Can anyone address how these 8x42 Nikons compare to Bushnell Legacy WP 8x42? They are in the same price range (atm about 75 USD) with good reviews.
488662
I have not used Bushnell binoculars but from my experience the Nikon makes a much better lenses.. better color correction. I know you would be pleased with the Nikon's
488663
I am very pleased with the clarity. I had a 8x35 Bushnell for birding but the extra power with Nikon is much better. I keep the Bushnells in my car.
488664
I currently have the 8 X 42 Nikon, and formerly owned a B & L Legacy, about 10 years ago, before the merger. It was a fine binocular at the time, could not comment on the quality control at present. I do know that the Aculon is excellent ergonomically, and the QC is very good.
1708650
My friend has the nikons and I have the Bushnell legends he even says the Bushnell s are better . They are more crisp and clear but either way you can't go wrong I like both
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
26491
Nikon Glass is superior to Canon. Anyone using both systems as i do will tell you the same.
1140119
It has been sometime since I made the side-by-side review of the two models. Suggest that you view web site: dpreview.com to compare. Except for more mpixels, the real difference will be the choice of the highest quality lens to meet your intended use.
444591
The Bushnell Legacy WP 8x42 and 10x50 are both waterproof and fogproof. The Zoom model is water resistant.
847993
I have a 720 mju and I love it. I was also looking at the Pentax WP10... but I went with the 720mju for several reasons-There's a higher ISO sensativity.-Digital image stabilization(this feature is niiiice... no accidental blurry photos!)-Overall build quality. It just feels rock-solid which is good for me because I do lots of hiking/climbing and stuff. I know I'll manage to drop this thing on the ground eventually... the shock-proof feature is nice.I personally don't have a problem with the button sizing. It seems a bit small, but they're spaced far enough apart so you don't hit things accidently.Cheers. I have a 720 mju and I love it. I was also looking at the Pentax WP10... but I went with the 720mju for several reasons-There's a higher ISO sensativity.-Digital image stabilization(this feature is niiiice... no accidental blurry photos!)-Overall build quality. It just feels rock-solid which is good for me because I do lots of hiking/climbing and stuff. I know I'll manage to drop this thing on the ground eventually... the shock-proof feature is nice.I personally don't have a problem with the button sizing. It seems a bit small, but they're spaced far enough... » Read More I have a 720 mju and I love it. I was also looking at the Pentax WP10... but I went with the 720mju for several reasons-There's a higher ISO sensativity.-Digital image stabilization(this feature is niiiice... no accidental blurry photos!)-Overall build quality. It just feels rock-solid which is good for me because I do lots of hiking/climbing and stuff. I know I'll manage to drop this thing on the ground eventually... the shock-proof feature is nice.I personally don't have a problem with the button sizing. It seems a bit small, but they're spaced far enough apart so you don't hit things accidently.Cheers. « Show Less
1388784
Hi, I had got a wide range of Nikon, Leopold, Steiner binoculars so I know what I am talking about and I got a pair of this particular Nikon Aculon binoculars and they are good to keep on my truck for general purpose as I have to re-adjust often, once adjusted both sides noted that going from low/mid range to high the image goes slyly blurry so I try different times and noted no change I believe is the optics adjustment problem or manufactory issues just remember you get what you pay for.
1786217
Thanks for the information. I'm definately looking to unload the 28-80. I hadn't thought about third party lenses. I was always told to stick with Nikon. I'll check out the Sigma.
774987
Hi Mr. Hewitt (I wonder if we have any relation?) Anyway, for a true beginner (as in you've never used anything but a point-and-shoot) I'd recommend you get a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 VR. Keep the 18-55 kit lens, you'll find it lighter when your just taking snapshots of the family or whatever. The D40 is an excellent starter camera, it has almost all the tweaks of this much more expensive camera without the weight and cost. The D300 has many advantages over it, but I really feel you'll learn a lot faster with a simpler camera, and step up to this when your ready. I actually started out with a D40 a bit over a year ago, it made starting out quite fun. The 18-200VR will follow you as a great lens on the D300 too, and you can use any newer AF-S lenses on it. If you have older AF-D Nikon lenses lying around that you want to use, a D80 is also a good place to start. It's easier to make the custom tweaks you'll learn about in your photography classes on the D80, but it still has Auto modes as well to get you started. Checkout www.kenrockwell.com, especially his recommended camera page. He's a bit more eloquent than I am. And I wouldn't be so fast to recommend the D60 to anyone, it's just the D40x's guts (plus active D-Lighting, but without the other enhancements of the D300/D3) with a different name stamped on it. I wouldn't recommend the D40x or D60 to anyone, they exist to fill a price point to compete with Canon. If your eyeballing either, jump to the D80 and don't look back.
1048
No idea about the Bushnell Legend but the Nikon Monarch are fantastic value for money if you don't want to spend a fortune. I use them on safaris and am never disappointed.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
558459
This lens is second to none. It has great contrast and clarity even at f/2.8. It has low distortion, focuses quickly, accepts filters, and works on full-frame cameras as well as "cropped sensor" DX ones. And if you hit someone with it, they'll probably go down. If you have a DX camera, you can save money by compromising on some of those features. Tokina's 16-50 f/2.8 DX lens is well-regarded and perhaps the closest to the Nikon 17-35. It's supposedly sharp and has good contrast both wide open and stopped down. It's solidly built. Landscape shooters like it. $600 Nikon's 12-24 f/4G DX lens is also very good. It might be too wide for you. $1000 Nikon's 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX is good, though not in the same class. $675 Note that I have experience only with the 17-35 (bought used). The rest is based on conversations with people who own those lenses.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
840350
For the price I think that they are good binoculars... and if you do use them during the day the ocular cups are a real plus. All that being said, I did return the pair that I purchased and bought a pair of Swarovski EL Range's which are close to 6 times the price of the Steiners because I am very particular about my optics. Needless to say there is a difference in the clarity between the two but for causal use probably not worth plunking down the extra money. Keep in mind that if your primary use is going to be for astronomy I would make sure that you get a tripod adapter.
2122245
I have 3 Bushnell and they are good cameras but have recently got 2 Browning Strike Force Sub Micro 10mp. I like them better. Better pics and less batteries.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.