Odd comparison (1 Viewer)

I got a few used low-end compact Bushnells at auction recently
and tested them on my 'torture range'.
(a torcheire just off-axis for haze and glare,
a shaded 1890s book cover for contrast testing, assorted book-ends).

Both were of the "tough grey shell" inverse porro type.

The 8x26 pair was OK, very slightly hazed with good-very good resolution
(not excellent).

The 8x24 pair was way better: deep contrast and very sharp. Incredible.
They blew the 8x26s out of the water. Both looked clean, glass-wise.

I'm looking for an explanation.
Neither had any special type or style designation.

I'm speculating that some premium parts were backfilled into
the 8x24s without announcing that.

Neither binocs look like the current Bushnell makes.
They both look a bit like the 'tough' 8x30 NatureViews discontinued
a few years ago.

I doubt premium parts went in to it, more likely just that particular binoc wasnt too shabby. The legacy 8X24 was a pretty good binoc

That could be. Noticeably better, not super. I just tried them out on the tripod/course.
The contrast is good, the resolution excellent, the brightness a little off. I wonder about
individual variation...
Good for bright days, small and tough.