John Traynor said:
Frank,
The 10X42 was in the case and, yes, the image was wonderfully sharp and detailed. Since I was inside, I have no idea how it handles CA but I didn’t see any. Colors were excellent and the image across the entire FOV was excellent.
Take a look at them and tell me what you think.
John
Newbie here...joined up to get more info, more involved, etc.
Re: the above bin...I just bought 'em. Have an OLD Leupold 7X35 gold ring that is really crisp (single focus click type - which I actually like quite a bit) and a Canon 8X30 that is heavy and is cursed with fold down rubber eye cups, as is the old Leupold.
But here's the thing...I went to a local "Sportsman's Warehouse" specifically in order to compare the Leupold 10X42 with the Nikon Monarch 10X42 that is so highly touted (both being "budget-entry-quality-bins" and just within my spending limit). Spent a good thirty minutes going back and forth between the two bins...looking at the optics wall chart about 50 yards away (Brunton, I think). The poor clerk was smiling - but getting quite fidgity. lol
While I admit to "wanting" to like the Leupold, being a local Portland, Oregon company (my town) I was expecting to like the Nikon more and was totally stunned by the comparative experience. Is there an issue with Nikon quality control? Have these widely touted bins slipped in recent years? The Leupold was CLEARLY (heh, heh) superior!!! And the difference between the two was just that...a difference of brightness and "clarity". The resolving capability seemed to my eyes to be pretty equivalent. The chart had some horizontal and vertical lines - close and parallel with the line itself appearing to be the same dimension as the space between. Each bin resolved this feature well - and there was no clear winner. But...when I just "looked" through the Nikon (Monarch ATB 10X42) it seemed there was a "smudgy" (that's a technical term, I'm pretty sure) quality to the entire field compared to the Leupold. I even checked the external surfaces of the ocular and objective lenses - clean as you could want! But each time I looked through them I kept noting that very slight greyed blur of - was it a bit of distortion? Well, I don't know what it was. But it was there and obvious. In comparrison, the Leupold was everything that I had hoped a 10X40 could be. Clean, bright, clear, an apparent edge to edge lack of distortion...you know...the clouds parted, the sun came out, the birds started singing. Ah, it must be Spring.
Sidebar: Spring in Oregon...lovely...45 F., light winds from the SW at about 20 mph...scudding light to moderate rain showers off the Pacific Ocean. Historical footnote: Chance of rain on the 4th of July for the fireworks...50%. So a glass has to be pretty tough to be of much lon-term use.
OK - Regarding other aspects of the Leupold...the fit and finish was great, the apparent quality was excellent, I liked the "locking" diopter adjustment, the weight seemed "right on" (a 10X NEEDS weight...helps to steady 'em) but not so much as to tire the arms needlessly. I did NOT like the flimsy field bag that came with the bins, nor did I like the lens cover pieces all that much. I guess they're putting their money into the glasses, not the accessories.
So, when all was said and done, though I had gone in armed with twenty three websites worth of evaluative data and experts opinions and the like - expecting to like the Nikon (I mean, look at the MSRPs - both of these bins were marked at $299 in the store I went to) I went out with the Leupold Cascade 10X40 (Phase Coated sticker right on the bin) under my arm...the Nikon Monarch ATB still brooding on the shelf.
I guess like most of us that have been around a bit, I'll trust someone else's evaluation just so far. I've been stomping around in the muck and mire for over 50 years (from SE Asia to SE Alaska) and for an item as personal to me as a new bin...I'll trust my own eyes...and to me the Leupold is the "clear winner". Um...Sorry to run on so long.