OK you 8x guys, I give in

[Tero]

I have not given up on 10x. But I now have a decent pair of 8x40s, porros. The porros turned out to be very bright. I will not mention the brand, but real binoculars, not Barskas or Bushnells.

I have been having trouble with the eye cups and glasses business of my regular pair. So I looked at what worked with glasses on AND off for me. These new ones are very easy to use. There is less adjustment, things are in focus for a longer range and I have wider field of view. I end up adjusting the diopter more with the the 10x. These 8x will be used in the woods for most of my birding all year.

The 10x are good for some ducks on the river and such. But since I also carry a scope to those sites, it really makes no difference if I bring 8x or 10x. If I do not bring the scope, then the 10x will always be in my car.

Field guides, glasses, binoculars, why mess with too much work in the woods? I am certainly going with this 8x pair for the next few months. The model I bought is a bit heavy, as these are not any fancy binoculars. They are rugged and water proof. I expect these to be fine for several years. And not too many worries, they are not Swarovskis.

[Sancho]

I have not given up on 10x. But I now have a decent pair of 8x40s, porros. The porros turned out to be very bright. I will not mention the brand, but real binoculars, not Barskas or Bushnells.

I have been having trouble with the eye cups and glasses business of my regular pair. So I looked at what worked with glasses on AND off for me. These new ones are very easy to use. There is less adjustment, things are in focus for a longer range and I have wider field of view. I end up adjusting the diopter more with the the 10x. These 8x will be used in the woods for most of my birding all year.

The 10x are good for some ducks on the river and such. But since I also carry a scope to those sites, it really makes no difference if I bring 8x or 10x. If I do not bring the scope, then the 10x will always be in my car.

Field guides, glasses, binoculars, why mess with too much work in the woods? I am certainly going with this 8x pair for the next few months. The model I bought is a bit heavy, as these are not any fancy binoculars. They are rugged and water proof. I expect these to be fine for several years. And not too many worries, they are not Swarovskis.

Regarding the eyecups and glasses problem, here´s a piece of advice: don´t change your bins, change your glasses. Get a pair of small, round framed glasses, John Lennon type. I fished out an old pair of National Health Service issue frames of this type I had years ago, like the ones Radar wore in "M.A.S.H.". I had the lenses updated, and find that because they sit further back in my eye sockets, I can use almost any pair of bins with them. (This advice I got originally from a book by Bill Oddie.) On the 8x or 10x issue, I like both, and like you use the 10x for more open or distant work like marshes or seawatching, the 8x for the woods and the garden. All a matter of taste, really. I don´t understand the controversies that arise over "which bins, which mag.", we all have different eyes, just like we all have different feet. I wouldn´t expect disputes over who has the best shoe size. Happy birding with your new bins!

[matt green]

wait till you see what quality 7mag bins can do,you will never want to use those 10's again.take a look through 7+42 trinovid,ultravid,swarovaski slc etc.

matt :t:

[Tero]

7x....that would be an awful big jump...*faints*. Actually, I looked at the one 9x and did not like that model. I have tried them a few times. 8,5 might be ideal.

The eye cup business had to do with pulling them in and out. I have a hard time finding any eyeglass frames that fit and also work for bifocals. I have tried the small frames but they just don't fit my skull shape. Most of my birding is without glasses, but if I have them on, I want to be able to quickly take a look with the binoculars. The faster you can push the cups in the better.

[Tero]

There were not that many species out in the park yesterday and it was a bit cold, but took the new pair for another spin.

Flocks of birds are easy to follow in the air. With some effort I was able to ID the black bird flock as Red Winged. Other common birds were easy to ID quite far. I may do better with 10x on a sunny summer day, but this was pretty good.

I have a question: why do my Goldfinches look so tiny now?

[Otto McDiesel]

I have a question: why do my Goldfinches look so tiny now?

Yep, i like the big Goldfinches, so i stick to my 10x42 for now, but should a 8x32 Swaro EL cross my path, i'll grab it.

[JeffMoh]

I read somewhere that, because of the extra shake with 10X, you actually distinguish more detail with 8X.

I recently switched to 8X and I certainly find them clearer than the 10X I used for years.

Jeff

[Tero]

Well, the shaking is not an issue with me, I am only 51. ;)

[Tero]

The 8x40s are holding out well in winter, and I had some fun watching flying Pileated Woodpeckers and two Belted Kingfishers today. However, I also have a pair of cheap 10x50s, Barskas, which are almost as good. They are better than my Nikon Sporters for birds in flight. The trouble with the Barskas is that they have limited close focus, so as a one pair alone, the 8x40s have been the best in winter.

This will give me some ideas on what to look for in my NEXT LEVEL binoculars one of these years. I will reconsider porros as long as they are light. The Barskas are surprisingl light but probably not very waterproof.

My water resistant Sporters do withstand some rain, have tried it.

[Otto McDiesel]

[QUOTE=Tero] my NEXT LEVEL binoculars one of these years. QUOTE]

Don't go to the next level, go all the way.
In 8x, there are many good ones (more than in 10x), but few offer the image of 8x32 SE, the handling of 8x32 Swaro EL, or the "overall good" of the Zeiss FL 8x42. It's a personal choice, so take yer time and try them.

[Tero]

Thanks. I have plans to stop at some stores out of town, as all we have are some sports stores and a chain camera store. This is a several years project, up to 4.

[Tero]

I am still struggling with 8x. I thought I was pretty AC/DC kind of 8x/10x guy and was enjoying my birds in flight with the wide field. But then I got the 10x Monarchs and no longer suffer from 10x dimness. Now that I start dreaming of some lighter models, not that the Monarchs are heavy, but it is mostly these kinds that I have in my 5 year plan to look at:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/zeiss-victory-fl-10x32-binoculars.html
http://www.opticsplanet.net/leica-10x32-bn-black-binoculars.html
Seems I will now settle for less than 400ft FOV. I can only be cured of this if someone comes up with a 9x that is up there with those. 8,5x will not do, I decided. I tried it out, 9x is the minimum where I enjoy distant birds, even warblers in woods.

[Otto McDiesel]

9x is the minimum where I enjoy distant birds, even warblers in woods.

Have you ever gone birding for a day with a premium wide angle 7x42 or 8x32?
Never say never.

[Tero]

No, the best I have is the 8x40 Actions, for wide field effects. I have never tried any 7x premium binoculars even in a store. The 8x32s I tried indoors.

[Tero]

I tested an 8x and 10x for looking across the Mississippi on a sunny day. The 8x focused fast, and in fact I never mess with the diopter on this pair. The birds, gulls, were in focus, and so was the shore behind.

The 10x, not a fancy one, required more precise focsing to get the same clear image. I also had to check the diopter. The dimmer the bin, the more often I adjust the diopter. The birds were in focus, but could see no additional detail. When they flew, either bin worked the same, they were Ring Billed Gulls.

For medium distance, I prefer 10x, there I see detail. For really close, it does not matter.
***

Regarding my 5 year plan above, the 10x32 now very much a maybe maybe not. 10x40 is more like the goal for the BIG ONE.

[Otto McDiesel]

Tero, a really nice 8x32 may change your equation. I went birding on the Atlantic Coast recently, with a 7x42. It was amazing.

[Squonk]

I always think that 8x and 10x serve different purposes:

If you want to identify as many birds as possible, you choose 10x.

If you want to enjoy yourself more, you choose 8x.

As you can probably tell from that I'm one of the '8x guys'. Maybe I can't identify all the distant shorebirds with my 8x that I could have done with 10x, but I can identify between 95-99% of everything, and as compensation for that unidentified 1-5% I get to pick more birds up (wider field of view - so I probably DO end up identifying more) and I also enjoy beautiful, bright, art-gallery views rather than joylessly dull and narrow ones.

I'm a Nikon HGL (LXL) 8x32 owner. I *used* to be a 10x guy, because I thought that identifying as many birds as possible was synonymous with maximising my enjoyment. Then I realised that those were two different things.

[Tero]

I have the Eagle Optics Ranger SRT 8x32 now. This came about because I for some reason still prefer roofs to porros. I decided to keep both.

I was out this morning with the Nikon Action EX 8x40s and Eagle Optics Ranger SRT 8x32. They are very similar. It is really hard to decide which is brighter. 42mm roofs are certainly brighter than either.

On a cloudy morning I had no problem identifying the birds. The Nikons work well with glasses on, standard glasses, not the close to the eye kind. The EO was useable, but fov was cut down. Without glasses I could not tell the difference in the fov of the Nikon, advertised as over 400, and the EO at 393ft. Sharpness and sweet spot was similar. If I had to pick one on sharpness, the EO maybe, but the Nikon had slightly bigger area in focus in the middle. Both have typical edge softness. Depth of field was similar.

I have had some trouble staring at things close up witht the porros for a long time, and the EO is very comfortable here. I can even hold it one handed. I was looking at mail box numbers on our street. The last one I could read, both had to be held two handed.

The EO at 19.2 Oz weight allows me to bring along another pair. With the porros I tend to go with them alone. I had a third pair, ProStaff 9x25. It worked as well as these two, but did not allow me to ID more sparrows. It in fact was not dim either.

I was able to follow a Belted Kingfisher and a Pileated Woodpecker in flight with the EO.

Rolling ball effect? Well, if you see it and it bothers you in wide field binoculars, I guess it would be similar. I was able to pan with both with no sea sickness effects.

I measured the ipd on the EO, it is roughly 58mm-75mm.

Summary: E0 is like the Monarch 8x32 that they never made. ;) Main advantage is compactness, comfort and roof prism feel.

[Tero]

Here are three 8x pairs, the 8x40 Nikon porros, Eagle Optics 8x32 and Minolta pocket 8x25. The Minoltas one of my best non phase coated binoculars, not sold anymore.

[alan_rymer]

Tero

I just bought myself the Nikon Monarch 8 x 36. It was a step up from my very cheap 10x42 chinese roofs which are quite sharp but not that bright.
The Nikons are a revalation, they are very bright and pin sharp, I love them already.
The image is flat and sharp from edge to edge.
Yesterday in a hide a new Swarovski 8x32 owner and I exchange glasses. She's disappointed that she spent that amount of money on a pair of heavier glasses that are not nearly so bright and clear.

My only reservations are that the twist-up eye cups twist themselves down ( for eyeglass wearers its not a problem ), and the eyepiece lenscap comes off by itself. Small things, and acceptable.

[Tero]

There was some rumor that Nikon would change or delete the Monarch line, but no confirmation except one source. Monarchs have been the first affordable pairs fo many. If they keep them around, I may get one of each size, except not the 10x36 as the 10x42 is better. The 8.5x56 is a curioisty, but may weight too much.

[Tero]

OK, just to clarify, Monarch line stays.

I got to look at a Swarovki 8x30 and a Monarch 8x36 side by side. Just quicky trying both, I could see that I would find exactly the same number of birds with both. And I probably would not be $1000 happier with the Swaros. ;) Not at 8x anyway.

[anolis23]

I was informed that if you want to get a grant for doing bird counts a 10x minimum is requiered from federal agencies.

[eetundra]

OK, just to clarify, Monarch line stays.

I got to look at a Swarovki 8x30 and a Monarch 8x36 side by side. Just quicky trying both, I could see that I would find exactly the same number of birds with both. And I probably would not be $1000 happier with the Swaros. ;) Not at 8x anyway.

8x30 Swaros only cost $750 more! I can FIND as many birds with the 7x35 action, but I ENJOY the better view of the 8x32 LXl. Personal preference, but I think the differences are only really apparent after long use, days in the field. Personally I enjoy being able to watch a bird's feathers move in flight, which one needs excellent resolution to do.

[Tero]

I just find it easier to see the quality difference at 10x, at 8x the difference to me between mid price and top three brands is harder to see.

[Otto McDiesel]

I was informed that if you want to get a grant for doing bird counts a 10x minimum is requiered from federal agencies.

That is NOT true.

[eetundra]

Two words, chromatic aberration. There is way more in mid price optics. Better coatings never hurt either for contrast, brightness, color, etc.

[Tero]

I was out looking at what was in the woods..the expected yellow rumped warbler and a red headed woodpecker. I used both my 8x32 Eagle Optics and the Red Head Epic 8x32, a Bass Pro Shop model that sells for some 130-140, one year warranty. The sweet spot was actually bigger on the red head, which I only noticed after finding all the birds. It did not bother me. The Red Head has a very slight reddish tint that may bother some (not noticeable in bright light), but otherwise still a pretty good deal.

The Eagle Optics 8x32 was another one of my experiments, I wanted wide fov. In hindsight I would have been happier with a Monarch 8x36. Even with the smaller fov. I think they also would have been visibly brighter.

The few times I get my 12 year old daughter , who wears glasses, out there (to the river or woods), she was happy with either. The Red Head actullay gives a wider fov with glasses on. Without, the fov is slightly less than the EO.

For all I know, these could come from two chinese plants in the same city.

[FrankD]

Thank you for the update Tero. I do not know how much noticeably brighter the Monarchs would have been over the EOs. That wasn't one characteristic that struck me while using them.

[NWBirder]

I was out looking at what was in the woods..the expected yellow rumped warbler and a red headed woodpecker. I used both my 8x32 Eagle Optics and the Red Head Epic 8x32, a Bass Pro Shop model that sells for some 130-140, one year warranty. The sweet spot was actually bigger on the red head, which I only noticed after finding all the birds. It did not bother me. The Red Head has a very slight reddish tint that may bother some (not noticeable in bright light), but otherwise still a pretty good deal.

The Eagle Optics 8x32 was another one of my experiments, I wanted wide fov. In hindsight I would have been happier with a Monarch 8x36. Even with the smaller fov. I think they also would have been visibly brighter.

The few times I get my 12 year old daughter , who wears glasses, out there (to the river or woods), she was happy with either. The Red Head actullay gives a wider fov with glasses on. Without, the fov is slightly less than the EO.

For all I know, these could come from two chinese plants in the same city.

I was told that Nikon has its wholly owned factory in China to make all the optics and components for binoculars and cameras. EO probably has different operating model.

[Mariusz]

Hi Alan!

Haven't you noticed a chromatic aberration with the Monarch? I would like to buy a binocular in the price range of Monarch.

Tero

I just bought myself the Nikon Monarch 8 x 36. It was a step up from my very cheap 10x42 chinese roofs which are quite sharp but not that bright.
The Nikons are a revalation, they are very bright and pin sharp, I love them already.
The image is flat and sharp from edge to edge.
Yesterday in a hide a new Swarovski 8x32 owner and I exchange glasses. She's disappointed that she spent that amount of money on a pair of heavier glasses that are not nearly so bright and clear.

My only reservations are that the twist-up eye cups twist themselves down ( for eyeglass wearers its not a problem ), and the eyepiece lenscap comes off by itself. Small things, and acceptable.

[Tero]

Some of us are fortunate to look at birds mostly. If I look at a branch against a bright sky, I can see the CA with all of my binoculars, I think. Well, not sure of porros.

[eetundra]

CA is possible in porros, possible in anything with lenses for that matter.

[Pileatus]

CA is possible in porros, possible in anything with lenses for that matter.
You can find chromatic aberration in virtually every binocular and some porros are the worst offenders.

[Mariusz]

Very interesting, because the good spotting scopes have ED, SD, HD lenses.
It eliminates CA. The good roof binoculars (in the price range of Nikon Monarch) has CA, porros don't. Why?
Is it possible, that the roof prism binoculars have more CA than porros?

You can find chromatic aberration in virtually every binocular and some porros are the worst offenders.

[Otto McDiesel]

Is it possible, that the roof prism binoculars have more CA than porros?

In general, yes, especially at the $300 price.

It seems that it takes a $300-$600 porro to see little or no CA, but it takes $1000-$1800 to see little or no CA in a roof.

[Tero]

Had a chance to check out the Monarch 8x36s again. I did not have my EO 8x32s to compare, but I think the view is very similar. The EO 8x32 is actually quite sharp in the middle. Both have a similar sweet spot but the EO has a wider field.

Looking at the EO indoors, they and the Nikon Action EX 8x40 have similar brightness. I was able to read the same text on books across the room on a shelf, but could be the EO is a tiny bit sharper than the Actions.

Looking at my TV, I could read video and audio over the RCA jacks with the EO at the same distance as I did with my 10x42 Monarchs. SOme other binoculars I had on hand were too dim to read that text, black on gray.

So I pretty much have lost interest in the Monarch 8x36, though it would make as good a 8x as the Eo 8x32 for most purposes. It was a pleasant view overall, I could bird with the 8x36s as well.

My plan is to move away from the 8x40 porros, but final test will come with warblers.

[Tero]

We are agreed, mostly, that 10x is not a good beginner binocular. I have seen plenty of 10x that were not all that sharp, and most are dimmer than the corresponding 8x.

But here comes my confession: I like my birds at 10x. Especially small birds not far away. I have no problem holding 10x, and I get a closer feel to the bird, perhaps even its behavior. Color you can see 8x, but I see lots of tiny movement at 10x.

9x I am working on, if they make my dream 9x32, I am willing to go with that.

[Robert / Seattle]

We are agreed, mostly, that 10x is not a good beginner binocular. I have seen plenty of 10x that were not all that sharp, and most are dimmer than the corresponding 8x.

But here comes my confession: I like my birds at 10x. Especially small birds not far away. I have no problem holding 10x, and I get a closer feel to the bird, perhaps even its behavior. Color you can see 8x, but I see lots of tiny movement at 10x.

9x I am working on, if they make my dream 9x32, I am willing to go with that.

Tero,
I have an old but mint pair of 9x35 Porros, (circa 1975), Bausch and Lomb Zephyrs. Were you aware that these were ever made?

[Tero]

Yes, have seen some eBay ads once in a while. There are some others in the UK also not made anymore. Somehow since 8.5x came around there was no serious interest in 9x.

[¡hE¥ k-ßØ!™]

The 8.5x56 is a curioisty, but may weight too much.

Nikon Monarch 8.5x56

324 FOV - Not impressive for a 8.5x

32.8 ft. close focus - These aren't for birding

[Tero]

Yes, that was an earlier comment. I was no longer interested in the 8.5x Monarch. And Minox is not all that interesting
Minox BD 8.5x42 BR Binoculars
Field of View 315 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 18mm
Close Focus 9.8 ft.
Weight 27.7 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 5.75 x 5.0 in.

Swift 8.5x44 is a little better, Field of View 336 ft./1000 yds

I have given up and take both 8x and 10x with me these days.

[Tero]

I am still struggling with the 8x and 10x dilemma. I do not seem to get by with 8x alone. If I bought the best 8x42, or 8x43, would I see as much detail at long distance as with 10x? I often use a tree or other obejct to steady myself, and can hold the 10x steady. I use them in winter. In summer and in woody areas and parks I use mosly 8x32.

I do have a scope. But it saves me time to scan at 10x and not have to take out the scope from the car at all.

[Swedpat]

wait till you see what quality 7mag bins can do,you will never want to use those 10's again.take a look through 7+42 trinovid,ultravid,swarovaski slc etc.

matt :t:


Well spoken Matt!

My Swarovski SLCnew 7x42 is an excellent binocular. Long eye relief, large sweet spot, large exit pupil, good depth of field. Actually an ease of view which maybe not overcomes by any other binocular. It's also comfortable to hold and provides a stable image.

For a short while a higher magnification may unveil somewhat more details, but in the long run I doubt you will gain much by using a 10x binocular, if you don't mount the binocular on a tripod.
But you get a more shaky, and dimmer image at lowlight conditions.

Regards, Patric

[Tero]

Well, OK, then. In that case I do not need anything badly. I will go 8x, it will be as good as 7x at under 1000 dollar range. Unless I need an 8x42, the only major format I do not have. I tried a 200 dollar Vortex, but it was not bright, at 8x42.

Opinions on Pentax 8x32 DCF SP? I could not distinguish it from Bushnell Legend 8x32, my best 8x32. The Pentax 10x42 I liked.

[Tero]

I was just reviewing my 8x stuff. The porros are gone. The 8x32 Eagle Optics has seen lots of travel and many lifer birds. I decided it stays. I think "snap to" focusing is mostly a 8x and 7x phenomenon, and these are my most snaptooest pair. I prefer them to the 9x25 reverse porros and the Excursion 8x28s. In sunny weather the Excursions are OK, but these 8x32s have been fine all year round, in rain, etc etc.

All I have to sell, then, would be my 10x42 Monarchs and an old scope.

The goal is to get another 8x or 8.5x at 40-44mm. Not porro.

[FrankD]

The goal is to get another 8x or 8.5x at 40-44mm. Not porro.

I wish I could help you Tero but I am only getting rid of both of 7x42s (Zeiss and Swaro). Are you still focused on the 400 foot mark for field of view or have you decided to go for something more conservative?

[Tero]

I think the 8x42 Viper would be a good compromise. Have you got a couple extra of those? ;)

[FrankD]

I think the 8x42 Viper would be a good compromise. Have you got a couple extra of those? ;)


I did a year or so ago...


...and then sold them to a friend of an acquaintance here on the forum.

;)

[APSmith]

[QUOTE=FrankD;1272509]... I am ... getting rid of both of 7x42s (Zeiss and Swaro).

Wow! Are you abandoning the 7x format?

Your situation appears quite interesting. Based on this thread and the other related ones, you've been able to compare head to head perhaps six of most talked about (at least on BF) and tempting bins out there: FL 7x42, SLC 7x42, 8x32 EL, 8.5x42 EL, and John Traynor's Ultravid 7x42 and Nikon SE 8x32 - what a line-up!

Based on the limited viewing I've had the opportunity to experience, I'm not surprised that you are keeping the two ELs. My favorite model, mostly based on various visits to the stores, has consistently been the EL 8x32. It's the one I always pick up (or pick back up) and say "WOW", for all the same reasons you've mentioned. That said, the 7x42 config still intrigues me because of the ease of view. But, I just hate to go down in power and way up in weight and bulk. It just doesn't seem, well, necessary. I may be in the "why not a 7x32(or better yet, 7.5 x 35)?" crowd.


Tero: I found the (apparently discontinued) Minox BD 8x32 more satisfying than the Pentax. However, although I use the BD quite alot, I wish for a greater ease of view, which means I either a) use my Nikon EIIs more and risk damaging these prized gems on rough treks, b) spend significantly more money on an 8x32 roof - perhaps Meopta, c) spend significantly more money and also change to a different config such as 7x42/8x42, or d) spend even more money on what I really want - EL 8x32. But, if you're wanting to keep it under $500, how about the Minox HG Demo Meters model at CLNY?

APSmith

[Tero]

Thanks. I am not actually shopping for a 8x32. I posted in the Pentax forum so that we would have info on 8x43 and 8x32 in the same thread. That is the main decision most buyers make, there are fewer birders that look at 10x.

My front runner for an 8x42 right now is the Viper. We have none I can find in town to look at it. Brightness and clarity are the issue, fov of 350 or more is an added plus.

[Tero]

OK, so much for saving up for Vipers and any formerly mystery glass. I feel a purchase coming along. Ding, here it is. Will need to visit the post office. I never buy with a credit card, unless there is just one in stock.

If no good, it will go back, but it is definitely an 8x42.

[FrankD]

OK, so much for saving up for Vipers and any formerly mystery glass. I feel a purchase coming along. Ding, here it is. Will need to visit the post office. I never buy with a credit card, unless there is just one in stock.

If no good, it will go back, but it is definitely an 8x42.

Ok, so I missed this when you posted it. What are you getting?

[Tero]

Let us just say Bushnell for now. Maybe it will be going in for an exchange before I have time to fully test it. ;)

Birds have been on my mind for a week or two. I missed a chance at some shore birds before teal hunting started.

[FrankD]

I smell an Excursion EX in the wings...

...[;)]

[Tero]

The EX series of Excursion is a puzzle. The optics can't be that different. Perhaps to compete with the Leupold Mojave. The Mojave seems to be, to me, Monarch quality glass.

But, not yet, though I may get to see them yet, with enough exchanges. ;)

[FrankD]

Hmm, then something else?

..an E2 maybe? I haven't heard very much about them.

I can't think of any others that are relatively new and might float your boat.

If you decided to eventually go the 7x42 route I have a pair of Bushnell Discoverers that are going up on Ebay shortly. ;)

[Tero]

The 7x42 would do fine for my experiments, very few scheduled, at sundown. But I mainly wanted to see how bright 8x42 was. Then, if the field is wide enough, I can use them in woods part of the year, competing with 8x32. The 7x42 I would have most use of on a boat.

[FrankD]

I believe many folks like the 7x42/8x32 combination. One for low light performance and the other for its compactness and handling.

Let me know....they were fairly inexpensive to begin with. ;)

[Tero]

I will pass. I had one pair of similar 42mm Fujinons and there was something I did not like. Plus all I will carry these days has to be under 25 oz, better yet 21oz. I think yours are close to 2 pounds. But I may be able to pass myself off as a porro guy again. ;) It might only last a week, who knows.

[FrankD]

But I may be able to pass myself off as a porro guy again. It might only last a week, who knows.
__________________

:-) That sounds familiar. I think I resemble that remark.

;)

[Tero]

OK, it is here. Bushnell Legend 8x42. First impression was that they are very similar to my old Nikon Action EX 8x40. Eye cups are smaller, same size as my Pentax 43mm roofs in the picture.

In good light, Pentax SP 10x43 and Bushnell Legend 8x42 were about the same sharpness reading house numbers and license plate numbers. Alos had a couple of 8x32s, and eagle Optics 8x32 and Bushenll Legend 8x32 held well by comparison. The 8x42 has greater depth of field, less focusing needed.

I still need to tweak the diopter once in a while with my 10x, with the 8x42 diopter could be left at zero.

Only found Cardinals and Robins to look at. At 7PM, Saint Louis time, Robins still had a reddish breast. The 8x32 also showed color but was losing it. By 7:30 PM, both 8x32s were getting to be useless for detail. Mind you, I never bird this late, possibly at dusk some days, or in fog.

By 7:40 the Bushnell Legend 8x42 was struggling with license plates in dim street light, the 10x43 SP actually held out as long. I could read the plate hand held but elbows resting on car roof.

Ergonomics are typical porro style, but slightly better with the eye cups than Action EX. If I had to buy the Actions again, I might get the rubber roll back eye cups. I hated the ones in the EX before I sold it.

I have sent a few pairs back in a day. This one is impressive enough to keep for a while to test. The other pairs I would look at would have to be Vortex Viper and Pentax SP 8x43 to get comparable optics. But I still bird with 10x43 and 8x32 as well, so the extra expense of a Viper might not be worth it.

Field of view of 430ft and 390ft in the 8x32 was about the same in my eyes.

By the way, I would swear the 24.5 oz Pentax feels lighter than the claimed 24 oz porros. Will weigh them tomorrow.

[NWBirder]

Tero, I didn't realize the Porro Legend is so ugly, especially when you put it side by side with Pentax roof. :D

[Tero]

Yes, ugly, real men use ugly bins.

But the weight IS wrong on the websites (24oz). It weighs 885g, or some 31 oz. My eagle optics is 560g, or 20 oz, correctly.


Nikon Actions 8x40 EX weigh 30 oz, correctly as advertised.

[FrankD]

I am glad you grabbed this one Tero. It is one of the inexpensive porro models I have been meaning to try but haven't gotten around to yet.

[Kevin Purcell]

I bought a Bushnell Legend 8x28 (the small reverse porro) refurb from EO for $50 and have been trying it out recently. It's weighty (for it's size). Sort the the same feeling as the Ultima DX but at half the weight. I like the black rubbery coating (very grippy). But best of all it's sharp, bright and contrasty. Better than my roofs. Not bad as regards stray light too (much better than the Vortex Hurricane).

I can clearly see with my collection three classes: porros then PC-coated roofs then non-PC coated roofs. Nothing expensive of course but perhaps that's the point.

My first Bushnell and I'm impressed.

A write up will follow.

I'd love to here more details about this Bushnell Legend 8x42, Tero. You don't have other porros to compare it to do you?

[Tero]

My 8x40 Actions are gone, so this is it for porros. I have never looked at 10x porros much, or at least never got excited.

The optics here are pretty standard for porros. Nobody with a top three roof is going to like the edges here, but they are as good as the 8x32 SRT Eagle Optics for sweet spot and edge softness. Depth of field is better.

[Kevin Purcell]

The optics here are pretty standard for porros. Nobody with a top three roof is going to like the edges here, but they are as good as the 8x32 SRT Eagle Optics for sweet spot and edge softness. Depth of field is better.

Comparing them to midrange or higher midrange is better.

Bushnell Legend 8x42 Porro Prism Binocular $110
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=3438

Eagle Optics Ranger SRT 8x32 Binocular $310
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4699

This seems to compare with SteveC's comments of the Yosemite being optically similar to the three times more expensive roof 6x32 Katamai.

The factor of three seems to be an interesting constant in the porro vs roof debate?

Perhaps Swift 820ED could be compared to the Euro 3's bottom end? But in general I don't think even very good low end bins aren't going to compare to the Euro 3.

[Tero]

The two are very comparable in view. In some situations the Bushnell 8x42 seems to be slightly better, and never at least worse. With glasses, I see about 90% of the field in both. With better glasses you would see all. My glasses are for reading and driving. I do not need them outdoors much.

I have carried the 8x32 to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I will not be doing that with the Bushnell. ;)

[NWBirder]

Yes, ugly, real men use ugly bins.


right on!

It won't surprise me if the actual Porro Legend 8x42 is 31 oz. Some inexpensive binos use either undersized prisms or not enough lens group, which tend to be lighter in weight. Since Bushnell place a legend on this binoculars, it speaks of its optical quality.

[Kevin Purcell]

Though there are some good porro bins at 24oz like the Vixen Foresta 10x42 (older version - the same as the Eagle Optics Raptors). Nice quality and bright too. You don't need massive prisms (but as the Ultima shows, it does help). I think some of the Leupold porros are in the same ballpark.

For me I'd place the trade off on loosing the 8oz. For most of my birding it's bright enough for the effective aperture, set by my pupil, to be much smaller than 42mm.

The further north you are the longer the twilight is and the less likely you may be to make this choice.

[Kevin Purcell]

Interesting, the specs at the Bushnell site say 24oz/680g

http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_legend_porro_19-0842.cfm

430feet @ 100yds is 8.2 degrees so the AFOV is 65 degrees.

How sharp is the image at the enter? At the edges? Is the distortion at the edges just field curvature or is there aberation there too (I saw this on the 8x26 Legend which had some coma at the edge easily visible to the naked eye. A Celestron Ultima I've tested had a curved field with no other aberrations (I could see with the naked eye). These tests were done by viewing stars with no extra boost and moving them around the field?

How is the color balance? I found the 8x26 Legend to be very "white"/transparent. It didn't seem to have a bias to me.

[Tero]

You must have gotten hold of some Actions to see by now? I think the optics are pretty much the same. There may be some pincushion effect at the very edges. It is the external parts I prefer here with the Bushnell. Focus know was stiff in one spot.

I had no plans to go check stars, but the moon looked pretty good with them. Mainly I test my binoculars with birds. These are good for the bird in the bush.

[Tero]

I am sort of comparing apples and oranges and tomatoes here, but I ranked my binoculars thusly in terms of decreasing quality of optics:

Group 1
8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend
10x43 Pentax DCF SP
Bushnell Legend porro 8x42

Group 2
Nikon Monarch
Eagle Optics SRT 8x32

Group 3
Byshnell Excursion 8x28
Nikon ProStaff 9x25

Not saying Excursions all go in Group 3, but with 28mm you start seeing a loss of quality even compared to 32mm, much bigger than going from 42mm to 32mm. I have seen this on Pentax as well.

The Bushnell porro, despite some edge softness, is up there with my best resolution.

I have absolutely no complaints about the 8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend. I would need to spend 1000 more to get a better 8x32. These are hard to find, though some camo versions can still be found.

The one issue with the porro is the 31 oz weight which I am no longer used to. I do have a harness but need some cable ties to rig it on it.

[Kevin Purcell]

Good grouping. I would expect the porro to be in that lot (note how it costs between double and a four times the other roofs!).

I mentioned star testing because I find it very effective for distinguishing the quality of bins. Much easier than terrestrial testing for determining sharpness across the field, field curvature, aberrations, distortion and transmission.

For example, the Winchester I bought from you shows some clear aberration in one barrel (the left, the one I can easily see the roof edge in) whereas the other barrel (where I can't see the roof edge) is rather better Jupiter disk image. It's the only bin I have that has a noticeably barrel to barrel difference. It's not obviously visible in terrestrial viewing but that's not to say it doesn't have some effect especially on small or detailed targets. And it says something about Chinese bin construction in 2005 when that bins was made: there was some variation in the quality of the components (the prism in this case). Note: I'm not complaining - they're fine for the price - they're just a nice example of seeing something in a Jupiter disk or star test that is difficult to see elsewhere.

The viewing of stars, Jovian moons and Jupiter's disk can separate bins into different classes (though you need each one to see the effect). The Jovian moons are very useful as they change their configuration so you get close "binary" pairs and dim moon closer to Jupiter's disk depending on your timing. I use this page to figure out what should be there!

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter

I find with these tests the bins I have fall into three distinct groups for image quality (sharpness, transmission and aberations):

porros (Yosemite, Celestron Ultima DX, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40, Bushnell compact 8x26)

phase-coated roofs (OK one PC roof: the Vortex Diamondback 8x42)

roofs without phase coating (Winchester VDT 8x32 and the Promaster Infinity 7x32)

You can bird with all of them but some are better than others.

The tests are not difficult to do. Jupiter is bright (and conveniently located in the southern sky in mid evening right now). Just look at the objects with the bin. Write down what you see. It takes a couple of minutes per bin. Compare a group of bins and you get a feel of the differences.

Reviews on the Promaster Infinity 7x32, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40 and Bushnell compact 8x26 are currently being written!

[Tero]

I rarely get inspired to go outdoors* with the binoculars. I had some kids at our school wanting to see stars and planets once, and struggled for some hours with a straight birding scope and a cloudy sky. Never did see much. The amateur astronomer finally herded us in and gave a slide talk.

*at night ..sorry

[Kevin Purcell]

I rarely get inspired to go outdoors with the binoculars.

That must make birding a challenge ;)

I think best bird seen from my urban apartment in a perched Red-tailed Hawk about 15 feet away (and a swarm of crows going bannanas!). Or perhaps the Cooper Hawk that likes an adjacent tree to scope out urban Rock Doves. Or the one time I saw a Golden-Crowned Kinglet in a mixed species flock feeding in a tree about 2 feet outside the window. Or maybe the male and female Yellow Rumped Warbler who hung out in late migration this spring in a tree under one of my windows (about 3 feet away).

So perhaps I don't really need to go outside ;)

[Tero]

It's back and forth for me, 10x , 8x. I must say I have had more fun with 8x lately. I really like the Legend 8x42 porros.

But the weight....and I do not have cash on hand for a 8x42 roof in the 400-500 range.

[Kevin Purcell]

Wait for Frank's review of the Vanguard EDT and hope it's good enough for $280, Tero ;)

[Tero]

Well, the 10x went back. I am actually trying an 8x again. It is a format I do not have. I want to have 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 36mm, 42mm and 50mm eventually. ;)

[Tero]

OK, new UPS tracking number, for an 8x ;)
more than 100 dollars at stake this time ;)

[Tero]

more news at
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1327035#post1327035

[Tero]

There seems to be some confusion about what two or three models would be the "best" ..I know it is subjective..8x32 in the under 1000 dollar category. I am almost sure the Pentax 8x32 ED would be up there. Vortex does not have an 8x32 in their top line yet. Zeiss only has the Conquest 8x30 with pretty good optics, but not quite up there. Pick say two of the new cheapo ED as well.
If we can get four or five candidates, we could put a survey thread going. Hmm, somehow birdforum does not support surveys or a moderator has to set the voting?

[Tero]

OK, the Excursion 8x42 is here. I had some trouble withe the 8x36 EX
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=126858
these were 6 dollars more. Of course they are bigger and wight more, not more than other brands at this level. They will be competing with 8x42 porros and 8x32 Legend roofs for my time.

Mechanically they are quite good, I expect as good as Nikon Monarchs. I suspect they are not as bright as 8x42 Monarchs, but sharpness is really good. About the same as 8x32 Legend roofs. A touch better maybe than the 8x36.

Five years ago we had nothing like this for under 200 dollars.

Color is not as pure white in the image as in my 8x42 porros. There is some slightly warm shade.

Are these better than Diamondbacks? Probably not, may even come from the same plant. For sharpness I can't recall the Vortex Diamondbacks, but the general view and sweet spot, very good really, are similar.

Stray light and CA...I did not see an obvious problem indoors. I am more interested how they look on a cloudy day.

[Tero]

A long morning of birding. The Excursions are gone, so I am now 8x42 Viper plus 10x plus scope, in winter.

The Viper has such long eye relief, they work with any glasses, so I went between them and the scope.

My 10x42 Pentax SP does not work with my pair of glasses. I wonder if the 8x42 are the same? A new worry, also in terms of an ED Mystery Pair. Which Mystery pair is most like the Viper in ER?

[FrankD]

Tero,

Probably the Promasters. They have better eye relief than the Hawke's though neither was a problem for me in this regard and I am moderately sensitive to this issue.

Hmm, when did you get the Vipers?

[Steve C]

Tero,

The Vipers have a bit more eye relief than the Promaster. About 1-1.5mm. More difference in 8x. For me, the Viper eye cups come in a little deeper into my eyesocket than the Promaster, just about equalizing any difference. If I wear either my reading glasses or sunglasses, I don't have any trouble in getting all the fov with either. So I guess it comes down to just how much of a issue eye relief is for you. I devoutly hope I can get to the end of my days without my eyes getting bad enough I have to wear glasses when I use binoculars.

[Kevin Purcell]

Tero,

Probably the Promasters. They have better eye relief than the Hawke's though neither was a problem for me in this regard and I am moderately sensitive to this issue.

With glasses I get the full 7.5 degree field in the Promasters and almost but not quite (but it's very close) the full 8.1. degree field in Hawkes.

Promaster ED specified ER is 17.2mm. Hawke ED specified ER is 16.6 mm. So it's reflected in the spec.

I suspect they are rather similar but widening the field stop in the Hawkes means the field doesn't quite fit.

That said I don't have a problem with either (unlike some other bins were you get other issues). They both seem very "tame".

[Tero]

Tero,

Hmm, when did you get the Vipers?

Couple of weeks back. Local guy sold them, actually posted here. Warranty good, even used.

Just guessing, I think both the Pentax SP 8x42 and Viper would have features that I like. It is good to have one pair that works OK at all times, glasses or not. I am wearing glasses most of the time. I actually take them off to bird in good daylight, spring etc.

[Tero]

Testing 8x.

Went out..not much birds really..on an overcast day. Had Viper 8x42 and Bushnell Legend 8x32. The field is smaller in the Viper, but not really a big problem. They have a little better sweet spot. Overall, view was more natural with the Viper, sometimes when not panning I forgot I had binoculars, it was realistic enough. The Legends were equally sharp in the field, at least in this light. They have a slightly more washed out view. But not bad. And the Viper, whatever glass it may be of, had more CA. Stray light control pretty good in the Viper.

[FrankD]

I just wanted to comment on something I see mentioned here from time to time....color cast and how it appeals to some during certain times of the year. There was a thread in the Minox forum titled something like "Minox time in Kentucky". In it the thread starter commented how he preferred the particular color representation of his Minox during the fall months. I was struck by much the same reality when comparing the Meopta and the FL today. I prefer the warmer color bias of the Meopta during the winter. The color neutral FLs are definitely more realistic but the warmer color bias of the Meoptas just makes the image more pleasing to my eyes when there is a lot of white, brown and gray in the environment.

[Tero]

I do not really have any color bias I hate. Lack of contrast bothers me more. And most of my bins have some lack. Probably the 40mm porros have the brightest image. 50mm porros should then be even better, but heavier.

[Tero]

Once more, testing indoors, my Legend porro 8x42 beat the other 8x I have for CA, brightness and sharpness. Too bad no 10x42 Legend porro is made. The 10x50 may be heavy, the 28oz advertised is definitely wrong. Going by the 8x42, I would guess the 10x50 weighs some 32-34 oz.

But I need to get these 8x42s out more. I may try them for a bird count. Carrying the 10x roofs in back pack just in case. I am not dragging a scope to a bird count.

[Kevin Purcell]

Once more, testing indoors, my Legend porro 8x42 beat the other 8x I have for CA, brightness and sharpness. Too bad no 10x42 Legend porro is made.

Interesting. I didn't notice that before but this porro range (I think) uses that trick of making the same prism enclosure, prisms and eyepieces and changing the objective lenses and tube for different models in the family: 8x42, 10x50 and 12x50.

http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_legend_porro.cfm?section=General%20Use

Just like the Nikeon SE and E2.

Obviously the only way to make porros these days to maximize the use of common parts.

[Tero]

Ah, so there is a reason.

[FrankD]

I don't know if this necessarily applies to you Tero but I seem to get the impression after reading through your comments about the 8x42 Legend that you are reaching the same conclusion I am at times. I tend to vastly prefer the image representation in most porros in comparison to anything except for some of the high end roofs. I know that may sound like what many SE fans have been saying all along but some times it makes sense to learn the hard way. ;)

[Tero]

I may even try some of those 9x astronomy porros some day, just for the heck of it. Most of my birding is littel birds, so I have not had need for 7x yet.

[Tero]

Took my Pentax SP 8x32 and Bushnell Legend 8x32 out today. The Legend is slightly sharper in the center. If the birds are far away, this may be of some help.

[FrankD]

Tero,

Lots of thoughts after your most recent post.

One, I do have to say that I enjoy when you pull up one of your classic "personal experience" posts from the past. Seven months is quite some time. ;)

Two, I find it interesting that you find the Legend sharper in the center of the field than the Pentax. Sample variation maybe or the result of the aspheric eyepiece design of the Pentax and its characteristic of "spreading the sharpness" across a larger percentage of the field of view?

[Tero]

Yes, it may be. At close range I barely noticed the difference, I looked at some mailbox numbers rather far away. The Legend is a decent binocular. I have two 8x32s that really have not seen much action. But I do have 40 lifer birds on the Pentax from the two months of use. It has some history already. I think I got no lifers with my 10x40 Zeiss.

[Kevin Purcell]

I find it interesting that you find the Legend sharper in the center of the field than the Pentax. Sample variation maybe or the result of the aspheric eyepiece design of the Pentax and its characteristic of "spreading the sharpness" across a larger percentage of the field of view?

I can believe Tero's comments.

We had a little go around with the WP versus the SP on another thread recently.

I have an 8x32 WP and an SP. And the WP is sharper than the SP. I'd written it off to sample variation. And was annoyed that I paid $225 more for the secondhand SP than the new WP (OK, that was $50 and a great deal!).

But others chipped in the same sort of responses. So I started to suspect this wasn't just a sample variation issue.

It has me wondering if the aspherical hybrid (plastic/glass) lens in the SP eyepiece gives up in some sharpness in center field when flattening the field curvature a bit at the edge of field.

Not confirmation but perhaps another hint.

[falcondude]

It might represent one extreme example that all binoculars are some sort of design compromise.

[FrankD]

True.

I also have to readily admit to cringing a bit when I see the word "plastic" being used anywhere in the lens or prisms. I know that current use of plastics is worlds ahead of even 10 years ago but still....

[Kevin Purcell]

Well, my CR39 (i.e. plastic) lenses in my eyeglasses work fine. Plastic itself is not a bad thing.

I speculate CR39 is probably what's in the hybrid lens too (it's inexpensive, has good optical properties and you can easily machine an aspherical surface on it ... the main reason to use plastic in this role)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR-39

[rivergazer]

Plastic used in load bearing elements of anything can make me cringe too; it's simply not a stable material. Plastics are better all the time, and can be used to advantage in many places, so I don't reject it automatically, but often bring to this brain "eeeeeeeeckkkkk, it's PLASTIC!!@###!!" With a lifetime of product design and materials testing behind me, I feel confidence in this appraisal. HOWEVER .... something I'm not confident of myself in is optics, but I'm sure I've heard said (by those that seemed to be in a position of authority on the subject) that acrylic (a plastic, of course) is the most optically pure material known, and has been used in eyeglasses for that reason. I think polycarbonate, though less pure than acrylic, replaced it in eyeglasses for it's durability. Can anyone that knows more about binoculars than I (that's just about EVERYONE here!!) comment on this?

[Tero]

Plastic became popular in eye glasses I believe because of the lighter weight. I have all kinds of coatings on my glasses, but they still get scratched very easily. In an interior element, that would not be a problem.

[dlleno]

There was some rumor that Nikon would change or delete the Monarch line, but no confirmation except one source. Monarchs have been the first affordable pairs fo many. If they keep them around, I may get one of each size, except not the 10x36 as the 10x42 is better. The 8.5x56 is a curioisty, but may weight too much.

My wife and I went bino shopping yesterday and came to exactly the same conclusion. the 8.5x56 looked great, but lacked close focusing distance I expect from an 8x. Its actually quite stable, due to the length and weight, but I agree too heavy. we also tried the 10x36 versus 10x42 and both of us liked the latter best. of course, the one we really liked was the 10x45 premium. At a local B&M store It was attractively priced at $999 ($1250 on B&H), but (sigh) out of our price range.

[Kevin Purcell]

Plastic used in load bearing elements of anything can make me cringe too; it's simply not a stable material.

You mean like the suspension in a F1 car or the fin on a modern Airbus or Boeing or the cockpit dome of pretty much any modern jet fighter?. All are "plastics" (composite materials or polycarbonate in those examples). Just like the composites used in some bin enclosures to reduce weight. Pick the right plastic weight the right properties and it can be plenty strong enough in a lot of uses.

CR39 has a pretty high refractive index (close to crown glass) with a lower density of glass a decent Abbe number, high transparency, and as it's thermoset be molded. I should have mentioned that before ... it would save machining of each lens a signifigant cost saving and probably what Pentax do. Then it can be easily machined to finish. It's inexpensive too: eyeglass lens blanks are in the few cents range (yeah, there's a big mark up).

Note that CR39 has a much better Abbe number (so less stray color) than polycarbonate and all of the other newer "high index" optical plastics (for "thin-lens" eyeglasses ... which aren't lighter though they're sometimes hawked that way).

CR39 is also more scratch resistant than polycarbonate (and that a lot of "high index") but less so than glass.

As CR39 doesn't shatter and liability laws being what they are it has replaced glass in eyeglasses in the USA. It is now very difficult to get normal (not safety glass) eyeglasses in the USA.

[Tero]

dlleno, Monarchs are still around. It was just the rifle scopes, maybe, that disappeared.

I do not like the Monarchs mechanically, but they were a pioneer in light weight housing. The eye cups could be better. Plus, they are pretty unexciting optics these days. It was a good deal 4 years ago.

[dlleno]

dlleno, Monarchs are still around. It was just the rifle scopes, maybe, that disappeared.

I do not like the Monarchs mechanically, but they were a pioneer in light weight housing. The eye cups could be better. Plus, they are pretty unexciting optics these days. It was a good deal 4 years ago.

thats good to know, and (now that you mention it) consistent with this beginner shopper's findings to date. at this point, whatever my wife keeps in her hands for more than a few seconds stays on the short list. so far the Nikons win because she doesn't put them down quickly :-). I'd like to try a Zen ED but not sure I want to risk the shipping cost if she doesn't like them.

her needs are pretty particular; she has a very narrow IPD and wears glasses. Other than the NiKon Premiere roofs (which we both liked) the Monarchs are the only ones that pass muster. She has to be able to quicklky adjust for good image with no dark areas within a few seconds, or it goes back in the display case :-)

[rivergazer]

Pick the right plastic weight the right properties and it can be plenty strong enough in a lot of uses.

Agreed, I just don't always trust that the designer(s) did their homework, or, that they did, and just chose plastic for convenience and low cost. On optics, I defer to your notable expertise.

marty

[dustyview]

FWIW, my XRS HDs (the model below the Zen ED) is noticeably better than the Monarch of the same focal length. Unfortunately, the IPD measures at 58mm. If you do verify that the ED version adjusts down to an honest 54mm I would jump on a pair. Personally, I've found that some binoculars that might seem "fiddly" during the first 10 min. I play with them become much more user friendly after the first day of field use. You just have to get used to them. An optically superior model might be worth a little more time.

[FrankD]

of course, the one we really liked was the 10x45 premium. At a local B&M store It was attractively priced at $999 ($1250 on B&H), but (sigh) out of our price range.

Which ones were you looking at? The Premier LXL or something else? The 10x45 configuration comment has me curious.

If that is the case then consider CLNY. They typically have "demos" for siginificantly less than those prices. I even saw they had the predecessor to the LXL (the LX) for about $700. Their only drawback was their weight. The ergonomics made up for that though...trust me.

As for the shipping cost concern...what are talking about here? $12 via USPS Priority Mail with insurance?

[Steve C]

[As for the shipping cost concern...what are talking about here? $12 via USPS Priority Mail with insurance?[/QUOTE]

You are both in the PNW and Zen Ray ships free (I think). You would only be out regular mail to send it back.

[Kevin Purcell]

If you do verify that the ED version adjusts down to an honest 54mm I would jump on a pair.

I just "squished" my ZR EDs to minimum IPD and I get 57mm but not less than that.

[dlleno]

Which ones were you looking at? The Premier LXL or something else? The 10x45 configuration comment has me curious.

If that is the case then consider CLNY. They typically have "demos" for siginificantly less than those prices. I even saw they had the predecessor to the LXL (the LX) for about $700. Their only drawback was their weight. The ergonomics made up for that though...trust me.

As for the shipping cost concern...what are talking about here? $12 via USPS Priority Mail with insurance?

I have to admit that because of the price I didn't look carefully at the model, except to correlate it with what I thought was the equivalent on the B&H site. the binos simply said "premium" and I have assumed that they were not the LX "L" which are $1400 at B&H. Also, my appologies i made a mistake they are 10x42 not 10x45. Its the Monarch X's that are "x45"
-Doug

[FrankD]

Thank you for the clarification Doug. That explains part of my curiousity. I wonder which model you were considering for that price then?

[Tero]

I'm still not getting much of a feel for these Legend HDs
http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/bushnell/bushnell-legend-ultra-hd-8x42-binocular

I like the 22-23 oz weight.

This could be, once I get interested enough, my next 8x42 to buy and sell. ;)

[FrankD]

Yeah well, you are a little late. I sold them for about a half of what I paid. They are on their way to Australia as we speak.....

;)

Check my comments out up in the Legend Ultra HD thread in the Bushnell forum.

Great sweet spot performance in all areas....outside of the sweet spot they are 'not so great". How is that for a technical term?

I really enjoyed the size, handling and focus. These seem like a much more natural evolution of the 8x42 roof prism binocular instead of what Nikon did with the Monarch X.

[Tero]

So it is even worse than the regular Legends? Or something like Monarchs?

Yeah, I figured it was soemthing like that, as nobody brings it up anymore. Bushnell: folks, come up with something. I liked a few of your products. Though I only kept one, oh and a compact.

[FrankD]

No, I would definitely rate it better than the original Legends or Monarchs overall. Edge performance was worse in that it had more noticeable field curvature but then we are talking about a 420 foot field of view vs. a 330 foot one.

Brightness, apparent centerfield sharpness, contrast and CA control were all better in the Ultra HD.

The funny thing was that I ended up selling them to another BF member through Ebay and did not even know it. You guys need to tell me when you are considering something...I have three pairs of Cascade porros up there right now.

;)

[Tero]

Yeah, I might forgive such distortions for an 8x32, but if lug around a big old 8x42, I want it perfect. Plus fast focus.

[Tero]

A TINY shootout:
Bushnell Legend porro 8x42 vs. Bushnell Legend 8x32 roofs

Porro was carried strap over shoulder. Very quick to find bird. Apparent depth of field very good, snaps into focus. FOV same in both, but porro was very generous with eye relief, briefly had glasses on.

The view was generally very similar, sharpness similar at close range. Distant turkey vultures were better with the porro. More fiddling with focus on the roofs due to smaller apparent depth of field. No real dimness in the 8x32, brightness daytime in the woods was the same.

Not sure why I get less use out of the porros, it was certainly quite pleasant and relaxed. Weight may be my main issue.

Not in the test, but in the trunk of the car at end, Pentax SP 8x32. I would take those over the Bushnells most times. They are not sharper, but overall I can forget that I am using binoculars and just bird. Has to do with the Pentax optics, I am just very comfortable with them.