Review of Nikon monarch ED82/Nikon monarch ED82-S (1 Viewer)

[countryman george]

OK my thoughts on the nikon monarch ED82s, build quality is outstanding A plus and the look is terrific, optically brightness was nothing super outstanding but it still gathered quite alot of light, it was sharp especially close range viewing on flowers insects a birder would be happy with this, the eyepiece is well, i got the standard one I've heard some good news about the wide eyepiece but at 20x you don't have to have your eye so close to the eyepiece but when you turn it to 30-60 you really need to put your eyeball kind of close nothing big just my long eyelashes I do not want to get the lenses full of dirt, optically I'd say it did a good job at 20x it was sharp but it does lose a tiny bit of clarity when going to 60x and when i say tiny I mean TINY like 3-4% and at 60x does bring alot more detail so I use it alot in some occasions, the only problem being that it is pretty hard to get the focus right but I do get the focus right at 60 with a little twitching around.
and one thing I do want to note is that i did notice that the feild flattener lens did a great job but I think my spotting scope is not a good specimen since there was a tiny bit of CA at the edges when I viewed it at some branches with bright sun behind it and I was looking at the edges of the image and I mean THE REALLY EDGE, i know it's not a good specimen because I've looked through some before but I can deal with this one I'm not usually looking at the very edge of it anyway. Anyway here are some photos through it you can view instead of hearing me yap about it too and that's it, have a wonderful day!

 

[countryman george]

Had a minor glitch and accidentally posted 2 threads.. This one's the official one here.

 

[henry link]

Hi George,

The lateral CA you noticed comes from the optics of the eyepiece, not the optics of the scope body. The wide Nikon zoom eyepiece is no better, maybe a bit worse. The scope will show much less lateral CA if it's combined with the Baader Hyperion MK IV zoom.

You might want to have a moderator move this thread to the scope sub-form.

Henry

 

[countryman george]

Hi George,

The lateral CA you noticed comes from the optics of the eyepiece, not the optics of the scope body. The wide Nikon zoom eyepiece is no better, maybe a bit worse. The scope will show much less lateral CA if it's combined with the Baader Hyperion MK IV zoom.

You might want to have a moderator move this thread to the scope sub-form.

Henry

that is very interesting, i have got to know more about this baader hyperion eyepeice, if there is an opportunity to get more performance out of my eyepeice then i definetly would. Is the baader hyperion MK IV compatible with the monarch? is the brightness the same as the monarch eyepeice? how would the sharpness compare to the monarch eyepeice as well?

 

[henry link]

This post lists everything you need to adapt the Baader zoom to the Nikon Monarch scopes.

Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten

Thanks for the link. I'm hoping I won't have a problem with back focus. I think the Mark IV Baader zoom should should reach focus even 17-18mm from the back of the scope. My problem now is that I can't find one. Every dealer is out and backordered for maybe 2-3 months. My Mark II may be...

www.birdforum.net

The Baader's light transmission is very high, but I haven't compared it directly to the Nikon standard zoom. The only reason I know that the Baader has better correction for lateral color is because I compared the Baader directly to the wide Nikon zoom, which has a similar correction for lateral CA to the standard zoom. Sharpness will not be limited by the eyepiece. It will be whatever the quality of the scope body's optics and the magnification factor allow.

 

[countryman george]

This post lists everything you need to adapt the Baader zoom to the Nikon Monarch scopes.

Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten

Thanks for the link. I'm hoping I won't have a problem with back focus. I think the Mark IV Baader zoom should should reach focus even 17-18mm from the back of the scope. My problem now is that I can't find one. Every dealer is out and backordered for maybe 2-3 months. My Mark II may be...

www.birdforum.net

The Baader's light transmission is very high, but I haven't compared it directly to the Nikon standard zoom. The only reason I know that the Baader has better correction for lateral color is because I compared the Baader directly to the wide Nikon zoom, which has a similar correction for lateral CA to the standard zoom. Sharpness will not be limited by the eyepiece. It will be whatever the quality of the scope body's optics and the magnification factor allow.

OK sorry for the bother but you being an expert in this i have bad news, my scope is developing tiny spiderweb like fungus in the front of the lens of the monarch what do i do? Will this affect the quality of my lenses? Was thinking about some homemade liquid remedies online but I dont fully trust it and dont want to tamper the lens.

 

[henry link]

The scope should be returned to Nikon ASAP. Left alone the fungus will spread and eventually ruin the scope. You must live in a humid place, but even so I can't believe that the scope was properly sealed when you got it. It should be fixed and sealed or a new scope provided under warranty.

 

[Ratal]

henry link is 100% correct. Your scope isn't sealed nor purged. Hence the internal growth.

Return it

 

[countryman george]

The scope should be returned to Nikon ASAP. Left alone the fungus will spread and eventually ruin the scope. You must live in a humid place, but even so I can't believe that the scope was properly sealed when you got it. It should be fixed and sealed or a new scope provided under warranty.

It was outside of the scope that had fungi, supposedly it was tiny water splashes at first but then those milimiter water droplets on the external lens did turn into fungi.

 

[henry link]

That changes everything. I thought the fungus was in the air space between the objective elements. Looks like in your climate water droplets should be removed from the external surfaces to prevent rapid fungus growth. I'll leave it to you to decide how to remove the water.

 

[Peregrine Took]

Just some non-scientific thoughts about the Nikon Monarch 82ED a and the 60ED A.

I bought both sized Nikons to try at home, as I was looking for an upgrade to an Opticron MM4 60, for birdwatching only. I tried both Nikons with the 20-60x zoom and the fixed 38x EP - and compared them to a Kowa 773 with a 25-60 EP and the Opticron MM4 with an SDLv3 EP. (I wasn't sure what size of scope to buy, so I was scratching a few itches in one go.)

In so far as my 'tests' were carried out in the field - birdwatching, and not looking at stars or charts - I found both of the Monarchs, in their own right, to be almost perfect optically... perfect for birding, and observing deer and other local critters. I think for anyone that was disinclined to test either against any other scope I think they'd be super happy and have no need to think 'what if'.

But as for comparisons. The 60mm Nikon had much better control over colour fringing than my MM4, which is clear only in the middle third, whereas false colours viewed through the Nikon are barely visible, and only at the extreme edges. Both are sharp right to the edges and throughout the zoom range. There may be more field curvature int the Opticron, but if there is, it was not enough that I was aware of it when panning. Physically, the Nikon is heavier and larger, but this would not prevent me from backpacking with it. Otherwise, the only practical differences were the MM4 EPs wider field of view and the dual focus. Also, the Nikon has a built-in sun shade - it was a source of irritation, in certain light, that not only did the MM4 60 not have a shade, but the thread wasn't a proper screw thread but tapered, making the scope incapable of accepting a third party shade.

On the point of focus. I found that the barrel focus made it tricky to obtain focus with both Monarchs when at full zoom and especially in poor light. I was much more confident that I could make very fine adjustments to focus with both the Kowa and the Opticron. But that's just me... not a fault of the scopes.

In the same comparison between the Nikon 82 and a Kowa 773, I again preferred the dual focus of the Kowa and the much wider field of view, which makes the Kowa feel more immersive. The Kowa had marginally better control of false colours at the very outer limits, but the difference is barely visible... I'm talking minute. Otherwise they are both sharp to the edges, throughout the zoom range and seem equally as bright (not 'tested' as such, but the impression they gave in actual use). The Monarch is about 400g heavier than the Kowa.

Overall, I found the Monarchs (and the Kowa) almost faultless - I'm not sure that at this level there is much to choose between scopes, other than any number of personal preferences. Maybe I should add that for £750.00 the MM4 is also a great scope - it only 'fails' with some colour fringing in the outer thirds against strong backlight.

I'm only returning the Nikons (both) because I find I much prefer dual focus and because the Monarch is made in China (having owned Nikon cameras since the dark ages I assumed Japan, but I guess those days are over as far as Nikon is concerned). If you are agnostic about place of manufacture and disagree with any of my preferences or comments, I'd say the Nikons represent exceptional value for money.

.