Orion Ultraview 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Orion is often mentioned in astronomy circles but I cannot honestly say I have heard much about their binocular selection in birding or the hunting arenas. I started receiving their catalogs after ordering one of the Orion Stratus eyepieces for my Pentax scope. I have glanced through their catalogs but since I have not been into astronomy for many years I have rarely looked "hard" at any of their offerings.

Well, this last catalog I noticed one of their binoculars, the Ultraview 8x42. It caught my eye for several reasons including the specs....

430 foot field of view
Fully Multicoated
Bak4 prisms
All metal body
Modern eyecups
Japanese in origin

...but also because of the price...$150. I am always in the market for an inexpensive, but high performing porro prism binocular. I have several in my current selection (Bushnell Legend, Nikon Action, Nikon E, Leupold Yosemite, Leupold Cascade, Celestron Ultima DX, etc...). The overall specs reminded my instantly of the Bushnell Legend as it seems to share almost all of them...minus the country of origin (and without the Legend's waterproofing). I left the Legends at work yesterday though so a direct comparison is going to have to wait until Monday.

On the other hand I am able to compare them directly to the other porros I currently have in my selection. Before doing that though I want to just comment on them in general.

Construction:

Overall build quality seem very good. There is not any noticeable issues with any of the usual "moving parts" or functions (diopter, central hinge, rotating eyecups, etc...). Strangely they actually feel much lighter than their listed weight and almost "plasticky" in nature. They aren't though...trust me. They do share some similarities in terms of both the focusing mechanism and the eyecup design with that of the Celestron Ultima DX. The difference is that the focusing is significantly smoother (like butter) on the Ultraviews. I would chalk that up to the lack of o-ring seals on this model.

Ergonomics:

...are the usual conventional porro in nature. I can get a very steady grip on these as the barrels do extend out a good part away from the prism housing. Overall balance is very good and I do not have any issue with them in this regard.

Optics:
As was hoped for these binoculars perform quite admirably. They have all of the normal porro prism binocular benefits....3D image representation, tack sharp resolution, superb clarity. What they also display though is excellent contrast and a brighter than average image with practically no color bias that I can detect.

The image is exceptionally wide for an 8x42 mm binocular and the sweet spot of the image is also quite respectable. There is noticeable field curvature in the outer 20-25% of the image but it not as significant as the Celestron. Overall I would call it quite comparable in this regard to the Legend.

After noticing the similarities with the Celestron I decide to do a side by side comparison of the two to see if the Ultraview really was just a "big brother" to the Celestron as they share some very obvious components/designs. Optically they both show noticeable field curvature but the Orion's level is not quite as severe nor does it cover quite the same percentage of the field of view of the Celestron. That is pretty much where the similarities end. The Orion's image is noticeably brighter, a hair sharper and very color correct. The contrast level is what really catches my eye though. The blacks are very black and the image seems much more "alive" because of it.

There is noticeable color fringing in the outer percentage of the image that displays the field curvature but the rest of the image seems to be fairly free from it.

To summarize....

Positives:

Excellent contrast, apparent sharpness and brightness
Wide field of view
Very inexpensive

Negatives:

Not waterproof
Noticeable field curvature

Despite the last two areas I am impressed with this binocular for the price and plan on adding it to my current selection of bins. They have been around for a few years so I am genuinely surprised this model hasn't found its way into more birders' hands.

I get the Orion catalog and leaf thru it. The porros are probably the most reliable offerings there. There are some scopes in there too, but I never could decide if they were worth looking into. Here are the scopes. Some pretty cheap ones for a starter scope.
http://www.telescope.com/control/category/~category_id=spotting_scopes/~pcategory=telescopes

Very interesting, Frank.

They do share some similarities in terms of both the focusing mechanism and the eyecup design with that of the Celestron Ultima DX.

Click to expand...

They really do look very similar. Perhaps even more so if you ignore the rubber armor.

I've often wondered if the Celestron DX were part of a design that used a single prism enclosure (and perhaps eyepieces) so they could easily turn out related bin with a constant exit pupil.

Plus it always seemed that the prisms in the DX were rather oversized for a 8x32 (i.e. they would work in an 8x42) but you can do a lot with economies of scale.

Or it may be that they just share the same enclosure.

Interesting that one is from China and the other from Japan. I wonder were the design originated?

Kevin,

Lots of excellent questions there and, truthfully, they are the ones I am asking right now as well. I would also really like to put the Legend next to these. I just have this feeling that if you did take the rubber armor off of both then there would be very little difference between the two of them. Much the same could be said, to an extent, with the Celestrons.

If they are predominantly alike then it really is interesting in how the coatings of each affect the final image quality. I like the "little" Celestron. I really do but, in comparison to either the Legend or the Ultraview the contrast is noticeably lacking. I even have a feeling that once I put the Legend next to it the Orion is going to be better than it in this area as well. That leads me to believe that the quality of the optical coatings is probably the chief culprit.

I haven't had a chance to look at internal reflections/stray light, etc... but will give it a shot later today.

Tero,

Yes, they do have some nice offerings across the board. Kevin and I were discussing their ULX ED spotting scope for $450 just recently. The only "negative" I can really see with any of their products is that the warranty period is very short. These Ultraviews seem to have one of the longest at 10 years. Most of the scopes are only warrantied for 1 to 2 years. I guess that is one of the ways they are keeping the cost down.

With the short warranty you are not very committed to the product. You can quit anytime and keep a few hundred in store to send out to those that have warranty problems. After two years you can dispose of those.

FrankD said:

If they are predominantly alike then it really is interesting in how the coatings of each affect the final image quality. I like the "little" Celestron. I really do but, in comparison to either the Legend or the Ultraview the contrast is noticeably lacking. I even have a feeling that once I put the Legend next to it the Orion is going to be better than it in this area as well. That leads me to believe that the quality of the optical coatings is probably the chief culprit.

I haven't had a chance to look at internal reflections/stray light, etc... but will give it a shot later today.

Click to expand...

Frank,

Check the prism reflections of the Celestron from the objective end. I evaluated the Celestron Outland "8x40" Porro which was described as FMC in the specs. In fact, the prisms had no coating at all. That would tend to cut the contrast. Also the aperture of the Outland was intentionally stopped down to 32mm by an undersized baffle placed just behind the objective.

Henry

FrankD,
where would you place them in current optical landscape what roof prism is opticaly equal?

Henry,

I took a peek from both ends. From the objective end I can see a very light green reflection on the prism. From the eyepiece end I cannot see any undersized baffling via the method we discussed with the Vortex Nomad.

Buff,

That is somewhat of a tough comparison to make as the optical quality of the center 2/3rds of the image is different from the outer 1/3rd. The center 2/3rds of the image is comparable to the $600-$800 roofs in terms of contrast, brightness, apparent sharpness and chromatic aberration control. The outer 1/3rd is comparable to many of the sub-$100 roofs.

Overall I would place it ahead of the Nikon Monarchs, Bushnell Legends, etc... but behind the likes of something like the Vortex Razor, Meopta Meostar or Zen Ray ED.

FrankD said:

Henry,

I took a peek from both ends. From the objective end I can see a very light green reflection on the prism. From the eyepiece end I cannot see any undersized baffling via the method we discussed with the Vortex Nomad.

Buff,

That is somewhat of a tough comparison to make as the optical quality of the center 2/3rds of the image is different from the outer 1/3rd. The center 2/3rds of the image is comparable to the $600-$800 roofs in terms of contrast, brightness, apparent sharpness and chromatic aberration control. The outer 1/3rd is comparable to many of the sub-$100 roofs.

Overall I would place it ahead of the Nikon Monarchs, Bushnell Legends, etc... but behind the likes of something like the Vortex Razor, Meopta Meostar or Zen Ray ED.

Click to expand...

How far behind the Nikon 8x32 SE? What are the closest porro-prisms to the the SE's? Any of those ED models even compare?

Dennis

Dennis,

I would say the center 2/3rds is very comparable to the SE. The brightness, sharpness, contrast and CA control are very good in this area. The outer 1/3rd suffers from field curvature and CA. Keep in mind though that we are talking about a 431 foot field of view for a full-sized 8x42 mm porro. Some brief direct comparisons with the Bushnell Legend proved interesting.

The Ultraview does have slightly better contrast but also slightly worse field curvature...as expected. The higher contrast gives one the impression of increased apparent sharpness and just overall better "clarity" for lack of a better word. If the outer 1/3rd of the image did not suffer from so much distortion and aberration then I would put it in close to the same class as the SE.

Who sells Orion the cheapest?

I purchased my pair through Orion via Amazon. Price was $150 plus $14.95 shipping. They might not be widespread enough to find any "steals" on them. I did see a thread over on Cloudy Nights from some time ago where the 10x50s were on sale for around $130 but it truly ws some time ago.

Not specific to the 8x42, but from tests and comparisons done on my Orion Ultraview 10x50

the barrels are plastic.
the front prisms intrude into the light path blocking a whopping 6% of the light.
the advertised fov is 6.5°. The actual fov is 6.0°
right diopter range is very limited
eye relief speced is 22mm. Useable eye relief is 13mm.
there are no baffles in the objective barrels.
on-axis resolution is average, by no means comparable to Nikon SEs or Nikon AEs
illumination of the exit pupil is below average
maximum total illumination tested with a light meter is way below average
60% of the fov is good, by 80% it is not useful.

The Bushnell legend 10x50 does show several aspects in close comparison to the Orion Ultraview 10x50.
same protrusion of front prism into the light path
same on-axis resolution
same illumination
in addition, the Bushnell field stop is not in focus

however, the Bushnell
has far better off-axis sharpness, less curvature, exceeds shaprness of the Ultraview by 10-15%
has more pincushion
is waterproof
has much nicer eyecups and diopter adjustment

FWIW, the Bushnell Legend 8x42 roof beats both the Orion Ultraview 10x50 and the Bushnell Legend 10x50 in almost every aspect of overall performance.



edz

Thanks for the comments Ed. It was your comments that I read over on Cloudy Nights that I researched before purchasing. I am fairly pleased with the 8x42s so I wonder how much transfers from the 10x50?

I presume you are referring to my posts and reviews on the 10x50 Ultraview. I've never used the 8x42 Ultraview. edz

Yes Ed. It was your 10x50 comments....much of which you reposted above.

Free shipping from Adorama

Price seems to be $150 everywhere, but Adorama has free shipping. That saves $15 or $16, at least.

http://www.adorama.com/ON842UVB.html

frankD, do you care to give review of
leupold , is it Cascades? if it is I heard good things about it? Some compare it to the best but I never read good review on them.

Buff,

I certainly don't mind posting some brief comparative comments between the Leupold Cascade porro and the Orion Ultraview however, I posted more extensive comments of the Cascade porro exclusively up in the Leupold forum in one of the Cascade porro threads. It should still be on the first page as there have not been many new threads on there recently.

There are some significant optical differences between the two. Probably the most notable is the field of view. The 430 foot field of view of the Ultraview is grossly larger than that of the Cascade. However, the Cascades' "sweet spot" of image in focus and relatively free of distortion is significantly larger. The depth of field in the 8x42 Cascades also has yet to be matched, in my experience, with any other binocular I have owned. The large sweet spot/excellent edge performance of the Cascade coupled with the fantastic depth of field makes this a unique binocular in its own right. Add to that the fact that it is one of only three internal focus porros on the market and you have a very unusual binocular.

I feel I also need to comment on the Cascades' ergonomics. They certainly fit my hand like the proverbial "glove" and are, arguably, one of the most ergonomic porros currently on the market. The 23/24 oz. weight also factors into that impression as well.

Now, do not get me wrong. The Orion's shine in their own right in certain areas. One is the previously mentioned contrast. None of my other porros match it. The Orions also seem to display about the same (maybe slightly less) chromatic aberration in the center of the field. The Cascades are very good in this regard and a bit better overall than the Ultraviews but I seem to see slightly less in the Ultraview's center of the field.

Hope this helps somewhat.

FrankD said:

Buff,

I certainly don't mind posting some brief comparative comments between the Leupold Cascade porro and the Orion Ultraview however, I posted more extensive comments of the Cascade porro exclusively up in the Leupold forum in one of the Cascade porro threads. It should still be on the first page as there have not been many new threads on there recently.

There are some significant optical differences between the two. Probably the most notable is the field of view. The 430 foot field of view of the Ultraview is grossly larger than that of the Cascade. However, the Cascades' "sweet spot" of image in focus and relatively free of distortion is significantly larger. The depth of field in the 8x42 Cascades also has yet to be matched, in my experience, with any other binocular I have owned. The large sweet spot/excellent edge performance of the Cascade coupled with the fantastic depth of field makes this a unique binocular in its own right. Add to that the fact that it is one of only three internal focus porros on the market and you have a very unusual binocular.

I feel I also need to comment on the Cascades' ergonomics. They certainly fit my hand like the proverbial "glove" and are, arguably, one of the most ergonomic porros currently on the market. The 23/24 oz. weight also factors into that impression as well.

Now, do not get me wrong. The Orion's shine in their own right in certain areas. One is the previously mentioned contrast. None of my other porros match it. The Orions also seem to display about the same (maybe slightly less) chromatic aberration in the center of the field. The Cascades are very good in this regard and a bit better overall than the Ultraviews but I seem to see slightly less in the Ultraview's center of the field.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Click to expand...

After reading your review of the Orion Ultraview's 8x42 I ordered a pair from Amazon just out of curiosity. I received them the other day and I must say I am quite impressed. The build quality is very good, the focus is smooth, the twist up eye-cups work very well and are very tight. Even the case, strap, and lens caps are pretty decent for the price. I put them through my normal optical tests comparing them to my benchmark Nikon 8x32 SE's and the only difference that is really noticeable is the field curvature is more pronounced on the Orion's than on the Nikon's. Really you don't notice it that much because the FOV is so wide. The contrast and CA control on the Ultraviews is quite impressive for a $150.00 binocular. I agree with you in that the on-axis resolution is about equal to the Nikon SE. Really these binoculars just reinforce the fact that porro-prisms are a great bargain at the lower end of the price spectrum. In fact I am going to keep them. I like them alot. Excellent bargain.

Dennis