Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42 (1 Viewer)

AP
You are right that the 8x42 Legend Ultra HD's are a good bino at the $150 range, and I guess I should have tempered my remarks as I seem to have a knack for rooting out good deals. Ever since I bought my 8x42 Alpen Wings ED's for $175 last spring, I have been looking for another 8x42 that would be optically comparable for less than the $350 or so price these and the clone competition seem to sell for.

No one appreciates a good deal and value more than I do, but I guess each individual has a different ideal on what truly constitutes value for them. For me the 8x42 Kruger Calderas I just paid $213 for are a much better value than the $150 8x42 Legend Ultra HD I just got rid of. For the extra $63 to me its no contest optically, but the focus knob could stand improvement by extending the armoring all the way to the top of the knob. I had considered the 8x42 Theron LT's Frank & Steve had recommended, as they can be had for about $179, but went with the Calderas after additional input. After I bought the Calderas for $213 and posted the deal, and the other 2 pairs sold - the price jumped up to $369.

Adorama has been selling the 8x42 Bushnell Legend Ultra HD's for less than $200 for months, and Amazon has been selling open box returns for around $140 or less for awhile as well. I have to wonder what is up with the 8x42's, because none of the other 36mm's or 10x42's are discounted much. I got my 8x36's last year off ebay for $165 when Bushnell had the same $50 rebate. I bought another 2 pair of 8x36's last month to compare to mine and sent both back, as they weren't any better than the pair I have.

Let's hope the third time is a charm.

Tom

review of Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD

I've had ample opportunity now to test the Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD. The unit I have now seems free of major manufacturing flaws (unlike the first two I tried, see previous posts in this thread). If it manifests any problems, I'll take the warranty repair route. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that I talked with customer service at the Bushnell world headquarters (in my home state of Kansas) and found them extremely helpful and accommodating--they were willing to replace my previous defective unit with new, sent me a pre-paid shipping mailer, and waived all return ship charges etc--but it ended up being faster turn-around for me to do all this with the dealer (Adorama, which gets full marks for quick and courteous customer service). Normally I'm more patient and prefer to send flawed products to the manufacturer, but I'm getting these to give to a friend in a few days.

The unit I have now is close to everything I was hoping for based on my more limited previous experiences with this model, which is perhaps the lowest priced of readily available "Chinese ED" bins in the USA. They are amazing in all ways--specs, performance, and price. Improvements of alpha roofs over the past 20 years have been trivial in comparison to economy roofs. I've long been a hater of cheap roofs, even though my first beloved bins were such--the Bushnell 8x42 Banner--and by cheap roofs I don't just mean the cheapest, I mean the ones that aspired to be roof equivalents in price and sales to the decent porros of the 1990s (e.g. B&L Custom 8x36, Swift Audubon or Ultralite, Celestron Ultima). It was a breakthrough when roofs got phase coating for under $500, but those still had poor specs such as narrow FOV and other performance limitations. The current generation is a whole new game--they aspire to do it all and invite comparison to roofs of any price.

Good stuff, and all for only $150:
All specs are really impressive: an 8x42 with 426 foot FOV (didn't measure it but it seems accurate, making it wider than any full-sized 8x alpha), ~140mm long (= slightly shorter than Leica 8x42 Ultravid, which is a small alpha), 24+3/8 oz weight (=less than many 8x32, less than any alpha 8x42) yet feels traditionally solid (like metal, not plastic), 5ft close-focus, reasonable focus ratio requires 1.5 turns from 5ft to infinity, and eye-relief is fine with my glasses (though I wouldn't mind another 1-2mm). The ergonomics are very much to my liking (nothing fancy, no flaring contours around the strap lugs, well-placed strap lugs, short center bridge allows ring and little fingers a wrap-around grip) and they have good "hang". Besides all this, the oculars are impressively large (~24mm diameter), the lenses have hydrophobic/lipophobic coatings, and what other bin, at any price, has "HD" on the name plate and marked below one side of the ocular _and_ "ED prime glass" marked below the other side of the ocular?

I find the view stunning overall. Most significant to me, because it is where most sub-alphas fail, is performance against the light (e.g. strong backlight, sun just outside view and shining directly on the oculars off-axis). These are the best I've seen--as good or better than any of my alphas as far as I can tell. The sweet spot is large (comparable to alphas other than those with "field flatteners") and the overall quality fall-off, which is more about field curvature than astigmatism, is gradual until very near the edge. CA control is excellent both in the center and off-axis, certainly way better than the non-HD version of the Leica 8x42 Ultravid (which bothers me even more than the Swarovski 8x32 EL).

Stuff that isn't bad but could be better:
Color is very slightly warm, though is closer to neutral than most alphas of 15 years ago. Rubber armor is intentionally squishy in places (like where other bins might have thumb cut-outs) which concerns me for long-term durability. Armor is on the slick side. Minimum IPD is 56mm and unnecessarily limited by the hinge design--could easily have been designed to reach 52 or 53mm if anyone had thought to break with the industry-wide dumb default spec (Zeiss is the leader in this arena, and threw caution to the winds by designing the Conquest and FL models with 52 or 54mm minimum IPD depending on the model). The view has strong pincushion distortion, which usually doesn't bother me, but in this case it is so strong that it makes the view seem not as easy on the eyes as it should be while panning. After a some days of use, my brain appears to have adjusted, and the distortion no longer bothers me, but I'm not so sure that it isn't still requiring more mental processing, which might not be a good thing on long days of heavy birding. Zero diopter setting is printed in the wrong place on the rubber armor (I blame the armor because the zero setting does seem centered on the range of adjustment).

Bad stuff:
These bins get it right in so many of the ways that I have always assumed were the biggest design and manufacturing challenges for any maker wanting to compete with the alphas (regardless of price), that I'm sad to say that these Bushnell Legend Ultra HD have lots of little flaws that keep them from being alpha contenders. To put in in colloquially, it's so dumb that these bins have these flaws because they aren't the sorts of things that should be what sets expensive bins apart from the cheapies. Here are my complaints:

The focus knob stiffens in the cold (again, I have to ask, how much does it cost to design bins to use light grease or to spec a better multiviscosity grease?). The focus knob rotates counter clockwise to infinity (see other threads for my opinion on that; how much does it cost to clone this feature of alpha design?). The focus knob has a bit of slop in it (not bothersome to me personally, but important for many, and I must say a pitiful flaw--hasn't the engineering and manufacturing of precise focus control been worked out, isn't it a trivial, mature technology?). A small portion of the slop may entail a bit of left/right focus asynchrony (extremely subtle, but I think it is there). Many optically mediocre roofs have better focus control, so this is a sorry shortcoming. The little disk at the front of the focus knob (akin to the sand trap of the Zeiss FL) is loose enough to rattle during normal use--it rings like a plastic bell! I solved the rattling problem by wedging a piece of rubber band between the disk and the back of the hinge on one side (stays in place, even when adjusting IPD). The eyecups are too short for some who do not wear glasses (for me they are OK even w/o glasses because I prefer to rest eyecups against my brow, not set them around the eye).

Other dumb stuff:
The case is big enough to fit the Zeiss 20x60 Stabilized (just kidding, but it is HUGE!). The supplied neckstrap is way too long for other than bandolier-style use. The neckstrap is over-engineered with segmented cushioning (I'd trade it, the case, and the supplied bino harness for a simple neoprene strap like the Op/tech "fashion bino" any day). Finally, it seems every binocular engineer is compelled to prove their mettle by giving us their own novel take on the ocular rainguard by designing one that is inexplicably (since rainguards are inherently very simple) dysfunctional. Examples that come to mind are the over-engineered hard plastic guard for the Swarovski EL, the original Zeiss FL designs that were either way too loose or way too tight, and the Leica Ultravid guard with its long floppy center piece and oddly tall profile. Well, the designers of the Ultravid HD rainguard were not to be outdone. It is a simple design, similar to the generic ones supplied with many bins these days, http://www.eagleoptics.com/binocular-accessories/eagle-optics/eagle-optics-binocular-rainguard except that it only has a slot to feed the strap through on the right side. In other words, it is designed for left-handed users! That bias is refreshing in a way, but the right-handed majority will find that when it is dangling, that it impedes grabbing the bin with the right hand from its position hanging around one's neck, or that flipping it off the oculars (usually done with the left hand while the right hand simultaneously lifts the bins) encourages crossing the left hand from left to right in front of the body, meaning that the arm moves into, rather than out of, the way of raising the bins to one's eyes. What were they thinking? Maybe an irritated lefty seeking vengeance? Too bad for lefties and all of us that the sort of boring but functional guards such as Eagle Optics sells aren't made with closed strap holds on both sides of the guard so users could use it with both straps completely secured, or else use a razor knife to modify it according to their preference by slitting or entirely removing (as I do) one side or the other.

Final thought:
As I've known since trying my first "Chinese ED" bins (Zen Ray 7x36 ED2 http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1561454&highlight=Zen+Ray+7x36#post1561454) the alphas are no longer much distinguished by optical performance, but rather build quality and smooth function, qualities that are quite important in the heat of birding. I'd have guessed that economy optics makers would have figured out how to build a bin with those qualities before they figured out how to match alpha optics, but my guess has again proven wrong.

--AP

That was not only a very informative review, it was fun to read:t:

So I take it these aren't worth paying more than twice the price in the US for a pair in the UK? They are up in the Nikon E2 price range here.

murph said:

So I take it these aren't worth paying more than twice the price in the US for a pair in the UK? They are up in the Nikon E2 price range here.

Click to expand...

At the usual UK asking price of £360 I felt they were hard to recommend. Compared to the usual UK 'favourite' the Hawke Frontier ED the sweet spot is smaller, there is more CA and the build quality feels somewhat light weight. However I personally prefer the view characteristics and ergonomics of the Bushnell. I found the contrast better and the warmer colour balance is more to my tastes. Now it can be found for about £260 it's still a lot more than in the US but I would personally suggest it's worth a serious look.

David

A friend of mine is buying new bins and has his eye on the Bushnell 8x36 Legend Ultra HD. Based on the few reviews I've seen, I was expecting to like it as much or more than the 8x42, but the first unit he was shipped is going back to the merchant. In contrast to the 8x42 units I've looked through, the fall-off of sharpness from center to edge was very abrupt and very extreme. They gave the same sensation as many cheap roofs--fine in the center but with a small sweet spot and big doughnut of fuzz around it--sort of a vortex of defocus and aberrations around a clear spot in the eye of the storm. One thing contributing to the small sweet spot was that the sharpest spot was toward the top of the view on the left side and toward the bottom of the view on the right side. I also noted that the horizontal alignment was poor. We'll give another unit or two a try, but I'm skeptical that I'm going to like the 8x36 as much as I do the 8x42. On that note, I tried another 8x42 recently, was again impressed with the view and found the build superior to any of the units I'd seen previously. It was very well aligned, had no ringing/rattling, had a properly calibrated diopter, and no focus knob slop.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

A friend of mine is buying new bins and has his eye on the Bushnell 8x36 Legend Ultra HD. Based on the few reviews I've seen, I was expecting to like it as much or more than the 8x42, but the first unit he was shipped is going back to the merchant. In contrast to the 8x42 units I've looked through, the fall-off of sharpness from center to edge was very abrupt and very extreme. They gave the same sensation as many cheap roofs--fine in the center but with a small sweet spot and big doughnut of fuzz around it--sort of a vortex of defocus and aberrations around a clear spot in the eye of the storm. One thing contributing to the small sweet spot was that the sharpest spot was toward the top of the view on the left side and toward the bottom of the view on the right side. I also noted that the horizontal alignment was poor. We'll give another unit or two a try, but I'm skeptical that I'm going to like the 8x36 as much as I do the 8x42. On that note, I tried another 8x42 recently, was again impressed with the view and found the build superior to any of the units I'd seen previously. It was very well aligned, had no ringing/rattling, had a properly calibrated diopter, and no focus knob slop.

--AP

Click to expand...

Now I think I understand why Frank buys four or five samples of the same Chinese bin! With his shotgun approach, he's bound to hit upon a good one.

Brock

Come on now Brock. You know I don't do that for most of my bins. There have only been a handful that required that approach.

FrankD said:

Come on now Brock. You know I don't do that for most of my bins. There have only been a handful that required that approach.

Click to expand...

Mmmm... I seem to recall you buying five Leupold 8x42 Cascades. After all that layout, I hope you kept the best sample.

I really liked the ergos on that bin, but the FOV was too tunnelesque. Had they made the Cascades with a degree more FOV, they would have been keepers. Or at least a sample with a focuser I could turn with one finger rather than two.

Like the B&L Discoverer body that was resurrected in the new 820 Audubons, I hope the Leupold Cascade porro body makes a reappearance in a WF bin.

Brock

Brock,

I certainly agree with everything you posted but doubt we will ever see an internal focusing porro with a wide field eyepiece. There just doesn't seem to be a market for them. I wish somebody would though. As long as the rest of the optical design was well thought out it could potentially be the perfect bin. Oh, and ED glass in the objective as well.



Sadly, no, I did not keep any of the Cascade porros. I sold them all off as my "situation" at the time warranted it. I have tried one sample since then and did own the Opticron HR WP though.

As for the focusing issue, after having owned so many I can certainly say that it was a sample variation issue. There was one unit I had, I think I sold it to Spacepilot, that had a butter smooth focuser that would have hung with the Nikon Venturers in terms of tension.

A quick report on my second round with the Bushnell 8x36 Legend Ultra HD that a friend is buying. The latest unit we tried is a keeper--no focus slop, well aligned and collimated, well assembled. The sweet spot on these is much better than the first unit I tried (because the better centering of lenses), but I would be surprised if any of the 8x36 design would match the more gradual fall-off at the edges that I see in the 8x42 model. The field curvature at the edge of the 8x36 is fairly extreme. I like the 8x42 better for that reason; also because it is so compact and lightweight for an 8x42, the 8x36 is to me all the less tempting. Otherwise, the 8x36 is obviously a member of this amazing new class of budget bins--the "Chinese EDs"--CA is extremely well controlled, and contrast and back lighting performance are exceptionally good by any standard.

--AP

I wish i knew then what i know now. This is a great piece of glass for the money, i was surprised when someone handed me a pair. My expectations were low given my experience with the brand and the cheap walmart models as a kid. Boy was i surprised. A lot of glass for the money. Best roof under 300.

I think with Chinese bins, if you get a good one the first time around, you can count yer lucky stars. For best results, you have to do what Frank does with most his bins, buy five samples, "keep the best and sell the rest". A sad but true fact of life at this price point.

Brock

brocknroller said:

I think with Chinese bins, if you get a good one the first time around, you can count yer lucky stars. For best results, you have to do what Frank does with most his bins, buy five samples, "keep the best and sell the rest". A sad but true fact of life at this price point.

Brock

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you are still posting nonsense like this, as I find it almost laughable for its sheer ignorance and predudice. This certainly does not mirror my experience, and if anyone buys and trys more bins than me, I'd certainly be surprised. I guess your vast experience with China bins must trump mine in order for you to post such a definitive statement as this. Or perhaps we should ask Ivan

Never looked through one, yet I can appreciate the QC, or lack of, being a major factor in landing a keeper in the lower priced yank-chiney ventures. Sure, I bought one of those cheap Caldera models, nuttin' ventured nuttin' gained, though at times some brands/models appear to be more potluck than not. I think mine are great & kept them over the ED2 which became gift fodder.

I'd like to see a detailed review/shootout on the likes of Caldera/Wapiti ED/Ultra HD & throw in the ZR Prime as well whilst it's in the 5 bill range. Sure the Prime will have 60 odd feet FOV on the Wapiti ED, but the top of the line Theron is only 3 1/2 bills.

Anywho, I just didn't warm up to the idea of trying the Ultra HD. Other bins found their way & I started picking up some older bins that I consider a pleasure to look through even if they aren't as bright as later offerings.

Besides, I'm still waiting on Theron to run a sale.

I thought I just saw a sale on the Wapitio APO last week. Hopefully it wasn't only a a weekly sale.

Twenty spot off the 10X & oddly enough as I tend to be a fan of higher power I'm looking more @ 8x.

I bought a 'used like new' 10x42 Legend Ultra HD from Amazon, had them a couple weeks, and returned them for a NEW set. The new ones are really quite good. Amazingly good for the price, and I've had an opportunity to compare to a few other glasses from the Alpha companies.

John F

Update on Bushnell 8x42 Legend Ultra HD focus. One of the issues that I complained about in my previous comments was that I these tend to have a little bit of slop in the focus. I recently tested a unit that had been sent back to Bushnell for a repair of the focus and it came back perfect (zero slop). That unit also has superb optics and no rattle.

--AP