CN FORUMS ARCHIVE Telescope Reviews: To Zeiss or not to Zeiss?

Ha! Ha! VERY FUNNY, Kenny, or should I say IRONIC since any CNer who has read even a small sampling of your 8 million posts knows that opener is YOUR trademark (you should get it patented).

Let me see if I can paraphrase it: "While I have never actually TRIED this PARTICULAR bin, I certainly won't let that STOP me from OPINING about it in GREAT detail." :-)

Fabio, If you ever want to sell your Fabiolous 15x60 B/GA (provided it's the second generation model with FMC and longer ER), I will try to make you an offer you can't refuse. Of course, then you will have to change your CN user name. :-)

Unlike Kenny, I will not speculate on the suitability of 10x56 FL for stargazing since I have not tried it, and with my bright skies, I'm not likely to unless I happen to be at a star party.

However, I can offer some GENERAL advice about any configuration astro bin with a larger than 5mm exit pupil and 16mm ER.

First, I would make sure my entrance pupils could open to 5.6mm so I could take full advantage of the FL's aperture. Second, I would check to make sure my skies were not too bright to utilize the full aperture by masking down a 7x50 to 7x42, 7x35, and 7x28 until I determined the optimal contrast. For my skies, any configuration with a 4mm exit pupil works best (e.g., 8x32, 10x42, 12x50).

And if wore glasses, I would check to make sure that 16mm is sufficient to see the entire FOV (provided the ER on the Zeiss FL is fully useable).

Looking at Sarge's situation, he has a 7x42 FL, so that probably means his eyes are young enough or that he has exceptional older eyes like Kenny's to utilize a 6mm exit pupil. If so, 5.6mm should work fine for him.

Since I don't know what the sky conditions are like under the southern horn of the bull (though probably not as dark as under the hind end of the bull :-), I can't determine how well the configuration would work for stargazing.

I will end by borrowing one of Kenny's infamous closers: "Indeed , anyone with an unbiased appreciation for fine binoculars , with a penchant for having probably more binoculars than they actually need , with a fascination for binoculars with differing magnifications and with around [10,000] US $ burning a hole in their wallet , could do FAR WORSE than treat themselves to [the full line of Zeiss FLs]. :-)

On a more personal note, if I wanted the finest quality portable optics for birding and stargazing, and I was fortunate enough to have ample discretionary funds, I would dig a little deeper in my "burning hole" wallet and buy a Questar Field Scope, which I could use for stargazing or birding.

I really loved my 12x50 SEs, which I just sold, but after 10 years of scanning the skies at low magnification, I grew tired of looking at the same DSOs again and again, particularly since my skies have grown increasingly cloudy and bright, and unlike a scope, I couldn't use the SEs for wildlife photography or astrophotography.

So I have come full circle. Started out with scopes, moved to bins, found that 8x30-42 premium bins with wide fields, sharp edges, and good DOF work best for me for birding, but that for long distance birding and stargazing, I need more magnification and more aperture (though not TOO much more aperture, the "seeing" is so bad in Cloudy Valley that going beyond 90mm often hurts rather than helps).

Also, seeing all the gorgeous nature and astrophotos by Mila and others on CN has renewed my interest in photography.

Anyway, that's my two cents, add 48 more and you get a cup of coffee with the free advice. :-)

Brock

--------------------
Press: Are you a mod or a rocker?
Ringo: I'm a mocker