I am without speech. So I will write.
I bought the 14mm XW eyepiece from the classified section of the forums for $245, and it promptly arrived on Tuesday - really too prompt, since the PF-65 ed II-a (shipped for only $509 from Adorama) didn't show up until Thursday. 48 hours with nothing but that beautiful eyepiece had me drooling like a fat kid at Krispy Kreme (that metaphor isn't offensive, just autobiographical), so when Thursday came, I hopped in my car after school and plowed through a few extra red lights and pedestrians...I'm sure they understood. I was delighted to find a brown UPS box on the front porch as I floated through the door.
I ripped through the packaging like a fat kid opening a Hershey bar (see above) and didn't even stop to pop the bubble wrap before extracting that beautiful tube of rubbery armor, metal, and ED glass. I sprinted to my bed and carefully removed the XW14 from its perch atop my wife's pillow, and with a simple twist, I gazed down in awe as perfection materialized in my hands...the ultimate Pentax combo was finally here, waiting to attach itself to my right eye, and subsequently, my heart.
I simply can't describe the view through this scope. Words fail. Amazingly bright? Ridiculously clear? Phenomenally detailed? The cure for cancer? Nothing is too superlative. The field of view is just mind-blowing. The picture is stunning from edge to edge. The scope is compact, and although the eyepiece is bulky, the combination of the two is surprisingly well-balanced at the tripod plate. The eyepiece reminds me of the first time I saw a wide-screen high-definition plasma television. I only got to enjoy the view for a second or two before tears filled my eyes.
To try to maintain some semblance of objectivity, I should point out a few quirks. The focus isn't anything special, but it's easy to use and well located, and I have never preferred the Swarovski-style focus rings that encircle the entire body anyway. The fine-focus present on the Zeiss Diascope would have been a nice addition, but I'm being nit-picky...I had no problem finding a perfect focus point on every bird I spotted. The XW14 takes a little getting used to, since slightly deviating your eye from the center of the piece will cause a picture loss. Maintaining a good, round image was second nature after thirty minutes or so. After an hour, several people at the pond near my home had also taken a gander...this scope is a magnet. An osprey even swooped down, landed softly on my tripod wand, and took a suspiciously long look at a pelican. I eventually had to ask him to fly aside.
The scope includes a nylon cover that, while not a fancy addition, is certainly functional and a nice freebie that more expensive scopes omit. The zippers are a bit noisy and the straps are poorly positioned, but it's lightweight and fits well. More time in the field will test its worthiness on a long hike where minimalism becomes paramount.
I do quite a bit of backpacking, so the PF-65 was my size of choice. I'll probably purchase the larger version when Pentax re-releases it in an ergonomic body to compete with the superior casings that Zeiss and Swarovski wrap around their larger lenses (I hope that day is coming). But for mountain excursions and long hikes, with occasional digiscoping, the 65 is perfect.
I was about to purchase a Diascope when I saw a random comment in one of the Zeiss threads about what a waste of cash they were compared to the Pentax PF's. While I would never call a Diascope or Swarovski a waste of money, their zoom eyepieces certainly can't compete with the Pentax fixed-view through a 1.25" XW series eyepiece. One could argue that adding a fixed piece to the Swarovski or Zeiss might re-level the playing field, but at that cost (and considering the smaller size), I don't see any reason to pass up the Pentax. I ordered the "ed II" after comparing the original "ed" side by side with the Zeiss and Swaro (both only had zooms), and the difference was undeniable. Although I haven't gone back to compare the original with my ed II, I imagine that the product has only gotten better.
Better View Desired nailed it on the head - the best way to design a great scope is to start at the eyepiece and work forward. Large, fixed eyepieces at (in this case) 28x offer the best of both worlds - ample magnification with an incredible field of view. I'll never go back to a zoom.
Take it from this fat kid - nothing beats this scope.
Krispy Kremes come close.
-Jackson
P.S. - Thanks to everyone here for the excellent discussion. I would never have purchased such an under-hyped product if not for your insight and enthusiasm. Happy birding!
I bought the 14mm XW eyepiece from the classified section of the forums for $245, and it promptly arrived on Tuesday - really too prompt, since the PF-65 ed II-a (shipped for only $509 from Adorama) didn't show up until Thursday. 48 hours with nothing but that beautiful eyepiece had me drooling like a fat kid at Krispy Kreme (that metaphor isn't offensive, just autobiographical), so when Thursday came, I hopped in my car after school and plowed through a few extra red lights and pedestrians...I'm sure they understood. I was delighted to find a brown UPS box on the front porch as I floated through the door.
I ripped through the packaging like a fat kid opening a Hershey bar (see above) and didn't even stop to pop the bubble wrap before extracting that beautiful tube of rubbery armor, metal, and ED glass. I sprinted to my bed and carefully removed the XW14 from its perch atop my wife's pillow, and with a simple twist, I gazed down in awe as perfection materialized in my hands...the ultimate Pentax combo was finally here, waiting to attach itself to my right eye, and subsequently, my heart.
I simply can't describe the view through this scope. Words fail. Amazingly bright? Ridiculously clear? Phenomenally detailed? The cure for cancer? Nothing is too superlative. The field of view is just mind-blowing. The picture is stunning from edge to edge. The scope is compact, and although the eyepiece is bulky, the combination of the two is surprisingly well-balanced at the tripod plate. The eyepiece reminds me of the first time I saw a wide-screen high-definition plasma television. I only got to enjoy the view for a second or two before tears filled my eyes.
To try to maintain some semblance of objectivity, I should point out a few quirks. The focus isn't anything special, but it's easy to use and well located, and I have never preferred the Swarovski-style focus rings that encircle the entire body anyway. The fine-focus present on the Zeiss Diascope would have been a nice addition, but I'm being nit-picky...I had no problem finding a perfect focus point on every bird I spotted. The XW14 takes a little getting used to, since slightly deviating your eye from the center of the piece will cause a picture loss. Maintaining a good, round image was second nature after thirty minutes or so. After an hour, several people at the pond near my home had also taken a gander...this scope is a magnet. An osprey even swooped down, landed softly on my tripod wand, and took a suspiciously long look at a pelican. I eventually had to ask him to fly aside.
The scope includes a nylon cover that, while not a fancy addition, is certainly functional and a nice freebie that more expensive scopes omit. The zippers are a bit noisy and the straps are poorly positioned, but it's lightweight and fits well. More time in the field will test its worthiness on a long hike where minimalism becomes paramount.
I do quite a bit of backpacking, so the PF-65 was my size of choice. I'll probably purchase the larger version when Pentax re-releases it in an ergonomic body to compete with the superior casings that Zeiss and Swarovski wrap around their larger lenses (I hope that day is coming). But for mountain excursions and long hikes, with occasional digiscoping, the 65 is perfect.
I was about to purchase a Diascope when I saw a random comment in one of the Zeiss threads about what a waste of cash they were compared to the Pentax PF's. While I would never call a Diascope or Swarovski a waste of money, their zoom eyepieces certainly can't compete with the Pentax fixed-view through a 1.25" XW series eyepiece. One could argue that adding a fixed piece to the Swarovski or Zeiss might re-level the playing field, but at that cost (and considering the smaller size), I don't see any reason to pass up the Pentax. I ordered the "ed II" after comparing the original "ed" side by side with the Zeiss and Swaro (both only had zooms), and the difference was undeniable. Although I haven't gone back to compare the original with my ed II, I imagine that the product has only gotten better.
Better View Desired nailed it on the head - the best way to design a great scope is to start at the eyepiece and work forward. Large, fixed eyepieces at (in this case) 28x offer the best of both worlds - ample magnification with an incredible field of view. I'll never go back to a zoom.
Take it from this fat kid - nothing beats this scope.
Krispy Kremes come close.
-Jackson
P.S. - Thanks to everyone here for the excellent discussion. I would never have purchased such an under-hyped product if not for your insight and enthusiasm. Happy birding!
