BinocularsBlog – Advice on Digital, Waterproof, & Compact Binoculars for Bird Watching, Sports, Astronomy, Night Vision, & more!

After promising so many folks that I would review the new Bushnell Legend Ultra HD binocular, I finally got one to put through its paces and, even better, managed to find the old standard Bushnell Legend 10x42 for a direct comparison. The standard Bushnell Legend binocular tested was a black Bushnell 10x42 Legend 130142. The Legend Ultra HD binocular tested was also a Bushnell 10x42 Legend Ultra HD 191043, but in camo.

Bushnell does a good job with both Legend binoculars and, in true Bushnell fashion, you get a lot of binocular for the dollar with each. In fact, the old model of the Bushnell Legend binocular still remains one of the very best $200 class binoculars you can buy and one of my favorites at that price point. Indeed, I have always stated that you would have to spend much more to see a serious improvement in performance with the old Legend, So, the big question: should you spend the extra $80 to get the Legend Ultra HD binocular?

We need to clear the air, right way on these two Bushnell Legend binoculars. They are completely different binoculars. The Legend Ultra HD binocular is not just the old familiar Legend binocular we have known for many years with an ED element added to the objective. Far from it. The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD binocular is a completely new binocular from top to bottom, inside and out. Don't let the Legend label mislead you. It is much the same situation I saw when I reviewed the new Legend Ultra HD spotting scope and compared it to the old Legend spotting scope it replaced. In fact, the old Legends and the new Legend Ultra HD products are so different, I suspect they are being made in different factories for Bushnell.

When I opened the boxes on the two Legend binoculars, the first thing I noticed were the accessories. The old Legend gets you the standard leatherette case and padded strap, but the new Legend Ultra HD gets you a very nice, zippered hard-sided nylon case, with quick a quick detach strap system and even a neoprene field cover for extra protection in rough weather (note that the neoprene cover supplied with the camo bino version is not camo - it is a gray color).

On to the binocular.

BODY and HANDLING

Bushnell says magnesium for the body material on both. The Legend weighs in at 24.9 ounces and the Ultra HD at 22.5 ounces. Not a significant difference and either one is well within a comfortable to carry range for a 10x42, but picking them up, you can feel the difference. The Ultra Legend does feel lighter. The old Legend is about 1/4 inch taller than the new model, not enough to worry about. Body contours and armoring, though, are quite different. The old Legend has thumb grooves, the new Ultra Legend HD does not, though it has a flattened area around the focuser not present in the old Legend. The old Legend has a ridge at the top of the bino body, the new Legend Ultra HD does not. Armoring on the old Legend offers a more secure grip. Armoring is much slicker on the new Ultra Legend HD. .

Overall, I preferred the handling on the old Legend, despite the weight. The armoring on the old Legend, coupled with that old familiar body ridge allows for a more secure and confident grip. It sit in my hand, nicer and I would trust it in cold and/or wet weather much more than the Legend Ultra HD binocular. Hunters take note.

Eyecups on the old Legend had two intermediate stops, the new Legend Ultra HD, one intermediate stop. Eye relief on both is rated right at 15mm, but beware! I have seen this time and time, again. The eye relief you actually get can be quite different than what is published (for several reasons I don't need to cover, now). My preferred eye relief with my glasses is a solid 14mm. No problem at all with the old Legend to see the entire field of view right out to the field stops. The old Legend gets you a true 15mm of eye relief in the 10x42. Not so on the new Ultra Legend HD. I could not see the full field of view. I rate the effective eye relief about 12 or 13mm on the new Legend. The advertised slightly wider field of view for the new Legend Ultra HD disappears in a hurry if you wear glasses, especially if you need more eye relief than I do and most eyeglass wearers need more than my 14mm.

Likewise, the diopter adjustment, on paper is the same for both versions of the Legends, but they are, in practice, quite different animals. Both use a right eyepiece ring that locks, but there the similarity ends. The old Legend has a much easier to move and lock ring with a better quality feel than the new Legend Ultra HD. I was not at all impressed with the new legend Ultra HD diopter ring. I actually had to twist up the eyecup to even operate it. The old Legend is an easy winner, here.

Both focused quite well. I could focus with one finger on both, though it took a bit of effort, but both were smooth throughout their adjustment. The old Legend, however, focused faster.

OPTICS

Resolution
The biggest surprise, here, was not the improvement provided by the legend Ultra HD, but rather how darn well the old Legend did. The difference in resolution - ability to separate grid lines on an optical chart - between the old Legend and the Legend Ultra HD was not significant. You would need to use an optical chart to see the difference and you would also need to have some experience using such a chart to see the difference. Don't get me wrong. BOTH the Legends scored an excellent; it was just a bit of a surprise to see that old Legend hang in there so well. Also note that at the price range for either binocular, there is often a wide variation in optics from box to box. I may have just scored a home run with this individual Legend.

Contrast
Here, the ED on the Ultra provided a difference. Side by side, the Ultra HD colors were richer, blacks were blacker, whites were whiter. I expected this, but, again, the difference was not night and day and both Legends scored well.

Color correction
Again, the Ultra HD proved the winner - I could detect very little color fringing and that's what ED is all about. The old Legend did show a bit of green fringing around bright objects, but it was by mo means objectionable or out of line, especially for a $200 binocular.

Distortion
The Legend actually did better than the new Legend Ultra HD on this one. Scanning back and forth on straight, vertical lines produced noticeable bending with the Legend Ultra HD, but very little on the old Legend.

Edge sharpness
The old Legend did well out to about the 80% of the filed, the new Legend Ultra HD, even a touch better, out to about 85%. Good job on both, Bushnell.

Is the new Bushnell Legend Ultra HD worth the extra $80? It will, as always, boil down to what feature or features you value most, not what I value most. On the basis of handling and mechanics and eye relief, I will take the old Bushnell Legend. On the basis of optics, the new Ultra Legend Ultra wins, in my book, by a slight margin, but I would not at all feel deprived with an old model Bushnell Legend 10x42 around my neck.

It's a no-brainer if you are canoeing or kayaking to use a waterproof binocular, but another issue is just how expensive waterproof binocular do you want to take with you in the canoe or kayak? It's one thing to drop a binocular in the grass, but it's quite another to drop a binocular overboard in a lake or river and kiss it good-bye, especially if that binocular cost big bucks. Then, too, we all know that canoes and kayaks do tip over. It's all part of the ... fun? Okay, you just can't bring yourself to leave that premium compact binocular, behind? At least use the strap at all times if you want to keep your high dollar binocular, handy, or pack it in a floating waterproof dry box. An option I prefer in a canoe or kayak is a less expensive waterproof compact binocular, like a Nikon Prostaff 8x25 or Brunton Eterna 8x25. Binoculars in this price range can still provide good solid optics and if you drop one overboard, you will be less likely to frighten off the local wildlife when you start to cuss.

At first glance, a 10x binocular, instead of a 7x or 8x binocular would seem to be the best choice for a hiking or hunting binocular in the mountains. After all, distances can be enourmous in the mountains with great valleys, ridges, canyons and so on greeting us as we hike. Is a 10x binocular, though, really an automatic choice for mountain work? Put yourself in my place. I have backpacked and camped above 10,000 feet more than once. I am in good shape, but I am a flatlander (not by choice). The air is thin at high elevations and, unless you are acclimated to higher altitudes, any activity will have your heart pounding like a hammer. For sure, getting aclimated does not happen, overnight and if you are out of shape, you probably didn't take a long enough vacation. Then, too, you might already have your hands full with a heavy pack and/or other gear. So, do you really want to fight with a 10x binocular to hold it steady? A 10x binocular can be a challenge to steady even on the flats for many people. That's why my favorite mountain binoculars have always been a 7x or 8x. Besides, when you really need more magnification than a 7x or 8x, you need a spotting scope, not a 10x binocular.

Most folks who use a binocular, never use a binocular under really severe conditions of climate or dust and dirt, but I certainly have. For example, I guarantee that eastern Wyoming dust and grit will make you cry, not just from the junk in your eyes, but from all the dust and grit that has worked itself into every opening and pore on your ultra expensive birding binocular. It can actually be worse when you are traveling on the back roads than when carrying the binocular in the field. Even with the windows rolled up, I remember days when the truck filled with fine clouds of dust as our truck flew down those cowpaths of backcountry roads. Our fancy nylon and leather cases that came with our binoculars were a joke. They were no match for that Wyoming dust. I learned very quickly that the only solution for transporting a good binocular, camera or other optic under such severely dirty conditions is a waterproof dry case, such as the Pelican 1120 (also works well with my harmonicas). That waterproof feature also makes a dry box dust proof. Going west young man or young woman? Better get a Pelican case.

Are you looking for a premium compact binocular, but not quite ready to spend what it takes to get the likes of a Swarovski Pocket binocular or a Leica Ultravid compact binocular? You won't do better than these, of course, but there is an affordable option in the Bushnell Elite 7x26. This Elite has a long history. It began life as the Bausch&Lomb Custom Compact, then changed its name to the Bushnell Custom Compact and finally became the Bushnell Elite Custom Compact. Throught all its name changes, this little 7x26 compact binocular has won the hearts of many users for its excellent optics and fine construction. No, it is not as compact as a roof prism and this is not a waterproof binocular, but make no mistake, it is a premium binocular, still made in Japan, just like the original.

One of the things missing from my domestic life these last years, here in the Chicago area, has been putting out bird feeders. I love feeding birds for so many reasons. When it comes to learning birds, studying birds, photographing birds, helping birds and, most importantly, enjoying birds, it is hard to beat a bird feeder. The only reason I don't have bird feeders is that my apartment complex does not allow me to put in bird feeders. I can understand this, as a poorly maintained bird feeder can create a mess. I guess you have to draw the line, somewhere. That doesn't stop me, though, from throwing some black oil sunflower seed out on the lawn or hanging some disposable suet or seed balls on the trees on a temporary basis during the winter. Not as good as a serious bird feeder, but I do get birds and plenty of squirrels. Just like the old days, I keep a birding binocular, handy, and take a peek out in the yard as I sip my coffee. In the past, I have even kept a spotting scope fitted with a digital camera (digiscoping) to be ready when a bird posed for me. No doubt about it, feeding birds is one of the most relaxing activities a gal can do. Give it a try.

As tools for bird identification goes, using a bird's size is a sometimes thing. Just noting that a lone bird is small, medium, large and then using it to identify a bird is almost worthless, since an individual bird's apparent size can appear to change, greatly, under various conditions of lighting, distance, plumage and so on. I was burned more than once on using size on a lone bird as a birding identification tool in my early years. Okay, so when is size a useful birding tool? A bird's size is actually an excellent way to identify a bird when it is in close proximity to another bird species that you have identified and can use as a comparison. A good example of this works for me is at my local marsh. In this little honey hole there are hordes of Killdeer running up and down the shore. Check you bird guide and you will note that an adult Killdeer is a 10 1/2" bird. It then becomes relatively easy to gauge the size of that sandpiper standing next to it. If it appears to be much smaller, good chance you have a peep. If it is not quite as large, maybe a Baird's and so on. This becomes second nature after awhile. Last week, I had Solitary Sandpipers, Baird's Sandpipers, Semipalmated Sandpipers and even a Greater Yellowlegs, all in close proximity to my helpful Killdeers and all of them visible at times in the field of view of my Leica 10x25BL. That makes it even more fun and it is a real kick to see the way the sizes listed in the bird guides for all these birds matched up with what I was seeing in the binocular.

With everyone traveling and vactioning this time of year, I am always surprised that I don't see more people with a binocular around their neck. To be sure, I do see a lot of toursits and travelrs with cameras in tow, but not to many wearing a binocular. When I travel, I always have a compact binocular closeby and ready to use, even if I don't actually wear a binocular around my neck. In other words, think of a compact binocular as a travel binocular. I use a binocular when traveling for close up views of the sights, especially on scenic overlooks and, as always, to see birds and wildlife. A binocular has also come in handy when I want to look down the road and read interstion and road signs (not while I am driving!). For this kind of work, nothing beats a little compact binocular. Anything more in terms of binocular size will tempt you to leave the binocular, behind, and that defeats the purpose.

Always good to see another very affordable compact binocular, but still a solid compact binocular in terms of optics and construction, in the Leupold Rogue 8x25. The reverse porro prism (Leupold calls it an inverted porro prism) binocular has always been the mainstay compact binocular design when you want an affordable compact binocular, but you do not want to sacrifice optics. The Leupold Rogue binocular gets Leupold right into that very popular $100+ compact binocular market against the excellent Nikon Prostaff and Pentax UCF WP. Like these other two popular compact binoculars, the Leupold Rogue offers enough eye relief for use with glasses and is fully waterproof. Nice job, Leupold.

I was pedaling home, late the other night, just about dark and added a bird to my '09 birding list that I have not seen in some time. I have heard the Eastern Screech Owl in the area, but, as usual, you hear owls like the Screech more often than you actually see one. Can't say I have actually had a Screech Owl in the birding binocular, since I left Nebraska, so it was a very welcome sight. I was in a commercial area with a lot of retention ponds and railroad right of way, so basically good habitat for this suburban little owl. The Screech flew right in front of the bike and I knew, immediately, what it was, so I reversed direction and slowly approached the tree it had chosen for a perch. In my little Nikon 5x15 monocular, which was all I had, I was still able to confirm an identification and enjoy the sight. I slowly backed, away, and left the little night hunter to its business.

By the way, I knew some folks who had a screech take up residence in their backyard and they report that this little owl was a voracious little guy and would consume astonishing numbers of mice and rats, and even some songbirds. The All About Birds website (every birder should be using this great resource), confirms this, stating that the Eastern Screech owl consumes up to one-third its body weight in food each night. Man, in all his technical glory, could never design a better mousetrap than the Screech Owl.

I get a lot of folks who naturally assume that a digital camera binocular would make an ideal binocular and camera combination for both bird watching and bird photography. Not so, not even close. Digital binoculars have their place, but not as a tool for serious photography. Digital binoculars are NEVER a useable tool for bird photography or, for that matter, any serious photography. Digital binoculars simply don't have the necessary features or optical quality for bird photography or for any demanding photography applications. Lens quality, resolution and image processing in digital binoculars are mediocre, at best and and shutter speeds are far too slow for a constantly moving subjects like a bird or people on a playing field in sports. Lastly, even the binocular portion of a digital binocular falls short of what you need for a birding binocular. I do not recommend any digital binocular for either a birding binocular or a bird camera. No exceptions. If you need a binocular, buy a good binocular. If you want to take pics of birds, it's time to buy a real camera. Leave the digital binocular at home with the kids or when you just want to have fun in the backyard or on a vacation.

Nikon binoculars have always been something of a salesperson's dream. I know, I've been selling Nikon binoculars for twenty years. Nikon offers binoculars at every price point and, at every price point, a Nikon binocular represents one of the best, if not the best, value. Take the Nikon Monarch, for instance. The Nikon Monarch 8x42 has been the world's best selling $300 binocular for many years and the Monarch is usually the starting point whenever customers start looking for a binocular at this very popular price point. With the current Nikon rebate, the Monarch is a better value than ever. Overall, I've often thought I could stock a store with just Nikon binoculars and have a binocular for everyone, no matter what their budget or what their application. Of course, I own and love other brands of binoculars, but I also own Nikon binoculars, of course.

I am sometimes asked why the Swarovski EL binocular costs more than that old favorite binocular, the Swarovski SLC? Does the Swarovski EL binocular really have that much better optics than the Swarovski SLC binocular? The answer is, no, the Swarovski EL binocular is not a significant upgrade over the Swarovski SLC binocular in terms of optics. What you do get with the Swarovski EL is that wonderful open bridge body design with that open center section. So what? Pick up a Swarovski EL binocular and the first thing you notice is the way it balances and holds in your hands. It is quite unlike the way the conventional body design of the Swarovski SLC feels in your hand. The Swarovski EL is truly a joy and treat to hold in your hand and, once you've tried it, you may never want to hold another binocular, again. It really is that good. The price difference comes into play because that open bridge design on the Swarovski EL is more expensive to produce than a conventional body design, especially with regards to the focusing mechanism. This is where many of the Swarovski EL's imitators come up short. I have tested many less expensive open bridge design binoculars of various brands and, invariably, the focusing is not on a par with the Swarovski EL and we are not even talking about the optics, yet..