Best Value 10x42? (1 Viewer)

[adhoc]

Regarding the 10X42, has anyone purchased the Bushness Legend M 10X42 and can describe the optics, I have the 8X42 and for the price it's great. Thought of picking up a low priced 10X42, so just curious.

A.W.

Here is the link to AllBinos's test last year. For a start, I would suggest, read downward from 'Summary'. In their scoring system totaling their tech figures, which is not everyone's favorite, it ranks pretty far down in their 10x42 list. One can focus on that last part of the review apart from scrutinizing the figures. I also look up buyer reviews in online retailers' websites, which have to be filtered to allow for each writer's actual experience with good optics. Sorry I cannot right now remember what the other "regular" reviews are that I read on this model.

 

[dries1]

Adhoc,
Thanks for the link, I did read it earlier today, did not realize they had reviewed it. It sounds like it has the same characteristics of the 8X42 but with a smaller FOV. The distortion and dark edges are there in the 8X42 also, but with a wide FOV the 8X42 can be forgiving in some viewing conditions and at $150 even more forgiving to the wallet.

A.W.

 

[czfan01]

So just an update, I had pretty much decided on just saving some money and getting the Bushnell Legend M series considering all of the good reviews and value it has. However, I had to wait for them to come back in stock. The same day that it did, vanguard came out with their $80 MIR, so now I am really considering the vanguards. After the MIR, the vanguard would be $270. The bushnells would be $190. I’m really stuck between the two. The bushnells have pretty good reviews and allbinos has them as a 5% lower review than the vanguards. Don’t love that I’d have to do a MIR, but it’s no big deal. The vanguards seem to be considered the best possible binos in this price range. Optically, what do you think would be the differences you can see between the two?

edit: forgot to mention that the allbinos review said that the transmission on the vanguards isn’t very good. Is that going to be an issue for low light?

 

[[email protected]]

For $80.00 difference the Vanguard II will have less distortion, less coma and and sharper edges and will give you a "snappier" view. I also feel the Vanguard also has better build quality and most importantly it is smaller. I personally refuse to carry a binocular as big as the Bushnell M. The Vanguard II is IMO well worth the difference in price. IMO it would be worth it to get the Vortex Viper HD 10x42 for $325.00. Here is a new one on Ebay also for $330.00 with free shipping. 156 5 star ratings out of 161 reviews at Vortex. Frankly, I have never seen reviews that good.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/vortex-vip...332540040794?_trksid=p2349526.m4383.l4275.c10

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-hd-10x42-binocular

 

[BruceH]

.......
I personally refuse to carry a binocular as big as the Bushnell M.
........

....... yet you haul around a Canon 10X42 L IS! Comparing my Canon 10X42 L IS with lens hoods attached, as is also done by Dennis per prior posts, it is about 1 and 1/3 inches longer than the Bushnell Legend M.

The Bushnell Legend M 10X42 is just over a 1/2 inch longer than the Vanguard Endeavor II 10X42. The Vanguard weighs almost an ounce heavier on my postal scale. The Vanguard has a more weight forward balance which makes it harder to hold steady than the Bushnell. The Bushnell has a very neutral color balance whereas the the Vanguard is on the warm side. The Bushnell has better contrast showing with more apparent brighter and a livelier view. The Bushnell has a larger center view but noticeably more pin cushion. The Bushnell handles CA better than the Vanguard.

The Vanguard gives the appearance of being more rugged but I have no way of knowing if it is. There is nothing about the Bushnell that appears fragile.

If I were to keep one, it would be the Bushnell because of the better balance and higher quality view.

 

[[email protected]]

....... yet you haul around a Canon 10X42 L IS! Comparing my Canon 10X42 L IS with lens hoods attached, as is also done by Dennis per prior posts, it is about 1 and 1/3 inches longer than the Bushnell Legend M.

The Bushnell Legend M 10X42 is just over a 1/2 inch longer than the Vanguard Endeavor II 10X42. The Vanguard weighs almost an ounce heavier on my postal scale. The Vanguard has a more weight forward balance which makes it harder to hold steady than the Bushnell. The Bushnell has a very neutral color balance whereas the the Vanguard is on the warm side. The Bushnell has better contrast showing with more apparent brighter and a livelier view. The Bushnell has a larger center view but noticeably more pin cushion. The Bushnell handles CA better than the Vanguard.

The Vanguard gives the appearance of being more rugged but I have no way of knowing if it is. There is nothing about the Bushnell that appears fragile.

If I were to keep one, it would be the Bushnell because of the better balance and higher quality view.

I carry the Canon 10x42 IS-L because it gives me a tripod view without carrying a tripod. Believe me if there was another binocular that gave me the same alpha level steady view of the Canon and was lighter and smaller I would buy one. Bushnell doesn't have a very good QC record in general and the M has a lot of reported focus problems. The Bushnell to me just looks like a less expensive binocular than the Vanguard. IMO after having owning and handling both of them I feel the Vanguard has better build quality. A 1/2 inch longer is a lot and that is one of the biggest complaints about the Bushnell M. It is a BIG binocular for a 42mm. I did not like the soft edges of the Bushnell either much preferring the almost totally sharp field of the Vanguard but that is personal preference. It is just you can a get much smaller and more compact binoculars that will outperform the Bushnell but not for $200.00. The binoculars next to the Bushnell are not small binoculars but the Bushnell is still bigger. In fact it looks the MHG's DAD! To be honest when I had the Bushnell which was a short period of time I thought to myself why I am carrying this big thing when for a little more cash I could be carrying a lot smaller and better performing binocular. I will admit if your budget is $200.00 and you don't mind the size it is a pretty good choice but IMO the Vanguard ED II is better for a little more money.

 

[chill6x6]

I just came inside from a quick view with both the Legend M and the Vanguard Endeavor ED II, both are 8X42.

Bruce has both in 10X42 so I'll defer to his optic judgement. He does a better job of explaining some optic details and would never steer you wrong. Both optically are very nice. Both have been compared to binoculars costing much more. I like view of the Endeavor ED just as well tho I'll for give the FOV advantage to the Legend M.

I like a focus adjustment with minimal slack/play. The Endeavor ED II gives me that, the Legend M doesn't. The Endeavor is excellent in fact. I'll have to call the Legend M as below average.

Both binocular have a good feel in the hand. The Legend is a little longer and it feels lighter than is it. Eyecups adjust better on the Legend M but both will suffice. The Endeavor ED II DOES give the impression of being a little better quality.

My Vanguard is going on 3 years old and has been exposed to the worst conditions of any binocular I have. It basically STAYS in my truck and even today, functions as did straight out of the box. I don't take it inside in the high 90's and I don't when it's in the teens. No idea what the actual temperature of the truck is.

For sure the Vanguard comes with a nicer included case but the Legend M is good enough.

I RE-read your initial post and noted your use of the binocular. I know first hand about early AM and sunset viewing and know how important that is. A full 10% of transmission difference IS a difference especially for your usage. The Legend M gives you that according to the only data we have and that is probably more important than a better focus adjustment. So I'll have to give the Legend M the nod here.

I quickly took a pic of both binoculars side by side....sorry iPhone photo and lighting conditions were bad and flash is a JOKE!

 

[[email protected]]

Nice photo, Chuck. Good comments and all true. Man, that Bushnell looks HUGE next to the Vanguard II! Did you use some kind of fish-eye lens to take that picture or do you have the Bushnell up closer like when they take a picture of a fish to make it look bigger?:-O

 

[JoeJ]

For your use and price point I would recommend a smaller binocular - an 8X32. If you were out west and continuously needed to look over small herds of antelope, a ways out, on the prairie for horn size etc - then the 10X42 or 10X56 would be nice to have.

I think you would find the 8X32's handier and well suited for your "needs", especially tucked in a small scout pack. Several "outdoor" associates/friends of mine just use their hand sized 7X rangefinder as a bino in the field, such as the sig 2000.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree with you JoeJ. Most of my birding binoculars are 8x32 or 8x30's for that reason.

 

[Kp83]

I’ve handled all of them. I currently own the viper HD and Maven C1, and have previously owned the terra ed. The Maven C1 would be my vote, followed by the viper HD.