Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 18th October 2015, 02:21   #26
timmay
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 75
have to update my newbie style review:

Something negative had to show up on these being how inexpensive they are, but still I think they are very good.

Chromatic Aberration shows at objects with bright lighting behind it. There is a mountain behind my house at roughly 1000 yards and its full of Saguaro cactus. When the sunlight is bright, the tops of the cactus turn purple in the upper part of view. When raising the bins up, the tops of the cactus turn green in the lower part of the view. In the direct center I see no aberration at all, but it doesn't take much movement to make it appear. It doesn't show up moving left or right, only up and down. And it only happens with bright sunlight in the background, when sun is in foreground, it doesn't show nearly as bad if at all. I don't know if this is pretty typical but I didn't notice it at all in the monarch 7 8x42 I had nor the Vortex Talons but I also wasn't looking for it.

I at first thought the color was neutral and very natural, but after looking through a bin that is actually neutral, these appear to be on the warm side slightly.

Still real happy otherwise. These are very nice at night for star viewing, bright and sharp details. They are comfortable to use and again I have to say, these are the best eye cup design Ive seen. Very tactile locking into position, they are very solid and the eye cups themselves are shaped perfectly for me, very comfortable. (Leupold needs to take a look at this eye cup design)

I also still cannot get any flare ups, they seem to control glare very well.

Still very impressed for an 8x42 with all the features it has for only $330, even though it shows CA under certain conditions.
Magnesium body
426' @1000 fov
ED glass
Hydrophobic water coatings on exterior lenses
Ultra Wide band coatings
Dielectric coated BAK4 Prisms
Superb eye cup design
locking diotpter.

Im going to put these through the ringer tomorrow and try to get them to flare up and look for CA in different lighting conditions, drop them in water and then take a look without wiping lenses..etc
I can live with the CA under certain lighting on the upper and lower periphery but I know some people can't and they will always see it once they know its there.

Last edited by timmay : Sunday 18th October 2015 at 04:31.
timmay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 7th November 2015, 21:34   #27
Ries
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
I've tried the L 10x42 today, compared with the Vortex Talon, both were new for me. I found them almost on par, optically. The build of the Talon is stronger and feels better in hand with its higher weight and thus more stability with the 10x magn. The Legend L is more compact and light, which I liked, felt good in hand as well (but slightly less than the Talons). The sticking out bit of the diopter ring I didn't like: I have to use it once, now there's always something sticking out I don't need... Focussing was perfect and smooth. Visually I saw as low CA as on the Talons, a bit warmer colour and indeed a little bit brighter. Sharpness was the same imo.

I can get the Legend L for €300 (imported), the Talon for €400. The way the Talon felt in my hands (and the looks) has me in doubt. Weight and size were definitely plus points for the Legend L with at least comparable optics. One minus of the Legend is the somewhat cheaper build...a more plastic feel...and a very stiff central hinge. While everything on the rugged built Talon was strong, professional feeling and every dial and hinge buttersmooth.

Nice competitive bunch, these two.
Ries is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 30th November 2015, 04:37   #28
mmakay
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kflan22 View Post
The L series is on sale at Amazon for $139 so I grabbed one.

I was told by Bushnell that the eyepieces and diopter were a new design to overcome those problem areas in the original Legend Ultra HD. I was also told that the L series is the same optically as the original but improved construction. If this is the case, the Amazon sale price is a stellar deal. I just looked now and the price is down to $137.

Care to report on the L-series? How do you like them?
mmakay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 2nd December 2015, 22:07   #29
kflan22
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Midwest
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmakay View Post
Care to report on the L-series? How do you like them?
The L-series has the same view as the original Ultra HD. I did own an original as well. Wide FOV & very sharp in the sweet spot but it tapers off pretty quickly like the original Ultra HD. I find this really doesn't bother me because of the wide field. I bought them to keep in my vehicle and they do well there. I use them daily. In my case the price was my main reason for purchasing as I suspected the view would be similar to the Ultra HD, which I did enjoy.

The construction quality is better in general. Items of note would be an improved diopter adjustment, eyecup design, & the armor is better. Overall it is a better build and I would recommend them.

If you are purchasing as a primary glass in this price range there are others that should consider a look. It is getting to be a pretty loaded class. One I would seriously consider is the Carson ED HD. They do have a smaller FOV but I think the Carson's punch above their price point in every way.

I can't believe what we can get these days for under $300.
kflan22 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 8th December 2015, 18:54   #30
Diter
Registered User
 
Diter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chernіvtsі Ukraine
Posts: 11
Hi, everybody!
Members have any first hand experience with this line of binoculars?
Bushnell Legend M 10x42 ($399.99)
vs
Bushnell Elite 10x42 ($399.99)
Diter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 30th December 2015, 16:28   #31
tealboy1
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: CFL
Posts: 69
I expect to have a set of the Ms in 6 to 8 weeks if BushNell replaces my legend ultra HD's which I believe they will do under warranty. I will pay the difference to get upgraded from the standard L replacement to the M and can report back on my findingss
tealboy1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 1st January 2016, 17:41   #32
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by tealboy1 View Post
I expect to have a set of the Ms in 6 to 8 weeks if BushNell replaces my legend ultra HD's which I believe they will do under warranty. I will pay the difference to get upgraded from the standard L replacement to the M and can report back on my findingss
Has anybody with a Bushnell Legend M series 10x42 and a Zeiss 10x42 SF compared them in resolution? I would be curious to know if the Outdoor Life review has any validity where it ranks the Bushnell M above the Zeiss SF in resolution.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	chart-binoculars-fullsize_desktop2.jpg
Views:	219
Size:	425.3 KB
ID:	568887  
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 2nd January 2016, 19:44   #33
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
Has anybody with a Bushnell Legend M series 10x42 and a Zeiss 10x42 SF compared them in resolution? I would be curious to know if the Outdoor Life review has any validity where it ranks the Bushnell M above the Zeiss SF in resolution.

You are a big advocate for trying before you buy. I suggest you just take your own advice here.......

The ''test'' cited seems as arbitrary as any though. The SF [that sample at least] was obviously not very sharp but still had the 2nd highest ''image quality'' score.

Yeah, sure.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Saturday 2nd January 2016 at 19:48.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd January 2016, 14:13   #34
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Bushnell is performing in front of their 'home crowd' in Outdoor Life magazine: they (with Nikon) are by far the biggest supplier of bins to hunters in the USA.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd January 2016, 18:25   #35
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
I don't really want to try the Bushnell Legend M Series. I know it wouldn't be as good overall as any alpha. I was just curious if there was any validity to Outdoor Life's binocular review. I am looking for somebody that might have both but I guess if you have a Zeiss SF you probably would not have the Bushnell.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	chart-binoculars-fullsize_desktop2.jpg
Views:	153
Size:	425.3 KB
ID:	569082  
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd January 2016, 20:15   #36
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
I wouldn't mind betting that Bushnell is the brand of binoculars most featured on US tv shows. The B on the hinge end cap makes them highly recognisable and I've spotted them on 24, NCIS, CSI etc

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd January 2016, 23:25   #37
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
You are a big advocate for trying before you buy. I suggest you just take your own advice here.......

The ''test'' cited seems as arbitrary as any though. The SF [that sample at least] was obviously not very sharp but still had the 2nd highest ''image quality'' score.

Yeah, sure.
That does seem contrary for the image quality to be rated that highly but the resolution to be rated lowly. How could the image quality be great if it is not sharp. I guess they are referring to other things in the image like contrast and transmission perhaps. The Zeiss SF did score highly in comfort and ergonomics though even if it wasn't that sharp. That says a lot. I have heard the Bushnell M has some build quality problems that make it a deal breaker. I think it was the focus or diopter.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	chart-binoculars-fullsize_desktop2.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	425.3 KB
ID:	569119  

Last edited by denco@comcast.n : Monday 4th January 2016 at 00:19.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 09:36   #38
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
One pal of mine in the States won't touch Bushnells with a long pole due to poor build quality but you can't draw conclusions about a brand from just one person's experience and as mentioned above they are very popular with hunters.

I hesitate to conclude that this says more about hunters than it does about Bushnells

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 15:22   #39
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
One pal of mine in the States won't touch Bushnells with a long pole due to poor build quality but you can't draw conclusions about a brand from just one person's experience and as mentioned above they are very popular with hunters.

I hesitate to conclude that this says more about hunters than it does about Bushnells

Lee

Elites are an excellent glass, your friend may be missing out.
__________________
"Chan eil aoibhneas gun Chlann Dhomhnaill"
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 17:18   #40
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
Elites are an excellent glass, your friend may be missing out.
Hi PT

'Elites' seems to cover several Bushnell lines including open hinge, conventional hinge and reverse porro. Which ones should I recommend to my pal?

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 17:42   #41
perterra
Registered User
 
perterra's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: tx
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubador View Post
Hi PT

'Elites' seems to cover several Bushnell lines including open hinge, conventional hinge and reverse porro. Which ones should I recommend to my pal?

Lee

Every elite I have handled has been a very good binocular. The open hinge had an excellent reputation, the reverse porros I handled I would own in a heartbeat. The current Elite's can be had for about the price of a Terra, and to me easily surpass them in quality and ergonomics
__________________
"Chan eil aoibhneas gun Chlann Dhomhnaill"
perterra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th January 2016, 17:52   #42
Troubador
Registered User
 
Troubador's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 6,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by perterra View Post
Every elite I have handled has been a very good binocular. The open hinge had an excellent reputation, the reverse porros I handled I would own in a heartbeat. The current Elite's can be had for about the price of a Terra, and to me easily surpass them in quality and ergonomics
Thanks PT I'll be sure to pass this on.

Lee
Troubador is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th January 2016, 19:35   #43
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
Has anybody with a Bushnell Legend M series 10x42 and a Zeiss 10x42 SF compared them in resolution? I would be curious to know if the Outdoor Life review has any validity where it ranks the Bushnell M above the Zeiss SF in resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
.......... I was just curious if there was any validity to Outdoor Life's binocular review. I am looking for somebody that might have both but I guess if you have a Zeiss SF you probably would not have the Bushnell.
I do not have the Bushnell Legend M but do have the Zeiss SF 10X42 and it is tack sharp. I was using it last weekend looking at a drake Mallard about 20 yards away in the late afternoon winter sun and the view was spectacular. Every bit of detail of the feathers stood out. There was nothing lacking in the view.

I just did a hand held braced print comparison (looking at a printed target) between the SF 10X42, a Nikon EDG-II 10X42, a Zen-Ray ED3 10X43 (possible "M" clone) and a Vanguard Endeavor EDII 10X42. The SF, Nikon and Zen-Ray all appear to resolve past my acuity level which I estimate to be about 20/15. The apparent sharpness of the SF seemed slightly better than the EDG, but that is most likely due to the more neutral color balance of the SF. The Endeavor EDII was not as sharp as the others and that is puzzling considering the several reviews mentioning that the new EDII is very sharp. I am still trying to figure this out but I am suspecting it may need to go back to Vanguard to get checked out.

Now to answer your question if the Outdoor Life comments on resolution have validity. In my opinion, No, Nada, Nein and Zilch. The area of expertise for them is firearms and ammunition. I would give them much more credibility on their opinions of how a firearm operates or the ballistic performance of a round but not so much on optics, especially binoculars.

There is no telling how careful they were in their testing. As you know, if the diopter setting is off just a little bit, it will be noticeable in lack of sharpness. Did the tester take the time to set the diopter multiple times to make sure the setting was consistent? Who knows! Did the same person test each of the binoculars at the same time under the same conditions? Who knows! Where the lenses pristine? Who knows! Without knowing more about the tester and details of the testing process, there is no telling what took place and what can be concluded from the results.

I live in a hunting state and have a bunch of hunters as friends and acquaintances. Many are extremely knowledgeable about hunting, firearms and ballistics, but none are that knowledgeable about optics. They are mainly influenced by advertising, what the pros uses and what hunting buddies have. I would not be surprised if it is similar with the Outdoor Life staff.

My own experience with the SF is completely contrary to their conclusion. I have looked through 8 or more SF binoculars now and have not seen a lack of sharpness in any of them.

I guess they could of obtained a bad sample of the SF but that is unlikely. Most likely, they screwed up the test, probably with an incorrect diopter setting. As mentioned, optics is not their forte.

The Porters did a test of the SF and scored them a max of 10 on resolution. The Porter's test is not perfect but I put much more faith in their conclusions on optics than I would Outdoor Life. Optics is not a sideline with them.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...hart_2015.html

The resolution tests I immediately consider valid are those done my some of our members, especially David/Typo, Steve/Moreorless and Steve from KY. For any other comments, I consider the source and the context of the comments.

There are many reasons to question the validity of the Outdoor Life resolution results. I put about as much faith in it as I would most Amazon binocular reviews.


Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
............
I have heard the Bushnell M has some build quality problems that make it a deal breaker. I think it was the focus or diopter.
The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD has multiple comments on this forum of the plastic diopter ring failing and some units having focus issues, mostly right out of the box. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. There is not much out there yet on the new Legend M and I have not seen any reports of these problems. The only focus complaint I have read is one that had some free play. If you come across some reports of the M having these issues, please remember to come back and post a link.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)

Last edited by BruceH : Thursday 7th January 2016 at 19:41.
BruceH is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 8th January 2016, 20:30   #44
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,332
Bruce,

Appreciate the acknowledgement .

I honestly have no idea what those 'resolution' values in Outdoor Life might refer to.

Most, possibly all of those binoculars are going to comply with the DIN ISO standard for 'High Quality' binoculars and have instrument resolution values between 2.8 and 5.8 arcseconds unless they are damaged in some way. I would guess it's unlikely, but I suppose the guys might have done boosted resolution tests or something and scored them accordingly, but unfortunately it would still mean almost nothing to the user experience. In daylight the light from the periphery of the objective is blocked by the iris of the eye resulting in a totally different effective resolution so the numbers would be worthless.

Normally the effective resolution would exceed the magnified acuity of most users so there would be no difference in the limiting detail. Potentially, if the tester had exceptional eyesight he might see small differences in effective resolution with a suitable target. I've only seen some of that list but I'd still rate the chances of them distinguishing a SF from an Ultravid HD+ as zero. The light wasn't great when I tried the Legend M but it it seemed pretty good as well to me.

I suppose there may have been differences in the user sharpness perception which is at it's most sensitive at 5 to 10 arcminutes compared to an acuity limit of 1 to 2 arcminutes. Differences are most evident on fine patterns and textures. In a recent comparison I did a Kite Bonelli appeared to have a clear advantage over a Zeiss FL viewing certain natural targets. It's not resololution, but it's conceivable there might be a difference between the Ultravid and the FL using a similar target.

The Vanguard Endeavour EDII I have has both a good resolution and much more importantly very good effective resolution. It also has a good perceived sharpness when the light is bright and the sky is blue. However in gloomy conditions, particularly when the ambient light is red shifted the contrast can appear much weaker. The silver coated prisms mean the blue transmission is relatively poor and it is evident in some light conditions. Again nothing to do with resolution. It seems likely looking at those results that whatever they were doing they probably didn't account for the light conditions in their testing.

Just ignore their resolution scores it means nothing.

Unfortunately I don't find the Porters results any better. Even though they claim to do some sort of resolution testing, a 2x boost is hopelessly inadequate and I find their scoring quite bizarre. However they seem to think 20/20 is perfect vision. It's actually below average statistically and at level all binoculars are likely to be indistinguishable on effective resolution as the eye would be limiting.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th January 2016, 17:56   #45
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
I do not have the Bushnell Legend M but do have the Zeiss SF 10X42 and it is tack sharp. I was using it last weekend looking at a drake Mallard about 20 yards away in the late afternoon winter sun and the view was spectacular. Every bit of detail of the feathers stood out. There was nothing lacking in the view.

I just did a hand held braced print comparison (looking at a printed target) between the SF 10X42, a Nikon EDG-II 10X42, a Zen-Ray ED3 10X43 (possible "M" clone) and a Vanguard Endeavor EDII 10X42. The SF, Nikon and Zen-Ray all appear to resolve past my acuity level which I estimate to be about 20/15. The apparent sharpness of the SF seemed slightly better than the EDG, but that is most likely due to the more neutral color balance of the SF. The Endeavor EDII was not as sharp as the others and that is puzzling considering the several reviews mentioning that the new EDII is very sharp. I am still trying to figure this out but I am suspecting it may need to go back to Vanguard to get checked out.

Now to answer your question if the Outdoor Life comments on resolution have validity. In my opinion, No, Nada, Nein and Zilch. The area of expertise for them is firearms and ammunition. I would give them much more credibility on their opinions of how a firearm operates or the ballistic performance of a round but not so much on optics, especially binoculars.

There is no telling how careful they were in their testing. As you know, if the diopter setting is off just a little bit, it will be noticeable in lack of sharpness. Did the tester take the time to set the diopter multiple times to make sure the setting was consistent? Who knows! Did the same person test each of the binoculars at the same time under the same conditions? Who knows! Where the lenses pristine? Who knows! Without knowing more about the tester and details of the testing process, there is no telling what took place and what can be concluded from the results.

I live in a hunting state and have a bunch of hunters as friends and acquaintances. Many are extremely knowledgeable about hunting, firearms and ballistics, but none are that knowledgeable about optics. They are mainly influenced by advertising, what the pros uses and what hunting buddies have. I would not be surprised if it is similar with the Outdoor Life staff.

My own experience with the SF is completely contrary to their conclusion. I have looked through 8 or more SF binoculars now and have not seen a lack of sharpness in any of them.

I guess they could of obtained a bad sample of the SF but that is unlikely. Most likely, they screwed up the test, probably with an incorrect diopter setting. As mentioned, optics is not their forte.

The Porters did a test of the SF and scored them a max of 10 on resolution. The Porter's test is not perfect but I put much more faith in their conclusions on optics than I would Outdoor Life. Optics is not a sideline with them.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...hart_2015.html

The resolution tests I immediately consider valid are those done my some of our members, especially David/Typo, Steve/Moreorless and Steve from KY. For any other comments, I consider the source and the context of the comments.

There are many reasons to question the validity of the Outdoor Life resolution results. I put about as much faith in it as I would most Amazon binocular reviews.




The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD has multiple comments on this forum of the plastic diopter ring failing and some units having focus issues, mostly right out of the box. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. There is not much out there yet on the new Legend M and I have not seen any reports of these problems. The only focus complaint I have read is one that had some free play. If you come across some reports of the M having these issues, please remember to come back and post a link.
Thanks for the nice explanation of the Outdoor Life results. I too find it hard to believe a $400.00 binocular like the Busnell M could be sharper than a $2500 binocular like the Zeiss SF. It is not logical or reasonable.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th January 2016, 17:57   #46
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by typo View Post
Bruce,

Appreciate the acknowledgement .

I honestly have no idea what those 'resolution' values in Outdoor Life might refer to.

Most, possibly all of those binoculars are going to comply with the DIN ISO standard for 'High Quality' binoculars and have instrument resolution values between 2.8 and 5.8 arcseconds unless they are damaged in some way. I would guess it's unlikely, but I suppose the guys might have done boosted resolution tests or something and scored them accordingly, but unfortunately it would still mean almost nothing to the user experience. In daylight the light from the periphery of the objective is blocked by the iris of the eye resulting in a totally different effective resolution so the numbers would be worthless.

Normally the effective resolution would exceed the magnified acuity of most users so there would be no difference in the limiting detail. Potentially, if the tester had exceptional eyesight he might see small differences in effective resolution with a suitable target. I've only seen some of that list but I'd still rate the chances of them distinguishing a SF from an Ultravid HD+ as zero. The light wasn't great when I tried the Legend M but it it seemed pretty good as well to me.

I suppose there may have been differences in the user sharpness perception which is at it's most sensitive at 5 to 10 arcminutes compared to an acuity limit of 1 to 2 arcminutes. Differences are most evident on fine patterns and textures. In a recent comparison I did a Kite Bonelli appeared to have a clear advantage over a Zeiss FL viewing certain natural targets. It's not resololution, but it's conceivable there might be a difference between the Ultravid and the FL using a similar target.

The Vanguard Endeavour EDII I have has both a good resolution and much more importantly very good effective resolution. It also has a good perceived sharpness when the light is bright and the sky is blue. However in gloomy conditions, particularly when the ambient light is red shifted the contrast can appear much weaker. The silver coated prisms mean the blue transmission is relatively poor and it is evident in some light conditions. Again nothing to do with resolution. It seems likely looking at those results that whatever they were doing they probably didn't account for the light conditions in their testing.

Just ignore their resolution scores it means nothing.

Unfortunately I don't find the Porters results any better. Even though they claim to do some sort of resolution testing, a 2x boost is hopelessly inadequate and I find their scoring quite bizarre. However they seem to think 20/20 is perfect vision. It's actually below average statistically and at level all binoculars are likely to be indistinguishable on effective resolution as the eye would be limiting.

David
Interesting explanation of sharpness and resolution testing. There is more to it than is readily apparent.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 21st February 2016, 08:56   #47
mrmister2000
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 16
This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?
mrmister2000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 21st February 2016, 12:12   #48
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmister2000 View Post
This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?
No, but I tried them the same morning on different stands at the UK BirdFair.

The Viper HD I've tried many times. It is a well established, relatively small and light, Japanese binocular with an average FOV and modest field curvature. The colour rendition is good but sometime referred to a creamy. Very likable.

The Legend M is a comparatively big and heavy Chinese made model, I believe, with a field flattener and a better FoV. The colour appeared to have a more bluish tinge but the light wasn't good enough to be sure.

The M had plenty of bells and whistles and performed well enough but I wasn't partularly keen on the handling, I preferred the Legend L, which might be closer to the Vortex on specification if not build quality.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 22nd February 2016, 19:12   #49
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmister2000 View Post
This is a very interesting thread. Has anyone had an opportunity to compare the Bushnell Legend M's with a pair of Vortex Viper HD's?
I have looked through both in a 10X at the stores but have never done a side by side.

Someone posted that the Bushnell M may be a derivative of the Zen-Ray ED3, which I have in a 10X. That motivated me to take a quick look at the M about a month ago. I did not have the ED3 to compare directly but they did seem similar. I was left with a favorable optical impression during the brief time viewing with them in the store. Amazon is currently showing a price of $269, which is a very good price for that optical quality.

However I did have one big disappointment that was mentioned previously by another member, and that is the diopter ring. It looks to be an extremely flimsy thin plastic ring. I have doubts that it will hold up over the long haul. The heat in my part of the world is extremely hard on plastic, to the point where over time, it gets very brittle and cracks. Also, the ring on the sample I used was not quite parallel with the top of the barrel.

It is strange that Bushnell went with such a design for the diopter ring. They received a number of bad reviews for the flimsy ring on the previous Legend model so one would think they would have made this one out of a high quality material.

I have looked through the Vortex Viper HD 10X in the store several times and always enjoyed the view. However I think it is overpriced for what it offers. The field of view in both the 8X42 and 10X42 is small compared to what else is out there today. The design has been around for a while and is due for an upgrade.

There are some good choices in the $300 to $400 price range. A couple to consider are the Zeiss Terra and Vanguard Endeavor ED I & II. All of these have their strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to match the strengths to attributes important to you and the weaknesses to areas that are not that significant on your personal list of priorities.

It takes a few days to get to really know how a binocular performs under different circumstances. So, be sure and buy from a vendor that has a good return policy in case your choice does not work out.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Naturalist Series WHIMBREL Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 5 Wednesday 2nd May 2007 08:33
660 Series Alf King Kowa 5 Friday 27th May 2005 22:35

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.28639603 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:34.