Monarch 82ED, a Perfect Ten (5 Viewers)

[Alexis Powell]

... So, if the 30w ep is the best option, then I think I’d go for it. But, a little more money and there’s the 30-60w, and if that is just as good at 30 then it’s a win win because there is the option to zoom too.

According to the Nikon catalog, the 24-48x for the Monarch 60ED (= 30-60x on the 82 ED) is just as wide at its lowest setting of 24x as the 30x (= 38x on the 82 ED) fixed eyepiece. Both are 2.5 degrees, or 132 feet at 1000 yards (whereas at 16x your current zoom is only slightly wider at 2.6 degrees or 135 feet at 1000 yards). That means that the wide zoom will not be quite as wide at 30x as is the fixed, but you will have to decide how much that difference matters. If you wear glasses, another benefit of the fixed is its 18.5 mm eye relief. The 16-48 zoom that you have currently has 15-16 mm and the 24-48x that you are considering has only 14-15 mm. Based on my preferences, if I already had the 16-48x, I would choose the 30x wide over the wide zoom. If I didn't have a zoom, I'd pick the 24-48x over the 16-48x, but the difference between them is not as much as I would like to see. Looking at these specs, it seems that Nikon has not done as well with its "wide" zoom design as have some others, such as Kowa.

--AP

 

[Aotus]

I seized on a good deal for a used 82a, and am returning my 60mm that I found dark for my comfort. The used 82 doesn't have the nikon warranty, darn, but at half of retail it was worth the risk. It came with the 30x reticle eyepiece, so I had the chance to compare it with the 20-60x (that's going back), and I really like the wider fov of the 30. I don't like the reticle but there's a focus wheel that makes the crosshairs more or less visible and is nearly disappear-able. I ordered the 30-60w ep and will sell the 30x when I receive the upgrade.

Today I took the scope for its first real birding trip, just to a local water tower where, in past years, there has been a peregrine falcon visitor arriving about this time. I have driven there before, always very early, in hopes of seeing it, but haven't been lucky. Today I carried my new scope, attached to new tripod and head, into my car assuming that this would end up being just a trip to starbucks after not seeing anything at the water tower. Welp... I was wrong! I saw the peregrine sitting in the morning sun and stared at it for some time with the 30x ep. I took a few pictures through the scope but find the cross-hairs in the image repugnant and I will share them here only to inform others about the view. I left to wake my wife and bring her to see, grabbing the 20-60x ep on the way out the door to swap it for a less offensive view. It was a joy to watch the falcon but I really did notice the smaller fov and, perhaps also owing to the shorter eye relief, it wasn't as comfortable a view (i don't wear glasses). That has me a little worried that the 30-60w will also be uncomfortable, but when it comes I will have a chance to determine whether it is the fov or relief that is bothering me and will proceed from there.

notes about images attached: image with reticle is adjusted to minimize the size and visibility of the reticle, which is almost invisible to the eye but does appear more prominent when using a smartphone through it. The second image is using the nikon mep 20-60x, at 20x. I was not at the same location for both pics so don't interpret differences as relevant to magnification or fov. The second image was taken as the sun was a little higher, hence differences in color tones (I don't believe the colors were different at all between eps).

 

[mayoayo]

Very good quality pics..Definition is superb in your unit. CA control and resolution are cherry ,i would say

 

[jring]

Very good quality pics..Definition is superb in your unit. CA control and resolution are cherry ,i would say

Yes, looks pretty darn sharp... maybe star-test it some time and share the results...

Congratulations!

Joachim

 

[henry link]

Having looked through the Nikon eyepieces and the alternatives adapted for the scope, what would you recommend for someone with a new Nikon monarch (60ed a) scope who thinks the included 20-60x is too narrow and gets too dark at high zoom?

Sorry for the late reply I've been on vacation.

I see that you bought an 82mm with the 30x reticle eyepiece since your post and have ordered a 30-60x zoom. I also have that 30x reticle eyepiece, which came with the refurbished scope I bought. The "focus wheel" on the eyepiece is a diopter adjustment designed to bring the reticle to focus for everyone with eyesight within about +/- 4 diopters from the center position. For my eyesight best focus on the reticle is near the center of the adjustment range so the reticle is never even close to defocusing to the point of disappearing at either extreme of the range.

I just spent a little time measuring some characteristics with the following results.

Nominal focal length is about 16.8 mm with the diopter set in the middle. Depending on the diopter setting magnification with the 82mm scope varies from about 28.5X at -4 D to about 31.5x at +4 D. Measured apparent field also varies from about 55º at +4 D to about 61º at -4 D.

Because the eyelens group moves about 10 mm in and out relative to the rubber eyecup across the diopter adjustment range the effective eye relief is wildly different for eyeglass users at different diopter settings. Nikon's eye relief spec of 15.2mm is virtually useless as a guide since it appears to have been measured from the glass with the diopter set at the center position where the glass is recessed about 6mm from the eyecup rim. My measurements of approximate effective eye relief measured from the eyecup rim are 6mm at -4 D, 9mm at 0 D and 13mm at +4 D. The +4 D eye relief is problematical because at that position the metal rim around the eye lens glass becomes the contact point with the eyeglass lens because it actually stands out a little from rubber eyecup.

For myself I chose the Baader Hyperion MKIV zoom over the Nikon 30-60x because of the Baader's superior freedom from lateral CA and a wider zoom range I prefer (21-63X), combined with only a moderate loss of AFOV compared to the Nikon (50º vs 58º at 30x and 68º vs 73º at 60º). While the real and apparent fields are smaller through the Baader at 30x, its real field at 21x is about about 0.3º wider than the Nikon at 30x, so finding birds at low magnification is actually easier.

Henry

 

[mayoayo]

Henry..Are You sure the Baader offers only 50 degrees in the middle of the range?..@24mm seems a tad narrower than the rest of the settings,offering the exact real field of view of the 20mm setting .So the AFOV is smaller at 24mm and i thought it was 50 degrees already,increasing all the way to 68 degrees at 8mm.. At 16mm(30x roughly in my 823) seems as wide as the wide field fixed eyepieces i have used,usually 60 °.At 12mm looks exactly the same FOV as the BST explorer and that is 60 degress.I have also compared the Baader with the newer Kowa 20x Wide for the 82 series,also a.60 degrees eyepiece,with little or no difference to my eyes.
Sorry for going off topic here

 

[henry link]

Hi mayoayo,

I did some AFOV measurements of the Nikon Monarch/Baader MKIV this morning using the panoramic tripod head method and also did some comparisons to instruments with known AFOVs to verify that the measurements were at least reasonably accurate.

These figures could be as much as +/- 1% off. First number is the magnification of the Baader combined with the the 505mm FL Nikon Monarch ED, second number is the eyepiece focal length setting.

21x, 24mm - 44º
25.3x, 20mm - 49º
31.6x, 16mm - 53º
42.1x, 12mm - 59º
63.1x, 8mm - 68º

I estimated the position of 16.8mm for 30x and came up with 51º (could have been between 51º and 52º). The 8mm and 12mm settings look reasonably close to your experience, but I'm quite certain the longer focal length settings measure smaller than your subjective impression of them. Certainly Baader's spec of 50º for the 24mm setting is way off.

Henry

 

[Aotus]

Hi mayoayo,

I did some AFOV measurements of the Nikon Monarch/Baader MKIV this morning using the panoramic tripod head method and also did some comparisons to instruments with known AFOVs to verify that the measurements were at least reasonably accurate.

These figures could be as much as +/- 1% off. First number is the magnification of the Baader combined with the the 505mm FL Nikon Monarch ED, second number is the eyepiece focal length setting.

21x, 24mm - 44º
25.3x, 20mm - 49º
31.6x, 16mm - 53º
42.1x, 12mm - 59º
63.1x, 8mm - 68º

I estimated the position of 16.8mm for 30x and came up with 51º (could have been between 51º and 52º). The 8mm and 12mm settings look reasonably close to your experience, but I'm quite certain the longer focal length settings measure smaller than your subjective impression of them. Certainly Baader's spec of 50º for the 24mm setting is way off.

Henry

How does this compare with the 30-60w from Nikon? Or do you not still have that ep? Thanks.

 

[henry link]

I never owned the Nikon 30-60x zoom. I borrowed one to evaluate it (see post #99). I didn't compare its AFOV directly to the Baader, but given the Nikon's range of about about 58º at 30x to 73º at 60x I think it's safe to assume that it's AFOV is about 5-6º wider than the Baader at all magnifications between 30 and 60x.

 

[mayoayo]

Henry..thanks for taking the time to check the measurements again..I dont wanna go off the Monarch topic into the Baader evaluation too much .
The BST Explorer 12mm has 59 degrees AFOV. The view is exact to the 12mm setting on the Baader ,so yes,we have the same view there..My measurement of the 20mm setting is not as much a subjective impression as it was a direct comparison ,in this case with the kowa TS21WA,but i dont have that eyepiece anymore ,so cant compare the views to confirm.
Now..the panoramic head test..i guess i can do the same test with my 128rc and a graduated semi circle..!!
Fun project..
Thanks again

 

[wllmspd]

Could someone summarise the state of knowledge for adapters for this scope to use 1.25” eyepieces and which ones are known to come to focus. I would be looking to use Baader Morpheus.
Thanks
Peter

 

[henry link]

I would suggest reading posts 139, 141, 147, and 149-154. Unfortunately there is no mention of whether the Morpheus eyepieces reach focus.

 

[wllmspd]

#131 say yes, now to confirm the best parts to make the adapter and find a dealer.
Peter

 

[henry link]

Just keep in mind that the adapter in #131 was described as homemade with parts from an old Nikon camera lens, so it might require less backfocus than the adapters made from Baader and T-S parts. I think your best shot with off the shelf parts would be to use the Morpheus 2" barrel and the parts listed at the bottom of #147.

 

[wllmspd]

The 2” shoulder is quite a way up, how hard can optics protrude into the scope? Looks like it could go in qui a bit more that way. I assume there is a sealing window in there that could be hit if the eyepiece poles in too far?

Peter

 

[henry link]

I just looked at the measurements of the Morpheus EPs and the Baader 2” and “short“ 1.25” adapters. Looks like the Morpheus EPs will insert about 4.5mm further into the scope using the 2”. There’s ample clearance of over 15mm between the end of the EP barrel and the sealing window in the scope body when using the 2“ adapter.

 

[wllmspd]

Good news. To add some info to this thread I took a few eyepieces I own and measured the relative focus position of them looking at a distant tree using an astro refractor I have. (All numbers relative to the Baader zoom). The Baader 8-24Mk3 focusses the furthest inwards, 5.3mm further out was the 12.5mm Morpheus, 8.7mm back was the 18mm APM UFF, bringing up the rear at 12mm was my 13mm Type6 Nagler.
So if you can get the Baader zoom working and the focus range is reasonable then many other eyepieces should work. The more relative numbers like this we can collect the better.
Peter

 

[henry link]

Hi Peter,

Don't forget that the Baader Mk IV reaches focus with the Monarch ED only when it is bayoneted directly into the scope body using a Nikon/T adapter (I'm not sure earlier models of the Baader zoom can be adapted to the Monarch this way). The MkIV will not reach focus in the Monarch using its 1.25" barrel combined with any 1.25" adapter known to me. Using other 1.25" or 2" eyepieces will require extra infocus equal to the total length of whatever 1.25" or 2" adapter is used with them. The shortest generic 1.25" eyepieces adapter I've found is the Baader ultrashort 1.25" eyepiece clamp which would add about 2Omm of infocus compared to attaching the Baader MkIV directly to the scope body with a Nikon /T adapter.

Henry

 

[wllmspd]

The Baader zoom mk3 has a different thread if you take the 1.25” skirt off.. the 2” bottom adapter is https://www.baader-planetarium.co.uk/shop/baader-2-upgrade-kit-for-hyperion-clickstop-zoom-eyepiece/ so not a T-thread for those who might be interested.

Peter

 

[henry link]

Baader makes such a bewildering array of adapter rings that it can be quite a challenge to determine if some stack of two or three rings might allow some of the older Baader zooms to be converted to a male T-2 thread, which is what screws into a Nikon/T adapter for attachment to the Monarch ED scopes. I'm pretty sure I eliminated the Mk 1, but didn't really try to find a way to adapt the Mk II or Mk III.

BTW, Peter, I tried my 13mm Nagler Type6 on the Monarch ED. At infinity focus there was about 6mm to spare using the Baader Ultrashort 1.25" eyepiece clamp (#2468121) combined with the Baader T-2 female to T-2 male converter (#1506025) and this short Nikon/T-2 adapter from TS Optics. Teleskop-Express: TS-Optics kurzbauender T2 Adapter für NIKON DSLR mit 1mm Baulänge

My measurements are not accurate to a fraction of a millimeter, so it's possible the Morpheus 12.5mm eyepiece might just barely reach focus using the Ultrashort 1.25" clamp, but like my 17mm Hyperion it might miss by just one diffraction ring. It should easily reach focus with a few millimeters to spare using the Baader 2" eyepiece clamp combined with the other two items on the parts list above.

Henry