Busnell Legend Or Celestron Noble 8x32 (1 Viewer)

Has anyone used them, love them? The Bushnells appear a bit heavy relative to others in their price range (celestron noble) However their dimensions are smallish. I have some full size 8x and like them but was looking for something a little easier to carry all day especially when touring by car. I have in order of best views: Zeiss Victory 8x40, I love these but they are a bit on the large side. Nikon Monarch 8x42 good glass and fairly light, Celestron Noble 8x42. My first pair of full size, now I wish I had gotten them in 8x32.
Anyway I want the smallness of the celestron 8x32 at 19 oz but do these give up any low light capacity to the Bushnell Legend 8x32. Thanks to any of you that can shed some light on this question.

Both will be about as bright when comparing the 8x32s. Side by side with the bigger models you will notice slightly more color, slightly I said, and a bit brighter of an image. In practice however the 32s are just as useful in 99% or more of birding situations.

What would give the Legends more low light capacity then the Nobles?

is it the coatings?

I was just thinking that perhaps the coatings might make that fractional difference. Much like they do in the full size competition between the high end brands.

Not much, but I would say the Celestron is slightly better in this regard. When considering bins in this range the unit to unit variation makes more difference than aything else. One store might have a better Bushie, the next may have a really good Celestron. The ebst thing would be to find a retailer who stocks a number of each and ask to see them all.

Light weight

The reason the Bushnell product is a little heavier than the Nobel or the Monarch is that the Legend is made with an aluminum chassis. The other two products have composite chassis, usually plastic with some type of reinforcement added to give it strength. If you compare the chassis of more expensive products Leica BN or Swarovski SLC’s they have an Aluminum chassis as well. Until you get to a composite that has carbon fiber or some other newer material in it, you will not have as robust and strong a chassis as you do wit the aluminum chassis. A normal fiber reinforced chassis is just not as good as an aluminum chassis. Bushnell makes products with composite chassis, like the Excursion, Trophy and the NatureView products. These cost far less money than the Monarch or the Noble.

Look at the optics and you will see that the Bushnell has every bit as good view as the other two but with additional features on the Legend of RainGuard coating and the aluminum chassis. They are all made with BaK4 prisms and are multi coated.

I have not seen this thread before, so I am a bit late to answer...
According to this review you can't go wrong with the Celestron Noble 8x32:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/celestronnoble.html

Patric

IMO you can go wrong with that review source.

I own a Celestron Noble 8x32. It is very well made -- solid -- smooth focusing mechanism. The optics are sharp in the center field but rapidly soften up in the outer 2/3 of the field. They advertise 16mm of eye relief but the usable ER is more like 12mm. As far as I have seen, from the Pentax 8x32 roofs to even the Kahles roofs, all the 8x32 configuration roofs are very similar. Quality coatings and better lens polishing make a difference, but none of them have good eye-relief. So, to me, the Legend and the Noble are pretty much the same binoc in a different package. If you like the feel of one over the other, go with that one.

I still use my Noble 8x32 as a back up. It's very reliable, soldily built, never goes out of collimation, and even though the ER is too little for me, the views are adequate.

You might want to also throw the new 8x36 Monarch into the bunch. Roughly the same dimensions as the 8x32 mm bins but with a slightly larger objective. Theoretically that should produce a slightly image...all else being equal. I hope to check them out as soon as they hit stores later this month.