10x42 or 10x50 Porro? (1 Viewer)

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 1, 2009

• #1

With a budget of $200, I would like to purchase either a 10x42 or 10x50 (ideally waterproof but not necessarily) Porro to supplement my 8x43 Zen ED. They would be used primarily in situations such as birding in open fields, raptor viewing, scanning tree canopies, and ocean viewing, often times under low light conditions. The weight of the binoculars are not really a concern of mine. Under such conditions/circumstances which binoculars would be most appropriate?
Any recommendations for which make/model would also be appreciated.

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2009

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 2, 2009

• #2

I personally prefer the 10x50 configuration to the 10x42 simply from a comfort perspective (exit pupil). With that thought in mind I would suggest the Bushnell Legend 10x50 porro. It is priced under $200 and I have been very impressed with the performance of the 8x42 for the price.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 2, 2009

• #3

Thanks Frank
For a very reasonable price, $120-$130, the Legend 10x50 has even more than I was expecting including a pretty decent FOV, as much weatherproofing as a Porro can provide, and even water resistant coating.

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2009

B

buff

Well-known member

• Oct 2, 2009

• #4

Beware of lemons, I owned Legend briefly and it was impressive, I especially liked colors which were vivid but it dissapointed me in long range performance. Bin had poor resolution at longer ranges to the point that image became almost blury.
From what I read, 3 bins get a lot of attention in this price category: Bushnell Legend, Pentax PCF and Nikon Action EX and various reviews seem to give the edge to Pentax over the other 2. Its only drawback is small fov: 5 deg.
My advice is get yorself Swift ultralght porro 10x42, I bought it from B&H photo for $199 plus tax and s&h. That bin is nice it definitly beat Legend I owened for a little while. It is IMHO very reminiscent of Nikon SE 10x42, which I also have. SE only beats it significantly in edge to edge sharpness and wider fov, in everything else there isn't that much diffrence.
Swift website still lists them but I don't see them being offered by major optic stores.

Tell us what you bought and how you liked it.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 2, 2009

• #5

Thanks Buff for the info and the heads-up about about your experience with the Legend. Guess I will have to do more research before I decide to go that route or not. The other day I was also trying to locate the Swift Ultralite Porro 10x42 but could not (other than at Swift Sport Optics) find out where available as the other sites were out of stock.
I will write to Swift Optics and inquire and I will look into the other opt
ions that you also mentioned including the Ultralite.

I heard back from Swift super quick and unfortunately the Ultrlite Porro 10x42 is no longer in production He had one model left that he was willing to sell but the timing is not right for me as I was not going to purchase it immediately so if anybody else is interested... FYI

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2009

Tero

Retired

• Oct 2, 2009

• #6

With a porro, you probably will not get as many years of use. For various reasons. So just pick the best optics that people offer here. I personally do not like the eye cups of the Action EX series. The optics are OK, porros will not diappoint too much. Only now there is cheap ED glass available in roofs, not porros.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 2, 2009

• #7

Thanks for all the feedback so far. Quite a difference of opinion between makes/models and roof vs. Porro, thus there are plenty of variables for me to consider. This pair will be my back-up and used primarily for special conditions and will not get nearly the use as my Zen ED 8x43.

Any opinions about the Leoupold Wind River Mesa 10x50 Porro? Is it performance-wise and durability-wise competitive with the Pentax PCF and the Nikon Action Extreme 10x50? The listed FOV for the Leoupold is only marginally wider than the Pentax by approx. 20 feet.

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2009

E

edz

Well-known member

• Oct 3, 2009

• #8

The WRM, although it has the a narrow 53° Afov, has the least aberration in the outer fov, so has the widest usable field of view of these three you mention.

It also has the longest eye relief and weighs the least. However, if I'm not mistaken, it is not fully multi-coated throughout. But that does not seem to hamper its poerformance. For that matter, neither is the Nikon Action Extreme FMC and likewise it doesn't seem to hamper its performance. The WRM that I tested had the worst resolution of these three and had the worst internal light beam tilt. So each of these has advantages over the other and all three are very close in total score.

Compared to these other three, the Bushnell Legend 10x50 has less effective aperture (46mm, all the others have 48mm), the worst resolution, is heaviest, has some internal reflections and the field stop is not in focus. However, it has very good internal light beam balance (no tilt, this means all optical elements are well aligned on optical axis) and overall illumination of the exit pupil is very good.

edz

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2009

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 3, 2009

• #9

Thanks EDZ for the comparative analysis of the 10x50 Porros. I see that you did a comprehensive review of the ZRS 10x42. Based on many of the above comments, I am waivering in regards to a porro 10x50. Keeping within my budget of $200, how do you think that the roof prism ZRS 10x42 (I understand that there will be a revised version coming out soon) optically, especially in low light conditions, compares to any of the porros that you have commented upon?

 

Last edited: Oct 4, 2009

Steve C

Well-known member

• Oct 3, 2009

• #10

My brother has a Leupold Mesa 10x50 he has had for years and never a problem. It is not real expensive and has a very good image. I have used it a lot and can easily recommend it.

I also have had the ZRS 10x42. It is now my nephew's binocular. I prefer it to the WRM. Two primary reasons. It is lighter and it has a wider field of view. The ZRS is about as good as I have seen for less than $200, and prefer it to the Diamondback. The Atlas Sky King from Eagle Optics might be a bit better than the ZRS, so consider it too.

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2009

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 3, 2009

• #11

Thanks Steve for the feedback. My preference, all things being somewhat equal, either in Porros or roofs,is for binoculars that have a relatively flat and wide FOV, especially for low light situations.
At the EO forum, I just read yours and Frank D's favorable reviews of the Atlas Radian and Sky King 8x42's.
In what ways do you feel that for a 10x42 "the Atlas Sky King from Eagle Optics might be a bit better than the ZRS"?
In a previous posting, I had inquired why there appeared to be so much more buzz/hoopla/commentary surrounding Zen as compared to Atlas. Hence, I am looking forward to reading more comments about Atlas.

 

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 4, 2009

• #12

I am guessing Steve might be referring to the color bias. The ZRS had a slightly warm (yellow/red) bias that I think the two of us picked up on. The Atlas Sky King doesn't have the bias, at least as noticeably, but it does have as large of a sweetspot and a flat field.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 4, 2009

• #13

Since, for my back-up I would prefer a Porro as I would really like to utilize and compare viewing-wise a good mid-priced beyond its price range roof (Zen ED 8x43) to a low-mid priced Porro (although a different configuration), a new player has entered the picture- the Orion Ultraview 10x50 Porro. The overall and usable FOV is better than the Leoupold, it is fully multi-coated,and the resolution is said to be superior to the Leoupold. The weight is around the same at two pounds albeit it is not waterproof.The warranty though only limited 10 years is better than the typical Orion ones.

Does anybody know how durable the Ultraview is and is the edge of field more than adequate?. I do not believe it has a diopter focus/setting, is that a major consideration?

I would get the Leoupold as it does get extremely good reviews but the FOV is narrower than I would like and there is some question about its resolution.
If I don't get a Porro, I most likely will get the Astro Sky King if I continue to hear good things about it but I really would like to get a Porro if I can justify doing so optically and mechanically.

 

Last edited: Oct 4, 2009

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 4, 2009

• #14

I had the 8x42 version of the Orion Ultraview and I was extremely impressed with it optically. The apparent centerfield resolution, brightness and color representation were all well above average. It has a brighter image with less CA in comparison to the Bushnell Legend 8x42 that I also owned at the time.

I cannot speak to the 10x50 configuration of that model but maybe Ed or one of the others can.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 5, 2009

• #15

Thanks Frank you all of your input.

I finally was able to locate what edz had to say about the Orion UltraView and the Leoupold WRM. In a 3/08 review of 10x50's in Cloudy Nights, the UltraView ranked last and quite low in many domains and the Leoupold was not near the top of that list either. At the top was the Nikon AE. So, am I going to get the Nikon?- I doubt it because even though the Nikon has a spec'd FOV of 341 feet as edz pointed out the Leoupold has less distortion on the edges and therefore a better usable FOV.

Consequently, (non-euphamistically speaking) this has been quite the bino learning experience for me and I am going to abandon my quest for a 10x50 Porro under $200. Perhaps I am wrong, but it does not seem like 10x50 Porros in the low-mid price range have a clear-cut advantage over roof prisms as do the 8x42's. Oh well...

So, I will be purchasing in the next two months a 10x42 roof prism. As I said previously, I want to learn more about the Atlas Sky King. If not, as I hold Zen-Ray in extremely high regard, I will purchase their new ZRS. Either way, based on what I am willing to pay, I do not think that I will be doing too badly at all.

 

Steve C

Well-known member

• Oct 5, 2009

• #16

FrankD said:

I am guessing Steve might be referring to the color bias. The ZRS had a slightly warm (yellow/red) bias that I think the two of us picked up on. The Atlas Sky King doesn't have the bias, at least as noticeably, but it does have as large of a sweetspot and a flat field.

Click to expand...

This is a pretty fair summary. It should be noted that my ZRS was not available to me when I had the Sky King, so direct comparisons were not possible. The bias was noticeable and quite obvious from memory. I don't think there is a lot of practical difference in detail resolution, but the Sky King does appear brighter.

 

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 5, 2009

• #17

sless,

Though I think you would be happy with either the Sky King or ZRS I would encourage you to try, if possible, some of those 10x50 porros we discussed. Many times personal impressions do not coincide with numerical testing.

No offense intended to anyone.

 

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 5, 2009

• #18

Frank
I really appreciate your candor in advocating for me to continue to consider a 10x50 Porro, especialy in light of the favorable review that you gave to the Radian and the Sky King.
After my last posting, since I really would like a Porro in that configuration, I did more research on the Porros. Do you have any experience with the Nikon ATB AE (which seems like the safest bet but can I do better?), the Pentax PCF, or the previously discussed Leoupold Mesa (I am leaning towards the Leoupold). My priorities in addition to durability are the best usable FOV, superior low light capabilities, and good normal resolution, particularly in the center.

 

Last edited: Oct 5, 2009

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 5, 2009

• #19

sless,

Let me start off by saying that I have not owned any of these in the 10x50 configuration. I have owned the Nikon Action EX in 7x35, the Bushnell Legend porro and the Orion Ultraview porro in 8x42. I looked at the specs of the 10x50 configuration of each of these in comparison to the Leupold Mesa. The listed field of view of any of the others is noticeably sider (340 feet vs 288 feet). Unless the level and percentage of edge distortion is truly untolerable I tend to typically put a wider field of view over edge performance for overall viewing comfort in terrestrial situations. The wider field of view just feels more natural to look at (again assuming the edge distortion isn't distracting). The three models I referenced did not display intolerable edge performance in my opinion.

Narrow true or apparent fields of view do bother me though. I have a strong dislike for that "looking down a paper towel roll' effect that these types of binoculars produce...despite how good the edge sharpness is.

I am not saying that the Mesa produces this effect but a 10x binocular with less than a 300 foot field of view is something I would probably not be happy with (as is often the case with 8x binoculars and less than 360+ field of view...all else being equal).

Also, another you might consider...if you can still find them...is the Celestron Ultima DX 10x50. Same 340 foot field of view as most of the others with a slightly higher degree of edge distortion. The centerfield performance was excellent though in terms of contrast, apparent sharpness and CA control...at least in the 8x32 version I owned.

Hope this helps.

 

Last edited: Oct 6, 2009

X

xmeecosmic

Guest

• Oct 6, 2009

• #20

Once again Frank, thanks so much.

That Celestron 10x50 does not seem to be available any longer.

Even with my limited knowledge and experience with binoculars, what you said about expecting 10x to have a minimum of 300 feet FOV regardless of distortion, or lack thereof, makes perfect sense.

Therefore, it looks like I am going to have to eat my words about the Nikon Action ATB 10x50. Based on what I have read and been told, I have more confidence in the handling and optical performance ability of the Nikon (despite its having about 60-70 percent sharp FOV and not being FMC) than I have for two other 340 or so FOV 10x50's, the Orion UltraView and the Bushnell Legend.

Until the Zen ED 8x43 arrives, my only binoculars are Nikon Action 7x35. They have definitely served me fairly well but I am not totally convinced the the AE's are that much more optically supererior, discounting the increase in magnification and increase in objective lense size. In other words, no matter how hard I try to convince myself, I can't get excited about them.

On the other hand, I could get excited about the Sky King 10x42 or the ZRS 10x42 as they seem to be breakthrough bins based on performance well-beyond their price range.
With one caveat that is. Are the Atlas and Zen (with listed FOV's marginally higher than 300 feet) optically superior, despite whatever "flaws" that both may have, to all of the $200 or less 10x42 or 10x50 Porros?