25-56x mc zoom vs 25-75x mc zoom (1 Viewer)

[J@se]

Hi everyone,

I have an ed82a with 25-75x zoom which I thoroughly enjoy using (apart from cycling or walking long distances with it on my back). I'm just curious has anyone used and compared these two zoom options? I'm wondering would I benefit from acquiring the 25-56x? I don't go to max zoom that often with the x75 anyway. Or should I look for the fixed x38?

Thanks if you can contribute.

Good birding!

Jason

 

[Ruff-Leg]

Hi Jason,

I don't have the 25-56 zoom, but have had the 25-75 and 38 WF for my previous ED82a Fieldscope, and now have the 20-60 zoom plus a 38 WF for my current Monarch ED 82a. I don't have the data sheet in front of me, but what would you gain from the 25-56? Significantly less weight? Greater FOV or ER? Would it be worth the purchase? Only you can decide that. But...

No matter how much I appreciate the zoom, personally I always come back to 38 WF. The huge field of view - sharp all the way across - is so much more immersive that it makes most zooms feel like looking down a tube. Eighteen mm of ER is vital for my use, and for sharing among those I lead on trips. That might not be an issue for you. And, I digiscope a fair amount so a WF EP works far better.

Hope that helps!

Scott

 

[J@se]

Hi Jason,

I don't have the 25-56 zoom, but have had the 25-75 and 38 WF for my previous ED82a Fieldscope, and now have the 20-60 zoom plus a 38 WF for my current Monarch ED 82a. I don't have the data sheet in front of me, but what would you gain from the 25-56? Significantly less weight? Greater FOV or ER? Would it be worth the purchase? Only you can decide that. But...

No matter how much I appreciate the zoom, personally I always come back to 38 WF. The huge field of view - sharp all the way across - is so much more immersive that it makes most zooms feel like looking down a tube. Eighteen mm of ER is vital for my use, and for sharing among those I lead on trips. That might not be an issue for you. And, I digiscope a fair amount so a WF EP works far better.

Hope that helps!

Scott

Hi Scott,

That really helps thank you.

I think really I've known all along that a WF EP is my best option with regards to overall benefit\improvement to my enjoyment of being out in the field. I can and do spend hours observing a given area, sea watching, wetlands, heath land or where ever, and though I do use the extra grab of the zoom it's not how I usually use the scope.

I guess I was wondering if the 25-56 has benefits over the 25-75 in as much as I don't think I get much use from mine (25-75) beyond +50 magnification anyway but yes does that warrant the purchase of another zoom EP, that is my decision of course but probably not.

I've always been drawn to the x38 over the x30 so that's where I'll look. Thanks again.

Cheers

Jason

 

[DRodrigues]

...

No matter how much I appreciate the zoom, personally I always come back to 38 WF. The huge field of view - sharp all the way across - is so much more immersive that it makes most zooms feel like looking down a tube. Eighteen mm of ER is vital for my use, and for sharing among those I lead on trips. That might not be an issue for you. And, I digiscope a fair amount so a WF EP works far better.

...

You should had purchase the 30-60x wide zoom and your opinion most probably would be different...

 

[kabsetz]

The 25-56 in my opinion has no benefits over the 25-75 x Zoom, except marginally lighter weight and smaller size.

I have had all three (25-56 & both versions of the 25-75x) with either the Fieldscope ED 78 A and the the ED 82 A.

Eye relief is no better in the smaller zoom, nor is field of view. Coatings are inferior. If you want more of the experience of the 38 WF, you could try getting the 50 WF and the 30 WF, which are hard to get perhaps but will be just as good if not better than the 38 WF. Of these, I used to own the 50 (and also the 75, which was excellent for what it was but I found I far preferred the zoom, for all its shortcomings, since I simply did not wish to view at 75 x for that large a part of the time).

Other than for their narrow FOW and short eye-relief, the Nikon 25-75 x zooms are actually really good. The image quality is excellent, and a different zoom, if it existed, would not give you more detail, clarity or colour fidelity in the are of the field and the magnifications that the current zoom allows you to see.

- Kimmo

 

[DRodrigues]

After Kimmo reply, I remembered that I posted something different some time ago see post 55
This doesn't mean that I would recommend someone that already have a 25-75x to purchase a 25-56x zoom - as Kimmo, I'm a fun of high power viewing and the higher mags of the 25-75x more than compensates the other small gains of the 25-56x zoom.
For someone that don't have a zoom and don't enjoy high mags, the 25-56x can be a more economical alternative...

 

[Ruff-Leg]

You should had purchase the 30-60x wide zoom and your opinion most probably would be different...

I've seriously considered that, but have been put off by the shorter ER. I may give it a try sometime though.

Thanks - Scott

 

[Saxatilis]

Hi Jason
I own both the Nikon ED50 straight and a ED82 angled with different fixed eyepieces (both MC and DS) that I can interchange between the two spottingcopes.
Last October I found a MC zoom 25-56X at a very attractive price and I intended to use it as a standard all-round eyepiece for my ED 50 (13-30x).
It basically depends on the kind of birding you usually practice. With my ED 82A I keep on using fixed eyepieces for hawkwatching and the raptor migration counts; the excellent 30x DS is always mounted on it (I have also the 30x MC, another fine eyepiece indeed), sometimes also the MC 38x which is very good as well.
As a spectacle wearer who aims at a flying raptor overhead, I no doubt need/like better the greater eyerelief and the the wider FOV of these EPs.
Finally, I had an 1"25 astro adaptor built so I can use all my Nikon EPs with a Celestron C5, if necessary.

 

[Alexis Powell]

The 25-56 in my opinion has no benefits over the 25-75 x Zoom, except marginally lighter weight and smaller size.

I have had all three (25-56 & both versions of the 25-75x) with either the Fieldscope ED 78 A and the the ED 82 A.

Eye relief is no better in the smaller zoom, nor is field of view. Coatings are inferior. If you want more of the experience of the 38 WF, you could try getting the 50 WF and the 30 WF, which are hard to get perhaps but will be just as good if not better than the 38 WF. Of these, I used to own the 50 (and also the 75, which was excellent for what it was but I found I far preferred the zoom, for all its shortcomings, since I simply did not wish to view at 75 x for that large a part of the time).

Other than for their narrow FOW and short eye-relief, the Nikon 25-75 x zooms are actually really good. The image quality is excellent, and a different zoom, if it existed, would not give you more detail, clarity or colour fidelity in the are of the field and the magnifications that the current zoom allows you to see.

- Kimmo

+1 Agreed to all this. The 25-56 has no benefits except size for some applications. I note that newer copies of the 25-56 have updated coatings.

--AP

 

[J@se]

Thanks everyone for your informative and interesting contributions, much appreciated.

My next dilemma or contemplation is when\whether to add the ed50a scope to my optics selection. As stated above I use the ed82a but in conducting a lot of my birding by bicycle and on foot I often leave it at home...anyway

Cheers and good birding,

Jason

 

[etudiant]

For your style of birding, I think the ED50 would be transformative, although you'll want to budget for a light tripod and head (or even a monopod and ballhead) to get the full benefit of that little gem. The available tripod and head options have been extensively discussed here on BF, Velbon and Sirui appear to be the most popular.
Imho, the Nikon 13-30x shares the key elements of the ED50 design philosophy, as small as possible without sacrificing performance. The other eye pieces you mention all improve on some aspect of performance, but at the expense of weight and bulk.

 

[Hermann]

Imho, the Nikon 13-30x shares the key elements of the ED50 design philosophy, as small as possible without sacrificing performance. The other eye pieces you mention all improve on some aspect of performance, but at the expense of weight and bulk.

Strongly seconded. The 13-30x MC is my most used eyepiece on the ED 50 - and I've got all three zooms and a variety of WA eyepieces.

Hermann

 

[Alexis Powell]

Strongly seconded. The 13-30x MC is my most used eyepiece on the ED 50 - and I've got all three zooms and a variety of WA eyepieces.

Hermann

I despise the zoom for its poor eye relief and narrow FOV. If you can find a used 27x or 20x WF, they are small and require no fiddling.

--AP

 

[Saxatilis]

Agreed with Hermann. In a Nikon Fieldscope brochure (2012) the ED 50 was delivered or available with the 13-30x MC zoom as if it were the standard eyepiece