-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
OK you 8x guys, I give in (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tero
- Start date
Tero
Retired
OK, it is here. Bushnell Legend 8x42. First impression was that they are very similar to my old Nikon Action EX 8x40. Eye cups are smaller, same size as my Pentax 43mm roofs in the picture.
In good light, Pentax SP 10x43 and Bushnell Legend 8x42 were about the same sharpness reading house numbers and license plate numbers. Alos had a couple of 8x32s, and eagle Optics 8x32 and Bushenll Legend 8x32 held well by comparison. The 8x42 has greater depth of field, less focusing needed.
I still need to tweak the diopter once in a while with my 10x, with the 8x42 diopter could be left at zero.
Only found Cardinals and Robins to look at. At 7PM, Saint Louis time, Robins still had a reddish breast. The 8x32 also showed color but was losing it. By 7:30 PM, both 8x32s were getting to be useless for detail. Mind you, I never bird this late, possibly at dusk some days, or in fog.
By 7:40 the Bushnell Legend 8x42 was struggling with license plates in dim street light, the 10x43 SP actually held out as long. I could read the plate hand held but elbows resting on car roof.
Ergonomics are typical porro style, but slightly better with the eye cups than Action EX. If I had to buy the Actions again, I might get the rubber roll back eye cups. I hated the ones in the EX before I sold it.
I have sent a few pairs back in a day. This one is impressive enough to keep for a while to test. The other pairs I would look at would have to be Vortex Viper and Pentax SP 8x43 to get comparable optics. But I still bird with 10x43 and 8x32 as well, so the extra expense of a Viper might not be worth it.
Field of view of 430ft and 390ft in the 8x32 was about the same in my eyes.
By the way, I would swear the 24.5 oz Pentax feels lighter than the claimed 24 oz porros. Will weigh them tomorrow.
In good light, Pentax SP 10x43 and Bushnell Legend 8x42 were about the same sharpness reading house numbers and license plate numbers. Alos had a couple of 8x32s, and eagle Optics 8x32 and Bushenll Legend 8x32 held well by comparison. The 8x42 has greater depth of field, less focusing needed.
I still need to tweak the diopter once in a while with my 10x, with the 8x42 diopter could be left at zero.
Only found Cardinals and Robins to look at. At 7PM, Saint Louis time, Robins still had a reddish breast. The 8x32 also showed color but was losing it. By 7:30 PM, both 8x32s were getting to be useless for detail. Mind you, I never bird this late, possibly at dusk some days, or in fog.
By 7:40 the Bushnell Legend 8x42 was struggling with license plates in dim street light, the 10x43 SP actually held out as long. I could read the plate hand held but elbows resting on car roof.
Ergonomics are typical porro style, but slightly better with the eye cups than Action EX. If I had to buy the Actions again, I might get the rubber roll back eye cups. I hated the ones in the EX before I sold it.
I have sent a few pairs back in a day. This one is impressive enough to keep for a while to test. The other pairs I would look at would have to be Vortex Viper and Pentax SP 8x43 to get comparable optics. But I still bird with 10x43 and 8x32 as well, so the extra expense of a Viper might not be worth it.
Field of view of 430ft and 390ft in the 8x32 was about the same in my eyes.
By the way, I would swear the 24.5 oz Pentax feels lighter than the claimed 24 oz porros. Will weigh them tomorrow.
Attachments
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I bought a Bushnell Legend 8x28 (the small reverse porro) refurb from EO for $50 and have been trying it out recently. It's weighty (for it's size). Sort the the same feeling as the Ultima DX but at half the weight. I like the black rubbery coating (very grippy). But best of all it's sharp, bright and contrasty. Better than my roofs. Not bad as regards stray light too (much better than the Vortex Hurricane).
I can clearly see with my collection three classes: porros then PC-coated roofs then non-PC coated roofs. Nothing expensive of course but perhaps that's the point.
My first Bushnell and I'm impressed.
A write up will follow.
I'd love to here more details about this Bushnell Legend 8x42, Tero. You don't have other porros to compare it to do you?
I can clearly see with my collection three classes: porros then PC-coated roofs then non-PC coated roofs. Nothing expensive of course but perhaps that's the point.
My first Bushnell and I'm impressed.
A write up will follow.
I'd love to here more details about this Bushnell Legend 8x42, Tero. You don't have other porros to compare it to do you?
Tero
Retired
My 8x40 Actions are gone, so this is it for porros. I have never looked at 10x porros much, or at least never got excited.
The optics here are pretty standard for porros. Nobody with a top three roof is going to like the edges here, but they are as good as the 8x32 SRT Eagle Optics for sweet spot and edge softness. Depth of field is better.
The optics here are pretty standard for porros. Nobody with a top three roof is going to like the edges here, but they are as good as the 8x32 SRT Eagle Optics for sweet spot and edge softness. Depth of field is better.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Comparing them to midrange or higher midrange is better.
Bushnell Legend 8x42 Porro Prism Binocular $110
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=3438
Eagle Optics Ranger SRT 8x32 Binocular $310
http://www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?pid=4699
This seems to compare with SteveC's comments of the Yosemite being optically similar to the three times more expensive roof 6x32 Katamai.
The factor of three seems to be an interesting constant in the porro vs roof debate?
Perhaps Swift 820ED could be compared to the Euro 3's bottom end? But in general I don't think even very good low end bins aren't going to compare to the Euro 3.
Last edited:
Tero
Retired
The two are very comparable in view. In some situations the Bushnell 8x42 seems to be slightly better, and never at least worse. With glasses, I see about 90% of the field in both. With better glasses you would see all. My glasses are for reading and driving. I do not need them outdoors much.
I have carried the 8x32 to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I will not be doing that with the Bushnell.
I have carried the 8x32 to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I will not be doing that with the Bushnell.
right on!
It won't surprise me if the actual Porro Legend 8x42 is 31 oz. Some inexpensive binos use either undersized prisms or not enough lens group, which tend to be lighter in weight. Since Bushnell place a legend on this binoculars, it speaks of its optical quality.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Though there are some good porro bins at 24oz like the Vixen Foresta 10x42 (older version - the same as the Eagle Optics Raptors). Nice quality and bright too. You don't need massive prisms (but as the Ultima shows, it does help). I think some of the Leupold porros are in the same ballpark.
For me I'd place the trade off on loosing the 8oz. For most of my birding it's bright enough for the effective aperture, set by my pupil, to be much smaller than 42mm.
The further north you are the longer the twilight is and the less likely you may be to make this choice.
For me I'd place the trade off on loosing the 8oz. For most of my birding it's bright enough for the effective aperture, set by my pupil, to be much smaller than 42mm.
The further north you are the longer the twilight is and the less likely you may be to make this choice.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Interesting, the specs at the Bushnell site say 24oz/680g
http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_legend_porro_19-0842.cfm
430feet @ 100yds is 8.2 degrees so the AFOV is 65 degrees.
How sharp is the image at the enter? At the edges? Is the distortion at the edges just field curvature or is there aberation there too (I saw this on the 8x26 Legend which had some coma at the edge easily visible to the naked eye. A Celestron Ultima I've tested had a curved field with no other aberrations (I could see with the naked eye). These tests were done by viewing stars with no extra boost and moving them around the field?
How is the color balance? I found the 8x26 Legend to be very "white"/transparent. It didn't seem to have a bias to me.
http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_legend_porro_19-0842.cfm
430feet @ 100yds is 8.2 degrees so the AFOV is 65 degrees.
How sharp is the image at the enter? At the edges? Is the distortion at the edges just field curvature or is there aberation there too (I saw this on the 8x26 Legend which had some coma at the edge easily visible to the naked eye. A Celestron Ultima I've tested had a curved field with no other aberrations (I could see with the naked eye). These tests were done by viewing stars with no extra boost and moving them around the field?
How is the color balance? I found the 8x26 Legend to be very "white"/transparent. It didn't seem to have a bias to me.
Tero
Retired
You must have gotten hold of some Actions to see by now? I think the optics are pretty much the same. There may be some pincushion effect at the very edges. It is the external parts I prefer here with the Bushnell. Focus know was stiff in one spot.
I had no plans to go check stars, but the moon looked pretty good with them. Mainly I test my binoculars with birds. These are good for the bird in the bush.
I had no plans to go check stars, but the moon looked pretty good with them. Mainly I test my binoculars with birds. These are good for the bird in the bush.
Tero
Retired
I am sort of comparing apples and oranges and tomatoes here, but I ranked my binoculars thusly in terms of decreasing quality of optics:
Group 1
8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend
10x43 Pentax DCF SP
Bushnell Legend porro 8x42
Group 2
Nikon Monarch
Eagle Optics SRT 8x32
Group 3
Byshnell Excursion 8x28
Nikon ProStaff 9x25
Not saying Excursions all go in Group 3, but with 28mm you start seeing a loss of quality even compared to 32mm, much bigger than going from 42mm to 32mm. I have seen this on Pentax as well.
The Bushnell porro, despite some edge softness, is up there with my best resolution.
I have absolutely no complaints about the 8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend. I would need to spend 1000 more to get a better 8x32. These are hard to find, though some camo versions can still be found.
The one issue with the porro is the 31 oz weight which I am no longer used to. I do have a harness but need some cable ties to rig it on it.
Group 1
8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend
10x43 Pentax DCF SP
Bushnell Legend porro 8x42
Group 2
Nikon Monarch
Eagle Optics SRT 8x32
Group 3
Byshnell Excursion 8x28
Nikon ProStaff 9x25
Not saying Excursions all go in Group 3, but with 28mm you start seeing a loss of quality even compared to 32mm, much bigger than going from 42mm to 32mm. I have seen this on Pentax as well.
The Bushnell porro, despite some edge softness, is up there with my best resolution.
I have absolutely no complaints about the 8x32 Roof prism Bushnell Legend. I would need to spend 1000 more to get a better 8x32. These are hard to find, though some camo versions can still be found.
The one issue with the porro is the 31 oz weight which I am no longer used to. I do have a harness but need some cable ties to rig it on it.
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Good grouping. I would expect the porro to be in that lot (note how it costs between double and a four times the other roofs!).
I mentioned star testing because I find it very effective for distinguishing the quality of bins. Much easier than terrestrial testing for determining sharpness across the field, field curvature, aberrations, distortion and transmission.
For example, the Winchester I bought from you shows some clear aberration in one barrel (the left, the one I can easily see the roof edge in) whereas the other barrel (where I can't see the roof edge) is rather better Jupiter disk image. It's the only bin I have that has a noticeably barrel to barrel difference. It's not obviously visible in terrestrial viewing but that's not to say it doesn't have some effect especially on small or detailed targets. And it says something about Chinese bin construction in 2005 when that bins was made: there was some variation in the quality of the components (the prism in this case). Note: I'm not complaining - they're fine for the price - they're just a nice example of seeing something in a Jupiter disk or star test that is difficult to see elsewhere.
The viewing of stars, Jovian moons and Jupiter's disk can separate bins into different classes (though you need each one to see the effect). The Jovian moons are very useful as they change their configuration so you get close "binary" pairs and dim moon closer to Jupiter's disk depending on your timing. I use this page to figure out what should be there!
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter
I find with these tests the bins I have fall into three distinct groups for image quality (sharpness, transmission and aberations):
porros (Yosemite, Celestron Ultima DX, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40, Bushnell compact 8x26)
phase-coated roofs (OK one PC roof: the Vortex Diamondback 8x42)
roofs without phase coating (Winchester VDT 8x32 and the Promaster Infinity 7x32)
You can bird with all of them but some are better than others.
The tests are not difficult to do. Jupiter is bright (and conveniently located in the southern sky in mid evening right now). Just look at the objects with the bin. Write down what you see. It takes a couple of minutes per bin. Compare a group of bins and you get a feel of the differences.
Reviews on the Promaster Infinity 7x32, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40 and Bushnell compact 8x26 are currently being written!
I mentioned star testing because I find it very effective for distinguishing the quality of bins. Much easier than terrestrial testing for determining sharpness across the field, field curvature, aberrations, distortion and transmission.
For example, the Winchester I bought from you shows some clear aberration in one barrel (the left, the one I can easily see the roof edge in) whereas the other barrel (where I can't see the roof edge) is rather better Jupiter disk image. It's the only bin I have that has a noticeably barrel to barrel difference. It's not obviously visible in terrestrial viewing but that's not to say it doesn't have some effect especially on small or detailed targets. And it says something about Chinese bin construction in 2005 when that bins was made: there was some variation in the quality of the components (the prism in this case). Note: I'm not complaining - they're fine for the price - they're just a nice example of seeing something in a Jupiter disk or star test that is difficult to see elsewhere.
The viewing of stars, Jovian moons and Jupiter's disk can separate bins into different classes (though you need each one to see the effect). The Jovian moons are very useful as they change their configuration so you get close "binary" pairs and dim moon closer to Jupiter's disk depending on your timing. I use this page to figure out what should be there!
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/javascript/jupiter
I find with these tests the bins I have fall into three distinct groups for image quality (sharpness, transmission and aberations):
porros (Yosemite, Celestron Ultima DX, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40, Bushnell compact 8x26)
phase-coated roofs (OK one PC roof: the Vortex Diamondback 8x42)
roofs without phase coating (Winchester VDT 8x32 and the Promaster Infinity 7x32)
You can bird with all of them but some are better than others.
The tests are not difficult to do. Jupiter is bright (and conveniently located in the southern sky in mid evening right now). Just look at the objects with the bin. Write down what you see. It takes a couple of minutes per bin. Compare a group of bins and you get a feel of the differences.
Reviews on the Promaster Infinity 7x32, Eagle Optics Raptor 10x40 and Bushnell compact 8x26 are currently being written!
Last edited:
Tero
Retired
I rarely get inspired to go outdoors* with the binoculars. I had some kids at our school wanting to see stars and planets once, and struggled for some hours with a straight birding scope and a cloudy sky. Never did see much. The amateur astronomer finally herded us in and gave a slide talk.
*at night ..sorry
*at night ..sorry
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
That must make birding a challenge
I think best bird seen from my urban apartment in a perched Red-tailed Hawk about 15 feet away (and a swarm of crows going bannanas!). Or perhaps the Cooper Hawk that likes an adjacent tree to scope out urban Rock Doves. Or the one time I saw a Golden-Crowned Kinglet in a mixed species flock feeding in a tree about 2 feet outside the window. Or maybe the male and female Yellow Rumped Warbler who hung out in late migration this spring in a tree under one of my windows (about 3 feet away).
So perhaps I don't really need to go outside
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Wait for Frank's review of the Vanguard EDT and hope it's good enough for $280, Tero
