Bird Watcher's Digest Mid-Price Scopes Review (2 Viewers)

[Alexis Powell]

Brightness and contrast are different things. My Nikon 27x50ED Fieldscope is not as bright as my 30x78ED in low light, but it still has excellent contrast and so performs surprisingly well in low light. I'm not saying that the view through your scope wouldn't look better with the sun at your back, but I suspect it might look much worse with direct light falling on the objective or with strong backlight.

--AP

 

[RAH]

Brightness and contrast are different things.

Yup, you're right. I was thinking of brightness while my complaint was with the contrast. Anyway, I have some more very informal test results.

I was able to do a better field test today of the Yukon 12-36x50 scope. It is still overcast here and I had to run out between bouts of rain and drizzle. I did manage to try viewing various objects in a field near my house, including a cooperative Kingbird.

I like the scope very much, considering what it is - a very inexpensive, small scope. As mentioned in the magazine review, the focusing is REALLY good. I wish my Pentax 65 was as good! I wish it was half as good!

I don't think this great focusing should be dismissed lightly in an evaluation of a cheap scope. In my experience, it is often the mechanical aspects of equipment that are skimped on nowadays, while optical aspects are often quite good. For example, I had a pair of cheap Eagle Optics Triumph binocs that I bought to keep in my car. The optics were very good, with really good eye-relief, but the focusing was terrible - the 2 eyes would go out of alignment, and you had to go back and forth with the focus knob to get it to finally realign. Just awful.

As far as other aspscts of the Yukon scope, my earlier outside findings were confirmed - the image is sharp and brightness is fine.

My previous complaints about the poor contrast that I noticed indoors are not seen outside. I agree that brightness and contrast are different things and that contrast is not much affected by the objective size (50 in this case). We shall see how it performs on a sunny day in various lighting conditions, but it certainly works fine as far as I've tested it.

I would not hesitate to recommend it to someone as a small auxiliary scope. One good use for such a small scope is seated in a car, using a table-top tripod (with legs collapsed - like a mini-monopod - and resting on your thigh). I have used the small Minox in the magazine review for this and it was very handy in bad weather. Unfortunately, the small tripod that comes with the Yukon probably wouldn't work well this way because it has no height adjustment.

You may have noticed that I seem to be easy to please with cheap scopes and don't expect too much. This is true. However, I do know how expensive scopes perform and how adequate cheap ones perform. And this is precisely the point with the Yukon - up till now, I would not have even tried an $80 scope, figuring it would be a piece of junk. I figured you'd have to pay at least $250 to get an even marginal scope. But the Yukon definitely is worthwhile and a keeper IMHO. It is fine as an auxiliary scope for an adult, and would be great for a child.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

You may have noticed that I seem to be easy to please with cheap scopes and don't expect too much. This is true.

This way happiness lies ...

Seriously it's us hypercritcal nutters who are slowly going mad.

But perhaps the same is happening to spotters as bins (even though it is a bit tougher) that the quality of lower priced scopes is improving to "adequate" levels.

I would expect the Pentax to have much better color control for both logitudunal CA and (depending on your EP) transverse CA. Color frining on the Yukon should be more of a problem (though the smaller objective may be running at a large f/number too so that would help that a bit).

Start looking at crows and antennas and roof edges ... high contrast bright background with darker objects.

And as AP says: contrast (how black blacks can be) depends on scatter in the scope (between the lenses and prisms and off the walls of the scope); brightness depends on transmission through the scope. Both depend on the quality of the lens AR coatings.

This should also show up when viewing black objects against a bright background (crows on roof lines work well!).

 

[RAH]

Actually, I didn't bother checking the CA on the Yukon because I have been kind of assuming that it is poor. In other words, I'm considering it kind of a given with a scope this cheap. But I will check it out next time some crows are around! Seriously, I will be looking at both Yukon and Minox together in a few weeks and that is one thing I'll examine.

 

[FrankD]

Seriously, I will be looking at both Yukon and Minox together in a few weeks and that is one thing I'll examine.

Now that would be something I would be interested in hearing more on.

On a related note...what other decent 50 mm scopes are out there between the $80 that the Yukon sells for and the $400-$500 I have seen of some of the others?

 

[RAH]

My cousin and I finally had a chance to do our head-to-head comparison of 2 of the 50mm mini-scopes reviewed in the Bird Watcher's Digest review - the Yukon 50 x 12-36 (which I own) and the Minox 50 x 16-30 (which she owns). Bird Watcher's Digest rated the $80 Yukon higher than the $350 Minox. Could this really be true?

My earlier posts in this thread concerning the Yukon confirmed what the Digest review said - that the focusing is superior - silky, smooth, and precise, and that it is quite nice physically, with very nice build quality. On the negative side, I thought it seemed to lack contrast (the Digest review does not say this), so I was very interested in comparing it directly to the Minox.

We used an EIA Resolution chart, printed on a white 13x19 sheet. We used a magnification of about 25x. One objection I have to the Digest review is that they compared the 50mm scopes at 30x. Since 30x is the very top of the Minox zoom, this seemed to me to be unfair to that scope - even expensive scopes often do less well at their top magnification.

We set up the scopes within a few feet of each other so we could look thru one and then quickly look thru the other. The IMMEDIATE thing we both noticed was that the Yukon does in fact have a lot less contrast than the Minox. It is quite a difference. They both seem about as bright, although the Yukon's contrast is so poor it looks dimmer.

Sharpness-wise, both are very good. I thought the Yukon was somewhat sharper, while my cousin thought they were about equal.

As far as chromatic aberration, I didn't notice any on either scope, but don't go by me - I usually don't even recognize it when I see it.

The Minox we have has a moderately smooth focusing ring (unlike the Digest review sample which had a very hard-turning ring) - not nearly as good as on the Yukon, but still fairly good. Although it is hard to do fine adjustments because small turns make a big difference, this is good when you want to focus fast!

The zoom control on the Minox was smoother and easier to turn than on the Yukon, which was very hard to turn although it is loosening some as I use it.

So, bottom line - is the Yukon as good as the Minox? I would say definitely no. The areas where the Yukon is better (focusing and perhaps a little more sharpness) do not outweigh the Minox's much better contrast. The comparison, in truth, seems to be kind of what you might expect between an $80 scope and a $350 one. I think the really remarkable thing about the Yukon is that the focusing, sharpness, and look-and-feel are as good as they are.

I do still think that the Yukon is a useful auxiliary scope, for times when you want to go light-weight. Later in the day we went to a nearbye harbor and scanned some far-away areas for a Sabine Gull that was reported on the Internet. The Yukon worked fine for this, even at long distance. Its sharpness is such that it was easy to ID gulls even at a great distance.

 

[w.travis]

I just looked at the review results on the bird watcher's digest web site and was surprised to see the Alpen 788 20-60x80 ranked better than the Vortex Skyline ED 20-60x80 and Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 20-60x80. The Alpen is sells at a lower price than both and about $300 less than the Legend Ultra. Has anyone done there own review on the Alpen?

Out of all 11 scopes that were tested the Alpen ranked 2nd overall just behind the Nikon Fieldscope ED 50.

here is the link:
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2009scopes_mid/chart_main.html


Also here is a review they wrote up about it:

We got a big surprise when we lined up three big scopes and compared their resolving power. The Alpen 788 smoked the other two! Even though its price is the lowest of the three and it alone doesn't tout ED or HD glass elements, it easily bested their resolutions. The image was beautifully clear, with good contrast. It also stood out among its competitors for its extremely low degree of chromatic aberration.

The scope also won the top score (4.3) in the full-sized ergonomics category, for its ease of handling. The focus knob is perfect. Although a single rather than dual knob, it works smoothly and offers just enough resistance for precise focusing. The eyepiece twists up and provides good eye relief throughout the 20x to 60x zoom range. The scope rotates in its tripod mount ring.

You get extras, too. Besides the zoom eyepiece, it comes with a tabletop tripod and nylon padded carrying case. We tested the angled model (#788), but it's also available in a straight model (#786).

And here's a bit of trivia: the United States Paralympics Archery Team chose this scope to use in their competitions in the 2008 games in Beijing, China.

Alpen products carry a lifetime warranty against defects and workmanship. Customers are encouraged to call if they have any problem with a product. Although the warranty is technically not transferable, Alpen does not require a sales receipt.

 

[w.travis]

Any thoughts/comments on above info?

 

[fugl]

Any thoughts/comments on above info?

See Post #17, which as far as I'm concerned says it all.