Leupold spotting scope?
Jim
zoom. As I will be monitoring an eagles' nest under a canopy, from more
than 100 yds away, an 80-mm zoom scope would be helpful. Unfortunately,
being retired means the budget is somewhat limited. I'm looking at the
Leupold Sequoia 20-60 x 80-mm for around $400 online. None of the major
birding review sites have tested a Leupold scope, and one reviewer at
OpticsPlanet mentioned some poor quality control. Anyone using this
particular model who could comment?
Another criterion is an angled eyepiece so it's more usable by others on
field trips.
If I take a deep breath and eat rice and beans for a few months, I could
consider something more upscale, but not much. One that looks attractive
is the Bushnell Elite, also 20-60 x 80 mm, with ED glass. I've found it
for about $650 from DigitalPhotoClub.com.
Thanks.
Jim Kearman
http://birding.kearman.com/
Howard Lester
> Want to upgrade from a Bushnell fixed 20X x 50 mm spotting scope, to a
> zoom. As I will be monitoring an eagles' nest under a canopy, from more
> than 100 yds away, an 80-mm zoom scope would be helpful.
It'd seem to me that, to monitor something 300 feet away with a spotting
scope you'd want to get the best optics you can, and that may negate a
"zoom" scope. That is, you might need to look for one that takes individual
eyepieces. Then again, I don't know how demanding you are with regard to a
clear view for this project. Cheap optics may show too much yellow and
purple fringing around objects, especially when the objects are positioned
against a bright sky. Worse, the view through the main objective might not
be terribly sharp in the first place. I'd strongly recommend holding out for
one with ED glass. As an example, I have an Orion "short-tube" f/6 refractor
that is several notches down in quality from to the Orion f/7.5 ED scope I
also have. Even looking at goldfinches at 30 feet... there is a real
difference. The ED scope is crisp; the short-tube... is not.
The 45 degree diagonal also has to be top-notch. How high up is the nest?
That is, at what angle would the scope have to be pointed?
My recommendation is to not get something you won't be happy with for the
rest of your life. Get the best you can.
Howard in Tucson
Jim
> It'd seem to me that, to monitor something 300 feet away with a spotting
> scope you'd want to get the best optics you can, and that may negate a
> "zoom" scope.
I have some concerns about that. The 20X isn't quite enough. The
Bushnell Elite has an optional 30X fixed eyepiece, which would help. I
was thinking that running the zoom up to 40X (out of possible 60X)
wouldn't be too bad. I know zooms deteriorate as you increase
magnification. I will give up some resolution for the ability to see
what is happening in the nest, which is shaded most of the day. Thus the
80-mm, vs a 60-65 mm objective. What I would like is to be able to see
when the chick is first hatched, and active in the nest. With the 20X I
have, it's just a bit too hard to make out. Once the chick gets big
enough it's easy to see it with the naked eye; it's the first few weeks
that are tough.
Back lighting isn't much of a problem for that nest. Looking at some
photos I took on my first visit, I see my friend was using a Fujinon 60
or 65 mm-objective scope. We could see pretty well through it, and a 60
sure would be easier to haul back to the site, which requires wading
through a swamp.
http://forum.kearman.com/blog/?p=394
I took the photos with a Canon S5IS at full zoom and cropped out the
images. You can see how the optics quality degraded at that zoom level.
> The 45 degree diagonal also has to be top-notch. How high up is the
nest?
> That is, at what angle would the scope have to be pointed?
To view the nest, the tilt angle for the scope itself is about 30
degrees. I'm less hung up on the angled eyepiece, but thought it would
make the scope more friendly on field trips with others, who are usually
shorter than me. For viewing the eagles, a straight scope would be okay,
as I'd be the only one using it.
> My recommendation is to not get something you won't be happy with for the
> rest of your life. Get the best you can.
I subscribe to the same philosophy! The Bushnell Elite scope has ED
glass, and has been mentioned positively in some reviews, whereas
Leupold is never even mentioned. I know Leupold makes or made, anyway,
good rifle scopes, but they've outsourced their spotters to China, and
that stuff can be good or horrible. I have Swift ED porro prism binocs,
and know the advantages of that glass in certain lighting situations. I
will have to report on these eagles regardless of weather (except for
hurricanes), so I do need something decent. Thanks for the input.
Jim
Howard Lester
"Jim" wrote
> Back lighting isn't much of a problem for that nest. Looking at some
> photos I took on my first visit, I see my friend was using a Fujinon 60 or
> 65 mm-objective scope. We could see pretty well through it, and a 60 sure
> would be easier to haul back to the site, which requires wading through a
> swamp.
Is that Fujinon scope too expensive? Is it ED or not? I'm no expert on these
kinds of spotting scopes, never having used a zoom version. So maybe the
less expensive, even non-ED scopes would satisfy your requirements. Of those
reviews I've occasionally read, Kowa and Nikon are up there. I know the
prices of many of their models also are "up there," especially in the ED
versions, and even those are only 60 mm or so. When you get to 80mm, it's
getting a lot more serious.
Have you perused www.birdforum.net ? They have a spotting scope forum:
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=286
> I have Swift ED porro prism binocs, and know the advantages of that glass
> in certain lighting situations.
Now I'm going to have to ask YOU about these Swifts. ;-) Are they the
8.5x44, model 820ED?
Howard
Jim
> Is that Fujinon scope too expensive? Is it ED or not?
I don't think that particular one was ED. If Fuji is still making scopes
they are as scarce as IBWs. One of the big web dealers has one on their
site, but not in stock. I suspect people like their Fujinons, are there
are none on eBay.
I'm no expert on these
> kinds of spotting scopes, never having used a zoom version. So maybe the
> less expensive, even non-ED scopes would satisfy your requirements. Of those
> reviews I've occasionally read, Kowa and Nikon are up there. I know the
> prices of many of their models also are "up there," especially in the ED
> versions, and even those are only 60 mm or so. When you get to 80mm, it's
> getting a lot more serious.
I once had a fixed Kowa that was pretty good. The better Kowas are sold
without the eyepiece. By the time you add an eyepiece you're looking at
about $1k. Dollar decline really hurts.
>
> Have you perused www.birdforum.net ? They have a spotting scope forum:
>
> http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=286
Yes, I had a look over there. Some people like Nikons, some like the
Bushnell Elite. I'm leaning toward the Elite, 20-60x80, ED, but now the
length is an issue. I have to walk and wade to get to my eagles, and my
pack isn't deep enough to fully contain an 80-mm scope, at 15-17 inches
in length. Will have to find a bigger pack. Need to keep my hands free
to balance through the muck. I wonder if anti-conservationists realize
what a boost birding gives to the economy?
> Now I'm going to have to ask YOU about these Swifts. ;-) Are they the
> 8.5x44, model 820ED?
Yes, that's them. I've had them about a year I think, and have compared
them with several brands and models, roof and porro prism, on field
trips. I think the optical quality is excellent. There is no discernible
distortion or CA, and the images are very crisp. In S. Florida I run
into atmospheric distortion at distances before the lenses give out.
I've taken them from the air-conditioned car to the field and never had
them fog up, though they are not truly waterproof. I wear them on a
harness. The weight isn't a problem for holding them, either. I got mine
from a NYC dealer on eBay for about $150 less than OpticsPlanet or Eagle
Optics were charging. Here's a TinURL link to their auction for a pair
http://tinyurl.com/6langz Their price has gone up about $50 since I got
mine, but still less than EO or OP.
Issues: The lens caps are not secured in any way; the focusing rate is a
little quick, but I've adapted to it; the eye cups rotate, and will
twist in or out when carried around my neck. I usually have the cups up
all the way and have learned to twist them ccw as I raise the binocs.
Jerry Avins
The Questar was a wonderful scope. Although they are long "out of
print", there are modern near-equivalents from Meade (Weaver),
Celestron, and others. The central stop can impair out-of-focus
photographs, but the in-focus images are superb.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
RJP
> It'd seem to me that, to monitor something 300 feet away with a spotting scope you'd want to get the best optics you
> can, and that may negate a "zoom" scope. That is, you might need to look for one that takes individual eyepieces.
This is sort of a soap box issue for me, and I know my opinion is in the
minority, but I think zoom eyepieces are the most over-rated piece of
optical equipment that birders use, even though about 95% of good birders
have one on their scope. When I use a zoom (somebody else's), what
happens when I zoom in is that I don't see anything more than I saw
before - it's just bigger but fuzzier. There's a good reason for that - the
amount of optical information available has not changed. Whatever is
being captured by the objective lens is what's available. As long your
own vision has the discrimination to pick out the available detail in the
image being presented to your eye, you're good to go. Now, at what
magnification does that happen for various objective sizes? I can't
pretend to have a factual answer. Subjectively, for me, it's somewhere
around 30x on an 80mm scope. So why not buy a 30x fixed, get a
brighter view with a wider field than the comparable zoom, and be
done with it?
What I urge people to do is compare. Look through zooms and fixed
eyepieces in the 24x to 32x range on the same scope. Compare the
view at the same maginfication. Do you like to zoom better? Zoom
up to 50 or 60 power. Are you *really* distinguishing more details?
> My recommendation is to not get something you won't be happy with for the rest of your life. Get the best you can.
Great advice, Howard.
--
Randy
Curtis Croulet
When I started investigating spotting scopes several years ago, I borrowed
an Orion Landscan 60Z with a fixed (i.e., non-interchangeable) 15x-45x zoom
eyepiece. The scope made no claims of being ED, APO or anything else.
After all, it sold new for $299. The view at 15x was pretty good, but the
chromatic aberration at 45x was terrible. I took the scope out to a tidal
estuary, and American Avocets were each surrounded by a smearing rim of
blue. What color were these birds really? I resolved at that point to get
something much, much better. Even at $299, the Orion scope wasn't a
bargain, IMHO. I bought a Swarovski ATS 65 HD scope with interchangeable
20x-60x zoom eyepiece. Later I added the 30x eyepiece, which is incredible.
I've never been sorry I splurged on the Swarovski scope, which cost a lot
less then than it would now, due to the decline of the dollar since 2002.
Now, I understand that the $1800 I spent for the Swarovski kit is a lot of
money, and in fact I'm not nearly as well off now as I was then, and these
days I couldn't afford the Swarovski. But if you have some financial room
to maneuver, then you should look for an ED or APO scope, particularly if
you envision working at maximum power a lot of the time.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
Jim
> This is sort of a soap box issue for me, and I know my opinion is in the
> minority, but I think zoom eyepieces are the most over-rated piece of
> optical equipment that birders use, even though about 95% of good birders
> have one on their scope.
I completely agree. You may not be in the minority here, at least not in
this discussion. I agree, unless you spend a small fortune, zoom
eyepieces never match the resolution of a fixed focal length. The same
holds for camera lenses. Consider light transmission as well. The rule
of thumb for binoculars is that the objective-lens diameter should be 5
times the magnification. And with binoculars, you have two eyes
receiving light. By that standard, a 45-power scope should have a
225-mm-diameter objective lens. Where can I get a pack mule?
The problem these days is, most scopes I can afford come only with zoom
eyepieces. I just can't go for a Zeiss or even a better Kowa. You can
buy some mid-range scopes that allow changing eyepieces, but AFAIK only
the high-end scopes come with body-only, letting you select an eyepiece
at time of purchase.
For my eagle project, a 30X would probably be good enough; a 20X is just
a little shy. There isn't much light on the nest most of the day,
greatly reducing contrast, and the color of a chick against the color of
the nest material makes it real hard to pick out. My 60+ year-old eyes
aren't what they used to be, either.
The zoom Fujinon I used was, I believe, a 15-45X, 60 mm, and did well. A
larger objective would be great, but the 80-mm scopes run 15-17 inches
in length, making them harder to carry. So there has to be some
compromising somewhere. I'm now looking at a Nikon Prostaff 65 mm. The
size makes it more portable, and fixed focal-length eyepieces are
available at sub-stratospheric prices. Thanks for your input!
RJP
> The problem these days is, most scopes I can afford come only with zoom eyepieces. I just can't go for a Zeiss or even
> a better Kowa. You can buy some mid-range scopes that allow changing eyepieces, but AFAIK only the high-end scopes
> come with body-only, letting you select an eyepiece at time of purchase.
Yeah, I've watched this trend progress with great distaste. I don't know what
your budget is, but a scope that I really considered some years back was the
Pentax 80mm - they also now make a 65. The price was better than Swaro,
Zeiss, etc. I didn't care for the zoom, and passed it up. But then one day a
birder had one out on a lake watch with some fixed eyepieces. I looked through
the XW20, which is 26x on that scope, and was totaly blown away - the view
was fantastic+. But the 80mm Pentax is a big, heavy scope especially by
modern standards.
> The zoom Fujinon I used was, I believe, a 15-45X, 60 mm, and did well. A larger objective would be great, but the
> 80-mm scopes run 15-17 inches in length, making them harder to carry. So there has to be some compromising somewhere.
> I'm now looking at a Nikon Prostaff 65 mm. The size makes it more portable, and fixed focal-length eyepieces are
> available at sub-stratospheric prices. Thanks for your input!
I have Nikon binoculars (Premier LXL) and Nikon scope (Fieldscope III,
with a 24x fixed) and really like them both. If I did more shorebirding, and
was way into lakewatching like some birders are here (I live on the southern
shores of Lake Michigan), then I might want an 80mm scope.
--
Randy
Howard Lester
> I'm now looking at a Nikon Prostaff 65 mm. The size makes it more
> portable, and fixed focal-length eyepieces are available at
> sub-stratospheric prices. Thanks for your input!
Jim, I forget what your length limit is for backpacking. I wonder if you'd
be better off spending another $200 on the 82mm version? It's 15" long.
It'd be a huge improvement, at least in image brightness, over the 65mm one.
And, it'd give the zoom eyepiece more "breathing room." I know I'm pushing
your budget, but again, might you not later lament "if only I had more
aperture... damn!" ?
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4551 (Eagle has this Nikon for
$599)
I suspect you could find it cheaper, such as places like Adorama. For
example, they have the Swift 820ED for $370, whereas everyone else has them
for $500.
Howard
Howard Lester
>> My recommendation is to not get something you won't be happy with for the
>> rest of your life. Get the best you can.
> Great advice, Howard.
Thanks, Randy. It's a "lesson" for everyone. If you're passionate about
something, don't go halfway. Going halfway and "cheap" too often winds up
being a bitter disappointment and a waste of money. I've made that mistake
often enough! Get the best *value* (determined only by the end user) for
your money. The greater the passion, the more you may need to spend. I
*never* thought I would spend $2K on an electric bass (that's a musical
instrument, not a fish!), but after weighing all the options and my
requirements, this particular semi-custom instrument was something I had to
have to fulfill my needs -- and I've never regretted it. It's my only bass
now, and it'll last me the rest of my life. It's all I need in that
department. I "love" it more and more as time goes by. (Gee, there are two
song titles in that sentence!)
Howard
Howard Lester
for the same $599 as Eagle. Adorama ships free, but Eagle gives a 30 day
money back satisfaction guarantee.
Curtis Croulet
> optical equipment that birders use, even though about 95% of good birders
> have one on their scope.
I've already described my scope in my earlier message. The zoom is useful
when I want maximum magnification (up to 60x), but most of the time I use
the 30x. With the zoom, the apparent field-of-view actually shrinks at low
power, and it's like looking through a keyhole. I think some zooms (i.e.
Zeiss) may have a slightly wider FOV than the Swaro zoom. The zoom has
its uses, but most of the time the 30x is preferable.
Jerry Avins
...
> What I urge people to do is compare. Look through zooms and fixed
> eyepieces in the 24x to 32x range on the same scope. Compare the
> view at the same maginfication. Do you like to zoom better? Zoom
> up to 50 or 60 power. Are you *really* distinguishing more details?
In particular, compare fields of view and edge sharpness. While not
critical, they sure are nice!
Howard Lester
http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=ldsale/~pcategory=ldsale/~product_id=09781
This is an Orion 72mm ED scope from their EON line, currently on sale for
$375. It requires the 45 degree erect-image diagonal and an eyepiece, but
for that price... in an ED scope that is 12.5" long and 5.2 lbs, 2"
dual-speed focuser with 1-1/4" eyepiece adapter... sounds like a good deal
to me. It has a built-in tripod mount. It comes with a hard case. You can
get all kinds of decent eyepieces for it that are fairly inexpensive -- $50
each or so.
Rick
slightly over $1200.00
--
Rick
Fargo, ND
N 46°53'251"
W 096°48'279"
Remember the USS Liberty
http://www.ussliberty.org/
Curtis Croulet
> slightly over $1200.00
But not HD. The Swarovski 65 mm HD scopes are $1839.
Rick
zoom--see link below.
http://www.birddigiscoping.com/2008/08/fixed-versus-zoom-again.html
Howard Lester
> RJP wrote:
>> What I urge people to do is compare. Look through zooms and fixed
>> eyepieces in the 24x to 32x range on the same scope. Compare the
>> view at the same maginfication. Do you like to zoom better? Zoom
>> up to 50 or 60 power. Are you *really* distinguishing more details?
> I think that you are correct. Mike McDowell ran a test on fixed vs
> zoom--see link below.
> http://www.birddigiscoping.com/2008/08/fixed-versus-zoom-again.html
I'm going to guess, though, that the Swarovski eyepieces, zoom and fixed,
are of pretty high quality. The difference between such eyepieces offered
by, say, Vortex or Audubon, may show more striking differences.
I'm curious what Jim winds up with and how well he likes it.
Howard
RJP
> I'm going to guess, though, that the Swarovski eyepieces, zoom and fixed, are of pretty high quality. The difference
> between such eyepieces offered by, say, Vortex or Audubon, may show more striking differences.
For me it's more than a guess - I've looked through lots of zooms, and I
find the Swarovski at the top of the heap, along with a couple of the other
high-end scopes (e.g. Zeiss). Still, it's quite obvious when you look at
Mike's images that the zoom, especially when it has been zoomed up a
little, yields a clearly poorer image.
And, yes, I agree - they get worse when you go down to lesser brands.
--
Randy
Jerry Avins
The 2" focuser makes it useful for very wide-field viewing even at low
power. My 1.25" (31.75 mm) Erfle would show over 6.5 degrees real field
at 13.6 x. It takes a 2" tube to do that.
patrick
would a better quality (stellarvue/ williams optics, etc) work
acceptably as a birding scope. Or is the chromatic abberation that
strong . Pat
Howard Lester
Aberration
Whether they're better or worse depends on the individual model from any of
those manufacturers. If they're cheap achromats, they'll be problematic. If
they're the better ED or triplet models, that's another story.
Jerry Avins
I have a cheap 80 mm doublet scope that I put a 2" focuser on, and the
color is quite acceptable (which is to say barely noticeable; I actually
get more from my bifocal spectacles). I think the residual spherical
aberration softens the contrast, but individual stars are sharp and the
blurs just inside and outside of focus have the same character, at least
near the center of the field. The cost of the rig in the last photo of
http://users.rcn.com/jyavins/photoadapter.htm, including the red-dot
finder and the 2" focuser (but not the camera or tripod head) was about
$150. I took http://users.rcn.com/jyavins/woodpecker1.jpg with it.
That's not to say that I wouldn't like better, but I can't justify the
purchase.