下面是国外鸟坛对锐高100ed和ED82的论述，以供参考。
What makes the Nikon most attractive to me is its sophisticated optical design. It’s one of the few birding scopes that can potentially produce a very low aberration image.
The Celestron has so many design disadvantages that I have particularly low expectations for it. Firstly, it uses a simple doublet objective with a very low focal ratio, a bad combination. It’s very unlikely that a mass-produced f/5.4 100mm objective will be well corrected. A very cheap one, like this, is likely to have defects piled on top of its inherent aberrations. In contrast the Nikon uses an f/6.4 triplet, a more promising design, which has shown itself to be capable of excellent corrections in real world testing. The Celestron also uses the cheapest and least efficient erecting system (Porro followed by semi-pentaprism). The old Nikon Fieldscopes used the best and most efficient erecting system of any angled scope (an oversized Schmidt prism). The Celestron uses a moving prism for focusing. I’ve yet to see any scope of this design that didn’t suffer considerable aperture reduction at close distances. Because this scope shares the same prisms with the smaller, slower Regals I suspect its loss of aperture is quite large. I doubt that it has a full 100mm aperture at any distance. Nikon uses a moving doublet lens group for focusing. That system doesn’t restrict clear aperture at any distance when it’s properly sized.
I usually don’t make scope recommendations because of the sample variation. You could take my advice, buy the Nikon, and wind up with a lemon. I consider all scope specimens of any design or brand to be guilty until proved innocent, but the Celestron Regal (particularly the 100mm version) is one of those products that promises too much for too little. I’m inclined to hang it first, then hold a trial.
| 
IP卡
狗仔卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
显身卡
