Review, Leupold Mojave BX-3 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[ceasar]

David,

You can see photos of the Kahles 8x32 and Vortex Viper (not HD) 8x32 in the Allbinos rankings of 8x32 binoculars. There are similarities in exterior construction. Their exteriors remind me of the old Leica Trinovids exterior with their lengthwise ridges. Even the rainguard for the Kahles is similar to the rainguard for my Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN.

The Kahles 10x42 which looks like the 8x42 is also reviewed there, but not very favorably.

Bob

 

[typo]

Bob,

I guess you and Bill are right about the earlier version of the models in question. The newer Kahles 8x42 I tried had field curvature and pincushion and no ED glass so I don't imagine would do particularly well in the Allbinos scoring scheme either. However, view wise it seemed very similar to the Swarovski SLC, (with a bit more CA), though physically and mechanically it's very different. Of course the business was sold to Swarovski prior to the update. Just a coincidence? The current Viper HD appears very different to me.

David

 

[hubcap]

I thought this thread was about the Leupold Mojave 8x32?

 

[Steve C]

I thought this thread was about the Leupold Mojave 8x32?

Started off there did it not . However, hang around here long enough and you'll see that LOTS of threads suddenly go off on a tangent. That is when things can get really interesting. Lots of really good stuff can show up.

Country of origin is almost everywhere a HOT topic. It is less flammable here than elsewhere. On the optics forum at 24 HR Campfire, for example, it is VOLCANIC. Anytime a review or some positive statement about something that somebody THINKS just MIGHT be Chinese, Katie bar the door. Abundant examples of what Bill described show up in droves.

I've come to the conclusion that some folks would faint away if they really knew where their prized made in (fill in the blank) genuine real deal made there optic really did come from.

Putting this back somewhat on track my Leupold contact (a senior project manager) tell me the Japanese company is pronounced just like this one from the JTTI days...Shinsei Kogaku Seiki Co. Ltd. He just said Shinsei, then said he'd have to look up the correct spelling, but did say they had been around for a while.

I look at it this way. All the major players in the Japanese optics industry (and probably anywhere else in the world for that matter) have serious ties and/or connection to the Chinese optics industry. I happen to think anybody who thinks any optics manufacturer in the WORLD would not use something Chinese to aid their profit line is nuts. They also happen to realize full well the negative connotations that come with "Made in China" ans will do everything they can to hide the fact. Some are pretty open about this, Leupold, in my experience being one...others can be more secretive than the NSA.

I also wonder about the companies who claim to have their own Chinese facility. I have not the first clue as to how something like that would work in the Chinese Communist system. I tend to think it is probably a contract agreement that (insert company name here) has with whatever Chinese maker they are dealing with to have the place dedicated to the production of (insert company name here) model x binocular. That lets the (insert company name here) have their own people present to oversee the process. But I could be wrong too...Lord knows that happens to me often enough

 

[flyinsquirel]

Has anyone had a chance to compare the Mojave to the M7? Very interested to see how the 2 compare.

 

[Steve C]

Has anyone had a chance to compare the Mojave to the M7? Very interested to see how the 2 compare.

A search can be your friend
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=279586

Frank and I went through the comparisons pretty thoroughly. I wound up with the Mojave.

 

[flyinsquirel]

Thanks Steve, I should know better by now.

 

[PeterPS]

Mojave's sweet spot size

I must apologize for this untimely posting, but I have just received a Mojave 8x32 BX-3 set and was surprised to see that, to my eyes, they have the smallest sweet spot I have ever seen--the center of the FoV is sharp, but the blurring starts right away and the edge is very blurred--it can be brought into focus, but after quite a bit of turning. I have seen another comment in this thread where the FoV was estimated to be some 55*, in contrast to the 90* estimate advanced by most members who posted comments on this thread. In my case the FoV looks like a ...point, so much less than 55*. I am wondering why? It might have to do with my eye astigmatism, but I submit also with the set in question----I do not have such a problem with my EL 8x32 SV, which indeed remains sharp to the edge. Any explanation would be appreciated.

Regarding comparison with the M7 8x30, I bought an M7 when they first appeared but they did not work out for me---I need a diopter correction of about -3.5, and their range is -/+2. I found out this range info after intensive correspondence with Nikon, and I was surprised that nobody there knew it. Same about Leupold---I talked to 3 people there and each gave me another interval for the diopter correction of the Mojave. I am wondering why this range is almost never listed among the specs of binos--maybe because for many -/+2 is enough? In fact the specs that are listed are often wrong--weight is often under-estimated, and so on---Mojave is an example---even the FoV is wrong (please check it at B&H--6.9*!).

Cheers, Peter.

 

[peatmoss]

Hi Peter, and welcome to the Forum! I think I'm one of the folks that pegged the Mojave's sweet spot around 55*-60*, which was towards the lower end for people who reported it. Is the sweetspot similarly small on both sides? My only suggestion is that perhaps you got a bad copy, and ought to try to exchange it for another one.

 

[PeterPS]

mojave bx3 8x32

Many thanks for your prompt feedback. I have tried to estimate the Mojave's sweet spot more objectively, using a 24'' ruler (unfortunately a rather short one for accurate estimation), and I agree with your estimate of about 60%. While this is not a "point", it is a rather small sweet spot---when I said before that it seemed to be very small, I was focusing on a small object and then move it off center by tilting the binos and it seemed that the blurring started right away---I would guess that a spot of some 55% can give that feeling when you think of the small ratio between its area and that of the blurred area.

I believe my sample is fine----in fact, unlike other colleagues on this forum, I have no problem with its focus that reminds me of the very good focus of FL 8x32. I am currently comparing the Mojave with Pentax dcf 9x32. I like the ergonomics of Pentax better---it feels and handles like the SV 8x32: Mojave is shorter and does not feel so good in the hand as the Pentax, which also has more comfortable eyecups. However the Pentax armor is like a magnet for dust and lint, and the Mojave appear to be better built. All these are relatively minor facts, and the deal breaker for the Mojave for me might be its small sweet spot. Any comments about the Pentax vs Mojave comparison would be appreciated (the Pentax is of course similar to many other sets widely discussed on this forum: Kenko, Sightron etc)

 

[PeterPS]

mojave bx3 8x32

I have done a few more tests (sorry for multiple postings).
What I said in my previous post about the sweet spot size was based on a marked tape placed horizontally---then the spot extended symmetrically on both sides of the center. When I placed the tape vertically, I noticed that the blur starts much more quickly down from the center than up from it.
This made me say in my first posting that the sweet spot was "point-like" since I moved the object in focus from center down by tilting the binos upwards, and it got blurry right away. As I said the main suspect for this seems to be my eye astigmatism, yet I have not observed this with other binos such as the Pentax 9x32, that I am currently looking at, for which the blur occurs symmetrically in all directions--is this something peculiar to the Movaje?

 

[peatmoss]

Hi pesto. I can't think of any good reason why the sweet spot on your Mojaves would be asymetric. That isn't to say that sweet spots will always be perfectly circular, just that any differences are usually too small to note. It is possible that your astigmatism played a part, but I is difficult to say how large part. As far as the size of the sweetspot, coming from an SV, you've probably got high standards. I haven't tried an SV, the closest (by reputation) I tried is an SE. For me, if the Mojave has a 60% sweetspot, then the SE might have maybe a 75-80% sweetspot. You mention the Pentax 9x32. I haven't tried one, but I do have a Theron Wapiti LT 8x32 as well as Vixen HR DCF 8x32 which are somewhat similar. In my opinion, the Mojave is a bit sharper and has a larger sweetspot (although the Theron and Vixen have more comfortable eye relief for me). Honestly, I haven't tried any other midsized bin in the Mojave's price range that has a noticeably larger sweet spot. The Nikon Premier (HGL) and Conquest HD have larger sweetspots, but cost a lot more too.

 

[PeterPS]

Mojave bx3 8x32

Hi peatmoss: Thanks again for your comments! The Mojave went back to the dealer. Its eyecups were too large for my (average) IPD and pushed against my nose bridge, and while its ergonomics were better than say those of the FL 8x32, they were not as good as those of the SV and the DCF 9x32. However the deal killer for me was the blurring that started right below the image's center --the lower part of the image could be brought into focus only by turning the wheel towards infinity, but then the center was blurred. I would be interested to hear if anybody else ( you, Frank, Steve?) has noticed this---as I have not seen this blurring occur in any other set I would eliminate my eye problems and would rather suggest that this is either an issue of the Mojave or I had a bad copy (btw the focuser of the copy that I had needed exactly 2 turns to go from 0 to inf, I believe that other members said they had copies for which only 1.5 turns were needed)

I will keep the Pentax DCF 9x32 as a "car set"---- its ergos are perfect for me and while it has some CA and other small issues it is a very usable set--without going into details I would call it a "poor man's SV"--indeed at least its body looks quite a bit like that of the SV.

 

[Steve C]

Hi peatmoss: Thanks again for your comments! The Mojave went back to the dealer. Its eyecups were too large for my (average) IPD and pushed against my nose bridge, and while its ergonomics were better than say those of the FL 8x32, they were not as good as those of the SV and the DCF 9x32. However the deal killer for me was the blurring that started right below the image's center --the lower part of the image could be brought into focus only by turning the wheel towards infinity, but then the center was blurred. I would be interested to hear if anybody else ( you, Frank, Steve?) has noticed this---as I have not seen this blurring occur in any other set I would eliminate my eye problems and would rather suggest that this is either an issue of the Mojave or I had a bad copy (btw the focuser of the copy that I had needed exactly 2 turns to go from 0 to inf, I believe that other members said they had copies for which only 1.5 turns were needed)

I will keep the Pentax DCF 9x32 as a "car set"---- its ergos are perfect for me and while it has some CA and other small issues it is a very usable set--without going into details I would call it a "poor man's SV"--indeed at least its body looks quite a bit like that of the SV.

Two things come to mind here. The first is that you may well have had a bad unit. I wish I'd seen this sooner, but I think you missed the best choice, which was send it to Leupold. They have excellent, even unsurpassed service and warranty reputation. They have a lab that can check it for out of spec features and will either fix or replace. That way the bad sample option is eliminated. I'm suspicious of the extra half turn in the focus movement.

The second thing is, I have come to the conclusion one never knows how a particular set of eyes will react to a particular design. Maybe the match between you eyes and the Mojave was never meant to be.

 

[Arielelf]

I have been testing my Mojave's for about 2 months now and I can say that I am amazed by them. My wife has a Conquest 8x32 HD, which is a really great binocular, but I find the colors to be slightly too cold and muted compared to the Mojave's. I even find in certain light that the Mojave's are slightly sharper, and in other lighting situations I find the opposite to be true. They are very similar to the view through my McKinley's, which had been my favorite pair up until these. Plus these are much lighter than the Mckinleys.

The build quality is definitely very different than the Conquests though, which is to be expected. The focus was very stiff and a little gritty for a while, but has smoothed out a bit over time. The eye piece covers are way too tight, to the point that I feel the eye pieces are going to come off when taking the covers off. The case is also a little tight and kind of cheap feeling.

If you can live with a less than high end build quality then I fully recommend these. One of the best views that I have tried, plus they are less than $300, hard to beat!!!

 

[PeterPS]

Mojave bx3 8x32

I have to agree with Steve that probably I had a bad copy.
I could test that hypothesis by buying another one, but I won't: the way the Mojave handled and felt in my hand was not the best I've seen: the eyecups were too large for my IPD and nose bridge, and the barrels were not long enough for a good grip with three fingers. The only thing I regret is that I did not think about using them with glasses to see whether the problem was the copy that I had or my eye vision---but I do not think it was the latter, as I have not seen anything similar in any of about 100 different binos that I have looked through.

Regarding Steve's suggestion that I could have sent them to Leupold for service, I am unsure: why go through the long repair process instead of returning them for an exchange (assuming I wanted to try another copy)? At any rate, for me choosing a set to keep is a quick affair: either love or lack thereof at first sight!

Btw, if you are interested you can find my comments about the Pentax DCF 9x32 (bought at the same time as the Mojave, and compared with the latter) here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=282730

Peter.

 

[Steve C]

I have to agree with Steve that probably I had a bad copy.

Regarding Steve's suggestion that I could have sent them to Leupold for service, I am unsure: why go through the long repair process instead of returning them for an exchange (assuming I wanted to try another copy)? At any rate, for me choosing a set to keep is a quick affair: either love or lack thereof at first sight!
Peter.

The reason for a return to Leupold is pretty simple. You had a possibly defective binocular. In order to fully understand whether or not that binocular was or was not defective,I think the best route was to send it someplace where it can be checked by competent people. Leupold is such a place. An optics dealer is (probably) not. In fact the people at the optics dealer may know less about binoculars than you , or any other given customer.

I agree that it does not take a lot of time to tell whether or not you do or do not like a binocular. You don't now know whether your dislike of the Mojave you had was from a bad sample, or a binocular that was never meant to agree with you. If Leupold said the glass was OK, then an option is removed. If the glass was bad, they would have checked the one they sent as a replacement. Didn't like that one, well the certainty that it was never meant for you now becomes clearer. The dealer would have handed you another box, or ordered another from his supplier. New one arrives, crap shoot time all over again.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time getting my mind around what sort of configuration finds the binoculars too small for their hands, but have eye cups too large. Eye cups too large for an adult with evidently large hands, on any 32 mm glass? Unless the eyes are really small with very narrow IPD. Not a criticism, just a question in my mind is all.

 

[PeterPS]

Mojave bx3 8x32

Hi Steve:

Thanks for taking time to comment. Very briefly:
*IMO the ergonomics of the Mojave are not as good as those of other sets that I possess, such as the SV and the DCF Pentax, so there was no reason for me to try another Mojave. True I still do not know what the problem with my Mojave copy was, but I might find out one day. Regarding receiving another copy, if I wanted to, from either the dealer or Leupold, the probability of receiving a second defective copy from the dealer should have been sufficiently small, I'd guess.
*The external diameter of the Mojave rubber eyecups is about 41-42mm, which is similar to that of Zeiss FL eyecups. The SV, Pentax DCF and other sets have a smaller diameter of about 37mm, which I find more comfortable for my eyes and face shape. I think this also has something to do with the fact that the eyecup rubber for both Mojave and Zeiss is rather hard. Indeed the EII eyecup diameter is also around 41mm but I have no problem with them as the rubber is quite soft. In sum, I am not fond of hard-rubber large eyecups like Mojave's--just a taste, I guess (btw, my IPD is 66mm so not too small yet I felt Mojave's eyecups pushing against my nose).

 

[Steve C]

Anybody looking for a deal on these, better check this out. $240

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/13...ith-leupold-s4-lockdown-x-harness?cm_vc=DLYDL

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Anybody looking for a deal on these, better check this out. $240

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/13...ith-leupold-s4-lockdown-x-harness?cm_vc=DLYDL

Harness? Really?

Lol!

Bryce...