Just a quick note - I'm supposed to be painting my husband's office!
First, I want to say a sincere thank you to all who took the time to give me their best information and usage results. Yes, I fully realize that results Can and DO vary by individual. However, I rather enjoyed your passionate comments. I especially liked the motorcycle analogy. While living in Los Angeles, I got my motorcycle license then got my first-ever bike - a Suzuki Intruder 800! :eek!: (My husband was afraid I would out-grow a smaller bike to quickly!) Try learning to ride on Los Angeles freeways!
Second - remember these are my first pair of bins and I only paid $600 for them......
Third, I have been a photographer for many years and own at least 2 Nikon lenses costing over $2K and one lens costing over $6K. I am very familiar with CA - it is worse on some lenses and better on others. At least in photography I can correct or eliminate CA using s/w.
So....
I had 2 or 3 moments of about 30 seconds each of sunlight! I checked the bins using a back-lit black wrought iron bird finial on our post feeder system. And yes, I found CA very noticeable in the LX L. Thanks to Chhayanat's suggestion, I could indeed move my head a little to reduce the CA - or move it to the other side of the object!
So? Yes, CA will be evident when viewing in strong back-lit situations. Since I have not birded much yet, I don't know if or how much this will bother me. Further viewing is necessary to make a final decision. However, at this point I don't believe that this negative offsets the sharpness and light gathering abilities of these bins. In fact, couldn't CA be even worse with lesser quality bins?
I have not yet had a chance to really use the bins for more than a minute or so. Thus I have no opinion as yet on rolling ball or usage fatigue or ????
All in all - I am still very impressed with the LX Ls and will hopefully get the painting done while the weather is bad and be able to get out and use the bins when sunny days return.
Karen Le Butler Kid,
I tried two 10x42 LX samples and one 10x42 LXL, and the LXL had more chromatic aberration than the LX. I've read other reports/reviews/rumors/castigations that cited the same difference, but this is not to say that CA was absent in the LX, just more noticeable in the LXL.
Since I can nitpick now that you have them and know that you have a 30-day return period, the other thing I didn't find "Pleasant" about the changeover to the LXL version was that on brightly lit objects, the contrast (and detail) was overwhelmed by the apparent brightness, which is greater than in the LX.
I'm not sure if the actual light transmission on the LXL is greater than the LX, but the increase in apparent brightness seems to be due to the different coatings, which are "warmer". Reds appear a bit organey and blues a bit purplish compared to the LX, which has colors are more "true to life". The upsides are that this warm bias makes colors look brighter and the overall image brighter on overcast days.
I would have gladly accepted those trade-offs for the 8 oz. lighter weight. At 36 oz. the LX felt like an albatross around my neck, and it fatigued my Olive Oil arms from lifting it over and over again, particularly since the weight is more centrally concentrated in a closed bridge roof than an open bridge roof or a porro.
While I'm on a nitpicking roll, I also found the softer and more pleasant-to-the-touch armor on the LXL scuffed more easily than the LX. I used my LXL very lightly for only two weeks before I sold it and yet it was already starting to show wear marks on the top of the bin where the armoring is not "pebbled" but smooth.
So if you're not sure you're going to keep these and have a long 30-day return period to try them out, I recommend that you wear gloves when using them or the seller might give you a hard time about the wear marks (if they don't already have them, you said these were refurbs, correct?). Almost every photo of "pre-owned" LXLs I've seen for sale showed the housing scuffed. Not so with the LXs, which sometimes look new.
Very good price, btw. I bought the 10x42 LX with the uneven coatings for $600 and thought that was a bargain. The 10x42 LX L cost almost $1,000, and again, I thought that was a good deal since the typical retail price at the time was $1,400 and these were "demos," but they looked new.
As I think someone mentioned, prices have come down on the LX and LXL so that price drop follows with refurbs, demos, and used samples.
Ideally, I'd prefer the LX optics in the LXL housing with the harder LX rubber armoring. But as my friend Steve says, it's all "mute" since the dreaded "rolling ball" was the deal killer for me.
That's the LX/LX L Kool-Aid Acid Test, IMO. The rest are trifles by comparison, but I mentioned them for purposes of "full disclosure" and because, despite not being a woodpecker, it is in my nature to nitpick.
Btw, from your avatar, it looks like your IPD is wide rather than narrow. I think of greater concern is that your bubble nose will not fit between the eyecups.
Update us when it stops raining. It just stopped raining here, now it's snowing..
Brock Le Nitpicker
