Small and light scopes ... (1 Viewer)

[Tringa45]

* Which of course begs the question as to why Leupold doesn't use mirrors instead of prisms in many of it's other products?
So in terms of durability and servicing down the track . . . ?

John,

I think that the mirrors are merely used to fold the light path and keep the scope compact.
On another model with reticle they mention that this is in the first focal plane, so the scopes probably use lenses to achieve a correct image, as on a telescopic sight.
The eye lens is not very large so it's no wonder that the AFoV is so small with 30 mm of eye relief.

John

 

[Binastro]

Yukon spotters and their 6x-100x100mm scope use mirrors for folded optical paths.
Durability are not their strong points.

However, my 30x50 Yukon folded refractor binocular does seem to be fairly tough and alignment is good. Resolution is also good.

Regards,
B.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi John (post #21),

What I found most interesting about the use of mirrors, was the claim that it results in increased ruggedness and abuse resistance:
'. . . Leupold . . . uses lighter mirrors . . . to create a more rugged, compact, and lightweight design . . . (that) handles abuse better than prism systems . . .'

Although it’s speculation on my part . . .
It struck me that they may have taken the same approach that Steiner does in relation to lenses and prisms on their Porro prism binocular lines, and glued the mirrors in place (verses mechanical mounting). And since mirrors have far less mass than prisms, glued mirrors may in some circumstances be more durable than glued prisms.

However, there’s still an 'all or nothing' response to adverse events. If the glue holds, and the mirrors don’t fracture due to conducted impact, then all’s good. But if there is failure, then nothing can be done except replace the unit.

Reassuringly Leupold states in their Lifetime Guarantee:
'Built for a lifetime of performance - if at any time your . . . spotting scope doesn’t perform, we will repair or replace it for free - whether you're the original owner or not . . .'


John

 

[qwerty5]

... are few and far between, even though they can be really useful in many situations especially when travelling or when hiking in difficult terrain. Sure, there are some products, like e.g. the Nikon ED50 or the Opticrons, but they're all flawed in one way or another. The ED50, for instance, isn't quite as robust as it needs to be in the rough and tumble of a birding trip. The small Kowa has a fixed zoom eyepiece that isn't exactly the cat's meow. And the various 60mm offerings (like the Swarovski 60mm scopes) are simply to heavy for such purposes, a weight of >1000 gr is simply too much. Add to that a decent monopod (or a lightweight tripod), and then you're talking about 2-2.5 kg. Too much for many people and in many situations.

Taking into account the number of older birders - and I'll be officially one of them when I retire at the end of the month - there must be a market for such scopes. A simple, high quality scope, with a fixed eyepiece like a 25x would be ideal in many situations. Zeiss/Hensoldt made such a scope many, many years ago: Hensoldt Dialyt 25x56 (monokulares Fernrohr - monocular telescope). It's long enough to lean against a tree if need be, doesn't have a complex focuser and a simple eyepiece, not a complex (and heavy) zoom. Weight is under 600 gr. including the eyepiece. The present Zeiss scope (ZEISS Dialyt 18-45x65 | Der Jagdfeldspäher für große Distanzen) has a narrow zoom eyepiece - and weighs close to 1200 gr.

Today Swarovski, Zeiss and the other alpha makers focus on large, complex and heavy scopes. I am convinced small, light scopes would sell well. And the manufacturers would still be able to sell their big scopes no doubt - a small scope is for a different purpose.

Hermann

Hermann, ever tried the Vortex Razor HD 50mm? From what I've heard, it may give the Nikon a run for its money optically. There's only one eyepiece option (11-33x), so that may be enough to throw it out as an option. I've never looked through one myself, I just though I'd suggest it.

 

[Hermann]

Hermann, ever tried the Vortex Razor HD 50mm? From what I've heard, it may give the Nikon a run for its money optically. There's only one eyepiece option (11-33x), so that may be enough to throw it out as an option. I've never looked through one myself, I just though I'd suggest it.

Never tried it. In fact, I haven't seen them over here in Europe at all. And you're right, only one eyepiece option isn't ideal. The Nikon is far more flexible in that respect.

Hermann

 

[nkbj]

My small hike/travel scope is the Kowa TSN-501 with its fixed 20-40x zoom, which I regards as a fixed 20x eyepiece. I almost never touch the zoom ring. I too would love to have a similar sized scope with a 20x or 25x wideangle eyepiece.

 

[PYRTLE]

I'm sure the early Kowa TS 500 series were a light grey plastic model that came with an option of a fixed x 20 eyepiece as well as a zoom. ...straight body as well 502.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://scopeviews.co.uk/KowaTS501.htm&ved=2ahUKEwi6jvWq--LyAhUtRkEAHVOgDDEQFnoECAcQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0XYHUUrBy41eKqIFKPm1zp

Perhaps John has some literature on this, thank you.

 

[qwerty5]

And you're right, only one eyepiece option isn't ideal. The Nikon is far more flexible in that respect.

That's Vortex's weakness imo. Even for the 85mm Razor, they only have one eyepiece (20x WA) besides the included zoom and that's it.

 

[nkbj]

Maybe either the Delta Optical Titanium ED 7.5-22.5x50 or the Celestron Hummingbird ED 9-27x56 could be options? Both those scopes can use 1.25" astronomical eyepieces.

 

[Hermann]

Maybe either the Delta Optical Titanium ED 7.5-22.5x50 or the Celestron Hummingbird ED 9-27x56 could be options? Both those scopes can use 1.25" astronomical eyepieces.

I don't know the Delta Optical Titanium. I didn't like the Celestron Hummingbird in it's various incarnations. I found the optics and the mechanical quality quite mediocre.

What I would like to see is a small, light scope made by one of the proven manufacturers, with first-class optics and impeccable mechanical quality. That's NOT hard, in fact, it's far easier than making alpha binoculars with their mechanical complexity. No need for internal focussing for instance, a nice helical focusser would do nicely.

And yes, I'm convinced there's a market so such scopes.

Hermann

 

[scopesurfr]

And yes, I'm convinced there's a market so such scopes.

I'm a wannabe buyer

Q: what rules the Leupold out for you?

 

[Ruff-Leg]

My submission here may not exactly be relevant, as the items are no longer available, but like products are.

For years, I have used a 60mm Nikon RA II scope with a 20x EP shoulder-mounted on a Bush Hawk stock.

It has served me well anytime I've had a long hike to a birding locale. Not always easy to use - that's why I didn't go beyond 20x - and takes some practice. But if propped up against a solid support, it's remarkably sharp. In fact, when compared to big scopes at 20x, the image competes.

Charles

 

[Hermann]

I'm a wannabe buyer

There must be many people who'd like such a scope. However, let me tell you a story. When Leica started making scopes, they only made 77mm scopes, the Televid and the Apo-Televid. Some folks here will certainly remember these. After using an Apo-Televid on a long trip to Northern Finland and Northern Norway I suggested to Leica they should start making a smaller, 60mm version for hiking because these large scopes required large tripods and were a lot of hassle when birding in the woods, searching for Red-flanked Bluetail on Valtavaara Ridge and so on. Leica told me in no uncertain terms NOBODY would be interested in a small scope and no, they wouldn't make one.

BTW, that's when I switched to Nikon, and I'm still using the good old Fieldscopes to this day, mainly because there are the small 50mm, the 60mm and the 82mm, all sharing the same eyepieces.

The same happened with Zeiss when they started making their first Diascopes. Zeiss/Hensoldt made a very nice and light 56mm scope many moons ago, and I even used one on a couple of trips. A weight below 700gr., fixed 25x eyepiece with a decent field of view, a dream on long hikes. However, the coatings were still single layer, and the AK prism wasn't phase-coated. So the optical quality was nowhere near as good as I wanted. I asked Zeiss about making a small run of the Hensoldt 25x56 with up to date coatings, and they declined - nobody would want such a scope ...

Q: what rules the Leupold out for you?

Simple. I don't know it, Leupold is hard to find over here in Europe.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

My submission here may not exactly be relevant, as the items are no longer available, but like products are.

For years, I have used a 60mm Nikon RA II scope with a 20x EP shoulder-mounted on a Bush Hawk stock. It has served me well anytime I've had a long hike to a birding locale.

That's actually quite a nice scope. Not quite up to modern standards, but still quite nice. I would want something even lighter than that though. And with better optics.

BTW, I much prefer a light monopod over a shoulder mount. Works better for me.

Hermann

 

[pbjosh]

Hermann, I am with you... I would LOVE a 55-60mm, lightweight, functional, birder oriented scope. Angled body for me. It could have a fixed eyepiece if the eyepiece is better than on the small Kowa - ie a wide angle fixed in the 20-30x range. Alternatively something like a WA 20-40 zoom. But I think I would prefer the fixed eyepiece for simplicity and lighter weight. I really feel like Kowa did almost everything right but then marketing chose the solution that more consumers would want - but not the experienced / knowledgeable consumers, sadly. I don't say it to be elitist - business decisions are valid, and I understand why people prefer zooms. But I can't bring myself to pay for that scope w/ that eyepiece.

 

[Boogieshrew]

My submission here may not exactly be relevant, as the items are no longer available, but like products are.

For years, I have used a 60mm Nikon RA II scope with a 20x EP shoulder-mounted on a Bush Hawk stock.
View attachment 1405107
It has served me well anytime I've had a long hike to a birding locale. Not always easy to use - that's why I didn't go beyond 20x - and takes some practice. But if propped up against a solid support, it's remarkably sharp. In fact, when compared to big scopes at 20x, the image competes.

Charles

I use a Nikon ED50 with 16 or 20x e/p on a shoulder stock. Excellent for long hikes.
I tried a monopod but I don't like the fact I can't walk away from in the way you can with a tripod. A monopod needs constant support.
The shoulder stock hangs on my shoulder by a strap when not in use so leaves both hands free, unlike a monopod.

 

[scopesurfr]

Looks like neither BuchHawk or Stedi-Stock exist anymore... I may have to rig something up to see whether I like it...

 

[scopesurfr]

To play devil's advocate for a minute... (I hope that's allowed here...) While it's true that there are not a ton of options in the sub-KG scope category, there are more interesting options than I originally thought:

• The Kowa TSN-500 series sounds very interesting. It's the lightest there is (I believe) and the price is pretty low, which makes it an easy "add-on" decision. True, the eyepiece cannot be changed, but I suspect that allowing for that would both raise the weight and the price. True, it's not ED glass, but it's main use cases are presumably for quick looks, possibly hand-held. If you attach a tripod then one of the other options that weight a few 100g more makes no practical difference given the tripod weight.
• The Opticron MM3 non-ED 50 is competitive with the Kowa, a bit heavier (800gr) and stupidly only available in angled design (I believe).
• The Nikon ED50 is very popular and has good glass, it's main issues are availability, but it's lighter than the Opticron and has interchangeable eye pieces. Heavier than the Kowa but probably required to support the better glass and interchangeable eyepieces.
• The Kowa TSN-550 series features top-notch glass yet remains light (800gr), the FoV of the eyepiece doesn't seem awesome, but not horrible either, the price/value ratio makes no sense to me, but I'm sure others will disagree.
• The Opticron MM4 50 ED is also in the sub 1KG category, as far as I can tell great glass and good choice of eyepieces, price still reasonable and weight just barely under 1KG (MM3 was about 100g lighter as far as I can tell, is the MM5 going to be yet heavier???)
• The Minox MD 50 has decent glass (APO not ED), is light, has a good price, seems like a decent choice too
• The Vortex Razor HD and Hawke Endurance HD round out the list (don't know much about 'em)

This list is not meant to be exhaustive, I'm just trying to point out that it's not like there are no options. You can go from minimal scopes under $400 that have decent optics, to $800 scopes with ED glass and interchangeable eyepieces, to a $1800 scope with FL glass. All under 1KG.

(I'm not sure which one to pull the trigger on, but that has more to do with me not being sure how beneficial a 50mm scope would be to my birding than anything else...)

 

[Alexis Powell]

To argue w/the devil a bit, I'd point out that the Nikon 50ED is not really all that hard to find (e.g. angled version with zoom is in stock at B&H for $700, but I bet you could piece it together elsewhere including a nicer fixed eyepiece for under $500. Body-only, it is regularly available grey market on Amazon or eBay. Right now the angled is on eBay new for under $289).

--AP

 

[Steve Babbs]

Hermann, ever tried the Vortex Razor HD 50mm? From what I've heard, it may give the Nikon a run for its money optically. There's only one eyepiece option (11-33x), so that may be enough to throw it out as an option. I've never looked through one myself, I just though I'd suggest it.

I have one. I rarely used my Nikon ED50 as I had the 20x eye piece and found that too low. I looked into getting the 27x but it wasn't much cheaper than buying a new Vortex and I had had problems with the tripod thread. I use the Vortex far more than I ever used the Nikon, although I agree the 13x is pretty pointless. I find the Vortex a great scope for the weight and money, although I still have a Zeiss 65mm for when I need a bit more zoom, and it does have a better image quality as would be expected with it's greater size objective lens and much higher price point, and a Nikon 82mm for when weight isn't an issue.