Bushnell Elite and Nikon Spotter XLII (1 Viewer)

[OwenM]

I need an extremely durable compact spotting scope, and have settled into the idea of a waterproof roof prism, which seems to really limit things to the Elite or Spotter XLII. Not what I really had in mind, but my activities will not be limited in consideration of a scope in my pack, plus the shape, size, and weight of these scopes ensure that they will actually be in the pack to begin with-be it my large or medium packs for camping or dayhiking, or the daypack that I tote all my toys around in daily so I can enjoy them at will.

The military version of the Elite, plus an aftermarket case will run $299.
The XLII is $449 w/case.
Specs on these scopes are very close, with the Elite being a bit shorter, and having slightly wider FOV.
I have no brand preference, but am curious if the Nikon is optically superior in any way. Not sure that I'll be able to audition them side-by-side. The Nikon "outfit" with cases and tripod for an extra $50 seems like a good deal, and pretty much even out the price difference, but I am concerned about the quality of the tripod, considering the small difference in overall price.
If the scopes are similar performance-wise, I'd rather get the Elite, and buy a tripod separately, since I want quick-release plates.

Would appreciate comments from anyone familiar with either of these scopes.
Thanks.

 

[mooreorless]

Hi Owen, I had an old non phase coated B&L Elite 60mm roof prism scope and it was ok up to about 30x. There have been others on here that have tried the newer phase coated roof prism Elite spotters and said they were not quite up there with the good porro prism spotters. If the Nikon XLII spotter comes with the same tripod as my Brother-in-Laws 65 Nikon Prostaff I would never ever buy that combo. He payed extra for the camo model and the case is not camo and he was bummed by that too.Picture is not the tripod that came with this Prostaff.
Regards,Steve

 

[OwenM]

Thank you for the quick reply.

Hi Owen, I had an old non phase coated B&L Elite 60mm roof prism scope and it was ok up to about 30x. There have been others on here that have tried the newer phase coated roof prism Elite spotters and said they were not quite up there with the good porro prism spotters.

I figured I'd have to give up some image quality with these roofs, but having them rather than not, and particularly having them in one piece, will hopefully make up for it.
I got caught up in reading these forums, and was ready to buy a Pentax PF-65 EDII with a couple of Baader Hyperion EPs before realizing that I wouldn't get nearly as much use and enjoyment from it as a more compact scope that I'm not afraid to bang around.

Here's the current model scopes I'm looking at, btw.
Nikon:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-16-48x60-spotter-xl-ii-spotting-scope.html
Bushnell:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-15-45x60mm-elite-spotting-scope-781548p.html

The Nikon with the camo outfit comes with an awfully cheesy looking pack. The black bag that comes with the plain outfit looks better (hey, it has fastex buckles), but I can't tell much about the tripod except that it seems flimsy.
Think I'll just concentrate on the scopes, and not consider the cheapo accessories.

 

[Alexis Powell]

For quality of optics and ease of use, I think you'd be much better off with a conventional scope. The toughest of them, like the Nikon 60 mm Fieldscope (either standard or TF3 version), or even the rubber armored Bushnell 60 mm Spacemaster, are nearly indestructible, so I can't imagine that the compact roof spotters would offer a significant advantage in that respect.

--AP

 

[mooreorless]

The Nikon with the camo outfit comes with an awfully cheesy looking pack. The black bag that comes with the plain outfit looks better (hey, it has fastex buckles), but I can't tell much about the tripod except that it seems flimsy.
Think I'll just concentrate on the scopes, and not consider the cheapo accessories.[/QUOTE]

Hi Owen, Yes the tripod is the same as my brother-in-law's, he bought his Nikon 65 Prostaff at Optics Planet. I guess the tripod is better than nothing, the head is most of the problem. It would be ok to use for shooting mark when you don't have to move scope much.For roof prism scopes these don't have see through cases to help protect them.
Steve

 

[OwenM]

Thanks for the replies.
AP, what makes the Fieldscope "the toughest of them"? Just curious. I don't think of optics in terms of "indestructible", but more or less fragile.
Does that Bushnell accept other eyepieces?--edit: found that this armored waterproof version doesn't, though some past models, and the current collapsible ones do.

 

[Alexis Powell]

AP, what makes the Fieldscope "the toughest of them"? Just curious. I don't think of optics in terms of "indestructible", but more or less fragile.
Does that Bushnell accept other eyepieces?--edit: found that this armored waterproof version doesn't, though some past models, and the current collapsible ones do.

I'm not saying that the Nikon Fieldscope is tougher than comparable models, I just listed it as an example of that formerly commonplace class of very rugged scopes. These are scopes that I have observed my colleagues using for many years (in some cases, such as with the Balscopes and Nikon Fieldscope I, decades) without any of these new-fangled "stay on cases" or such. When not in use, they are stowed/tossed in the back of the car/truck (again, without a case) or on the floor boards, tripod and all, the only concession to fragility being a lens cap over the objective. These scopes are expected to be able to survive such treatment, being bonked, rattling around with other equipment without ill effect, and they do! The only damage over time is to the paint on their tough metal exteriors. It seems to me that many scope users do not realize that scopes have generally been (and still generally are) designed to survive such treatment. Some of the newest scopes are somewhat less durable than most scopes used to be (e.g. the first generation of composite-bodied Kowa 800 series scopes had a nasty habit of snapping in half). I have to admit, I'm very prissy about my scope--in fact I treat mine as if it were a camera lens, so my Nikon 78 has only a couple small scratches in the paint over many years of use and the occasional mishap (I've no stay-on case). I accidentally dropped a well-used/abused Fieldscope I that I inherited onto the asphalt of a parking lot, putting a small ding in the theads of the objective lens cell, but its optics were not damaged.

As for other eyepieces on the newest spacemaster: Unless they've recently changed the design, the zoom eyepiece is removable and any of the standard Bushnell/B&L spacemaster/balscope fixed eyepieces can be attached in its place (in fact, that's what I'd do--replace the zoom with a ~25x). Bushnell doesn't recommend doing this because the scope body isn't seperately sealed, so the nitrogen can escape and water vapor get in when making the switch. I wouldn't worry about that, or if I did, i'd just go to a welding shop and ask for a squirt of nitrogen or argon, make the switch and leave the fixed eyepiece on permanently.

The other trick/problem with using fixed eyepieces on today's 60mm Spacemaster (or older Spacemaster models, bought used) is that Bushnell discontinued production of most fixed eyepieces several years ago, but there are scads of them out there in people's closets and miscellaneous used optics junk bins (if you can find such an optics/photography shop still in business--they're disappearing rapidly as the world goes digital, that is, new-only sales and support) so they shouldn't be too hard to find.

--AP

 

[lucznik]

I need an extremely durable compact spotting scope, and have settled into the idea of a waterproof roof prism, which seems to really limit things to the Elite or Spotter XLII. Not what I really had in mind, but my activities will not be limited in consideration of a scope in my pack, plus the shape, size, and weight of these scopes ensure that they will actually be in the pack to begin with-be it my large or medium packs for camping or dayhiking, or the daypack that I tote all my toys around in daily so I can enjoy them at will.

The military version of the Elite, plus an aftermarket case will run $299.
The XLII is $449 w/case.
Specs on these scopes are very close, with the Elite being a bit shorter, and having slightly wider FOV.
I have no brand preference, but am curious if the Nikon is optically superior in any way. Not sure that I'll be able to audition them side-by-side. The Nikon "outfit" with cases and tripod for an extra $50 seems like a good deal, and pretty much even out the price difference, but I am concerned about the quality of the tripod, considering the small difference in overall price.
If the scopes are similar performance-wise, I'd rather get the Elite, and buy a tripod separately, since I want quick-release plates.

Would appreciate comments from anyone familiar with either of these scopes.
Thanks.

Two thoughts:

1.) I have heard in the past that the Nikon Spotter XL/XLII and the 60mm Bushnell Elites scopes are essentially the same scope; made "side-by-side" in the same factory, by the same workers, at the same time. Even accepting this to be "true" there still are differences in the eyepieces (15-45x for the Bushnell and 16-48x for the Nikon) and at least some differences in the coatings (for example, the Nikon will not have Bushnell's patented RainGaurd and one may have a different "fully-multi-coating" specified than the other) both of which very well could make a big difference in overall image quality. Both scopes have excellent reputations.

2.) I wonder at the relevance of comparing the Spotter XLII against the Military version of the Elite - or against the regular consumer edition of the Elite for that matter. The OpticsPlanet website lists two basic differences:

1. The lack of the external "Elite" badge. This one I'm quite sure doesn't matter much at all - especially if you want to go around all "tactical!" :hippy:
2. The use of "military grade" grease. This one is a bit more of a sticky issue. What does "military grade" grease mean? Is it better/worse than the "consumer grade" grease used on the standard scope? Why was it used - as a cost saving measure? Is it as durable? And is there any difference in the warranty coverage for this less expensive version of the Elite?

In short the question begs asking; why is this "military-grade" scope $70 cheaper than its consumer-grade brethren?

 

[Fernando np]

is it relevant that there's no reviews of these scopes in this forum? At least, I haven't seen any birder with them. Sometimes I've considered a compact scope for hard travel, public transport in the Third World for one month. Mi ideas always went close the rifle sight design. Probably a Zeiss dyalit 56mm with a fixed eyepiece, with doesn't exists as I now, round 30X.
If somebody has any idea about a serious review , including resolution, of Spotter and Elite, please allow me to know where is it.
In every case, a modest scope can add a good extra points of pleasure when birding if the option is none. Nine years ago in a travel in India I spend three whole days birding in Kelodeo. Luckily, it was posible to rent a 15-45X60 porro B&L to the NP staff. After some cleaning, the usual user didn't know than the focus and zoom were able to turn improving the image, I really enjoyed as a child.

 

[Fernando np]

By the way, confirm if the military, or tactical depending of brands, version come without reticle.

 

[OwenM]

In short the question begs asking; why is this "military-grade" scope $70 cheaper than its consumer-grade brethren?

Supposedly the only differences are the grease, and lack of a logo or case. Somewhere in all my online searching, I found someone asking a dealer about the grease, and as I recall it might have caused operation of the focus or zoom to be stiffer, and take time to break in...or something like that.
Hard to imagine the military version being less durable.
I don't care that much about the military or "tactical" aspect, though I confess the gung-ho ex-paratrooper side of me approves(especially considering how my gear gets treated sometimes), and I don't care for logos of any kind on any product, anyway.

Funny, in other forums as well as this one, I see your username attached to quite a few posts about reasonably priced scopes, and several that you suggest to people have been on my list to check out.

Right now, I'm pretty much set on the Elite after reading tons of positive reviews from people who collectively describe a wide range of use. Still shopping, though. I may be able to audition quite a few models in person next week if I choose to make the necessary drive, and am not getting in a hurry.

Fernando, good point about the reticle, but the price would probably be higher, instead of lower. Manufacturers charge a huge premium for a rangefinding reticle. Don't guess I've seen a review of the Elite from a birder, either. I'm not a birder anyway, but may be turning into one on the most amateurish of levels. I'm not sure if most of the people who get into the high dollar glass are in it for the optics, and bird because it's a great way to appreciate the optics, or if they're in it for the birds, and find the optics a great way to fully appreciate the birds. I'd be the former. Can't help but notice that after getting my first nice pair of binos, I find myself watching birds at every opportunity, while that was something I never did for pleasure before.

 

[mooreorless]

Owen, You could buy almost two of the Bushnell scopes for the price of the Nikon. The weight of the Elite scope makes it a lot easier to pack around than my Nikon 60mm Fieldscope.
Regards,Steve

 

[lucznik]

Supposedly the only differences are the grease, and lack of a logo or case. Somewhere in all my online searching, I found someone asking a dealer about the grease, and as I recall it might have caused operation of the focus or zoom to be stiffer, and take time to break in...or something like that.
Hard to imagine the military version being less durable.
I don't care that much about the military or "tactical" aspect, though I confess the gung-ho ex-paratrooper side of me approves(especially considering how my gear gets treated sometimes), and I don't care for logos of any kind on any product, anyway.

Funny, in other forums as well as this one, I see your username attached to quite a few posts about reasonably priced scopes, and several that you suggest to people have been on my list to check out.

Right now, I'm pretty much set on the Elite after reading tons of positive reviews from people who collectively describe a wide range of use. Still shopping, though. I may be able to audition quite a few models in person next week if I choose to make the necessary drive, and am not getting in a hurry.

Fernando, good point about the reticle, but the price would probably be higher, instead of lower. Manufacturers charge a huge premium for a rangefinding reticle. Don't guess I've seen a review of the Elite from a birder, either. I'm not a birder anyway, but may be turning into one on the most amateurish of levels. I'm not sure if most of the people who get into the high dollar glass are in it for the optics, and bird because it's a great way to appreciate the optics, or if they're in it for the birds, and find the optics a great way to fully appreciate the birds. I'd be the former. Can't help but notice that after getting my first nice pair of binos, I find myself watching birds at every opportunity, while that was something I never did for pleasure before.

Let me be clear, just in case I wasn't before; I am not suggesting that you should not buy the Military version of the Elite. In truth, I have considered getting one myself as I too need a nice, small, packable spotter and I also have no use for logos on equipment. (I just don't feel that buying something should obligate me to be an advertising billboard for that company.) I just think you (and I) should do a little research on what that "military-grade" grease is and why it was utilized before throwing out a bunch of money. There has to be a reason why the regular, consumer-grade grease was not satisfactory. It could be that it is just too light to withstand the rigours of hard, military use. After all, I'm sure those military spotters see far more time afield and in far worse conditions than do just about any "civilian" spotter. On the other hand, it could also be just a lower quality, cost saving measure to allow Bushnell to bid low enough to capture the government contract.

FWIW, Nikon makes a "tactical" version of their Fieldscope as well. However, it's cost is equal to that of the non-tactical version.

 

[OwenM]

I called opticsplanet, and spoke to someone there. He said he had wondered the same thing, but believes the grease is perhaps something internal-in other words, he doesn't know, either.
Said the only difference that he could find, aside from logo and lack of a case, was that the scope comes in a plain styrofoam container, while everything else about the scopes' optics and operation, is identical.

 

[lucznik]

My curiosity finally got the best of me so; I called Bushnell Customer Service and asked about the differences between the consumer and military grade Elite spotting scopes. The girl that I spoke to looked them up and stated that:

1. There is no gold "Elite" logo on the side of the Military version. This we already knew.

2. The military spotter does not have Bushnell's RainGaurd coatings. I noticed later that this is in direct contradiction to what is posted on the OpticsPlanet website. My guess would be that the girl at Bushnell has the better information but, I wouldn't be willing to gaurantee that. Of course the other issue is that I don't know how important RainGaurd is to you (personally I think it's mostly an advertising gimmick) If you really want it, you might need to spend the extra $70 on the consumer model Elite.

3. The "military grade grease" is rated to perform at both higher and lower temperatures than the consumer grade grease. That seems like a pretty good thing for durability though, it would likely prove to make the focus and magnification wheels somewhat stiffer, as has been posted earlier.

4. The Bushnell girl made no mention of a protective case but, OpticsPlanet says that it is not included in the military version.

So, now that this is all clear as mud....

 

[OwenM]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Not having Rainguard(assuming it's not a gimmick) on the military version would be about stupid.
Anyway, I ended up buying a Leupold Golden Ring 15-30x50, which isn't that much shorter or lighter than the Elite, but has better ergonomics, particularly in that it's actually usable handheld at lower power, and throughout its range on a monopod. Also has wider FOV, and easier to use focus knob.
I've surprised myself by how much and often I use it. Gotten some great views of hawks at work-a few days ago, watched one for half an hour eating a mouse it'd caught, standing over it on the flat top of a powerpole a couple hundred yards away. I was missing a lot, just using 8x binos. I think a compact spotter was a good investment for me.

 

[lucznik]

Glad to hear you made a choice you like. That little Leupold is on my short-list as well.

 

[Fernando np]

Other unnusual option appears in usoptics.com. Although the brand keeps an excellent level of quality in rifle telescopic sights, I haven't been able to find reviews or comparatives.

 

[OwenM]

Glad to hear you made a choice you like. That little Leupold is on my short-list as well.

Well, I'll tell you what I don't like, as well, then.
It's not great in low light, and can exhibit a little glare looking directly towards the sun. I'm not surprised or disappointed by either of these things, since it's got a 50mm objective, and the glare "problem" isn't bad.
The focus is extremely fast. This shouldn't be too much of a hassle on a tripod, but quickly making a fine adjustment handheld or with a monopod can be challenging at 30x, because the depth of field goes from more than adequate at 15x to nonexistent at 30. edit: btw, when I say the DOF is nonexistant at 30x, I'm referring to fairly close-range use, like birds at a feeder-it does improve with distance. I have no experience with spotting scopes, so don't know if that is normal, or how it compares with other scopes. It's the only meaningful issue that I have with the scope, and seems to be less of a problem as I become more accustomed to using it.
I don't have a problem with the fold-down eyecup, but would prefer a twist-up one.
Construction-wise, this thing exudes quality, except for the eyecup, which seems cheap compared to the rest of the scope. For me it's more an aesthetic thing than a practical one, though.
I think the brown armor is ugly.
Not liking how it looks is probably a good thing. I don't give it much consideration, and so far have just enjoyed having it without worrying about banging it around a little.
I have a lightweight tripod on the way(Bogen 728B), and do kind of wonder if I should have gone with the Elite for more power, and a larger objective, not to mention that military version would have been $100 cheaper. The majority of my use will be in daylight with a monopod, though, and I doubt higher magnification would be usable most of the time, so I'm not going to dwell on it.
I have to admit that the Leupold was a bit of an impulse buy(was reading up on the Golden Ring HD binoculars, got to looking at all these great testimonials about their customer service, and bang!, next thing you know there's a box with a spotting scope in it on my front porch...), but I'm happy with it.