Nikon Monarchs or Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42? (1 Viewer)

I'm looking at replacing my Legend Porro 8x42s soon, purely because I'm not happy with the stiffness of the focusing wheel.

Nikon Monarchs seem pretty popular, and not too expensive (I think it's an older model I'm looking at). I just read about the Ultra HDs, and people seem very impressed with them, and they seem to be about the same price. They have a very wide FOV like my porros, which I find useful and would like to retain.

In both case I'm talking about the 8x. I'd try 10x, but FOV and relief isn't as good.

I have to say I wasn't that impressed with the older Legend roofs I tried - not as sharp as the porros. Am I going to be just as disappointed with the Ultras? (Before people get defensive, all I know is that with the porros I could read the tiny print at the bottom of a poster on the other side of the shop from a bit further back than with the roofs.)

What will the ED glass do for me? I'm not sure I've really been able to see fringing with my porros, but at times I've felt the image was "funny" in strong light. Is that how it manifests itself?

Finally, if anyone happens to know where I can have a look at a pair of Ultras in Melbourne, Australia, I'd appreciate knowing. Actually finding the binoculars people are talking about has always been a problem here.

Well, there is a little eye relief issue, see my post. Otherwise go for the Bushnell.

In fact, without glasses 10x is better, more comfortable fit in the Bushnell.

Tero said:

Well, there is a little eye relief issue, see my post. Otherwise go for the Bushnell.

In fact, without glasses 10x is better, more comfortable fit in the Bushnell.

Click to expand...

Which post, Tero, you have hundreds. You mean this one?

Tero said:

I can use the 8x42 with no unsolvable problem, but some people will not like it. Depending on your facial features, it will give blackouts. This is because you can jam the binos too close to the eye with the eye cups out..

Click to expand...

I should have mentioned I wear glasses, so that won't be an issue. The 15mm relief on the 8x porros is just barely enough.

So you think the 8x Ultra optics are better than the Monarch's?

Bushnell Infinity is Nikon Monarch X (etc)?

I had a look at a pair of Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x42s today, and compared them to my Legend Porro 8x42s. They seem ok, but not significantly better than the porros. Such a pity the porro focusing is so stiff or I wouldn't have to bother with this.

My only other comment is that the relief on the 10x Ultras is way too short for me. Both the Ultras and my porros are listed as 15mm. I can just see the edge of the FOV with the porros, but not at all with the Ultras. The 8x at 17mm should be better, but I'm now wondering if it'll be enough. They didn't have any to show me.

I was hoping for at least a little more brightness, but I couldn't really detect any. I'll have another look in a week when they get some 8x in stock. A 5.25mm exit pupil ought to be brighter than a 4.2mm, but I guess that depends how wide my pupils were dilated at the time too.

Then they showed me some Bushnell Infinity 10.5x45s. They claimed they were the same as the Nikon Monarch 10.5x45s. Is that true? They seemed similar to the Ultras when I was comparing views in the half dark of a back storeroom, but seemed oddly hazy when I looked at some brightly lit foliage outside. I didn't spend much time trying to work out what was wrong - maybe poor contrast? I didn't like them.

pshute said:

I should have mentioned I wear glasses, so that won't be an issue. The 15mm relief on the 8x porros is just barely enough.

So you think the 8x Ultra optics are better than the Monarch's?

Click to expand...

Should work OK. Yes, the Ultra have wider field in focus. Monarch are not bad, just old.

Tero said:

Should work OK. Yes, the Ultra have wider field in focus. Monarch are not bad, just old.

Click to expand...

I finally got to look through some Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42s today. Not enough eye relief, despite being rated at 17mm compared to 15mm on my Legend Porro 8x42s, which do have enough. I thought the wide FOV was too good to be true, and it was.

I don't know if they understated the relief on the porros, or understated it on the Ultras, but there's no way they're comparable. Glasses wearers shouldn't buy these without trying them first.

Just got a pair of 10X Ultra HD's and it has slightly too much eye relief with the eyecups all the way out wearing no glasses. Have to rest them on my upper eye socket just like my old binoculars to avoid blackouts. With a pair of moderate wrap sunglasses on, I have to put them on the first notch. If they are all the way down, eye relief is too great. I get full field of view on the first notch.

Perhaps the eye relief is too critical to cover everyone, even with adjustable eyecups. They could make it less critical, but my understanding of optical design is that making the eye relief less critical would result in a more narrow field of view. Tradeoffs, I suppose.

Don

Ripantuck said:

Just got a pair of 10X Ultra HD's and it has slightly too much eye relief with the eyecups all the way out wearing no glasses. Have to rest them on my upper eye socket just like my old binoculars to avoid blackouts. With a pair of moderate wrap sunglasses on, I have to put them on the first notch. If they are all the way down, eye relief is too great. I get full field of view on the first notch.

Perhaps the eye relief is too critical to cover everyone, even with adjustable eyecups. They could make it less critical, but my understanding of optical design is that making the eye relief less critical would result in a more narrow field of view. Tradeoffs, I suppose.

Click to expand...

I've heard that complaint about the 8x42s, but not the 10x42s, which have less relief. It sounds like both sizes don't have enough relief for many glasses wearers, and the cups don't extend out far enough for many non glasses wearers. The optics seem ok, but apart from that it looks like this "little" technicality might turn them into duds for a lot of people. So, as I mentioned, these are binoculars you ought to try before buying.

It's an odd design fault to have, because it could easily be fixed with slightly smaller baffles (at the expense of FOV), and eyecups that extend further out. I wonder if there will be a second version with those modifications some time in the future.

pshute said:

It sounds like both sizes don't have enough relief for many glasses wearers, and the cups don't extend out far enough for many non glasses wearers. The optics seem ok, but apart from that it looks like this "little" technicality might turn them into duds for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

Seems you have been the only one to report not having enough eye relief. I have measured the 8x42 with a micrometer. It meets its published spec. As I mentioned in my review, I have no issues seeing the full ultrawide FoV when wearing glasses.

RJM said:

Seems you have been the only one to report not having enough eye relief. I have measured the 8x42 with a micrometer. It meets its published spec. As I mentioned in my review, I have no issues seeing the full ultrawide FoV when wearing glasses.

Click to expand...

How did you measure the relief? I'd define it as the distance from the middle of the lens of the binoculars to the closest surface of your eye, when the eye is placed so you can just see the edge of the FOV. But how do you measure it?

Focus the binocular at infinity. Then place it on a tripod or flat surface pointed towards a bright light source. Using a thin FLAT piece of white paper or plastic and position it behind the eyepiece and bring the projected exit pupil to a sharp round focus on the paper. The projected circle gets smaller as you move towards focus then expands once you go past it. Measure the distance from this point to the top of the eye lens.