• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Review, Leupold Mojave BX-3 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Eitan,

My guess on the "outline" difference is possibly the thicker rubber armor. Maybe the thickness of the rubber armor is wider at the objective end than at the ocular end. Just a guess but like I said, I will compare next weekend. I can also compare it to the Nikon M7 8x30 which I have yet to handle. Nikon will be there too and I am sure they will have the 8x30 on hand.

It will be interesting to compare the Leupold to the Nikon for all the reasons you illustrated. For the time being I have been comparing it directly to the Sightron. It would seem that all my comparative comments between the Sightron and the Opticron would apply here. The Leupold is the better binocular in my opinion and for a few reasons.

1. The image does appear more color neutral in the Leupold and therefore it appears slightly brighter than the Sightron (which is bright for a relatively inexpensive 32 mm roof).

2.The field is slightly flatter in the Leupold.

3. The sweet spot is larger in the Leupold.

4. The overall feel of build quality in the Leupold is slightly better.

Now keep in mind I have no issues with any of the above in the Sightron so to say that the Leupold is better in each of this categories is really saying something.

It would now seem that we almost have to have a different "reference standard" for 8x30-something class binoculars at almost every $100 price point. The Sightron can be found for $180, the Leupold at $280 and the Nikon at $380.
 
Frank: Any idea on the ER? It's still listed as "N/A" on Leupold's site, and there seems to be some disagreement above on how much is there.....
Well, I'm not Frank, but I listed that information in the review. To repeat, there is 16 mm with eye cups raised, which is the listed spec. The combination of the rubber eye cup and the ring around the ocular allow the eye glass wearer to get within only 4 mm of the ocular surface. There are some ER comments in the review.
 
So has this displaced the M7 8x30 as the best compact 30mm class binocular below the Viper HD price point? Any grumblings about China bins do not apply here as it's Japan made, Leupy quality with their lifetime warranty. Seems like a crazy good value at <$300.

I would say it has. I would take the Mojave 8x32 over the Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 any day of the week. The Mojave is the brighter of the two, and the field and edge performance are clearly superior to the M7.

Repeating the review comment, I would place this right at the Viper HD level, but the Mojave bests the Viper in field, width, width of usable sweet spot, and has superior field and edge performance characteristics.

I will echo Franks earlier comment in the vein of it's really hard to not like this binocular.

Leupold has the basic design down well enough that if they so choose, they are at the verge of some butt kicking. Take the MSRP to the $700 level, add some better quality glass, include some ED in the objective, use a better level of coating,take the transmission % into the 90% range, refine the eye cup a little, and a few other refinements, and we could be looking at a test run for the new Gold Ring series. Realize that is just me thinking out loud, I have no idea of what the plans Leupold has are. The potential here is enormous.
 
Last edited:
jack be nimble, jack be quick...

Eagle Optics is phasing out their Leupold dealership. The have one Mojave 8x32 for $253 left. No differences in what they have and what you will get elsewhere.
 
Sorry Steve. I missed that. I'm still on the fence about a compact 10x32 vs a fullsized 10x42 or 10x50, but I do know that 18-19mm seems to be the ideal ER for me.



Well, I'm not Frank, but I listed that information in the review. To repeat, there is 16 mm with eye cups raised, which is the listed spec. The combination of the rubber eye cup and the ring around the ocular allow the eye glass wearer to get within only 4 mm of the ocular surface. There are some ER comments in the review.
 
I used the Mojave 8x32 extensively over the weekend and continue to be impressed by both its handling and its optical performance. This is one of those binoculars that I have to do a double-take when I lift it up to my eyes. The optical performance performance is just genuine surprising given the price. I would expect optical performance of this level to be price at between $500 and $600. At times I have found myself thinking of it as an 8x32 McKinley instead of an 8x32 Mojave...with the understanding that there aren't any facial fit issues with these oculars.

No, it doesn't have quite the edge performance of the McKinley but it is awfully close and with a much more user friendly design. Given a bit more time I could potentially see this binocular as becoming my go-to model instead of the Sightron. Yes, it is $100 more expensive than the Sightron but we are still talking about a model priced notably under $300.

Simply amazing.
 
How is glare / stray light handling? That's a weakness of many otherwise excellent binoculars.

That is, as far as I can tell, a strong point with the Mojave. I have yet to be able to induce any veiling glare and stray light issues seem non existent. I'm curious as to what Frank has found in that regard.

Depending on what plans Leupold has, they are on the verge of being able to do some serious butt kicking with this design if they so choose. See Frank's McKinley 8x32 comment as a for instance.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the terrific review, SteveC. My pair arrived on Saturday. I can confirm to other eyeglass wearers that there is enough effective eye relief to see the entire field with glasses (I have a moderate prescription, both eyes between -3.0 and -4.0 diopter). For my eyes, the sweet spot isn't quite as expansive as with yours. I'd call the sweetspot maybe 55%-60% of the field, but for me, that's actually a very good result. Very good sharpness here. The only issue I'm having is uneven tightness in the focuser, but I'm hoping that this will even out with more use.
 
Thanks for the terrific review, SteveC. My pair arrived on Saturday. I can confirm to other eyeglass wearers that there is enough effective eye relief to see the entire field with glasses (I have a moderate prescription, both eyes between -3.0 and -4.0 diopter). For my eyes, the sweet spot isn't quite as expansive as with yours. I'd call the sweetspot maybe 55%-60% of the field, but for me, that's actually a very good result. Very good sharpness here. The only issue I'm having is uneven tightness in the focuser, but I'm hoping that this will even out with more use.

I am glad you mentioned the focuser. I mentioned it in my original comments in this thread and also in reference to the Opticron Countryman review. I did not do a formal review but rather just posted some "continuing comments" in addition to Steve's review. If I had then I would have included a "nitpick section" of issues that I find the binocular less than perfect in. Number one on the list would have been the focusing feel.

The focusing tension isn't what I would call "stiff" in the sense of the word that is often used here. Making large adjustments of the focusing knob is very easy. Making small adjustments is a bit of a different story. I would like to use the term "stick-tion". There is a bit too much of it to make small adjustments easily. In other words the user has to apply a bit too much force to make small adjustments to the focus.

I haven't found this to be a major issue yet primarily because this is one of those binoculars that....

a) has that "pop" when the image is in focus so it is hard to miss it and....

b) also has very good image quality even when the image is slightly out of focus. In other words, just when you think you have reached perfect focus you turn the focus knob just a little bit more and that "pop" occurs.

The second nitpick for me is the strap lugs. When I initially picked up this model and placed my hand in the intuitive position I felt the strap lug digging into the webbing of my hand. I have since re-positioned my hand slightly forward and the strap lug is no longer an issue. Still, if the strap lug were moved 1/2 inch closer to the eyecup then I think it would alleviate this concern.

As for the sweet spot size you mentioned, I don't think there is as much sample variation as one might think. I have no doubt that the sweet spot size in your unit, my unit and Steve's unit is the same. I think it varies depending on the individual and on the special object/field that is being observed. Case in point, if I look at something man-made, such as the back of truck or a car then the sweet spot size almost looks "edge to edge". If I look at a tree or a hillside with lots of trees and fine detail then the sweet spot size seems to shrink considerably. In that instance I would probably rate it at about 70%. I am guessing this is the result of the specific type of distortion or aberration evident in the image. Just a guess though.
 
Remember that it's also the frames which effect ER needs. I have three pairs of glasses that I use regularly: my "normal" everyday pair, a pair for workouts/bike rides, and a bifocal pair for some work duties. The first two have identical, up-to-date, single vision prescriptions, are made of the same high-index material, and have the same coatings (and came from the same store), but the workout glasses sit closer to my eyes, and up my nose a bit. 15-16mm ER seems OK with those, but if I'm wearing my everyday single vision glasses I need 18-19mm, as they sit 2-3mm further from my corneas.

Thanks for the terrific review, SteveC. My pair arrived on Saturday. I can confirm to other eyeglass wearers that there is enough effective eye relief to see the entire field with glasses (I have a moderate prescription, both eyes between -3.0 and -4.0 diopter). For my eyes, the sweet spot isn't quite as expansive as with yours. I'd call the sweetspot maybe 55%-60% of the field, but for me, that's actually a very good result. Very good sharpness here. The only issue I'm having is uneven tightness in the focuser, but I'm hoping that this will even out with more use.
 
Frank: Those are some very good observations about these Mojaves. Concerning small adjustments on the focuser, I'm wondering if we could blame the "stick-tion" on whatever damping lubricant the OEM uses in it. I tend to like the old-fashioned squishy, petroleum-jelly-like feel one gets with older lubricants, where as you increase finger pressure on the focuser, the focuser "gives" a little bit just before it starts moving, and so you get the feeling that you are easing into movement. With the Mojaves, as you gradually step up pressure on the focuser, nothing happens, until all of a sudden it starts moving. I've seen a similar effect in the Steiner 8x30 Wildlife Pro CF, but it was a little more problematic with the Steiners because it was coupled with a fast focuser, so I'd often overshoot the focus quite noticeably (until I got used to it). It's not as much a problem with these Mojaves because the focuser is a bit slower, and so even if you overshoot, it's not by much. Plus, like you wrote, it is still pretty sharp even if the focus is a little off!

Paul2013: You make a very good point, and I hadn't considered it. I supposed that each of us eyeglass wearers has a good idea about what will and will not work with our own particular faces and frames. For me, I can mostly get away with using a bin with 16 or 17mm of eye relief, depending on how much of the eye relief is lost to the eyecups.
 
Peatmoss,

I agree with your comments about preferences for the feel of different lubricants. I am hoping though that continued use ends up "smoothing out" the overall feel of the focusing tension. Will be sure to comment more about that as time passes.
 
Steve,

I should apologise for not thanking you earlier for the excellent review.

I'm not sure where Leupold is coming from with their current 'styling' but I confess the look of the Mojave doesn't do it for me. It's a make we rarely see over here and I suppose I prematurely dismissed for personal consideration. Following the thread now I see it's rather more interesting than I initially imagined.

There are a few numbers in the specification that look a bit odd to me. It lists the FOV as 420ft or 128m, which would be 384ft. Am I right in thinking 420ft is the correct figure? The others stem from comparison with the Countryman HD which certainly spiked my interest. 17oz/482g is a lot lighter than 21.7oz/614g listed by Opticron. If both are right that would suggest significant differences in the structure and/or materials. Perhaps that's something Frank might be able to compare. Likewise the ER. It's a while since I tried the Opticron but I recall needing to twist out the eye-cups to use with my glasses which normally would not be necessary with a 16mm ER which makes me feel the 19mm ER for the Opticron might be right.

I probably have less accommodation than Frank and Steve, but the field curvature of the Opticron was quite pronounced to my eyes. It sounds rather different to Steve's flat(ish) description. Opticron are a bit vague about their 63-layer 'Oasis' coating but the 'L' coating on the Leupold sounds like it might be different.

I'm not aware of the Japanese OEMs producing identically specified models for two different companies, and it certainly sounds like there are distinguishing features. However if the Mojave's view really does compare with the Countryman HD in a 5oz lighter body then that would get me excited enough to ignore it's looks. ;) I'm looking forward to Frank's side by side.

Thanks again Steve.

David
 
Last edited:
I think Leupold could cut some costs in reductions in their arts and design department (assuming they have such a thing ;)). I don't like the new age flare and supposed enhanced design either. That seems to be something in vogue on more than one Leupold design. It's a marvel at what some people get paid to do.

The field on my unit checks out at 420', so 8* is correct. Note mine weight 2 oz more than the spec sheet says it does. I see an alarming tendency in more than one optical company website to post information that makes it seem the the right hand is ignorant of the left hands actions.

I have not yet had the chance to talk with my Leupold contact since he just got back from the IWA show in Nuremberg yesterday. When I do contact him in the next couple of days, I'll see what he has to say about an Opticron Countryman connection.

My Mojave has the upper edge of the eye cup exactly 16 mm above the ocular with the eye cup extended.

I have little doubt it will compare up to snuff with the Countryman. I look forward to Frank's comparison as well.

You are welcome for the review. I am glad you liked it. B :)
 
Steve,

Is that a 'new age' design? Must have got my ley lines crossed. ;) Still the x32 doesn't look quite as bad as the x42s! I have to say the rather conservative design of the Opticron is more to my taste.

Sorry, I'd missed your comment on the weight. Still a useful difference in my book.

We'll have to wait for Frank's comparison but the key feature I like about the Opticron is that I found it sharper than many at the price including the Monarch 7 8x42 and two out of three Terras. However the M7 8x30 I tried would give it a run for it's money. That still wasn't sharp at the edges but the sweet spot was much broader than it's big brother.

David
 
A couple of thoughts after reading the last few posts.....

- I don't know what to make about the eye relief differences. A direct comparison is probably the only way to sort that out. I wouldn't be surprised though to find that both binoculars display the same level of eye relief.

- As for the weight difference, since the actual weight difference is only two ounces (as opposed to four) I think it can be easily displayed in the difference in bridge designs. I think I mentioned it in my original post on the Mojave but its shorter bridge design could easily shave off 2 ounces in weight.

- Keep in mind this isn't the first "similar model" I have found between the two companies. The 8x32 Acadia is a dead ringer for the previous version of the Oregon 8x32. Optically they were very similar except the Acadia was phase coated and the sweet spot of the Oregon was larger.
 
I had a really busy, but fun, weekend comparing optics. I am debating how to relate everything I saw/did at the Cape May Optics fair. Maybe a new thread in the main forum? I will have to think about it.

However, the reason I am posting here is because I did have the opportunity to compare the Mojave with several similarly configured binoculars at and above its price point. The model comparison that I think you folks will be interested in are the Opticron Countryman HD, Opticron Verano HD, Zeiss Conquest HD and Nikon Monarch 7. I am going to reserve comments for just a little until I have a chance to collect my thoughts but I did want to share some of the pics with you to stimulate discussion.....
 
Last edited:
Countryman HD - Leupold Mojave 8x32 comparison pics
 

Attachments

  • country1.jpg
    country1.jpg
    244.3 KB · Views: 446
  • country2.jpg
    country2.jpg
    358.9 KB · Views: 312
  • country3.jpg
    country3.jpg
    311.6 KB · Views: 339
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top