-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Bushnell 8x42 Legend Porro or Yosemite 8x30 ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter xorg
- Start date
FrankD
Well-known member
I really think the issue of the focus stiffness can depend alot on the individual unit. I recently managed to pick up a second pair of Celestron Ultima DXs. This particular unit has a stiffer focus than the previous unit I owned. The Bushnell Legend porro I currently have is much smoother in its focusing speed and tension.
My opinion thus far on the Legend porros has been extremely positive. In truth I have yet to find something I do not like about them. The image quality is way above what I expected from a $100 Bushnell product. I posted this on another thread but I will retype it here. I took the Legend porros out this past Sunday along with my Meopta Meostars for a little birding excursion. Surprisingly I ended up using the Legends about 95% of the time. I was standing next to birders sportin' Swaro ELs and I, honestly, did not feel like I was missing a single thing with the Legend porros.
Did I just say I was content totin' a pair of Bushnells instead of something alot more expensive?
Hmm. It is getting mighty cold outside.
You know that little wink that all of the Nikon SE 8x32 owners give to each other when they are standing next to other guys using the much more expensive roofs? I think we need to start a little nod or something for those of us using the Legend porro.
...seriously, I am not kidding.
My opinion thus far on the Legend porros has been extremely positive. In truth I have yet to find something I do not like about them. The image quality is way above what I expected from a $100 Bushnell product. I posted this on another thread but I will retype it here. I took the Legend porros out this past Sunday along with my Meopta Meostars for a little birding excursion. Surprisingly I ended up using the Legends about 95% of the time. I was standing next to birders sportin' Swaro ELs and I, honestly, did not feel like I was missing a single thing with the Legend porros.
Did I just say I was content totin' a pair of Bushnells instead of something alot more expensive?
Hmm. It is getting mighty cold outside.
You know that little wink that all of the Nikon SE 8x32 owners give to each other when they are standing next to other guys using the much more expensive roofs? I think we need to start a little nod or something for those of us using the Legend porro.
...seriously, I am not kidding.
keithdrengen
Well-known member
How is the Legend 12x50 or 10x50 porros? In the same area as the 8x42? What about the bridge, is it even and does it seem like it will stay that way or is it flimpsy? Any issues with blackouts or short eyerelief and such?
Ok thanks as usual for your good replies.
Carsten
Ok thanks as usual for your good replies.
Carsten
Although the Legend 10x50 has a few deficiencies, it has a very well balanced light beam and very good transmission. It has a very wide sharp imae, it displays very little curvature. The er effective is 14mm, not bad, and the lens recess is 4mm, sufficient to prevent contact with eye glass lenses when the eyecups are turned down. Although eyecups have no intermediate positive positions, they have fine movement and will stay put at any number of intermediate positions. It scored very well in overall transmission. Mechanical construction is very good. The focusing is positive. One minor quibble, right diopter adjusment requires twisting out the right eyecup to grab a hold of the diopter ring. One major optical deficiency was the resolution test. Boosted resolution, a test Henry Link likes to see since it uncovers aberrations, was very poor. Front prism protrudes into the light path resulting in a chord (6% area loss). Weight is 37 0z. (1050g.).
Taking everything into consideration, I liked using this binocular. Some optical deficiencies, but very good mechanical feel and good light distribution.
edz
The balanced light beam is in reference to the tests I've been doing for several years with a target laser (not a lsaer pointer). You may remeber those discussions on CN. Some binoculars are seen to show considerable off-balance beam in the exit pupil when the beam is placed exactly at the center of the objective lens. Some binoculars are even seen to show no beam at all or only very small percentage of it in the exit pupil as the beam is polaced closer to the edges of the objective lens.
I used a closed tube, a constant diffuse light source at one end and a light meter to measure total light thoughput. That procedure is also descibed at lenght on CN. It may not be a perfect method, but it shows relation of one binocular to another.
edz
I used a closed tube, a constant diffuse light source at one end and a light meter to measure total light thoughput. That procedure is also descibed at lenght on CN. It may not be a perfect method, but it shows relation of one binocular to another.
edz
FrankD
Well-known member
Ed,
Thank you for sharing your comments on the 10x50. I had planned on looking into picking one up at a local retailer this weekend. I prefer 50 mm with the 10x magnification and since I am so fond of the 8x42 version the 10x50 seemed like a natural addition.
Speaking of which, I wanted to also thank you for chiming in on my "inexpensive porro thread" a few months back. I currently have several of the models you suggested in my possession and I have to say that I have been missing out on some wonderful performers at a very inexpensive price point.
Thank you for sharing your comments on the 10x50. I had planned on looking into picking one up at a local retailer this weekend. I prefer 50 mm with the 10x magnification and since I am so fond of the 8x42 version the 10x50 seemed like a natural addition.
Speaking of which, I wanted to also thank you for chiming in on my "inexpensive porro thread" a few months back. I currently have several of the models you suggested in my possession and I have to say that I have been missing out on some wonderful performers at a very inexpensive price point.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
With all the rain here it's difficult to test bins outside but I went out in the wind and drizzle (fun!) today.
The Legend 8x42 porros look very good.
Very good value for money and as has been said (by FrankD) a notch optically above the Ultima DX mostly from the reduced field curvature -- I haven't ABed them yet.
About the same (though the color tint may be slightly different) as the Leupold Cascades though the focusing action is very light on the Cascades but very heavy on the Legend.
Nice wide field and they seem quite sharp to my eye and slightly better than the Legend 8x42 roofs (though they're no slouches themselves).
The Legend are also BIG and rather "flat" (wide) when set at my IPD (male average) 65mm. I have big hands and my index finger doesn't quite center on the focuser so even smaller people might have a problem here. My thumb can reach under but they seem a bit on the large side. The force to move the focus is significant but they might loosen up in use. The Cascades are much more "roof-like" with their internal focuser. They certainly need a lot less force. I'd say the Legends need more forece to move them than any other porro is my collection (Leupold Cascade, Leupold Yosemite, Celestron Ultima DX, EO Raptor/Vixen Forester, random cheaper Japanese 10x50s). They may also be more waterproof
The ergonomics are decent with the bulging rubber (like the Legend roofs) being quite useful but I think I'd prefer a bit less rubber and a bit less weight. I suspect with lighter armor these could be 26oz bins. That's a win for the Ultima DX and the Cascades. Still the optics are very nice.
Very good value for money but may not work ergonomically for some.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
The bridge seems quite solid (plastic) and the mechanics remind me (in a good way) of some other Chinese porros I've handled recently. Once again I suspect there is a Xi'an Porro Binocular Bridge Mfg Co Ltd turning out bits everyone uses! They seem very solid and well balanced. Racking the focuser in and out I don't see any snagging or tilting.
The diopter setting seems to be the same style as on the Celestron Ultima DX (perhaps from Xi'an Binocular Diopter Setting Ring Mfg Co Ltd
). Needs a firm grip to use but the two "wings" make it easy to set in each direction.No problems with blackouts for me (an eyeglass wearing myope with reasonably close-fitting birding eyeglasses).
I have no problem seeing the whole field which given it's a big field is rather good so the ER is good enough (mid-teens or better).
EdZ,
Thanks,
I do remember some of those discussions on CN, but I must confess I did not follow them very closely. I wonder if you could perhaps provide a concise explanation of what this does, since reading all the threads and trying to figure out where a process which in the threads is always a work in progress has ended up or stands today can be very hard and may lead to wrong conclusions. Also, I'm not sure I know what the difference between a target laser and a laser pointer would be.
Kimmo
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
My impressions of the focusing mechanism and the bridge design pretty much mirror Kevin's. The bridge does not rock at all when I press the eyecups against my face. I have had a few porros that did exhibit this annoying feature.
The 8x42 Legend porros continue to impress me. I think they, and the Cascade porros, are probably my two favorite porros right now.
The 8x42 Legend porros continue to impress me. I think they, and the Cascade porros, are probably my two favorite porros right now.
Can Popper
Well-known member
I got mine back from Harry Siebert after QModing. The stiffness Harry found is due to O rings between the eyepieces and the bino body.
When Harry initially reassembled the binos after QModing without putting back in the O rings, the focusing became too quick and lacked resistance. So he took it apart again and put back in the O rings which made the focusing stiffer and smoother.
keithdrengen
Well-known member
How does the Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 (or 10x50) compare to the Bushnell Legend or Nikon AE. Thanks for info so far.
CJ
CJ
FWIW, I just tried a pair of these and was not that impressed. The pair I auditioned were bright, but resolution was not that good and minimum IPD was pretty wide. I'd take a pair of Yosemities over them anytime. Maybe they were just a duff pair, and it may have been the bins I was comparing them to (which were high-dollar stuff). I don't know, but I sent them back to the retailer. On the bright side, I wear fairly close fitting glasses and I had no problem seeing the whole field of view.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
FrankD
Well-known member
Fireform,
Sorry to hear they did not work for you. You know how that goes...you can't find a bin to please everyone.
Still, I think these will please most folks. The Yosemites have their place as well. The 6x30s are some of the brightest little bins I have ever had the pleasure of owning.
Keith,
I think Kevin may have made mention to the differences between the Legend and the Yosemite. Both have very similar specs with the Legends being a hair brighter with better edge sharpness. Both have very wide fields of view with excellent apparent resolution. The eye relief seems to be very close between the two with the Legends being a hair longer.
Sorry to hear they did not work for you. You know how that goes...you can't find a bin to please everyone.
Still, I think these will please most folks. The Yosemites have their place as well. The 6x30s are some of the brightest little bins I have ever had the pleasure of owning.
Keith,
I think Kevin may have made mention to the differences between the Legend and the Yosemite. Both have very similar specs with the Legends being a hair brighter with better edge sharpness. Both have very wide fields of view with excellent apparent resolution. The eye relief seems to be very close between the two with the Legends being a hair longer.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
For the 8x30 Yosemite the field is a bit narrower and the ER a bit smaller (quoted at 14mm but I still see a full field with my eyeglasses) than the Legend.
The 6x30 is about the same size FOV (but the AFOV is smaller) and the ER is larger than the Legend.
The Legends are brighter though especially in twilight when I was trying them out.
The sharpness is similar but the Legends are a bit sharper.
Not tried stray light with the Legeneds yet but the Yosemites do fall apart close to the sun.
The Yosemites of course are a lot more compact and much lighter. Easy to carry for the whole day.
Similar threads
