Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zen-Ray vs Bushnell

November 16, 2012
Today is totally overcast at noon. I compared the Zen-Ray 7X36 ED2 (477 feet field of view / $375) with the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD ED2 (426 feet field of view / $160 with rebate) and the Swarovski z5 5-25X52. After adjusting the diopter on both binoculars to my eyes till I really liked them I fiddled with the Swarovski. I tuned it up from 5X till I could clearly make out the �Can you read� at 127 yards. Then I fiddled with the side focus until the image was as sharp as I could get it. I turned the power ring down again till I could not make out the first line and turned it back up till I could easily read the first line. I looked at the power ring: barely past 8X. I looked again through the scope to check if I could read the second line but could not. I could make out some of the letters.

Both binoculars appeared to be about the same when I looked into the woods beyond the pump house. To really check out their ability to resolve detail, though, I went back to the �Can you read this?� chart. With the Bushnell I could read Lines one and two but could not make out number three. The Zen-Ray allowed me to easily read the first line but could not read the second line. Its value was the increased field of view if it was as good as the Bushnell. It will be returned for a refund. I will keep trying.

Did you get sour mother's milk as a kid?

Since Bushnell doesn't make a 7x Ultra HD, you were comparing apples with oranges--or at least grapefruits with oranges.

And comparing either to a Swarovski riflescope is like comparing apples to watermelons.

Did I step on some toes? Your favorite, or at least prefered brand, didn't come out on top?

You boys don't get it. I compare optics I have with optics I have. When I purchased the Bushnell 8X42 I liked them better than anything else I compared them with except the Swarovski 8.5X43 (I think that is the size.) The Swaro was $2,430. The field of view was slighty smaller than the Bushnell.

Oh, we get it. And all of my optics purchases are based solely on FOV.

Then you can understand why I wanted to take a look at some Zen-Ray 7X36. But unlike you I not limited to field of view. I want something better than what I already have before I keep the new product.

Then you should have compared an 8x Zen-Ray with the Bushnell, instead of wasting your time making the comparison you did.

You're not stepping on my toes. I have bunches of Bushnell stuff--as well as most other optics out there. But I have learned to make valid optical comparisons, rather than screw around aimlessly.

If Bushnell did make a 7x36 ultra HD patterned after the "bowhunter" they'd have a massive hit on their hands.

Digress...

Fixed it, because I remembered you're slow.

I guess you don't understand. Why should I compare an 8X Zen-Ray with anything? The 7X is the one with the 477 feet field of view.

What you think is "aimlessly" is a valid optical comparison for me. It told me my Bushnell is better than the Zen_Ray for what I am doing.

I am way slower than I used to be. Fifty years ago I ran ten flat in the hundred.

You're right, I don't understand why anybody looking for a wider FOV would believe a 7x would provide as much detail as an 8x.

All you did was "prove" that 8x beats 7x when looking for detail, and 7x has a wider FOV than 8x, when everything else is approximately equal. These are hardly startling optical revelations, but you presented them as if you'd performed a significant experiment.

Mule Deer,



Everything was not aproximately equal. The Zen-Ray's cost more than twice as much. I expected the Zen-Ray's to be slightly better optically because they cost so much more.



What I have proven again is one does not get what one pays for. One gets what one shops for. That is significant to many of us hunters who cannot put high dollar stuff in our back packs. The Bushnell's I have are significantly better than the same magnification Bushnell I used to have and the image is way better than the the higher magnification Tascos I used to have. Occasionally one does get a better quality image when one spends more money. I was hoping that would be the case with the Zen-Ray's but it didn't happen.

Like I recommend so often to folks here who asked about optics, one has to compare them side by side and forget price.

My son-in-law looked through both at the antlers 121 yards away. He really liked the Zen-Ray's till he looked though the Bushnell's. He preferred the image the Bushnell's gave.

This makes no sense whatsoever, because in the same paragraph you describe also using a Swaro Z5.

Ringman,

Sorry, but you're about as logical as a box of rocks. All you proved in your "experiment" is that a binocular with 14% more magnification provides more detail.

I wouldn't put it quite so plainly except I also saw your post on being extremely offended when a nude woman showed up in an R-rated movie. If I were as careful a shopper as you claim to be, and naked women offended me, I wouldn't have paid to get inside the movie theater.

You didn't read where I mentioned the higher magnification binoculars of one brand didn't show as much detail as a lower magnification from another brand? I learned a valuable lesson when I compared them side by side. Using your present argument, though, no one would carry anything but Tasco binos.

Occasionally someone here will mention a larger objective with a cheaper optics produces no more than a brightly lit blurry view. They suggest one spend a little more money on a higher quality optic with a smaller objective to get better results. I was hoping for he same kind of results by spending more money, in fact more than twice as much, on a bino with a larger field of view (which happened to be a lower magnification) and getting the best of both worlds. Spending more money does at times get one better quality. Not this time.

This thread reminds me of why I use high magnification scopes. When I was looking to purchase a 3-9X and looking at a "line" on a roof about three blocks away. All the scopes were set on 9X. I finally settled on the Swarovski. The guy behind the counter suggested I try one more: The LPS 2 1/2-10X. It was instantly and obviously better. When I noticed it was a 10X I tuned up the magnification ring and right away realized the "line" was an extension cord. Now in a scope I use all the magnification I can get in as light a package as is available: Swarovski z5 5-25X52.

I'm still in the searching mode for binos and am thankful when someone here suggests something. That's why I tried the Zen-Ray.



Edited to add:
You're on a roll. You couldn't stop at bashing me for the optics so you went on to another topic from another forum to bring something else up. Congratulations.

Ringman,

I'm not going to bash...I appreciate all informed opinions like yours. I've looked through the HDs and they're top on my list as far as bang for buck goes.

I'm interested in these binos and curious where you found them for $210 (cost before the rebate). The best I've found is about $225. PM me if that is best. Again thanks for your input.

NTG,

It's been over a year since I purchased them. My memory is terrible lately so I don't remember. When I buy optics I spend as much as two hours on BING clicking on every link until I find the price I am willing to pay. The Zen-Ray is the same price no matter how many links I checked.

I got my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for $620 including shipping and the 2 1/2-16X50 for $512 including shipping. It's been a few years since I purchased them. I waited one day on the first 2 1/2-16X to check with my gunsmith to see if he wanted to try to beat the price. He told me it was below wholesale. The next day the guy had already raised his price by a hundred bucks so I had to start over.

Mr. B,

In regards to Ringman, best sit back and shake your head and chuckle as any attempt at education on your part would be akin to banging your head against an immensely dense brick wall.

Time and again it has been brought to his attention that the various "experiments", "evaluations", and "comparisons" he's presented are flawed and irrelevant.

Stubbornly, he clings to his "methods" and refuses to understand and appreciate why his "findings" and "observations" are not taken seriously.