which of these two?
I will use them mainy for looking out at the ocean/beach and other land viewing and I like to see lots of detail at high power. Which of these two are the better scope for that? I was orginaly going for the C5 untill I saw the C80. Now the C80 has the ED glass( which is the only reason I considered it) but is only 80mm, where the C5 has a much larger 127mm Objective Lens. I like the big lens on the C5 for more light and I do view at night a lot, but the C80 has the ED glass, which I might like sence I view at high power and at long ranges. So should I go with the smaller C80 for the ED lens or will the C5 be just as good but with biger and brighter view with out the ED glass? Which would you choose?
The C80ED will provide slightly better images in terms of contrast and it will also be smaller and more prtable, but Celestron recently discontinued this model. Your only option is now the C%, which is still a great choice.
If you want the sharper images, go with the Reractor 80ED, BUT you will also need to invest in better eyepieces and possibly upgrade the diagonal as well to get that better image quality. The potential is there, but not with the supplied eyepieces that came with the scope.
On the other hand, if you want a scope that can do double duty for astronomy, the C5 is definitely the better choice. More aperture emans more objects seen and more detial in those objects.
Can you really see a good bright image at 75x power the same as at 25x on the fieldscope? How is the elite at 60x? I would use these alot at low light and night but also at day and mainly use the telescope for day. I have an old ETX-90 and bushnell discoverer and the bushnell was always better and brighter to look through at night even though it was only 60mm, and I used a 40mm eyepice on the etx. But at day the etx blew the bushnell away as it should. Is is normal for the tradisional telescopes to not be as good for night/low light viewing on land than the smaller spotting scopes? Just to give you an idea of what my setup would be like, Id use the smaller spotting scope for scanning out at the ocean and soforth and I use the biger telescope when I really want to get in close and detail but the smaller spotting scope would be good enough so that I could only need it if I want. Also have you had any experience with the Clestron Regal 100 F-ED Spotting Scope? I know the elite is better the the ultma 100ED but wondered about this one sence its also 100mm. Sorry for more questions but you have been lots of help and im interested in your opinion. thanks
I'll do my best to answer these, so hang on
All spotting scopes lose image quality as you zoom in magnification, with the exception of premium (and expensive) spotting scopes. If you want something as sharp at 60x as it is at 20x, you need to spend the money and get a premium scope.
The Nikon 82ED is such a scope and is really the price at which these 80mm class premium scopes start. Prices rise rapidly from here. The 82ED will give excellent images all the way up to 75x, but, if, and only if, the atmosphere cooperates.
Oh, yes, the Televue will give you all the quality and performance that it is possible to get in a spotting scope. Stick a Televue 24mm Panoptic in a TV-85 and it will be love at first sight, I promise you. With a Televue, though, we are not just talking optics. We are also talking impeccable workmanship on the construction and materials. A TV is as nice to behold on the outside as it is to look through. It truly is a conniseur's scope.
Spend less than the Nikon 82ED and you get less. The Refractor 80ED could hold its own with this premium stuff, but only if you spent the big bucks to get good eyepieces and a better diagonal.If you do not, all bets are off. The supplied eyepieces and diagonal are minimal quality.
The Elite is really an honorbale mention premium scope. It will not be as bright or as sharp as the Nikon, but, then, it is only half the price.
Refractors generally get you the best image CONTRAST (black is blacker, whites are whiter) because there is no secondary mirror to obstruct the light path and scatter light, BUT refractors have problems of their own. Unless you get an ED or APO model, you get serious color fringing, especially with the less expnsive stuff and dollar for dollar, APO refractors are the most expensive scope for their size.
Resolution - the ability to separate fine detail - is still mostly a function of aperture. That C5 or ETX-125 may not get you the nice contrasty images of the Refractor 80ED, but it will show you detail that you cannot see in the Refractor 80ED. There is no substitute for that considerable jump in aperture with a C5 or ETX-125 when it comes to resolution.
ED = extra-low dispersion glass, fancy glass that disperses (i.e. separates into a rainbow) the colors of light less than normal optical glass.
APO designs often use ED glass. A well-engineered and well-executed product that bears either label will have greatly reduced aberrations and thus a better image compared to comparable achromatic products. All such terms are subject to marketing abuse.
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:57 pm
The TV-85 is a much better product in terms of optics and in terms of mechanical quality.
Ii is never as simple as adding an HD, or ED, or fluorite, or SD or any other special high index optical glass to an objective and, presto-chango you have a high performance APO. The truth is that making lenses is so much more complicated.
First, for each designation - ED, SD, HD and so on - there is a range of variation in refractive index and other optical properties. ED, SD, HD are really trade terms with more value in marketing than in supplying specific technical information. Further, there is no standardization among lens makers as to when a glass qualifies as ED and so on. In the world of rifle cartridges, it is akin to calling a load a "magnum". In the world of fast food, it's like saying "supersizing". What exactly does it mean? Varies from one fast food chain to the next. In other words, not all ED lenses are the same. Drawing conclusions on performance on the basis of these two letters is questionable, regardless of the what the folks in the marketing department want you to believe.
Second, the combination of lens indexes used in the elements of a doublet or triplet as well as the spacing of those elements is as important or more important than the specific index of any individual element. A mismatch in the indexes and properties of the most expensive, highest grade of lens elements, ED, HD or otherwise, is just as disastrous to performance as using lower quality elements. The science and the engineering, here, is very complex and manufacturers guard the specifics, closely. It is not simply a matter of replacing a conventional lens element with an ED element and sending it on down the production line. If it was, we would all be sending our old spotting scopes, binocular and telescopes in to the manufacturer to have them replace one element in the objective with a newer, "better" ED element.
Third, the one thing that never changes is how well the lens is ground and polished. I've personally tested expensive, "standard" glass spotting scopes with no ED that easily outperformed cheaper scopes advertising ED. A lens with poor figure and mediocre polishing is a poor lens, regardless of the glass used and, the larger the objective, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to figure and polish, correctly. A big objective, with or without ED or HD, at a great low price is always a recipe for mediocrity.
Fourth, price is always a better indicator of performance than a label of ED, HD and so on. If the price looks to good to be true … it is. Why? Quality control. Serious quality control does not come cheap. For instance, I've been told by Swarovski that they only keep one out of every twenty objectives when putting together an EL binocular. Nineteen objectives don't make the grade and head to the trash. How many head to the trash on that new budget model, now featuring HD or ED? Keep that in mind next time you wonder why premium optics cost so much. To the get by cheap crowd, I agree that you are paying for a name and this is one reason why.
So you see I fear that if I got the televue and use the 45º diagonal most of the time, I could have got the C80 with the same image for a whole lot less money IF the televue and C80 have the same image quality with same eyepiece in the 45º diagonal. But I dont know if that is the case yet. You probably think im crazy to want to use a 45 diagonal in a scope such as the televue but I really like to see the right image when looking out at the beach and stuff. I think the 2" Everbrite diagonal that comes with the 85 is really cool sence its right side up and supposedly keeps all the image quality but is still reversed left to right.
Also are you even able to put a 45º diagonal directly in the back of a televue or do you half to use the 2" diagonal only that is comes with? every picture I could find just shows the 2" diagonal being used.
Absolutely you would see a difference, but, then, the Televue costs many times as much. Just go back to what I have been telling you about price. Price, not features, is the best indicator of quality and performance. The C90 is NOT the scope the C5 is and not up to the Refractor 80ED in terms of performance, but then it is a less expensive scope and a great buy for the money. You really need to decide how much you want to spend at this point and pull the trigger. You get exactly what you pay for.
Are the 2" or Nagler type eyepieces better suited for space viewing?
For eyepieces, go with a Panoptic 24mm (wide-angle 25x for scenery views), a Nagler 11mm (54x for low power astronomy or mid power day viewing), and a 7mm Nagler (85x for high pwer day use and astronomy), If you decide you want more magnification for astronomy, you can add a 2.5x Powermate, to any of these, which will multiply these magnifications by 2.5x.
This is a package that Televue recommends with the TV-85 and I agree. Not all Naglers are suitable for day use, but these are.
Befor I was accustomed to using my etx-90 for day and the bushnell discover for lowlight as it was much better at, and was going to replace them with new ones. Is the reason for the etx's poor porformance in low light land viewing due to its use of mirrors in the Mak type scopes?
So with the nikon 82 and the televue 85 standing next to each other and the televue with a 8-24mm zoom would they be pertty much the same?
Say bolth were looking on a moon lit night, would the televue even be a little better/briter with the 85mm opossed to the 82mm?
The difference between these two in low light/night is probly the main concern as I know the televue is probaly better at day with the right eyeoiece.
I would use the smaller scope like the nikon for low light and what not and the televue for day as with my past experience with the etx and bushnell. But know seeing they are bolth refractors there would really be no use to buying bolth IF the televue could have all the same views as the nikon and even more.
How would the nikon and televue bolth put at the same magnification compare if the televue had an erect image diagonal on it? as I would use the diagonal 90% of the time.
Ok sorry for adding to this post again but this was my last question and an important one.
No, once again you must factor in price which directly influences quality and performance. The Nikon 82ED is an excellent spotting scope, but it will not measure up to the TV-85 in terms of performance and overall quality. There are no shortcuts. Decide on how much you want in terms of quality then be prepared to spend it.
A TV-85 with a high grade TV diagonal and a high grade Televue eyepiece will offer better image quality than the Nikon. Is the difference going to blow you away? No, but it is there if you have a critical eye and know the difference. I do; I have tested both and seen the difference. If you don't, save your money and buy the cheaper scope. The problem is, I don't know how fussy you are about image quality;I don't know what kind of experience you have and what degree of performance you want. Only you can know that. I have no hesitation recommending the Nikon as a premium scope, though, but neither am I going to tell you it is a TV-85 in terms of overall quality and performance. Sorry, not trying to be difficult. I strongly suggest you look at both for yourself - head to a birding club outing or an astronomy club outing and start looking at scopes. One thing for sure, either scope is a great scope in its price range and I don't see how you can make a mistake on these two.
You are welcome.
If you have the money and you will not be carrying the scope, you will never regret getting the TV-85. It is as nice on the outside as it is on the inside. That's what I would get if I had the money, if it helps.
I am a bit confused as this website that sells the c80ed shows that the c80 has a highest useful magnification at 171x where the televue 85 is only listed at 150x so will this $400 scope see further than the $2000 televue? And the resolution on the c80 is at 1.45 arc seconds where the televue is only 1.36 arc seconds, I thought resolution had to do with the size of the objective lense and the bigger it is the better the resolution. The televue is 85mm vs the 80mm on the c80 so that dosent make any secne?
And then there is the meade 5000 ed APO, it is a lot less money than the televue but it has true triple-element and the televue 85 is only a doublet lens.
dose that make the meade opticly better than the televue? I liked the televue but get kinda confused when I see other things for a lot less money that have things that are supposedly opticly better than the $2000 televue.