Swarovski AT80HD
Nikon Fieldscope 78
Fujinon 80mm ED
As is pointed out elsewhere in this issue, most of the major optics companies that cater to birders have come out, within the past few years, with a big scope featuring some sort of exotic glass or non-glass element in the objective: the 77mm Kowa Fluorite lead the way, followed by the 80mm Optolyth Fluorite and the Bausch and Lomb 77mm Elite with ED glass. Until just recently, Swarovski and Nikon where notable holdouts. Swarovski continued to push its standard glass 80mm AT and ST models (insisting, at least in private conversation, that ED was not necessary), and Nikon concentrated on their 60mm Fieldscope II ED, both fine scopes in their own right.
Within the past few months, however, both Swarovski and Nikon have seen the marketing, if not the optical, light. Swarovski introduced a High Definition model of the 80mm ST and AT (ST80 HD and AT80 HD), and Nikon has just released a 78mm model of their Fieldscope.
To make the pot even richer, Fujinon, known best in birding
circles for their extremely close focusing 8X40 binoculars, has just
brought out an 80mm ED scope with some interesting ergonomic
features.
All three, to judge from the questions I am getting from subscribers,
are generating a good deal of interest in birding circles. Over the
past months I have had a chance to use and test all three scopes
(it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it!). Here then, are the
results:
Swarovski ST80 HD
Let's say it right up front here: the Swarovski 20-60mm zoom eyepiece
sets the standard against which all other zooms must be measured. I
like a zoom for its obvious convenience, but until I saw the
Swarovski (and the Nikon, see below), I religiously avoided them
because of their uniformly poor (unacceptable!) optical performance
at anything over their lowest power setting. The Swarovski zoom is
proof that there is no inherent reason for a zoom to be bad. In fact,
at medium power, the Swarovski zoom is one of the finest eyepieces I
have ever tested. At low power it is the equal of most wide angle,
long eye-relief eyepieces sold for big scopes, and the brightness,
contrast, and detail that it holds right up to its highest power
simply have to be seen to be appreciated (perhaps even "seen to be
believed"). This is an excellent eyepiece Ð not just an excellent
eyepiece by zoom standards Ð an excellent eyepiece by any
standards.
When you put the Swarovski zoom behind a high quality 80mm objective you have a scope to reckon with. The ST and AT80 have always been among my favorite scopes for long distance birding. With the advent of the High Definition model the question has to be, "does ED glass make the scope enough better to justify the extra cost?"
Swarovski sent me one of each, a ST80 and a ST80 HD, so that I could try to answer just that question for you (which says something right away about their confidence in the new product). After using both extensively in the field, and testing them under identical conditions for resolution, I can give you a definitive "maybe." On the test chart, both scopes show the same resolution (in my testing this time I rated them at 1.86 arc seconds, .4 seconds off the theoretical limit for an 80mm scope, see sidebar on testing procedures). Though it did not resolve any finer detail on the test pattern, the HD model had slightly sharper definition of the test lines. The question of differing image quality in optics that otherwise test the same for resolution is one I have addressed before, but which remains very hard to pin down. In the field though, the HD model definitely has better contrast and color fidelity than its non-ED sibling. The added color detail and clarity, as you might expect, translates to a sharper looking, more satisfying, image of the bird. Again, as we have noted before in comparing ED and non-ED models of the same optics, the difference is subtle. No one would be likely to see anything lacking in the ST80 image, unless they had the opportunity to compare it under identical circumstances Ð same birds, same lighting, same everything Ð to the HD model. Even then, many birders might question whether the image is enough better to justify the substantial difference in price.
Since the bodies of the two scopes are identical, handling remains unchanged. The scope is heavy and requires as sturdy a tripod as you are likely to want to carry. Some will find the rotating focus ring less friendly, and seemingly less precise, than the more conventional knob&endash;on&endash;the&endash;prism&endash;housing, but I found that I got used to it very quickly. With a few moments practice, I could focus as quickly and as accurately as with any big scope. (At higher powers, the ring does seem to introduce more tripod wobble than a knob, but it settles down quickly on most tripods.) The Swarovski scopes are fully waterproof. I saw the Swarovski rep repeatedly dip the ST 80 in an indoor pool at the ABA convention in Minot to emphasize the point, then dry the objective and eyepiece with a handkerchief, put the thing still dripping back on the tripod and have people look through it. Pretty impressive. The underslung prism housing, understated graphics, and gun-metal&endash;gray body make the Swarovski, in my opinion, one of the more attractive scopes in the field.
The tripod mount has two holes, but they are not the two holes necessary to mate with a modern video tripod quick-release head. One is a large threaded hole for a European tripod, the other is for American threads. (Since the American hole is in front of the European, the second hole does not mate, even by accident, with the pin on a video tripod.) The tripod socket rotates 45° around the barrel of the scope on the AT80 HD (which has a 45° viewing angle).
So here is my "maybe" answer: if money is no object, the HD models
will give you superior performance Ð if, however, you need or
want the convenience of the best zoom eyepiece on the market, on a
completely weatherproof scope, and can't afford the HDs, you will not
lose that much by going for the regular ST or AT80. I can all but
guarantee that you will be satisfied with either scope once you get
it out in the field and trained on a living bird.
As is the case with the Swarovski, the Nikon zoom eyepiece deserves special mention. It is the second concrete example to prove that zooms can be made right. Though it does not have quite the range of the Swarovski, and the eye-relief is not quite as long at any power, it is still an exceptional eyepiece Ð so good that, when you consider its convenience factor, I am not even tempted to use anything else on the Fieldscope.
When you look through the 78mm Fieldscope, the very first thing to
strike you, if you are already familiar with the 60mm, is how similar
the view is. These are obviously members of the same optical family.
They have the same natural look Ð bright, contrasty, with
excellent color fidelity Ð as close to a completely "neutral,"
"unbiased," view as you are likely to get through optics. In my
opinion that neutrality is one of the major attractions of the
Fieldscopes.
So what does the 78mm model have to offer? In a direct comparison in
the field the most obvious improvement is in brightness at high
powers. At low power, both scopes are so bright that it is hard to
see much difference. As you crank up the zoom though, the 78 quickly
begins to show its superior light gathering ability. I suspect that
only part of the effect is due to the larger objective. The 78mm also
uses multicoatings on most elements, where the glass in the 60mm is
single coated (or even uncoated).
The 78mm does have a higher measured resolution on the test chart (as you would expect from the larger objective). At 1.66 arc seconds in my tests, it comes within a tenth of a second of theoretical resolution for a 78mm objective. Considering the prisms in the light path, that is truly exceptional performance. Then too, except for the Tele Vue Pronto, the 78mm Fieldscope gives the sharpest visual definition of the test lines that I have seen (the 60mm Fieldscope has similar image quality). In the field this translates to exceptional detail at higher powers. Under ideal conditions, the 60mm Fieldscope shows every feather on a hummingbird at 80 feet. The 78mm appears to show individual feather barbs. It is a subtle difference, one that can only really be appreciated in direct comparison, but it is there, non&endash;the&endash;less. As with the Tele Vue Pronto, the 78mm Fieldscope gives you the feeling at every power, from 25X to 56X, that you are seeing all there is to see.
Power, when talking about the 78mm, needs some clarification. Since both Fieldscopes take the same eyepieces, but have different focal lengths, the power of the eyepieces changes when you move them from one scope to the other. (Power = the focal length of the objective ÷ the effective focal length of the eyepiece. The effective focal length of the eyepieces does not change, so changing the focal length of the objective has to change the power.) The 20-45X zoom on the 60mm Fieldscope becomes a 25-56X zoom when you mount it on the 78mm.
Physically, the 78mm is quite compact for a big scope. With the zoom mounted, it is a good 4 inches shorter than the Swarovski or the Fuji. Its shortness and the low profile prism housing give it an odd, bent green macaroni noodle look, but I am easily willing to trade some ugly for the more compact package. The shorter Fieldscope balances on top of a tripod better than any other big scope (with exception of Fuji which is about the same weight), and simply feels easier to handle in all situations. It has the traditional Nikon focus ring, but where the ring on the 60mm is heavily knurled and protrudes from the body like a collar, the ring on the 78mm is flush with the body and covered in smaller rubber ribs. I found it quite comfortable, and, with a little practice, very precise. Nikon really ought to take a lesson from the other makers and include a slide&endash;out lens shade. (At the very least they ought to offer a screw&endash;on shade as an accessory.) It would also be nice to see more weatherproofing.
Speaking of accessories, I continue to be impressed with the thoughtful design of the Nikon scope cases. The fact that a case is included is a major plus in itself. I know of no other big scope that ships with one. The Nikon padded nylon case for the 78mm uses high quality fasteners and hardware and has a separate pouch that attaches to the strap to hold an extra eyepiece. Nikon cases can also be slipped up&endash;side&endash;down over the scope while it is still on the tripod for added protection in the field.
All in all, the 78mm Fieldscope is a worthy bigger brother to the 60mm. It should appeal to birders who often need the long reach of higher powers, or to anyone who enjoys a bright, detailed, high power view. It is an exceptional piece of optics, easily worthy of the Reference Standard designation among conventional 70-80mm scopes.
(Special note to the Nikon design team: come on, people, why don't
you put the same multicoating you are using on the 78mm Fieldscope on
the 60mm? Why give big brother an unfair advantage when he is already
so much bigger? Seriously, though, I think the 60mm Fieldscope,
already a great scope, would be simply amazing with the addition of
the multicoating. Can it be done? Will it be done?)
With the Super ED 80 they are jumping into the high end of the birding scope market with both feet. And they weren't content to produce a clone of the Kowa either. The Super ED is unique in many ways. It is by far the lightest big scope I have tested. It has an attractive gray rubber coating, a built in slide out lens shade in a contrasting darker gray, a tripod socket with a second hole designed to mate with modern video tripod quick release heads, a built in 1X finder/peep sight, and it is completely waterproof. It even has a silver Fujinon logo that uses the Frenel effect to produce a rainbow of colors at different angles, something that is bound to raise an eyebrow or two among your birding buddies.
In the field, the attention to design detail is obvious. The light weight makes the scope feel much more secure on a tripod than most of the other big scopes, and the video tripod socket, with an appropriate tripod, only adds to the secure feeling (why everyone doesn't include the second hole is more than I can say). The focus knob on the front of the prism housing falls naturally under the fingers of either hand for easy, precise focus. The peep sight is exceptionally nice, making lining up on distant or small birds quite easy. I found myself missing it when switching back to the other scopes in the test.
The eyerelief on the 25X Wide eyepiece (the only one I could get
for this test), was an exceptional 31mm. The rubber eyecup even has a
"stress riser" ridge half way down so that it naturally folds in the
middle. This position will give most people the full field while
still keeping the eye a very comfortable 12mm or so from the glass.
The eyepiece is sharp and bright, with a flat field and good
resolution right out to the field edge.
Color fidelity, as I have come to expect with ED objectives, was
quite good. Every element in the optical path uses Fujinon's unique
Electron Beam multicoating for maximum light transmitting, so
contrast is quite good also.
Unfortunately, the resolution of the scope as a whole did not quite meet my expectations for an 80mm objective. I could not determine exactly what the problem was, but, both in the field and on the test chart, the Fujinon just did not quite measure up to the other scopes in this test. Tested resolution was only 2.57 arc seconds, almost a full second off theory for an 80mm objective. By using other eyepieces of known quality, propped on the back of the scope in place of the 25X supplied, I pretty well determined that the problem, in the particular sample I was testing, was in the objective.
I did have a chance to look through the zoom eyepiece briefly
Ð not, admittedly, under the best of conditions Ð but my
impression was, "ho hum, another mediocre zoom. Why do they keep
making these things?"
To be fair, without direct comparison, the view through the Fuji in
the field appeared at least satisfactory.
Overall, the scope was a slight disappointment, perhaps because
the ergonomics are so good Ð it is such a nice scope to handle
and use in the field Ð that I expected the optics to be first
rate also. I welcome a response from Fuji on this. It is possible
that the sample I had was off spec somehow.
As it stands, I can recommend the Fuji for its exceptional field
friendly handling, but not for its optics Ð and after all,
optical performance is what most of us carry a big scope for in the
first place.