• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Bushnell Legend Ultra HDs 10x36 or 10x42: A question of light... (1 Viewer)

Hobbes2

Well-known member
I thought I'd better start a new thread in here relating to this question. I've read the other threads on the Ultra HDs and I'm convinced ;). However, after speaking to an experienced birding friend recently, I was alerted to the possibility that choosing the 10x36s would mean a noticeable/significant drop in light levels? I would be going from an 8x36 binocular, which would roughly equate to a 40% drop in light(?).

My question is, how do people find the 10x36s? Are the 10x42s that much better/useable? Would I really notice the difference in brightness?

Many thanks
Hobbes
 
I cannot comment necessarily on the brightness levels. What I can say though is that you may miss a bit of the comfort associated with the larger exit pupil of the 8x36 vs the 10x36 (4.5 mm vs 3.6 mm respectively). It doesn't seem like much of a difference but in practical use the comfort level seems readily apparent to me. I tend to prefer as close to 5 mm as possible and even 6 mm assuming all else is equal. Other opinions are likely going to be different.
 
not necessarily

Hi again Hobbes

As I said before I recently bought a Leica 10x32HD to go with my 8x32el.

So the exit pupil of the Leica is only 3.2mm but it looks a lot smaller when viewed side by side with the el and I don't find a problem with the brighness of the Leica compared to the el but I do find the 10x power not just as easy or natural to use as the 8x. With the 10x things are definitely a bit more detailed in the distance but if I was to have one binocular I would go for an 8x32 and the Ultra HD 8x36 should be very good.

I actually regret having sold my 10x42 ultra HD. I bought the Leica to replace them but it cost a lot lot more and probably is a better binocular but the 10x42 Ultra HD did seem on many occasions to actually out perform my Swarovski el.

I don't think you will lose a lot in going for the 10x36 but the 10x42 is very light and quite compact and I know it worked well in lower light.

If you will be viewing in lower light often then go for the 10x42 otherwise for more compactness go for the 10x36 or get the 8x36 which will be both more compact and useable in lower light and possibly better for all round general use.

Best of course if you could actually get all or some to try. Maybe speak to the dealer and ask if you can try and return. You will have to initially outlay for both but thats were the old credit card can be of use.

I recently bought from amazon with free delivery and when I decided to return Amazon arranged a pick up and I paid no shipping and was fully refunded. Very good service.

When I originally bought my 10x42 Ultra form Microglobe the binoculars had a bad stiff focus and then some problem developed with one of the eyepieces which I think is a problem now fixed on all the models but I would ask them to check the binoculars before they send them out as I had to pay more shipping to get them repaired only 2 weeks after purchase.
 
I cannot comment necessarily on the brightness levels. What I can say though is that you may miss a bit of the comfort associated with the larger exit pupil of the 8x36 vs the 10x36 (4.5 mm vs 3.6 mm respectively). It doesn't seem like much of a difference but in practical use the comfort level seems readily apparent to me. I tend to prefer as close to 5 mm as possible and even 6 mm assuming all else is equal. Other opinions are likely going to be different.

Hi Frank
Thanks again for your helpful input. I had forgotten about the pupil calculations/fit and, since reading your post, did a little research online. From this http://www.birdbino.com/main/catego...tegory_name/22DSS4TXW53Q9LMMHWBSGNQV75/Page/1 I gathered that 3-4mm exit pupil is enough for daily use. I do actually have overly sensitive eyes so I suspect my pupil contracts more than 'normal' under daylight conditions. You've given me more to think about so many thanks,
Hobbes
 
Hi again Hobbes

As I said before I recently bought a Leica 10x32HD to go with my 8x32el.

So the exit pupil of the Leica is only 3.2mm but it looks a lot smaller when viewed side by side with the el and I don't find a problem with the brighness of the Leica compared to the el but I do find the 10x power not just as easy or natural to use as the 8x. With the 10x things are definitely a bit more detailed in the distance but if I was to have one binocular I would go for an 8x32 and the Ultra HD 8x36 should be very good.

I actually regret having sold my 10x42 ultra HD. I bought the Leica to replace them but it cost a lot lot more and probably is a better binocular but the 10x42 Ultra HD did seem on many occasions to actually out perform my Swarovski el.

I don't think you will lose a lot in going for the 10x36 but the 10x42 is very light and quite compact and I know it worked well in lower light.

If you will be viewing in lower light often then go for the 10x42 otherwise for more compactness go for the 10x36 or get the 8x36 which will be both more compact and useable in lower light and possibly better for all round general use.

Best of course if you could actually get all or some to try. Maybe speak to the dealer and ask if you can try and return. You will have to initially outlay for both but thats were the old credit card can be of use.

I recently bought from amazon with free delivery and when I decided to return Amazon arranged a pick up and I paid no shipping and was fully refunded. Very good service.

When I originally bought my 10x42 Ultra form Microglobe the binoculars had a bad stiff focus and then some problem developed with one of the eyepieces which I think is a problem now fixed on all the models but I would ask them to check the binoculars before they send them out as I had to pay more shipping to get them repaired only 2 weeks after purchase.

Hi again Clive |=)|
Hearing your experience is extremely useful. The sticking point for me is that I am looking specifically for a 10x binocular because the place where I do most of my birding requires that extra magnification. I'm getting frustrated with the 8x and, after trying a friend's 10x, I feel sure it'll make all the difference.

I had been happy to go with the 10x36 until being cautioned against the loss of light at that magnification with that size objective. However, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the difference isn't significant. Mmmm....more thinking....
thanks again,
Hobbes
 
I don't know what happened to Tero. He owned both the 10x36 and 42 so he would be the best person to comment.

I recall in one of his posts that he mentioned the 10x36 was a little less bright.

I think it does depend a lot on the quality of the optics. My little Leica 10x32 I don't think will ever present any brightness problems for me but I mostly use my 8x32 even for distance stuff and even if you use bins as the light goes down then larger bins only give a matter of minutes extra viewing.

If you have narrowed it down to these 2 then no worries. Go for the 10x36 if you would prefer compactness and if you find it not bright enough then return it in exchange for the 10x42. Shouldn't be a problem except some extra postage cost.

They both have the same prisms etc so in normal daylight there really should not be any difference in brightness. Email or phone Microglobe and ask them. Surely they should be able to advise?
 
Last edited:
I have had all 4 models of the Legend Ultra HD's and wound up keeping the 8x36 & 10x42 models. The 10x36 is only very slightly less bright at dark-thirty to my eyes than the 8x36 or 10x42, and I certainly never noticed any 40% light drop-off on the 2 pairs I had. Mathematical ratios of exit pupil certainly don't reflect the real world. The 10x42 is only 1/2" longer than the 10x36, and a couple of ounces heavier, with all other specs pretty much the same, but due to the larger EP they offer an easier view like the 8x36's. The 10x36's seemed to be too redundant for my needs so I dumped them - sort of like a solution waiting for a problem that didn't exist.

But everybody's needs and eyes are different.

Tom
 
Thanks again Clive and Tom, I do appreciate the help/input.

I've also been checking out the Eden Quality Binoculars XP 10x42s (http://www.edenwebshops.co.uk/en/pt/-eden-quality-binoculars-xp-10x42.htm), which are in the same price range. The review for the 8x42HD model (supposedly 'less good' than the ED which in turn is 'less good' than the XP) is really impressive (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/340/limit/recent). I'm just waiting to hear back from Eden as to their actual weight because the website seems to label 90% of its bins as 660g (8x the same weight as 10x which surely can't be right). Anyway, hopefully I won't need to ask you guys any more questions ;).
Thanks again
Hobbes
 
On another note, in the same model, most modern 8x42's are the exact same weight as 10x42's within a fraction of an ounce, and are the same length !!
 
On another note, in the same model, most modern 8x42's are the exact same weight as 10x42's within a fraction of an ounce, and are the same length !!

lol, ah-ha, that might solve my querries. Let's hope that's the case with the Eden XPs.
Hobbes
 
lol, ah-ha, that might solve my querries. Let's hope that's the case with the Eden XPs.
Hobbes


Hi Hobbes,

My Eden XP 8x42's have a net weight of 664 grams on my exact scale so the stated weight on the website is as accurate as it can be. The 10x42 XP's are stated as 650 grams on the Dutch website, and as 660 grams on the UK website. Possibly a typo in the Dutch text, but anyhow, I have no reason to assume these figures aren't accurate. So the 10x42 XP's would be the same weight as the 8x42's.

The Eden XP 8x42's are no burden to carry, and as I'm rather sensitive in this respect, I can say that I enjoyed them a full afternoon's birding in 28 Celsius on The Hoge Veluwe without any strain whatsoever on my neck. The strap has a wide neckpart and is very comfortable. I twitched a Little Bustard very succesfully with a birding mate of mine, who carried Zeiss 7x42 FL's (actually MY former pair, the ones I mentioned in my review of the Eden XP 8x42).

I'm glad to say that up to this very moment the Eden XP's haven't disappointed me one bit; they are quite wonderful and a joy to use.
The Eden 10x42 XP's are getting very positive reviews too, and if it weren't for the 10x magnification which is too much for me, I would have ordered a pair of those as well.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Hi Hobbes,

My Eden XP 8x42's have a net weight of 664 grams on my exact scale so the stated weight on the website is as accurate as it can be. The 10x42 XP's are stated as 650 grams on the Dutch website, and as 660 grams on the UK website. Possibly a typo in the Dutch text, but anyhow, I have no reason to assume these figures aren't accurate. So the 10x42 XP's would be the same weight as the 8x42's.

The Eden XP 8x42's are no burden to carry, and as I'm rather sensitive in this respect, I can say that I enjoyed them a full afternoon's birding in 28 Celsius on The Hoge Veluwe without any strain whatsoever on my neck. The strap has a wide neckpart and is very comfortable. I twitched a Little Bustard very succesfully with a birding mate of mine, who carried Zeiss 7x42 FL's (actually MY former pair, the ones I mentioned in my review of the Eden XP 8x42).

I'm glad to say that up to this very moment the Eden XP's haven't disappointed me one bit; they are quite wonderful and a joy to use.
The Eden 10x42 XP's are getting very positive reviews too, and if it weren't for the 10x magnification which is too much for me, I would have ordered a pair of those as well.

Best regards,

Ronald

Hi Ronald
Thank you very much for replying to my queries on the weight. You wrote a great review - very helpful indeed. I think I can just about manage 660g (I was hoping for <600g) but hopefully that extra 60g won't take it beyond the point of 'too much' (I'm not a very strong person, lol). Ordinarily, I use an 8x magnification but the reservoir where I bird a lot requires something a bit stronger - many of the birds are very distant.
If I do end up with the Eden binoculars, I'll pop back in with a review...
Thanks
Hobbes
 
Hi Hobbes

Just had another thought.

I was in Lidl the other day and they are selling 10x50 porro bins with a
114m wide fov for £18 and they seemed very light weight although quite large.

I thought they were surprisingly good although I did not get a chance to try them outdoors. Actually I did get a chance to try a pair outside previously as I have an aquaintance who has a pair but the dioptre on his was knackered. The shop one was good. Otherwise outdoors I was also impressed with them and I had my el along at the time and it didn't seem to blow them away which dissapointed me a bit.

Might be something for you until you get a chance to try other bins or save or whatever. They even seemed to have a 5 year quarantee.

Even the cordura pouch/bag they come with was good. I almost bought a pair just for the hell of it.
 
Last edited:
Hi Hobbes

Just had another thought.

I was in Lidl the other day and they are selling 10x50 porro bins with a
114m wide fov for £18 and they seemed very light weight although quite large.

I thought they were surprisingly good although I did not get a chance to try them outdoors. Actually I did get a chance to try a pair outside previously as I have an aquaintance who has a pair but the dioptre on his was knackered. The shop one was good. Otherwise outdoors I was also impressed with them and I had my el along at the time and it didn't seem to blow them away which dissapointed me a bit.

Might be something for you until you get a chance to try other bins or save or whatever. They even seemed to have a 5 year quarantee.

Even the cordura pouch/bag they come with was good. I almost bought a pair just for the hell of it.

Hi Clive
that's a clever idea, thank you. I don't have a Lidl particularly local to me but if I get the chance, I'll make a trip. It seems 'to good to be true' somehow to be able to buy decent bins for £18 ;).
thanks
Hobbes
 
Hi Ronald
Thank you very much for replying to my queries on the weight. You wrote a great review - very helpful indeed. I think I can just about manage 660g (I was hoping for <600g) but hopefully that extra 60g won't take it beyond the point of 'too much' (I'm not a very strong person, lol). Ordinarily, I use an 8x magnification but the reservoir where I bird a lot requires something a bit stronger - many of the birds are very distant.
If I do end up with the Eden binoculars, I'll pop back in with a review...
Thanks
Hobbes

Thanks,

I enjoyed writing my review on the Eden XP's, because they have the best quality/price comparison I've ever seen. They also have a 25 year guarantee, and since the service of the company has been exemplary, it's good value for money.
They are very bright, and have a great "walk-in" view, similar to much more expensive bins that I've tried. The eye relief is amazing, I can see the entire FOV with my big frame spectacles.
I like them better than the Zeiss 7x42 FL's of my birding mate, because of the "pop" and 8x magnification, better edge sharpness, and reliable diopter design.

I strongly recommend the 8x or even the 10x42 Eden Quality XP to anyone who seeks optical pleasure for a modest price.
And to be totally clear on this: I DON'T work for Eden or Knives and Tools that brings them on the market. I'm just a satisfied customer.

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Last edited:
Thanks,

I like them better than the Zeiss 7x42 FL's of my birding mate, because of the "pop" and 8x magnification, better edge sharpness, and reliable diopter design.


Best regards,

Ronald

Now that comment caught my attention since the FLs are, without question, my favorite bin...bar none. The preference for edge performance I understand but the "pop" part of the statement sounds interesting. I do remember discussions in past years about the Ultravid and FL. Many individuals preferred the Ultravids because their colors seemed more vivid and less "washed out" to quote some previous poster. I wonder if that is what you are seeing here?

...hmm, now where was that link to Eden sales to the US?

;)
 
Now that comment caught my attention since the FLs are, without question, my favorite bin...bar none. The preference for edge performance I understand but the "pop" part of the statement sounds interesting. I do remember discussions in past years about the Ultravid and FL. Many individuals preferred the Ultravids because their colors seemed more vivid and less "washed out" to quote some previous poster. I wonder if that is what you are seeing here?

...hmm, now where was that link to Eden sales to the US?

;)


Hi Frank,

The XP's have a more Leica-like character in the image, yes. Vivid colours. When I said I liked them better than the 7x42 FL's, it's because of this character. The FL's have a very neutral colour tone to my eyes, and are better optically than the XP's, let there be no misunderstanding here. Control of CA is better in the FL's (it should be) and I can see some glare in the XP's in demanding lighting situations. Still, I find the XP's to be close and for the price they're as good as it gets.
I've had Leica Trinovids in the past (1999), and when I compared my Zeiss FL 7x42 in the shop to a Leica Ultravid 8x42, I bought the Zeiss. The Swarovski 7x42 SLC I tried against the Zeiss and the Leica was also very, very nice, but too heavy with 950 grams at the time (2006).

Best regards,

Ronald
 
Ronald,

Thank you for the clarification. Still, you have me interested. Are the Eden models available for purchase for US residents?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top