What's wrong with the Zeiss Harpia?? (1 Viewer)

[Limpias]

Hello Forum,

I am a happy user of a Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 bino since not very long - but enjoy the views I can get from it. I am really getting a lot of fun viewing nature and wildlife in general, I got the feeling that my personal view of my surroundings are tremendously enlarged with that bino. I also like a little astronomy - and some more reach would be highly appreciated!!

That is why I am thinking to acquire a new toy!

Since I want to buy for longtime ownership, I just want to shoot for the best stuff currently available. My experience is that the best stuff will keep its value over a longer timeframe - and can be sold years later without loosing too much money. So if you think longterm and I usually sell before I buy new, money is not really a problem (well, there are limits !).

That is how I came to the Zeiss Harpia Spotting Scope - according to my web reviews I would right now go for the 85mm version. But somehow, I got the feeling that even though the scope should be top notch, not too many people are buying the Harpia - and I am wondering why. So what's wrong with the Harpia - can somebody help??

Is it the money (too expensive)?

Is it the closing of the aperture at wide angle settings??

Is it the missing alternatives for eyepieces / missing adaptors for third party - astronomical eyepieces / missing adaptors for digiscoping?

Would I make a mistake buying it?

What are your recommendations if you think best performance overall?

Thanks for your thoughts!!

Andreas

 

[Binastro]

For astronomy a 200mm aperture Dobsonian is a much better alternative and much cheaper.

Any good bird watching scope for nature watching.

As to secondhand values, there is an immediate 30% drop when buying new optics, and in real terms after many years the value drops 90%.

Optics are rarely an investment, just enjoy using them.

Regards,
B.

 

[pppppvvvv]

I have the harpia 85mm. It's really good.
Previously had a Swarovski atx 95mm, but found the relatively narrow field of view unusable.
The harpia is much wider at low magnification, to the point that you can point it in the general direction and the subject will be in there.

The focus has a geared mechanism, which is hard to explain, but it starts off fine tuning, then switches to a faster focus. When you arrive at your subject, you focus just past, then home in on the fine tune.
Not sure i'd know if it was there if I hadn't read about it. So it's obviously fairly well designed / intuitive.

Similarly, never noticed the aperture thing at lower magnification. It's plenty bright throughout.

I'd also consider the latest kowa models, which seem to get good reviews.
And the swarovskis

 

[kabsetz]

The short answer is that there is nothing wrong with the Harpia. The things you mention as negatives are true, yes, but not significant for daily use, and don't make the scope as a whole worse than other top scopes. The super-wide viewing angle that remains subjectively the same throughout the magnification range is a definite plus at small magnifications and unique among scopes. The closing of the aperture at small magnifications does not matter much in real-life use.
If I were you, I would go with the 95mm model, though. It will give higher mags and more light, and is not much bigger.
- Kimmo

 

[forent]

(...) I would right now go for the 85mm version. But somehow, I got the feeling that even though the scope should be top notch, not too many people are buying the Harpia - and I am wondering why. So what's wrong with the Harpia - can somebody help??

1. Is it the money (too expensive)?
2. Is it the closing of the aperture at wide angle settings??
3. Is it the missing alternatives for eyepieces / missing adaptors for third party - astronomical eyepieces / missing adaptors for digiscoping?
4. Would I make a mistake buying it?

What are your recommendations if you think best performance overall? (...)

1. I doubt that it is a matter of price: The market for valuable high-end field scopes is small so the demand is limited anyway. Most birders that I (!) know belong sooner or later to the "buy once, cry once" category - they formerly have invested in quality equipment and use it for the decades to come. I often see observers with Kowa, Leica, Swarovski, Optolyth and, of course, Zeiss scopes from the 1980s and 1990s. And why not - they still deliver the goods and their owners are usually clueless about the current market supply (incl. "the latest and greatest"). Difficult to sell new stuff to those people, at least here in Europe. On the other hand, Kowa (among birders) and Swarovski (among hunters and birders alike) enjoy their reputation as the cutting edge in field scopes. Difficult to tackle, even for premium brands like Zeiss and Leica.
2. For me: definitely yes! An exit pupil of, say, 80mm/20x = 4mm is so helpful in dawn and dusk that I would not abstain from it.
3. For me: no, even if your (and others') mileage may vary. By the way, I have never heard that the Swarovski *TX system had an "eyepiece issue". (Of course you can choose between ATX, STX and BTX but not adapt astronomy eyepieces.)
4. That depends on i) your personal preferences and ii) your talent and luck in selecting your personal specimen. Unfortunately, there are cherry and lemon copies around. (E.g. the Harpia 95 that Roger Vine tested could have been a lemon while his Harpia 85 was possibly a cherry, who knows; Zeiss Victory 95 Harpia Review). But that holds true for all field scope brands and models. So try before you buy!

I can't give a reliable recommendation. All top-class scopes have their individual strengths and weaknesses that may or may not be decisive for you and sample variation plays an important role anyway. I can only say that I don't like the Zeiss for its limited aperture at lower magnifications and - seriously! - its sticky black armour that is always blemished with fluff and fingerprints. Hell, it bothers me, believe it or not! My current scope is a Meopta S2 20-70x82 HD - for me the sweet spot of quality, ergonomics and price. I even sold my Swarovski ATX 65&95 system - optically very slightly better in direct comparison - because I found the Meopta to be a more pleasing package for me in person. But that's just me! Others might recommend Zeiss, Swarovski, Kowa or Leica scopes for their good reasons.

 

[pppppvvvv]

One further thought about the 2 speed focussing on the Harpia. The fine focus is about 1/2 a turn(?) At which point you hit the coarse focussing.
It's never knowingly happened to me, but you could be tracking something as it gets closer, hit the coarse focus, and lose the fine tuning?!

The most recent kowa scopes have a separate wheel for fine focus, so you could follow something from close to infinity without ever running out of fine focus control. I've never tried a kowa scope, but that seems slightly better perhaps?

 

[WRL]

One further thought about the 2 speed focussing on the Harpia. The fine focus is about 1/2 a turn(?) At which point you hit the coarse focussing.
It's never knowingly happened to me, but you could be tracking something as it gets closer, hit the coarse focus, and lose the fine tuning?!

The most recent kowa scopes have a separate wheel for fine focus, so you could follow something from close to infinity without ever running out of fine focus control. I've never tried a kowa scope, but that seems slightly better perhaps?

Good point. I only have (recent) Kowas and I prefer the dual focus wheels over the single dual speed ones. In addition, the body circumferential focus and zoom wheels are not to everybody's liking. I would strongly recommend to try this setup thoroughly before buying. - As a side note: When buying my first scope I tried the Harpia (85) and the Kowa 883 side by side on the pavement in front of the shop (a detailed church clock face about 350 meters away is always a good test target). I decided for the Kowa. Contrast was perceived as better and Kowa's focus/zoom solution suited me better anyway.
However, I don't think choosing any of the alpha scopes (Zeiss, Swaro, Leica, Kowa) is ever a bad choice. In my opnion, in this class, it depends more on other qualities/features than on the pure optical performance. A prime scope that does not "feel" good will simply not be used as often as it should/could.

 

[pppppvvvv]

That's very true. If they aren't right for you, they get heavy very quickly!

 

[forent]

Oh yes, that's true.
One important reason for me to switch from Swaro ATX to Meopta S2 was the distinctly smaller diameter of the Meopta eyecup that fitted my eye socket so much better: less blackouts, less eye strain. When I bought the Swaro I was obsessed with optical quality. Don't get me wrong, the Swaro is brilliant and maybe the perfect scope for many, but, as I became clear trying the Meopta, not for me. So, by all means, try for yourself what fits you in person best. It's the ergonomics, stupid!

 

[Limpias]

Thank you all for your answers!! Really appreciate your inputs!!

The ergonomic point makes me really think right now. As in Binos - you can't go wrong with one of the Alphas in terms of optics. But in terms of usage, there might be tangible differences. I guess before spending I need to find a place to try things out...

 

[DRodrigues]

...
If I were you, I would go with the 95mm model, though. It will give higher mags and more light, and is not much bigger.
- Kimmo

I'm with Kimmo!
I lost interest on the Harpia since don't have straight versions...
You might be interested on having a look at Harpia95 vs. Swaro X95

 

[Limpias]

1. I doubt that it is a matter of price: The market for valuable high-end field scopes is small so the demand is limited anyway. Most birders that I (!) know belong sooner or later to the "buy once, cry once" category - they formerly have invested in quality equipment and use it for the decades to come. I often see observers with Kowa, Leica, Swarovski, Optolyth and, of course, Zeiss scopes from the 1980s and 1990s. And why not - they still deliver the goods and their owners are usually clueless about the current market supply (incl. "the latest and greatest"). Difficult to sell new stuff to those people, at least here in Europe. On the other hand, Kowa (among birders) and Swarovski (among hunters and birders alike) enjoy their reputation as the cutting edge in field scopes. Difficult to tackle, even for premium brands like Zeiss and Leica.
2. For me: definitely yes! An exit pupil of, say, 80mm/20x = 4mm is so helpful in dawn and dusk that I would not abstain from it.
3. For me: no, even if your (and others') mileage may vary. By the way, I have never heard that the Swarovski *TX system had an "eyepiece issue". (Of course you can choose between ATX, STX and BTX but not adapt astronomy eyepieces.)
4. That depends on i) your personal preferences and ii) your talent and luck in selecting your personal specimen. Unfortunately, there are cherry and lemon copies around. (E.g. the Harpia 95 that Roger Vine tested could have been a lemon while his Harpia 85 was possibly a cherry, who knows; Zeiss Victory 95 Harpia Review). But that holds true for all field scope brands and models. So try before you buy!

I can't give a reliable recommendation. All top-class scopes have their individual strengths and weaknesses that may or may not be decisive for you and sample variation plays an important role anyway. I can only say that I don't like the Zeiss for its limited aperture at lower magnifications and - seriously! - its sticky black armour that is always blemished with fluff and fingerprints. Hell, it bothers me, believe it or not! My current scope is a Meopta S2 20-70x82 HD - for me the sweet spot of quality, ergonomics and price. I even sold my Swarovski ATX 65&95 system - optically very slightly better in direct comparison - because I found the Meopta to be a more pleasing package for me in person. But that's just me! Others might recommend Zeiss, Swarovski, Kowa or Leica scopes for their good reasons.

One thing which comes to my mind right now and which is not really being discussed is the advantage of having a smaller / stepped down aperture at wide settings: improved depth of field!

It is a lot easier to bring / keep things in focus!

So it comes down to actually when to when does one really need an exit pupil greater than 2,5mm at the wide end??

All the best and again thanks for your posts!!

Andreas

 

[wllmspd]

I believe you can fit 1.25” Astro eyepieces to the Harpia with an adapter so if you do have an occasional issue at dusk you could always swap to a fixed focal length eyepiece for a brighter view. Personally having a wide apparent view across the full zoom range would be very handy and the harpia and a new APM Astro zoom are the only options (the latter still not quite available).

Peter

 

[forent]

One thing which comes to my mind right now and which is not really being discussed is the advantage of having a smaller / stepped down aperture at wide settings: improved depth of field! It is a lot easier to bring / keep things in focus! So it comes down to actually when to when does one really need an exit pupil greater than 2,5mm at the wide end?? (...)

Yes, you are right; this thread deals with some details:

Depth of field and f-stop of scopes

Hello, if I look at a camera lens, it has a f-stop value (which corresponds to the largest aperture, since the lens has a diaphragm that can make the aperture smaller). A fast aperture lets a lot of light in but has a shallow depth of field (thing are out of focus if they are even slightly off...

www.birdforum.net

However, now that I'm in my fifties the world seems to be dimmer than before. Therefore I am happy for any little photon that creeps out of my scope and sheds light on my ageing eyes in difficult conditions - dark, overcast days, dawn and dusk. In bright daylight things are different, fortunately. But even then another advantage of a larger exit pupil remains: an easier eye placement with less blackouts.

But it's very well possible that you would prefer the higher DOF that a smaller exit pupil provides. As I said:

(...) So, by all means, try for yourself what fits you in person best. It's the ergonomics, stupid!

 

[kabsetz]

A telescope, like a binocular, is an focal device when working with the human eye. DOF is only affected by magnification, not exit pupil diameter. There are a number of threads on this topic, which regularly creates confusion because with camera lenses the situation is different.

 

[forent]

Depth of field in telescopes causes a lot of confusion, especially when concepts from camera lenses are inappropriately applied - which happens often. The first thing to understand about telescopes is that, unlike camera lenses, they are afocal devices. (...) In a perfect telescope only two factors effect our perception of DOF: the telescope's magnification and the effective entrance pupil diameter of the eye. (...)
However, there is one way to change the true DOF of the eye and scope combination, and that is to reduce the effective aperture of the eye at a given magnification. (...) When observing through a birding scope in daylight at 60x the eye's pupil might be open to around 3mm while the scope's exit pupil at the same magnification might range from as large as 1.92mm (Swaro 115mm ATX) to as small as 0.83mm in a 50mm scope. If we assign the eye at 3mm dilation a focal ratio of f/6, then its focal ratio effectively becomes f/9.38 when the entrance pupil is reduced to 1.92mm by the exit pupil of the 115mm scope and f/21.7 through the 50mm scope. So, DOF is wider through the 50mm scope, but the image is dimmer. There is simply no way to take advantage of the larger aperture of the 115mm scope without also decreasing the DOF.

Thanks, Kimmo, for clarifying this.
But as far as I unterstand Henry's statement quoted above, given the eye's dilation is larger than the scope's exit pupil, at a default magnification the exit pupil determines the usable dilation of the eye and hence brightness of and DOF in the perceived image. On the other hand, if the dilation of the eye is smaller than the exit pupil of the scope, DOF and brightness remain unaffected irrespective of the actual size of the exit pupil.
Did I see the point?

 

[Limpias]

Thanks, Kimmo, for clarifying this.
But as far as I unterstand Henry's statement quoted above, given the eye's dilation is larger than the scope's exit pupil, at a default magnification the exit pupil determines the usable dilation of the eye and hence brightness of and DOF in the perceived image. On the other hand, if the dilation of the eye is smaller than the exit pupil of the scope, DOF and brightness remain unaffected irrespective of the actual size of the exit pupil.
Did I see the point?

Well, I guess there are two different "optical systems" we have to look at: one is the scope with its own physics - and the other is the human eye.

If we just look at the scope, the optical parameters are fixed: (amongst others) magnification and exit pupil. These two factors determine foremost brightness - and DOF. The depth of field is dependent on the respective magnification and the aperture (exit pupil) of the optical system: the higher the magnification, the smaller the DOF - the bigger the aperture (exit pupil), the smaller the DOF. Hence: DOF solely depends on the optical physics of the scope.

If we attach a second "optical system" (your eye) behind the scope, things change a little bit: depending on the opening of your pupil you will see respective brightness. It will never be brighter than what your scope can achieve - if your pupil is smaller however than the exit pupil of the scope it can become perceived darker. DOF however will remain unchanged, since this is only dependent on the optical characteristics of the scope, not your eye...

All the best!

Andreas

 

[Limpias]

Hi everybody,

so the day before yesterday I had the chance to try both Harpia (85&95) and compare it to a Kowa 99. The first thing which is quite apparent is the FOV of the Zeiss at wide settings - this is really awesome. The Kowa gets comparable to the Zeisses at max magnification however.

Others than that the two brands are quite comparable - during the 10 mins I had the chance to look through in comparison. The Kowa might be a tad brighter at wide - but not much. Sharpness is outstanding for both, same for optical defects which are basically nonexistent.

Had a little problem with getting my eyes into the right position though, a little less so with the 95. Hope with a little training this will go away. Have to say however, that the mounting was far from optimal - it was quite flimsy and the height was too low.... maybe that was also a factor.

Major difference between the 85 and the 95 is the size - even though on paper the 95 is not much bigger, the physical appearance and size is quite bigger than the smaller sibling. So according to your recommendations regarding ergonomics, the smaller 85 is my current winner.

Looking for good deals - the 95 seems to be sold more often, since there are more offerings available. At least to my gut feeling. Do I make a mistake buying the 85 in terms of resale value??

Thanks again for your comments and all the best!

Andreas

 

[forent]

(...) Do I make a mistake buying the 85 in terms of resale value?? (...)

As a rule of thumb you lose at least 25% of the original price when you sell even a renowned scope or binocular in pristine condition. Even small blemishes could lower the resale value considerably. The easiest way to ensure a high resale value is to buy second hand.
Nobody can predict whether you can sell a Harpia 85 or 95 more profitable. As the market for high-end scopes is small it is more or less a game of chance whether you will find a prospective buyer with a high willingness to pay at the time of your offer.

Basically I would not buy luxury goods that you intend to use regularly with their resale value in mind. It lessens the joy of ownership. Buy the item you're most happy with and forget about the potential loss of money. If you can afford the former you can afford the latter.

 

[fazalmajid]

The Harpia is a relatively recent product, and availability was severely constrained, so it's not surprising not that many people have bought it or have extensive experience with it yet.

Have a look also at the Meopta Meostar S2 HD, it is a superb scope, specially with the constant FOV wide 30-60x eyepiece.

Keep in mind also that you will need a good tripod and ideally a gimbal for a 85mm scope, which will severely impact portability. A 50mm scope with a straight tube like the Kowa 554 or Opticron MM4/50 will be much more mobile. Or even an ultra lightweight if less than optically perfect Kowa TSN-502.