To ED or not to ED? That is the question... (1 Viewer)

[gandytron]

I'm planning to buy a new scope in a few weeks time, and for my needs the best "on paper" option looks to be a Nikon Fieldscope III (60mm) with 30x eye piece.

My question is, how much better is the ED version than the non-ED version? The ED version seems like a steal compared with Swaro, Zeiss etc, but having just bought a house and being in the process of planning (and paying for!) a wedding, I could do with economising...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dave

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

Have you considered the ED50 with 27x? It's very good and very portable and might not be much different in price to a non-ED 60mm.

 

[gandytron]

Have you considered the ED50 with 27x? It's very good and very portable and might not be much different in price to a non-ED 60mm.

Thanks Andrew, I've considered the ED50, and it is another candidate, but my problem with it is that it doesn't have a lens hood (kind of useful in rain and also very bright light) and having played with one (admittedly with a zoom ep) I was not hugely impressed either optically or by build quality, and the issue about the tripod mount makes me suspicious.

 

[Alexis Powell]

I've always been very impressed with the nonED Nikon 60 mm. If you're going to use it at 30x, and you aren't a digiscoping enthusiast, I don't think you'll find much if any practical difference between them. I used to recommend this scope to budget scope buyers because it regularly sold in the $400 range, including an eyepiece (actually, a few weeks ago, Eagle Optics was selling it for about that), at which price it was a wonderful choice (nice optics in a super durable package). I don't know what the purchasing situation is outside the USA, but here the pricing of this scope varies quite a bit from shop to shop (anywhere from $400 to $800+). Shop around in the USA and you can probably still find it body-only for about $400, plus a 30x eyepiece to bring the total to about $650. That still seems pricey for a nonED scope...but I guess ED scopes cost a lot more than they used to as well. Some friends of mine got the Prostaff 65 recently, but ended up exchanging it for a nonED 60 because they liked the compactness and solid build of the fieldscope better.

--AP

 

[gandytron]

I've always been very impressed with the nonED Nikon 60 mm. If you're going to use it at 30x, and you aren't a digiscoping enthusiast, I don't think you'll find much if any practical difference between them. I used to recommend this scope to budget scope buyers because it regularly sold in the $400 range, including an eyepiece (actually, a few weeks ago, Eagle Optics was selling it for about that), at which price it was a wonderful choice (nice optics in a super durable package). I don't know what the purchasing situation is outside the USA, but here the pricing of this scope varies quite a bit from shop to shop (anywhere from $400 to $800+). Shop around in the USA and you can probably still find it body-only for about $400, plus a 30x eyepiece to bring the total to about $650. That still seems pricey for a nonED scope...but I guess ED scopes cost a lot more than they used to as well. Some friends of mine got the Prostaff 65 recently, but ended up exchanging it for a nonED 60 because they liked the compactness and solid build of the fieldscope better.

--AP

Thanks Alexis, this is in line with what I had thought/hoped.

will let you know what I finally decide upon...

 

[medinabrit]

I had the non ed Nikon fieldscope straight .
Then i got a good deal on an ed angled so i sold the non ed .
Optically i personally couldnt see any difference
The non ed fieldscope is a great buy.
Brian.

 

[gandytron]

I had the non ed Nikon fieldscope straight .
Then i got a good deal on an ed angled so i sold the non ed .
Optically i personally couldnt see any difference
The non ed fieldscope is a great buy.
Brian.

Thanks Brian, that's great news!

So how come I don't here this more often (there seems to be a bit of a dirth of comment on the Fieldscope iii non-ED)???

 

[mooreorless]

Thanks Brian, that's great news!

So how come I don't here this more often (there seems to be a bit of a dirth of comment on the Fieldscope iii non-ED)???

Hello Gandy, I just bought the Nikon 20-45x60mm Non ED Fieldscope III off of Eagle Optics for $399 shipped U.S. and I am very happy with it. Eagle Optics still shows the Nikon 60mm Fieldscope III non-ED for sale , but now only with the 20-60x eyepiece [25-75x in the 82mm Fieldscope III]. I do see some CA at higher powers[aprox. 40-45x] , but it is not bad. Eye relief is ok wearing glasses at low power with the 20x45 zoom but would be a problem with higher powers wearing glasses with this eyepiece. I wish I had the wide angle 30x eyepiece for this scope because this power is used most in my scope. This site sells Fieldscope III bodies and separate eyepieces.
http://www.bearbasin.com/gospotting.htm#nik_spot
I think one reason there is not very much information on the non ED version of the 60mm Fieldscope is that people don't want to spend $600-$780 for a non ED scope. This is not a real light wt. scope , but is well made. There is no hunting for best focus on this scope , it snaps into focus.
I must say that I don't normally wear glasses when using binoculars or spotters. My left eye is myoptic and right eye is normal.
Regards,Steve

 

[CJF]

I acquired the non-ED Fieldscope III-A a couple of months ago and have enjoyed it so far. The view through case has been useful viewing on cold/rain/wind swept beach. I had wanted to get a 30W lens but it came with the zoom. If I could I would opt for the wide lens vs. the zoom. Will end up purchasing a fixed lens.

The research I had done showed that most figure if they're spending a lot for a scope they don't want to "kick" themselves later for not spending a little more and getting the ED version i.e. always wondering.

 

[njlarsen]

It would be best if you could actually do a side-by-side comparison yourself, but I don't know how far you would have to travel to actually do that. If you can get to do a side by side, one of the more telling things to look for would be to look at a branch in shadow of dark leaves where you see the sky between the leaves: how much color can you see on the leaves and on the branch.

The reason it would have to be yourself doing the test is that different people experience the view differently.

Cheers
Niels

 

[mooreorless]

"The research I had done showed that most figure if they're spending a lot for a scope they don't want to "kick" themselves later for not spending a little more and getting the ED version i.e. always wondering."
CJF, I agree with you about this. I can say I am very glad I bought this scope at the price I paid. Having used the scope for a short time I wish I had bought it earlier. BTW I don't figure on this scope for digiscoping , I have a 80ED APO f/7.5 astro refractor for that.
Regards,Steve

 

[Nickgas]

I bought the ED version of the Fieldscope II years ago because it was on (very!) special offer and in most day to day birding there very little in it but the ED does come into its own in poorer viewing conditions.
This was really brought home to me when I was looking at a R.F. Falcon, it was a new tick for me then and I had rushed out after work to see it. Someone had a non-ED fieldscope trained on the bird against a low evening sun, it was nothing more than a dark blob but through the ED it was sharp and showed a surprsing amount of detail.
If you're thinking about digiscoping then again I think the ED would repay the investment.

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Nick, That is interesting. I assume both scopes were at the same magnification or type of eyepiece.
Regards,Steve

 

[Nickgas]

Hi Steve, sorry if I wasn't careful enough with the wording, the magnification is the same with both versions but the quality of the glass meant the definition with the ED was dramatically better in these viewing conditions

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Nick, Thanks for "clearing" that up. I have no way to test this myself. I know the 80ED I have would be in another league than the 60mm Fieldscope.
Regards,Steve

 

[Alexis Powell]

One of the reasons we don't hear more about the virtues of the nonED 60 is that people on Birdforum get scared off buying them by stories like this...

...Someone had a non-ED fieldscope trained on the bird against a low evening sun, it was nothing more than a dark blob but through the ED it was sharp and showed a surprsing amount of detail.

These feed into the sneaking doubt worries that folks have that even if they seem to see no significant difference between the ED and nonED that they'll get the nonED and then discover that fails to perform in some critical situation. No one would dare claim that the nonED is every bit as good as the ED (though at 30x, as the original poster intends to use it, I think it would be VERY difficult to see a difference under ANY circumstances), but I'll dare claim that the difference Nickgas reports here has little if anything to do with ED/nonED because never in my experience has ED glass made such a critical difference (except at high magnifications), nor does it make sense to me that ED glass would do much to add brightness or clarity in the circumstances described. I think it is much more likely that the difference in view was a result of (1) differences in the viewer's eye adjustment due to shading, iris dilation, rod sensitivity readjustment after looking into bright light and then away from it (or through the scope for a while), or less likely (2) because of a defect in the nonED scope. I have the 50ED and the 78ED as well as the nonED Fieldscope I (which isn't multicoated, and I'm not sure is even fully coated). At 24-30x and against the light there really isn't much difference between them despite differences in glass, coatings, design and aperture.

--AP

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Alexis, The sample non ED 60mm Fieldscope I have has very good optics and I wish I could compare it to one of these 60mm ED Fieldscopes in this situation. I compared my Nikon 10x42SE against a Fujinon 10x50 FMT-SX using USAF 1951 Resolution charts in good light and they were very close, regular and magnified resolution. I then compared them as the light levels went down and the 10x50 Fujinon pulled away from the 10x42SE in the low light. This was the difference the 50mm glass made. I have been thinking about the non ED 60mm against the ED 60 , and after all they are both 60mm and maybe the ED 60 had the sunshade hood pulled out and the non ED didn't or bad sample non ED.
Regards,Steve

 

[kabsetz]

A "dramatic" difference is most likely caused by a difference in the angle of the sun hitting the objective lenses of the two scopes. If the non-ED scope were of an older model version, differences in coatings could also be a factor, but it is unclear in the anecdote in question whether this was the case.

In any case, I feel Alexis is putting things very well in perspective here. The non-ED Nikon, as well as the non-HD Swarovski 65mm scope, are very, very good scopes, and although they are not quite as good as their ED/HD siblings (assuming equally good samples, which is just as likely or unlikely irrespective of exotic glass), the difference is so subtle that it very rarely if ever would amount to missing an identification. It is more a matter of aesthetic experience of a cleaner, crisper and more true-to-life image at very high magnificiations. That said, I personally always prefer the ED image and experience.

Kimmo

 

[gandytron]

Thanks very much to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far.

The message I am getting is:

Nikon 60mm Fieldscope III non-ED is a winner with a fixed magnification eyepiece, but would suffer at the top end of a zoom (I used the zoom a few weeks back on a mate's scope, and the image at high power was quite horrible, even though we were watching a spoon-billed sandpiper 8-P)

Regarding digiscoping, it sounds like the 60mm ED version would be better than the non-ED, but ideally one should go for the 82mm ED if they want to seriously digiscope. Is that a fair summary?

Has anyone tried using the Nikon DSLR photoadaptor on either of the 60mm scopes (ED or non-ED?)?

Thanks

Dave

 

[iporali]

I haven't had a chance to compare the 60mm Fieldscopes (ED vs. non-ED) side by side, but in my experience longitudinal CA has always been visible as bluish contrast-reducing "haze" in any non-ED scope I have tried - even at relatively low powers (30x) (I think I know what Nickgas meant). Especially disappointing have been my experiences with the Kowa TSN821 and the Leica non-APO 77... but their FL/APO versions have always been superb. And, of course, digiscoping reveals ruthlessly which kind of glass the scope has.

So, it is always ED for me.

Ilkka :t:


ps. Your summary regarding the 60mm vs. 82mm scope is correct: with larger scopes you either get a) more light at the same power, or b) more power at similar exit pupils - and both are often useful.