alpha scopes than they were. The relationship between price and performance has always been a curve, not a straight line. Which means doubling the price doesn't double the performance - it may only be a few percent or less improvement at the alpha end of the price range, and the difference may be indistinguishable to most people.
I recently tried two examples of an Opticron MM4 60 with the SDL v3 zoom and compared them with my ED50 and it's "ancient" MC2 zoom. Yes the SDL v3 FOV was huge, but both examples of the MM4 had chromatic aberration I have never seen with the ED50 and had to be returned. Newer is not necessarily better !
I recently tried two examples of an Opticron MM4 60 with the SDL v3 zoom and compared them with my ED50 and it's "ancient" MC2 zoom. Yes the SDL v3 FOV was huge, but both examples of the MM4 had chromatic aberration I have never seen with the ED50 and had to be returned. Newer is not necessarily better !
Hermann
Well-known member
Yep, the old Leica zoom eyepieces have a rather small FOV, compared to modern zooms. Your friend might try to find the Leica 30X WA. That's an excellent eyepiece, and in many situations 30x is enough magnification. There was also a 20x WA at the time. Also a very, very nice eyepiece.
Too true. In fact, there seem me to be quite a few alpha lemons ...
And yet the old narrow Nikon zooms (20-60x, MCII as well as the older MC) can still successfully compete against modern zooms when it comes to optical quality. Smaller field of view, not really compatible with eye glasses, but the image quality is great. And the old Nikon WA eyepieces with their AFOV of 72 degrees are doing just fine.
The Nikon DS eyepieces are still available ...
I'm not surprised. Not at all.
Hermann
(who'll stick to his Nikon Fieldscopes ... 😁)
Interesting. I fully agree on some midrange scopes being impressive now. More than just satisfying. Funny thing is, I was thinking a.o. of Kite and my Opticron MM4 50. The latter has become the one I use the most: just a great combination of optical quality, size-&-weight and price, as I'm most often on the bike or on a more casual walk with family.
Of course, my ATX65 is better, but the CA hasn't really been bothering me on the Opticron. Could it be because I'm using a fixed HDF eyepiece (x23 on the 50mm, I think), and not the SDL zoom?
Was the CA visible at all magnification with the SDLv3+MM4 60mm, or only above a certain magnification?
(I've thinking about 'rationalizing' my scopes setup, and that SDLv3+60mm MM4, is one of the many options. The ATC56mm another, which would certainly require me to sell my ATX (not as lightweight,but such a great image :-/.)
There are similarities in our situation. I have a straight Nikon ED50 which, like your MM4 50, I find is "just a great combination of optical quality, size-&-weight and price," I also had a redundant Swarovski STS80 in the cupboard, and I was also interested in "rationalizing my set up". I wanted to see what a relatively lightweight 60mm scope with a modern zoom would add - maybe more brightness on dull days or towards the end of the day. So I bought an MM4 60 and the SDL v3 zoom. However, within 5 minutes of leaving the car park on IIRC the first time I used it I had heavy green fringes on the white belly of a gull on a mudbank. I am not a professional telescope tester, and I don't know how to provoke chromatic aberration. I had never experienced any CA in the STS80, ED50 or the ancient Zeiss 30x60 mirror scope I used before. This wasn't a conscious test of the scope - this was a viewing situation that had never caused a problem before in my 30+ years birding. IIRC the CA was there throughout the zoom range but it may have varied in magnitude. The body and lens went back to Opticron via the dealer for several months. Eventually they sent the zoom back with a new body (I checked the serial numbers !). Again within 5 minutes of leaving the car park I had a serious dark blue fringe on the white belly of a swimming Shellduck, and bizarrely for me, heavy blue fringes off its wake on the water. That example was returned for a full refund. Two bad examples in a row tells me this is either a bad batch, or normal business. However, there are many happy MM4 60 users on this forum who have never mentioned CA, but I note your comment that "the CA hasn't really been bothering me on the Opticron" so maybe it is normal business. Maybe the straight versions have a problem the more common angled versions don't have. IIRC someone on this forum went through 5 examples of a (Kowa ?) telescope before they found one they could live with. However, I don't have the time or the patience to go through Opticron's UK stock one-by-one to see if I can find a cherry. Why would I when I have an ED50 which is half the price, has a "great combination of optical quality, size-&-weight and price," and no CA
.So my advice to you is try an MM4 60 and SDL v3 zoom for yourself - but only if you buy it (like I did) from an honest, no quibble, established dealer within easy reach - i.e. you can deal face-to-face and there's no messing with waiting in for couriers or packing and sending £800+ of delicate optics back by courier. I'd rather be birding than messing with that
.Thrupenney Bit
Well-known member
Interesting thoughts here from someone also interested in the original question.
It also tends to head me towards only buying second hand from a reputable ( local if possible ) dealer so as to have some comeback if something shows up after purchase.
I also wonder about post sale backup from a maker.
i.e. if you did see a bargain locally from another birder who's not a dealer and went for it, if the worse came to the worse and a problem showed up after purchase, are the main manufacturers able to fix problems in older 'scopes?
I know it's a bit of a 'what if?' question but one I have no ideas about!
It also tends to head me towards only buying second hand from a reputable ( local if possible ) dealer so as to have some comeback if something shows up after purchase.
I also wonder about post sale backup from a maker.
i.e. if you did see a bargain locally from another birder who's not a dealer and went for it, if the worse came to the worse and a problem showed up after purchase, are the main manufacturers able to fix problems in older 'scopes?
I know it's a bit of a 'what if?' question but one I have no ideas about!
I wouldn't let what's in this thread put you off buying a new scope. If you buy a new scope from a reputable dealer under UK law your contract is with the dealer, not the manufacturer, so if a problem manifests itself in the guarantee period the dealer has to sort it for you. For many scopes that's tens of years and may even be for the lifetime of the scope. Some guarantees are transferable. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Post sales back-up from a manufacturer outside the guarantee period for second hand gear based on reports I have read on this forum varies from appalling to legendary. Swarovski is one of the legendary legendary ones on this forum, but some would argue so they should be when you look at their prices
. I had 2 problem with my Swarovski STS80. They lent me an STS65 via the dealer while they were fixing the scope and then sent me a replacement screw-in rubber eyecup FOC when mine came unscrewed, fell out when I wasn't looking, and was lost. Nikon UK fixed the broken thread in the foot of my ED50 FOC - which was a very common problem, but wanted to charge me a fortune for a replacement rubber eyepiece cap. I found a perfect fit online and bought two for less than the price they wanted for postage and packing ! I am sure others will chip in on this.Thrupenney Bit
Well-known member
Thanks for this.I wouldn't let what's in this thread put you off buying a new scope. If you buy a new scope from a reputable dealer under UK law your contract is with the dealer, not the manufacturer, so if a problem manifests itself in the guarantee period the dealer has to sort it for you. For many scopes that's tens of years and may even be for the lifetime of the scope. Some guarantees are transferable. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.
Post sales back-up from a manufacturer outside the guarantee period for second hand gear based on reports I have read on this forum varies from appalling to legendary. Swarovski is one of the legendary legendary ones on this forum, but some would argue so they should be when you look at their prices
Yep, buying new wouldn't worry me, and I'd try and use somewhere local just in case. I am becoming aware that some manufacturers have amazing warranties and that in itself is reassuring.
I have similar thoughts regarding second hand, at least you have some comeback for a limited time through the dealership.
As someone not up with the latest kit and how to differentiate cherrys from lemons ( unless in a supermarket!! ) I'm wary about buying from an individual purely from my own inexperience.
There are similarities in our situation. I have a straight Nikon ED50 which, like your MM4 50, I find is "just a great combination of optical quality, size-&-weight and price," I also had a redundant Swarovski STS80 in the cupboard, and I was also interested in "rationalizing my set up". I wanted to see what a relatively lightweight 60mm scope with a modern zoom would add - maybe more brightness on dull days or towards the end of the day. So I bought an MM4 60 and the SDL v3 zoom. However, within 5 minutes of leaving the car park on IIRC the first time I used it I had heavy green fringes on the white belly of a gull on a mudbank. I am not a professional telescope tester, and I don't know how to provoke chromatic aberration. I had never experienced any CA in the STS80, ED50 or the ancient Zeiss 30x60 mirror scope I used before. This wasn't a conscious test of the scope - this was a viewing situation that had never caused a problem before in my 30+ years birding. IIRC the CA was there throughout the zoom range but it may have varied in magnitude. The body and lens went back to Opticron via the dealer for several months. Eventually they sent the zoom back with a new body (I checked the serial numbers !). Again within 5 minutes of leaving the car park I had a serious dark blue fringe on the white belly of a swimming Shellduck, and bizarrely for me, heavy blue fringes off its wake on the water. That example was returned for a full refund. Two bad examples in a row tells me this is either a bad batch, or normal business. However, there are many happy MM4 60 users on this forum who have never mentioned CA, but I note your comment that "the CA hasn't really been bothering me on the Opticron" so maybe it is normal business. Maybe the straight versions have a problem the more common angled versions don't have. IIRC someone on this forum went through 5 examples of a (Kowa ?) telescope before they found one they could live with. However, I don't have the time or the patience to go through Opticron's UK stock one-by-one to see if I can find a cherry. Why would I when I have an ED50 which is half the price, has a "great combination of optical quality, size-&-weight and price," and no CA
So my advice to you is try an MM4 60 and SDL v3 zoom for yourself - but only if you buy it (like I did) from an honest, no quibble, established dealer within easy reach - i.e. you can deal face-to-face and there's no messing with waiting in for couriers or packing and sending £800+ of delicate optics back by courier. I'd rather be birding than messing with that
I just remembered your post while coming back from a cycle-&-walk tour today. I had my 8x32FL, 8x25pocket and 50mm MM4 with me, and the only one that did give me visible CA was the 8x25 (sometimes annoying me). I was actually again impressed by the lack of CA in both my FL binoculars and my little scope. This was in different lighting conditions, including birds against bright or cloudy sky, birds on water including sometimes with backlight reflections on the water etc.
I'm really starting to wonder if the ocular difference might be involved in me getting no CA with it (with a fixed HDF eyepiece giving approx.x23 magnification) while you do get CA with the SDL v3. I wouldn't expect a noticeable difference between the 50mm and the 60mm, having quite similar focal lengths and design.
In fact, I'm starting to think this little scope was the best value-for-money in my optics. That much more to see through it than through binoculars, and compact enough to just put in my cycling bag.
With hindsight the SDL v3 may have been the culprit, but my ignorance may have got in the way. I sent the body and eyepiece back to Opticron via the dealer assuming they would look at both. They replaced the body (I checked the serial numbers) but the dealer said it was the original eyepiece. I had to take his word for that (no reason not to) as they don't have serial numbers. I assumed CA was more likely from the objective lenses in the body than in the eyepiece, but I am no optics expert, so it made sense at the time just to replace the body. I also assumed Opticron checked the eyepiece, but again with hindsight, maybe they didn't bother checking anything ! At the time I was just glad to get shot of the second scope with CA and get a full refund.
I share your enthusiasm for small, lightweight, kit. I have also noticed a few people on the forum who have a large scope and a small scope and find themselves reaching for the small scope more often than the large one ! Out of interest why did you take a 8x32FL and 8x25 pocket binoculars ?
Thanks for sharing!
Is the SDLv3 showing more CA at all magnifications, also at (approximately) the same 23x?
Have to play about to check, rather grey weather so might take a bit. I normally “tune” the SDL to get the best compromise of brightness and field for the conditions and only occasionally dial up the magnification, though the contrast drops if you go too far. I don’t like the low power narrow field, so the 23x provides a useful alternative.
Peter
Peter
The answer to your last question is related to what you said just above it: I'm thinking of "rationalising" my optics a bit, possibly selling some (to keep fewer, possibly e.g. selling 2 to fund 1 I would use more often).
Just as I use my larger scope less often than my 50mm (though supposedly not as high end), I notice that I'm using my 8x25 way less often than expected (though I like compactness and some others have chosen it above 30-32mm options). I have never had any other 25mm and don't plan on owning several ones. Before deciding to keep it or not, I want to check if it's just some strange bias or real personal preference in some real-life conditions where I often go. The only really good test is using them yourself.
(I'm even thinking of selling my scopes to fund and own only, 1 compact but great scope: the ATC. But that still feels strange for the time being... The MM4 is already very good and I might "worry" too much maybe on some bad trails, on holidays etc. with an overly expensive ATC.)
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
I gather that the lateral CA people complain about (fringing) has more to do with eyepiece design, while HD/FL objectives minimize longitudinal CA resulting in a sharper image.
Similar threads
