Nikon 60mm ED2, seems so so, what’s next (1 Viewer)

[rdfish1]

I purchased a Nikon ED2 a couple of years ago and while it seems good, I like it a little less than I had expected based on all the terrific reviews on this site. I am very far from an expert but what I don’t love is the fov is narrow with my 20-45 eyepiece and the image doesn’t seem as crisp. Last, earlier morning or evening, using any zoom darkens the image too much.

I borrowed a friends Zeiss dialyt 18-45/65 for comparison and this seemed to significantly better in all regards. I also compared the Nikon to a vortex razor 65mm and while it had a much better fov, I didn’t necessarily see an image that was much better, which surprised me.

maybe the bottom line is, I am expecting too much from the Nikon scope and need to realize it is simply among the best performance vs. cost but far from superior performance especially vs the Zeiss I liked so much.

any thoughts? Anything I can do to make the Nikon better, meaning different eyepiece or do I need to step up price wise to get what I seem to be after And if so, what do you recommend in a straight scope, with the Zeiss I mention being on the list?

 

[Hermann]

I'd try to find one of the wideangle eyepieces first. Far wider field of view, much more convenient in use. The trouble is only the DS eyepieces are still available. I'd try the 24x (on the 60mm scopes). they are pretty brilliant. Also, your eyepieces is probably one of the older versions. the latest versions of the 20-45x times have a better coating. They're marked "MC" on the barrel. The difference, while not that large, is still quite noticeable in the field. They're still quite narrow though.

The Zeiss Dialyt - well, it's got a fairly narrow field of view as well. Other than that it's a kind of specialty scope, meant for hunter using it without a tripod. Tough as nails though.

Hermannn

 

[rdfish1]

I'd try to find one of the wideangle eyepieces first. Far wider field of view, much more convenient in use. The trouble is only the DS eyepieces are still available. I'd try the 24x (on the 60mm scopes). they are pretty brilliant. Also, your eyepieces is probably one of the older versions. the latest versions of the 20-45x times have a better coating. They're marked "MC" on the barrel. The difference, while not that large, is still quite noticeable in the field. They're still quite narrow though.

The Zeiss Dialyt - well, it's got a fairly narrow field of view as well. Other than that it's a kind of specialty scope, meant for hunter using it without a tripod. Tough as nails though.

Hermannn

Hermann, thank you for your post. It reminded me, I have an extra eyepiece. Just looked and it says 060/24x/WF so I think I have what you recommend. Will this has brighter optics in addition to a wider fov?

Secondly, the 20-45x says Japan, but no MC markings unless they are in a different place on the eyepiece.

 

[jring]

Hi,

yes, that other eyepiece is a 24/30x wide and will give a wide and bright image with 24x magnification when compared to the zoom ep at higher magnifications.

The question is whether you scope is really "not as crisp" at 45x (which would mean it's a lemon - rare with Nikon Fieldscopes, not so much with other brands - as you found with the Vortex). You might want to try a star test (with the zoom EP at 45x) and describe what you see.

Joachim

 

[Hermann]

Hermann, thank you for your post. It reminded me, I have an extra eyepiece. Just looked and it says 060/24x/WF so I think I have what you recommend. Will this has brighter optics in addition to a wider fov?

Secondly, the 20-45x says Japan, but no MC markings unless they are in a different place on the eyepiece.

The 24x WF is a really nice eyepiece. I've got one of those as well. The later versions (24/30x) the DS 16/24/30x are multicoated and a bit brighter. However, the difference is by no means large enough to switch. Try it out in the field. It's totally different from the zooms, especially the 20-45x.

Hermann

 

[rdfish1]

Hi,

yes, that other eyepiece is a 24/30x wide and will give a wide and bright image with 24x magnification when compared to the zoom ep at higher magnifications.

The question is whether you scope is really "not as crisp" at 45x (which would mean it's a lemon - rare with Nikon Fieldscopes, not so much with other brands - as you found with the Vortex). You might want to try a star test (with the zoom EP at 45x) and describe what you see.

Joachim

Will look into the star test but by no means do I think I have a lemon. I think the optics here are very good but all of my optics are Swarovski or Zeiss, but I did not want to invest that amount of money in my first spotting scope, not knowing how much I would like or use it. So, I think the comparison to what I’m looking for in the Nikon is a little unfair. I’ve now mounted the 24wf at first, didn’t think it was that wide but as dumb as this sounds, I realize my eye needs to be more pressed to the eyepiece,mahatma really opened it up and I believe that was a mistake I made with the zoom. Seems easier to make that mistake when using straight vs angled, perhaps…

 

[henry link]

I think you're underestimating the optical quality of Nikon scopes. From later multi-coated and larger Nikons you should be expecting better than Zeiss quality (especially the lackluster Gavia) and at least as good as Swarovski or Kowa.

 

[rdfish1]

I just tried the 24wf and what a difference. Fov and brightness is vastly improved. Very happy with that result, but also nice having the flexibility to pop in the zoom as needed. I’m going to leave this wf eyepiece inserted as my primary. I appreciate the help that pointed me in the right direction. Not sure why I didn’t think to try the wf sooner. 😄

 

[jring]

Hi,

nice to hear that the scope is good and it was just the too narrow Fieldscope classic zoom EPs...

Merry christmas and a good start into 2022!

Joachim

 

[rdfish1]

I think you're underestimating the optical quality of Nikon scopes. From later multi-coated and larger Nikons you should be expecting better than Zeiss quality (especially the lackluster Gavia) and at least as good as Swarovski or Kowa.

I could be way off the mark here but to think the Nikon, such as the one I have is as good as Kowa or Swarovski, doesn’t make sense to me And if for no other reason, the used market prices for the Nikon. without looking, mine is probably worth 300 ish dollars. If it was as good as the two brands you mention, the eBay prices would be over $1000 bc who or why pay a huge premium for the other two if they perform no better. Either they would be less expensive or these would be much more

now, when you say “later multi coated and larger”, I’m not sure what that means. I was comparing my ED2 60mm to what I’m used to with swarovski and zeiss when I made my comment. I’d be interested to know what you might be referring to in the Nikon line. Is it the fieldscope E D 78mm or the newer but still older 82mm? Will my eyepieces on ED2 work on these if I add a larger scope to the collection?

 

[jring]

I could be way off the mark here but to think the Nikon, such as the one I have is as good as Kowa or Swarovski, doesn’t make sense to me And if for no other reason, the used market prices for the Nikon. without looking, mine is probably worth 300 ish dollars. If it was as good as the two brands you mention, the eBay prices would be over $1000 bc who or why pay a huge premium for the other two if they perform no better. Either they would be less expensive or these would be much more

Hi,

I think you are well off the mark here, sorry.
The fact that Nikon scopes (and binoculars) are a bit under the radar is certainly not due to a lack of optical quality. The reasons are:

- Nikon has a quite broad range of spotters and even more binoculars. Unlike with the teutonic alphas and to a lesser degree Kowa they do also have a lot of very cheap models (usually not terrible in their respective price brackets). Thus their top models are not as appealing to the brand conscious part of the crowd... which limits used prices too but on the other hand is a bonus to those searching for a good deal for very good optics.

- Nikon also does market their sports optics mostly alongside their camera lineup in photo and large electronics stores. And unlike Leica (who do the same but only with very boutique Leica vendors) they don't have that premium feeling about them (see above for why). Which makes their top models less well known because those looking for an alpha might go to a specialty birding store which might not have a Nikon EDG or Monarch Fieldscope.

- Nikon service can be a bit hit and miss, depending on the branch in your country (this is obviously a thing with other brands too, except for Swaro who seem to make sure that their service is always very generous - but of course everybody pays for this with a very steep pricetag when new).

So if you are looking for good value top end optics, which also are the perfect sleepers and thus less probable to get nicked, a used top end Nikon pair of bins or scope is a very good idea.
Just look for stories of really bad Nikon scopes on here (you will need a lot of patience) and look into the Nikon Monarch spotter thread where a VERY discerning optics tester (Hi Henry!) is singing a song of praise about an essentially perfect Nikon Monarch example and several other satisfied users chimed in.
And those perfect scopes are exceedingly rare even in the astro scene (where magnifications are a lot higher and thus better quality optics is needed). People who have star-tested many hundreds or even thousands of scopes remember the 1 to 5 perfect examples they have seen.

Joachim

 

[Ivydwg]

Hi,

I think you are well off the mark here, sorry.
The fact that Nikon scopes (and binoculars) are a bit under the radar is certainly not due to a lack of optical quality. The reasons are:

- Nikon has a quite broad range of spotters and even more binoculars. Unlike with the teutonic alphas and to a lesser degree Kowa they do also have a lot of very cheap models (usually not terrible in their respective price brackets). Thus their top models are not as appealing to the brand conscious part of the crowd... which limits used prices too but on the other hand is a bonus to those searching for a good deal for very good optics.

- Nikon also does market their sports optics mostly alongside their camera lineup in photo and large electronics stores. And unlike Leica (who do the same but only with very boutique Leica vendors) they don't have that premium feeling about them (see above for why). Which makes their top models less well known because those looking for an alpha might go to a specialty birding store which might not have a Nikon EDG or Monarch Fieldscope.

- Nikon service can be a bit hit and miss, depending on the branch in your country (this is obviously a thing with other brands too, except for Swaro who seem to make sure that their service is always very generous - but of course everybody pays for this with a very steep pricetag when new).

So if you are looking for good value top end optics, which also are the perfect sleepers and thus less probable to get nicked, a used top end Nikon pair of bins or scope is a very good idea.
Just look for stories of really bad Nikon scopes on here (you will need a lot of patience) and look into the Nikon Monarch spotter thread where a VERY discerning optics tester (Hi Henry!) is singing a song of praise about an essentially perfect Nikon Monarch example and several other satisfied users chimed in.
And those perfect scopes are exceedingly rare even in the astro scene (where magnifications are a lot higher and thus better quality optics is needed). People who have star-tested many hundreds or even thousands of scopes remember the 1 to 5 perfect examples they have seen.

Joachim

100% spot on.

I think the other factor that detracts from the ED60, ED78 and ED82 is that they are not particularly aesthetically pleasing, which does matter to some people.

I am very happy with my ED82 and can't really see any need to upgrade. Fairly sure I have heard a few regulars on here who have stated the same.

 

[rdfish1]

Got it, appreciate the insight and what you say makes sense. What I said makes sense but now understand and respect the points that largely invalidate how I was thinking about it

Merry Christmas to all…