Bushnell 8x42 Legend Porro or Yosemite 8x30 ? (1 Viewer)

Hi,
I'm trying to decide between these two bins, its an upgrade for my mother. I was reading the forum and reviews and still can't decide between these two. Witch one is better overall optical performer, and regarding pin-cushion distortion, sharpness, contrast, FOV, ER (is 14mm on Yosemite enough?), CA, color representation, edge distortion, sweet spot... How is focuse wheel behaving considering smoothness and backlash on these two?
I can't find IPD for Legend in their specs, wouldn't want an unpleasant surprise if my mother not being able to use them at all

By the way, how is Pentax 8x40 PCF WPII performing regarding those two?

Hi Xorg

I have not used the Bushnell Legend so cannot comment on them.

My Son has the Leupold Yosemite and is very happy with them though. They are light weight and easy to hold. The view through them is easily as good as that of roof prism binoculars costing 3 times their price ( 100 Euros ). My wife has a pair of Minox 8x32BL with which we have compared the Leupolds. We all prefer the Leupold.

The sweet spot is about 70% and is very sharp but the outer 30% is a little out of focus due to field curvature. The colours are neutral and the wide field of view is bright.

The large and easy to reach focus wheel is easy to use and has little free play.

If I was to go back to the USA some time I would buy another pair as we are so happy with them.

I do hope this helps.

Cheers

Steve

You might also want to throw the Celestron Ultima DX 8x32 into that mix as well. It is approximately the same size and a hair cheaper (eagle optics for example) than the other two with a wider field of view than the Leupold though it is a bit heavier.

My take is the 8x30 Yosemite is probably going to be your best bet as I have yet to hear one person really have anything negative to say about it. I have one and at the $100 price point there really isn't anything to complain about. Image quality is quite good and overall handling is pretty good as well.

Looks for me its gonna be the Yosemites after all. Really, only I heard for them was positive comments so far.
Although I haven't heard any opinions on Legend porro yet. Neither I managed to find even one review of Legend 8x42 porro bins yet
I believe it's a very good piece of optics, judged by specifications alone...
I see Ultima DX is highly regarded bins too (for the bucks of course), and was among my three choices at the first, but I ruled them out cause I think they are a bit too heavy for the purpose...

Cheers

I have looked through the Bushnell Legend Porro 8x42 and I own the Legend Porro 10x50.

The Legend is very well made. The coatings are excellent with high light transmission...much brighter than that of the Nikon Actions; I found the light transmission to be comparable to Swaros and a bit better than my Leupold Gold Ring Roofs. Viewing comfort is better than that of the Leupold Wind River Mesa binos due to minimal prism intrusion into the light path. The image color is more neutral-whitish with the Nikons being a bit more yellow (as well as the Mesas). The body is well armored, light, and everything is quite durable.

The biggest weakness to my eyes were that the image was sharp out to only 70% of the field with a bit of pinchusioning; here, the Swaros and Gold Rings beat out the Legend Porro. To fix that, I had my pair sent to Siebert Optics to get the eyepieces (through their binocular quality modification service) replaced so I can get flat sharp images out to the very edge.

To fix that, I had my pair sent to Siebert Optics to get the eyepieces (through their binocular quality modification service) replaced so I can get flat sharp images out to the very edge.

Click to expand...

CP,

Now that peaked my interest. I had no idea that you could do something like that. Care to share how much something like that costs? What is the optical qualities of the bins now with the eyepieces changed? Do they still exhibit as wide of a field of view but with a larger sweet spot? Are they still considered waterproof and nitrogen purged/filled?

Do they do this with roofs as well?

You have me really curious and you never gave bad advice when suggesting Siebert eyepieces for the little Pentax scope in the past.

Thank you.

Replacing eyepieces ... very interesting.

This is the link for their "astro" oriented (i.e. 50mm objective) bins. It would be nice to see them on "smaller" (40mm) bins.

He has some photos but they're not quite before and after at the same size which would have facilitated a comparison. But the FOV photo os a grid is quite good.

http://www.siebertoptics.com/SiebertOptics-modifiedbinoculars.html




So do you end up with IF bins? Or can he retain CF on other modified units?

And is that price $299 for the 50mm the whole price (bin + eyepieces) or the upgrade price? I presume it's the former.

I suspect replacing porro's eyepieces is a lot easier than doing roofs as you have the freedom to remove the eyepieces and change the external dimensions of the new eyepeices. Roofs are a bit more constrained (another win for porros )

EDIT1: The other point in the image of the Siebel 26mm eyepieces the field is flat with no pinchushion. I would expect this to show the "rolling ball" or "globe" effect (which you will get from an undistorted field). How much distortion is added seems to be a characteristic of the designer but in this case not enough (or there is a different shape to the distortion at the edge of the field).

See Holger's paper on this:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=74727
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe.pdf

Do the modified bins show the "globe" effect?

In your post I'm not quite clear: did you get this done to your 10x50 or the 8x42?

EDIT2:

There are a couple of threads on Cloudy Nights

Anyone using Siebert Optics modified binos?
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...1018771&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&vc=1

edz said:

We have had considerable discussions about these binoculars in this forum at some time in the past.

One of the reasons that far less distortion will be seen in these binoculars is the huge exit pupil will be larger than most people's eye pupil, therefore the binocular will effectively be masked down.

In a 6x50 binocular, the exit pupil is 8.3mm. In general most users may have a 6mm eye or smaller. Some might have 7mm eyes. So effectively, this binocular will operate as if it were a 6x36, possibly a 6x42, reducing lateral CA, coma, distortion and curvature, even without better eyepieces.

Click to expand...

and comments by Holger Merlitz

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthre...=245475&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&vc=1

holger said:

The apparent field of view of these modified binoculars will be rather narrow for sure. For example: If the original glass has got 70 degs. at 10x magnification, i.e. 7 degs true field, then, at 6x, it drops to 42 degs. apparent field, because the true field of view can't be improved much without an increase of the prism size. So these binoculars will likely come with a tunnel view. It were a better idea to keep the magnification constant and just replace the simple reverse Kellner oculars (as they are usually employed in low-to medium range binoculars) with his 6-lens construction.

Click to expand...

I guess that's what he's doing in these current bins. But the argument (in these threads) about over-big exit pupils and your eye's entrance pupil effectively stopping down the bins to x40ish seems valid.

The threads are all worth reading.

I'd love to hear more about this.

Well, I'm the guy probably with the greatest number of Siebert Quality modified binos since I like them so much.

I currently have the Oberwerk 11x70 QMod and a Nikon Action 8x40 QMod (now a 5x40 after mod). My Bushnell Legend 10x50 is currently at Harry's for quality modification as well.

The prices he quote includes the binoculars. Personally, I think the ones he sells is kind of trying to make silk purses out of sow ears. To keep prices reasonable, he takes cheap fully coated binoculars and adds his excellent eyepieces to them. I had purchased one earlier but sent it back because the cheap base pair was impairing the whole unit. So I instead chose higher end fully multicoated binoculars and have him quality modify them and have been very pleased.

When you provide your own binoculars, it only cost $250 as opposed to $299. I prefer to view quality modification as a way of upgrading your favorite binoculars to a whole new level.

There are several limiations. 1. It has to be a porro prism bino 2. The bino needs the center focus crossbar that both eyepieces sit on 3. Harry drills in his own eyepieces so any waterproof ability is lost, at least on the eyepiece. If the rest of the bino is sealed (like the Pentax spotters), it doesn't affect the rest of the bino 4. Diopter adjustment is made with a wrench and trial and error 5. FOV is a narrower 50 or so degrees though it feels wider for the smaller bino like the Nikon Action 8x40 as opposed to the very long focal length Oberwerk 11x70 6. No twist up eyecups, instead, Harry has his removable rubber ones

The benefits: 1. The quality modified binoculars are tack sharp, distortion free to the edge of the field. I was watching this 4th of July fireworks with my quality modified Nikon Action 8x40 and whoa what a treat that was! Every burst was razor sharp with fine detail viewable to the edge. 2. The eyerelief is ungodly long, something like 22mm+. My friends who wear eyeglasses, especially the ones who wear thick coke bottle eyeglasses completely love them since other binoculars' eyerelief are quite inadequate 3. The larger exit pupil, very long eyerelief and low distortion makes the quality modified binoculars absolutely incredible for hand held digiscoping. I have pictures of the Ballpark at Arlington that I snapped through the Nikon Action quality modified and they look like I was shooting it through a telephoto lens because there was no distortion even to the edge. Let me look for it and I'll post it. 4. The ghosting on the moon is confined to the Oberwerk. I don't see it in my Nikon Action QMod so I suspect it is due to the lesser baffling and coating on the prism of the Oberwerk and not the eyepieces. 5. collimation is dead on since Harry does it by hand. 6. Performance is apochromatic or very nearly so. Even on my 11x70 Oberwerk QMod one, I see very little color fringing.

As to the globe effect, I believe you are referencing the feeling I first got when I stared at my first flat screen Sony CRT. Well, I don't really feel much of an effect while panning, maybe I'll go try again and look for it. I do know my Leupold Gold Ring bino do give me more a headache when panning than my Siebert QMod porros.

The discussion on the thread is amusing but as one poster said, they were mostly by people who don't own the QMod binos so view those posts as being mostly academic. Those guys also aren't digiscopers so of course they haven't found a use for the large exit pupil (*chuckle*).

Now back to the topic of the Bushnell Legend porros, given my experience with the Oberwerk QMod and Nikon QMod, I had been on the hunt for the perfect QMod binocular candidate. Thus I have visited many high end sporting goods stores looking through Pentax Porros, Leupold Porros, Nikon Porros, and Bushnell Porros (I do have Leupold Gold Rings roofs, my Pentax 100ED spotter w/ XW eyepieces, and my Leupold VX3 riflescopes as optical references).

The candidate I settled on was the Bushnell Legend which I deemed the best one for quality modification due to its durable construction, extreme brightness, excellent coatings on both the objective and BAK-4 prism, and very strong centerfocus crossbar (where Harry will be drilling).

Ok, found my before and after handheld digiscoping through the quality modified Nikon Action 8x40 pictures of the Ballpark at Arlington. The digiscope was taken without using camera zoom to eliminate the vignetting.

Please note, the images have been downsampled in size and also downsampled from 32 bit to 24 bit (I need to get a new Corel Photopaint software) so image fidelity has been lost. No filtering or software image processing was done besides cropping the digiscoped picture.

I can email anyone the originals if asked.

Thanks for the detailed write-up, Can. Very insightful.

How do you find the Qmoded Nikon Action 8x40 (5x40) is for birding?

When your Bushnell Legend 10x50s are modded what do you expect the magnification to be?

And finally, they look big. How much extra weight do they add?

So does this seem to indicate that rather than worrying about ED objectives we should be worrying about better eyepiece designs?

Thanks,
Kevin

Well, my QMod Nikon Action 8x40 (now 5x40) I use primarily for travel, sporting events, general viewing, and very mobile hand held digiscoping. For that version, I do not view it as appropriate for birding, unless one gets close due to the low magnification. The times I have looked at birds with it, the images are very sharp and delightful. In the stadium pic I posted, on the original 6 megapixel digiscoped version, one can even see the wires connecting each of the stadium lights and this is against the bright sky background.

My Bushnell Legend 10x50 should become 7x50's after QMod so they should be very good candidates for birding and digiscoping. I have used my 11x70's for birding before but one's hands do get tired holding binos of that size for extended periods of time. The 11x70's do have excellent light gathering power and I find them to be great for peering into dark undergrowth, even at dusk or dawn.

Believe it or not, QMod adds almost no extra weight to the bino. FrankD also owns Siebert eyepieces and the one thing about them is they are very light with their aluminum lens cells. What QMod do add is more length since those extra 3 or 4 lens per eyepiece needs to go somewhere.

Based on my QMod binos, I do think ED objectives are overrated. It is the eyepieces that deserve more attention. Just read those threads on the Pentax spotter or Mak spotters here on Birdforum and how a change of eyepiece results almost in a perceived change of scope.

The bottom line for porro prism binoculars is this: Decent fully multicoated porros nowadays sell for between $60 to $300. That is the price point manufacturers have to hit otherwise they simply won't sell. Now if you look at telescope eyepieces, the cheapest good one (Burgess/TMB planetary) sells for $59 apiece. Times 2 and you are looking at $118 just for good eyepieces. That makes it cost prohibitive for the bino manufacturers to splurge on good eyepieces since they still need to supply the objectives, BAK4 prisms, bino body, labor, shipping, and profit.

Thus, eyepiece quality is always sacrificed and just about all porros that I have seen really don't function up to their potential. QMod is the way to unlock the true potential of one's porro prism binos.

Thanks again, Can.

Both the better porros and Mak spotters are of interest to me.

I just got a Barska compact 50mm Mak spotter. It has the same OEM (from Bosma in Ghuangzhou) body as the Celestron C50 but cheaper and with a more sane x20-40 eyepiece, though that EP has it's own problems with a small eyebox so I'd like to try it with a better non-zoom EP.

It's small, light and cheap! With an existing small SLIK tripod adds less than 3lbs to my pack.

If this one pans out I may get the C70 too.

So how much does it cost I wonder to make a OK EP. Not a great deal with careful design and perhaps increasing the focal length. I suspect Leupold must have done that in the Yosemite to get the performance they do from that inexpensive bin.

CP,

Very, very interesting. I need to "digest" alot of this. However, I have to say that those images are stunning...especially the parking lot shot. I have some further questions. It seems that the two biggest "losses" with this procedure are magnification and apparent field of view. If I wanted a 7x or 8x QMod bin then I would have to start with a 10 to 12x binocular, yes?

Also, it may have been mentioned but how narrow of a field of view are we talking about? 50 degrees? 40 degrees?

Any further comments on this modification...and pics for that matter, would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Well, the parking lot shot is without the bino That was the reference image with the Fuji F10 camera unobstructed while the second picture being the one shot through bino...thus no vignetting. Its purpose was to give a before and after so you can see what (and the range of the object) I was snapping through the bino.

Actually to get a 7x or 8x depends on the bino. Best to think of porro binos as dual refracting telescopes with porro image erecting prisms. Thus, the longer larger binos will have a longer focal length than the more compact ones for the same objective size. The bino manufacturer then produces different magnification binos by using different focal length eyepieces.

Siebert uses only one focal length of his performance series eyepieces when quality modifying. So the final magnification that comes out depends on the speed of each binocular's optical system. Thus, a f/5 50mm binocular will have a lower magnification after QMod than a f/7 50mm binocular. And just like refracting telescopes, for the same objective size, the longer telescope tubes indicate a slower optical system while short tubes indicate a faster optical system.

Below are three pictures. The first picture is of my two QMod binos with the eyepiece covers on. The second picture is of the same with the eyepiece cover off. You can see the custom installed eyepieces in the second picture. The third picture is a section of the earlier post's stadium picture shot through the QMod bino. This is an unresized cut out of the upper left hand corner of the earlier resized and downsampled picture. Notice how the cables of the stadium lights are visible with no color fringing even when close the field stop.

The performance series eyepieces have around a 50 degree FOV. Best think of QModing as being analogous taking out the 66 degree FOV Expanse eyepiece and then sticking in a 50 degree FOV Performance series eyepiece into your Pentax spotter.

The Siebert eyepiece focal length is 26mm, so the modified magnification will be the binocular objective focal length divided by 26. You can make a rough estimate of the objective focal length by multiplying the objective diameter by about 3.8-3.9, because most small hand held Porros have objectives with focal ratios between f/3.7 and f/4. For instance, a "typical" 50mm binocular objective has a focal length of about 190mm, so the modified magnification of most 50mm binoculars will be about 7.3x.

Here's a trick for estimating the objective focal length when you know the actual length of two binoculars in the same series. This works only when the two binoculars use the same eyepiece and prism housing. The difference in actual length between the Nikon 8x40 and 10x50 Action Extremes is about 40mm. Since these binoculars probably use the same eyepiece and prism the 40mm difference is probably simply the difference in their objective focal lengths, so a 40mm longer focal length from a 10mm larger objective suggests the focal ratio is about f/4, 160mm FL for the 8x40, 200mm for the 10x50.

The claim of gaining APO performance from changing eyepieces is simply not true. Eyepieces can't correct the longitudinal CA of the objective lens. However I wouldn't be surprised if the Siebert eyepiece has low lateral color. That's the form of CA that appears off-axis as a result of increasingly uneven magnification at different wavelengths as you move toward the edge of the field. Wide field eyepieces of every type naturally show more of it at the edge of wide apparent fields than eyepieces with narrow apparent fields will show. An eyepiece with a 50 degree apparent field shouldn't have much.

Some possible problems with this modification occur to me. One is that the close focus may be compromised on some binoculars when a longer than normal FL eyepiece is substituted. Not a problem for astronomy as long as infinity focus can be reached. Another is collimation. True collimation can be done only with a collimator. That's because the barrels need to be aligned with the center hinge as well as each other for collimation to be correct at all IPD settings. This can't be done visually. Without a collimator Mr. Siebert can align the binoculars for his IPD only, not for others. One last possible "problem" is the lack of rectilinear distortion. Some amount of pincushion is often designed into binoculars to prevent the "rolling ball" effect when panning. However, a 50 degree field shouldn't require much pincushion anyway, so rolling ball may not be objectionable.

The best use for this modification seems to me to be 40-50mm binoculars or larger. A very nice 5.5-6x40 or 7-7.5x50 should be possible. I don't know of any 6x40 binoculars currently available and most current 7x50's have 50 degree apparent fields anyway, so nothing is lost.

henry link said:

The claim of gaining APO performance from changing eyepieces is simply not true. Eyepieces can't correct the longitudinal CA of the objective lens. However I wouldn't be surprised if the Siebert eyepiece has low lateral color. That's the form of CA that appears off-axis as a result of increasingly uneven magnification at different wavelengths as you move toward the edge of the field. Wide field eyepieces of every type naturally show more of it at the edge of wide apparent fields than eyepieces with narrow apparent fields will show. An eyepiece with a 50 degree apparent field shouldn't have much.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that, Henry. And the other tips.

So an ED objective bin modified this way should end up being excellent (and have good eye relief!).

Well, a Swift Audubon ED binocular if QModed would probably be the ultimate binocular: http://www.swift-sportoptics.com/products/binoculars/820ED

Let me take an HD video through my Siebert Performance 35mm on my WO APO refractor. That should give people an idea of how good the image on a QModed ED bino would be. I'll also look into taking some HD video on my existing QMod binos...maybe my QModed Bushnells when I get them back at the end of next week.

I have the Legend 8x42 porro. The specs are wrong most places, weight is 31 0z, similar to about the 30 oz for the competition, Nikon 8x40 EX Actions.

Field of View 430 ft./1000 yds.
Eye Relief 15 mm
Close Focus 12 ft.
Weight 31 oz.
Dimensions (HxW) 5.25 x 7.1 in.

In handling and overall behavior they are like the Actions, except the eye cups are more comfortable. Focus knob sticks in one spot on mine. Cost is around $100-110. IPD is roughly 58mm.

I have had them out a few times. They feel quite rugged and should last a while. I also have some 8x32s roof prisms, which I prefer to these for weight. But the view certainly is good, and depthof field especially. But I am so used to the 8x32s so I do not have a problem with them either.

I got these specifically to have a bright pair with a wide field of view. I have not found the same in the under 300 roof prisms that have the wide field. I might need to pay close to 1000 in say the Bushnell Elite 8x43, and the view is 370ft not 420ft as here. Now, I actually have a hard time telling the difference in 390ft or 420ft, as these are not sharp to the edge, only some 80% is very clear. It is not awful at the edge, and I can catch bird movement there too.

If you do not mind 31 oz and just need the pair for the kitchen window for instance, these are fine. Also in the field, but I recommend a harness or other contraption.

***

I have posted on these elsewhere on this forum.

This evening I did some resolution tests on four pairs at home, looking at the smaller fonts on a wall calendar.

10x42 Monarch and Bushnell 8x42 porro came out the same, the porro reaching the detail mainly due to brightness
slightly less:
10x43 Pentax SP (non ED) and Bushnell 8x32 roof

All 4 are my best binoculars but there are these slight differences.

Well Tero, your constant positive comments on the 8x42 Legend porros finally sunk in. I just ordered one from Eagle Optics. I find myself preferring the image of the inexpensive porros to much higher priced roofs as of late. The Legend porros, along with one other model, are some that I have been meaning to try for some time. A little extra Christmas money has come in handy here.

I also have the Legend 8x42 porros, and I'm impressed that several of you think highly of their optics. One thing to be aware of though, is that the focusing is fairly stiff. I'm under the impression that this is fairly typical of waterproof porros.

I focus with my left thumb underneath and my right index finger above the wheel, but sometimes it just isn't quick enough.

Also, if you wear glasses, the relief is only 15mm, just barely enough, in my opinion.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion after you've tried them for a while, FrankD.