Bushnell Elite ED 10x42 Review (6 Viewers)

I have been using this excellent binocular for only a couple of days and compared with Bushnell Elite e2 10x42, it is a clear winner. The only thing in common with Bushnell e2 is the shape. In reality, Elite ED is a new binocular with a higher quality body and optics than e2. You can see its Japanese engineering at first sight. It has bright, sharp image with excellent contrast. The resolution reveals even the finest detail without color aberration. CA is only noticeable at the edges of the image. Astigmatism is negligible. There is very little distortion, and there is a large “sweet spot”, about 80% of the image, maybe little more.

The body is engineered with Japanese precision, which can not be overlooked. It is strong and elegant. The center focus knob turns smoothly, but is not loose. Also, eyecups hold firm in position after twisting up. If you wear glasses, eye relief is sufficiently large for comfortable viewing.

If I can summarize, then Bushnell Elite ED 10x42 is a binocular, which is not going to disappoint and has high value. It is priced at the top of middle class, but in reality, Bushnell Elite ED belongs at the bottom of the top class both with its optics and body engineering. Reliability is what you feel immediately when holding it for the first time and when birding. There are no obstacles for hunting use.

Bushnell Elite ED

I can echo your comments....

I have the 8X42 version of the Elite ED..(as well as the 8X42 Ultra HD)

It has all the attributes you found on the higher power version..

Please correct me if I'm wrong; aren't the ED2 the successor of the ED binoculars?

In both of your opinions, the ED version is better than the ED2 correct?

ETA: I found a thread below that answers my questions.

Bushnell Elite ED.
Bushnell Elite 10x42 ED is the successor of Bushnell Elite, but as a I wrote earlier, Bushnell Elite ED is a completely new binocular, which has only superficial similarity to its predecessor. In reality, even the assembly of the body has higher quality.
Bushnell Elite e2 never had ED optics, they are found only in the new model Bushnell Elite ED.
However, the optics of e2 are not weak. The optics of Bushnell Elite series were always decent.

I concur with amarant's assessment, but find the 10x ED's compared to my Swarovski EL 10x42 WB and my Nikon 8x32 HG LX is brighter, equally sharp, more contrasty, more brilliant and have greater ease of focus than the Swarovski, but not the Nikon. I haven't compared them to the current Zeiss Victory or the new 10x Swarovision.

Amarant is correct. Bushnell has confused many. Here is how. With its open bridge Elite binoculars being its top line (MSRP prices in the range of $1500), Bushnell decided to offer a more economical line more people could afford that had many of the same features compromised a bit for cost savings. That was the e2 series which they mistakenly called Elite as well. Then to really confuse matters, they dropped the open bridge Elite line and came out with their new Elite top of the line, the ED series, in a similar looking but much improved body, with all the high end features retained from the open bridge line, but with ED glass added in and also with the price very much reduced, making it thereby mistakenly look like the successor to the e2 model which they then dropped to underline the confusion. The ED model is the new top of the line. The e2 was retired and the price of the top model, the ED, was dropped significantly.

They should never have called the e2 an Elite. They should not have used a similar looking body for the ED Elite, and while it is nice to drop prices and retain top quality, to drop it into the e2 street range and retire the e2 really confused matters and makes the Elite ED look like a successor to the e2 model. It isn't. They dropped the e2 because its street price was too close to the street price of the ED Elite. Without Bushnell maintaining prices close to MSRP, retailers have become confused and deals like mine below are to be had occasionally. The MSRP of the ED Elite is about $700, still a steal. Both Bushnell itself and Eagleoptics have been recently out of stock on the 10x binocular so some are figuring things out.

What people need to realize is the the ED Elite is a screaming deal. I even got a new one for $377 for the 10x and the Japanese made binocular is competitive with the top Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica offerings, for a fraction of the cost. Bushnell has hit a home run here optically, but keeps stumbling as it runs around the bases.
______

The fundamental rule of physics is: Nature is perverse.

The field of view of both models is narrow (8x = 6.3 degrees, the norm for better 10x42's, and the 10x is 6 degrees) relatively speaking, compared to the better mid-range and high range binos.
I am therefore curious about the optical quality across the fov. Is it flat? is it sharp literally to the edge?
BTW: I am not a basher, owning the 7x26 Elite custom myself.

Evaluation

I will try to do an evaluation of the Bushnell 10x42ED and a comparison of it to the Swarovski EL 10x42 WB tomorrow or in the next few days.

(My comments will likely come in segments.)

First comparative impressions on

Swarovski EL 10x42 WB List $2100 Paid new $1900 -- 27.5 oz -- 6 ¼ “ high
Bushnell Elite 10x42ED List $700 Paid new $377 -- 26.1 oz -- 5 ¾” high
Bushnell Elite open bridge 12.5x50 $1400 Paid new $750 – 29 oz -- 6 ¾” high

All are clearly alpha binoculars. The 12.5x and the EL10x seem significantly heavier. The 12.5x is bigger and feels the heaviest. Its views have the greatest “Wow” factor. The Wow factor and magnification differences between the EL10x and 10xED on one hand and the 12.5x on the other seem very pronounced, more than the numbers would indicate. The focus knob on the 12.5x is too far back relative to its weight and balance and its diopter adjustment is the least refined. But it is terrific to look through and is very good in low light.

The Bushnells have the smoothest mechanical focusing; both are very fast. Mechanical focusing is very fine on all three. This is imperative to get fine optical focus. There is a very slight touch of graininess to the EL10x focusing mechanism, however, that the Bushnells lack. None match the Nikon HG LX for damped smoothness, however.

The 10xED is the fastest by far to find optical focus and this is important. It also feels lighter, more compact and better balanced, too. Why the minor weight differences should seem to matter so in this range is unclear to me. It has something to do with size, I suspect. The Bushnells are brighter in part because they show the EL10x has a very, very slight green/yellow cast to its views, the colors of its coatings. The difference in fov between the 10xED (6.0 degrees) and the EL10x (6.3 degrees) in negligible in use. I don’t notice it unless I look for it.

All present great views. The 10xED gets taken out the most because it is the littlest, the lightest and because it focuses the fastest optically and it too presents alpha views. At $377, it was an excellent buy I had not planned to make but could not pass up when I came across it. Typical prices now are from $420 to $460 for the 10xED and I have actually on two occasions seen 10xe2 prices higher than the 10xED prices from the same vendor. Silly. But there is some confusion out there.

Now, as to optical quality across the field of view, comparing the Swarovski EL 10x42 WB to the Bushnell 10x42ED, I observe the following: both are quite and reasonably sharp to the very edge. I have an interesting way to test this without moving my eye position or head relative to the binocular. My boat is on a mooring and it drifts from side to side in a gentle breeze near shore. I can watch an object on shore come into view from the edge of the field and move into the center and then pass off to the far side without moving my head or eyes relative to the binocular.

This said I am truly underwhelmed by any image deterioration during this process with either binocular. I won't say there is no deterioration toward the edge. I do say it is negligible and not a bother. I don't feel on either binocular I have to stay in the center of the view for sharp focus. And I do say both binoculars are on a par with each other. This simply, in my view is not an issue for either of these binoculars. At 10x, the fov is not huge on either anyway (10xEL = 6.3 degrees; 10xED = 6 degrees). Too, anything you really want to look at, you are going to place in the center of view anyway.

I would not worry here. I address only the 10xED, not the 8xED which has a relatively narrower fov compared to it peers. I will test again on a field of stars where the Bushnell 12.5x50 proved to be spectacular in resolving many tiny pinpoints of light.

Third installment. Some -- particularly Legend Ultra HD 10x42 owners -- find much fault with the Elite 10x42ED. Accepting that there might be copy to copy variation in a binocular model, that is more typical of Chinese production that top of the line Japanese production. My copy of the 10x42ED has little in common with the review of that model by another.

The earlier list of sins includes the following which I address:
____

1. Eye cups have no click-stops
2. Slight chromatic irregularities and moderate yellow hue of objects in high contrast areas.
3. Pull-up clicking center diopter adjustment which is too close to the focusing knob. At times turning the focusing knob while adjusting.
4. Small FOV
5. Small sweet spot. Object in focus doesn't stay in focus while moving the bin slightly left or right or up and down from the center of lens.
6. Image sharpness is not too crisp.
7. Less focusing room. That is, I often over and under focus on a object. I must turn the focusing knob too much for a sharper image. Too short fine focusing.
8. Some softness at the top and bottom edge of image in the lens.
9. Heavier.
_____

I disagree with the thrust of all of these points and counter as follows:
____

1. Indeed there are not click stops. Many top binoculars don't use them. They tend to be "spongy" at the stops and too often provide unequal eye-relief and a false sense of all is well in this quarter.

2. I find no slight chromatic irregularities or moderate yellow hue of objects in high contrast areas. I have struggled to find these supposed anomalies and cannot.

3. The diopter adjustment on my 10x42ED is not a pull-up design at all, but instead is a stiff clicking and rotating adjustment that never turns with the focus knob and simply does not pull up.

4. The fov is 6 degrees compared to the 6.3 degree fov of the Swarovski EL 10x42 WD. The difference is small in actual field use and is only 16 feet at a 1000 yards on a view 314 feet wide compared to the Swarovski. The same cannot be said of the 8x42ED, however.

5. The contention the 10x42ED has a small sweet spot and doesn't stay in focus moving to the edges is not at all true for my copy. It matches the Swarovski EL 10x42 WB, all as I explained above.

6., 7., 8. and 9. The image quality of my 10x42ED matches or arguably exceeds that of my Swarovski EL 10x42 WB (if you mind the non-neutral color) and the binocular is smaller, lighter and better balanced, to boot, with a smoother focus, and it can find perfect optical focus much faster than the Swarovski and is the second fastest of my 15 binoculars. A wide "nearly in focus" range leaves many hunting a longer time for optimal focus. The 10x42ED is fast to optimally focus.
____

Our differences make me wonder if it was not the Elite 10x42 e2 perhaps that was reviewed earlier. The diopter design difference gives me pause, as do the different results I get from my Elite 10x42ED. The 10x42ED is not perfect, but its minor faults are not really these, in my opinion, except for the slightly narrower fov which is not a practical problem. At current prices, the 10x42ED is a truly excellent buy. At the $377 price I paid, it was a virtual steal.

Thanks for the very thorough comparo. of these three bins.

I have a 1991 7 x 36 Elite and 1996 10 x 42 Elite, and previously owned a 1991 10 x 42 Elite [stolen]. All great bins, mostly forgotten and neglected by binophiles.

Same with current [and near current] Elite's, very underappreciated.

A further follow-up. Both the Swarovski EL10x42 and the Bushnell 10x42ED also have some image deterioration in going from the center to the top and then to the bottom of the fov. It is more pronounced on both binoculars than in going from left to right or visa-versa. The deterioration on the Swarovski is about the same in either direction, up or down and it is about the same for the 10x42ED. Interestingly enough, the vertical and horizontal deteriorations on both is about the same as for the 12.5x as well. Allbinos.com's test for the EL10x measures sharpness out to 87 percent of the field. They measured sharpness for the Elite open bridge 10x43 out to 88 percent. The 12.5x should be similar. Indeed, that is about what I observe for all three, on the horizontal dimension but I see a bit less sharpness on the vertical dimension -- guessing, about 75 percent, but that is just a guess.

All this said, the deteriorations described here distract very little from the pleasure of viewing with any of these binoculars, in large part because of our tendency to place what visually interests us most in the center of the fov, especially with more powerful binoculars. Such binoculars are more intended to look at something that is more at a distance. If you want sharpness to the very edge, two binoculars are said to now provide that: the Nikon 10x42 EDG and the Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision. The EDG is cheaper; $1800 at Amazon.com. The Swarovision EL 10x42 typically runs about $2400.

Finally, on another topic, the very, very slight yellow green tint to the views of the Swarovski has a tendency to cut haze on distant views where there is any and improve contrast ever, ever so slightly. The difference, like the tint, is hardly discernible.

This post has been interesting, and I am trying to find out more about the Bushnells.
The last review that I could find was by Allbinos on the 10x43, open frame model, and
they were well regarded, in the top 10.
I am wondering about this new model, and how it compares to the 10x43 Elite, as it appears they have been discontinued.

It seems like there are lots of models here, and hard to decifer, with the Elite II version, and I am wondering where these are built? Are any of the Bushnells made in Japan anymore?

Jerry.

NDhunter said:

Are any of the Bushnells made in Japan anymore?
.

Click to expand...

I think the Elites (7x26, 8x42, 10x42) are.

The Elite open bridge models, 12.5x50, 10x43, 10x50 and 8x43, and the current Elites 8x42ED and 10x42ED are all made in Japan. I believe the "Elite" e2 models are too, but I am less sure about that and don't find anything offhand that is authoritative saying so. Many out there think the current model is the Elite e2 in the ED versions. Not true. The ED Elites are substantially different and not the same. The e2 Elites are discontinued as are the true earlier Elite open bridge non-ED models.

Kimballcorson said:

The Elite open bridge models, 12.5x50, 10x43, 10x50 and 8x43, and the current Elites 8x42ED and 10x42ED are all made in Japan. I believe the "Elite" e2 models are too, but I am less sure about that and don't find anything offhand that is authoritative saying so. Many out there think the current model is the Elite e2 in the ED versions. Not true. The ED Elites are substantially different and not the same. The e2 Elites are discontinued as are the true earlier Elite open bridge non-ED models.

Click to expand...

Kimball:

I think I do understand, have you any experience with the earlier Elites?
I do know the earlier models were well done, and were in the B&L times
considered to be close to the top. The Better View Desired, tests, places
those that way.
I suppose with your comparing with some top makes such as the Swaro.EL.
you should know how the previous models of the B&L and sub-current Bushnell 10x42 models would compare.
I am wondering if you and this new model of the Bushnell are in the same
league.

Jerry

I have the Bushnell open bridge Elite 12.5x50, the Bushnell Elite 10x42ED, the Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42 and the Bausch & Lomb Elite 10x28. All are made in Japan. The Bushnells are better than the Bausch & Lombs. They are slightly sharper, have much better contrast and definition, especially, and the colors are more saturated. The ergonomics are best on the 10x42ED and the B&L 8x42. All have a nice fit and finish. I think the B&L's present a bit of a dated view. Very settled, flat and lacking in contrast.

I suspect the open bridge 10x43 Bushnell would be very comparable to the 12.5x50 open bridge that I have in overall visual quality. Not many new Bushnell open bridge 10x43 binoculars are left out there. I would recommend instead however, the Bushnell 10x42ED. It has better ergonomics and optics as good or better.

Kimballcorson said:

A further follow-up. Both the Swarovski EL10x42 and the Bushnell 10x42ED also have some image deterioration in going from the center to the top and then to the bottom of the fov. It is more pronounced on both binoculars than in going from left to right or visa-versa. The deterioration on the Swarovski is about the same in either direction, up or down and it is about the same for the 10x42ED. Interestingly enough, the vertical and horizontal deteriorations on both is about the same as for the 12.5x as well. Allbinos.com's test for the EL10x measures sharpness out to 87 percent of the field. They measured sharpness for the Elite open bridge 10x43 out to 88 percent. The 12.5x should be similar. Indeed, that is about what I observe for all three, on the horizontal dimension but I see a bit less on the vertical dimension -- guessing, about 75 percent, but that is just a guess.

Click to expand...

Kimbal,

I've seen the same odd asymmetry in the rates of image deterioration along the horizontal and vertical axes in nearly all binoculars. You can see that it's not a true instrument property because it does not rotate with the binocular. Using defocused star points to observe off-axis vignetting finally led me to conclude that it's caused by differing amounts of vignetting depending on which direction the eye moves in its socket. Horizontal movements tend to place the eye's pupil in a position that maximizes the vignetting of off-axis exit pupils and that's beneficial for "correcting" off-axis astigmatism and field curvature. Vertical eye movements introduce much less vignetting, which leaves the off-axis aberrations more intact. All of this is highly variable depending on the observer's facial structure, the binocular's eye relief and eye cup depth and even exit pupil size and level of ambient light. I'm pretty certain these variables are the main reasons we see so much disagreement among different observers about the off-axis image quality of the same binocular. For purposes of comparing binoculars I decided to adopt the least vignetted direction, which for me is down toward 6:00.

Henry

Nice contribution, Henry. Interesting.