[texbirds] Re: Scope Recommendations
- From: Bob and Ruth Friedrichs <twofried@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "crharrison@xxxxxxxxxxx" <crharrison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:54:30 -0600
Chris,
I have a Nikon Fieldscope ED60 that I purchased earlier this year for just over
$700 and really like mine too. The optics are good for the price and the
weight/size make it convenient to carry around. In low light and cranked all
the way up, you notice this difference between this and the top-end scopes, but
even though the image quality is poorer, it has not yet kept me from
identifying a bird. At high magnification, even with a large, heavy tripod,
the shake from wind is a bigger problem than image quality.
I, too, would recommend that folks take a look at the Nikon Fieldscopes, if
they are in the market for a scope and not wanting the break the bank. It has
proved to be a valuable birding tool for me.
Bob Friedrichs
Palacios / Houston
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 8:40 AM, "Chris Harrison" <crharrison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Texbirders,
>
>
> A bit late to the conversation, but I wanted to put a plug in for a scope I
> purchased last year. I was looking for a new scope and I wanted good
> optics, but I didn't want a big scope that I would leave at home when I
> traveled.
>
>
>
> The scope I ended up buying after reading a lot of very positive online
> reviews from credible sources was the Nikon Fieldscope ED50. This scope
> sells for under $700 and while it is not as bright as scopes costing 2-3x as
> much, it is about as bright a scope as you can buy for under $700. The
> optics are outstanding and if you can live with the slight loss of light the
> 50mm objective gives (and under most conditions, you would never notice the
> difference), the image quality is excellent.
>
>
>
> But what I love about this scope is how small it is. It is only slightly
> bigger than a pair of binoculars and weighs less than a quality pair of
> binoculars. For comparison, it only weighs 35% of what a small "full sized"
> scope (like the Swarovski ATS-65) weighs. That means I will carry it with
> me in the field rather than leaving it at home. It is easy to pack in a
> small carryon bag and because of its light weight it is pretty easy to use
> even from a monopod.
>
>
>
> I will say that because of its light weight it does "feel" cheap, but I have
> dragged it around nationally and internationally and can say it stands up as
> well as any other scope I've used. And I am not kind to my gear.
>
>
>
> It may not be "as good as" a $2500 Kowa 82mm scope, but it costs about 25%
> as much, weighs 30% as much and you will be more likely to take it with you
> when you travel. And optically, it is a damn good scope. It certainly
> should be on your shopping comparison list.
>
>
>
> Chris Harrison
>
> San Antonio
>
>
>
> Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
> //www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
>
> Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
> from the List Owner
>
>
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Other related posts:
