Leupold Yosemite Green Ring Line Discontinued (1 Viewer)

[lilcrazy2]

I talked with Leupold and they confirmed that as of Jan 1 they are discontinuing the Yosemite Green Ring 6x30 & 8x30 and are introducing the new BX-1 model which will have different specs. Obviously this means that there has been a change in the optical system. There is some confusion over the actual specs as shown on SWFA's website.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-Binoculars-C324.aspx

Leupold said that SWFA leaked the info early. There will be changes to other models as well as can be seen on SWFA Leupold page. Leupold could not explain the difference in close focus, ER, and in particular the screwy exit pupil numbers shown. They said they would email me the info.

SWFA does not have the new BX-1 models in stock and are talking backorders. They still have the old Green Ring 6x30 models in stock at $74.95 plus shipping, but they say they will meet the Eagle optics price if you fill out the low price guarantee form.

 

[phorts]

Couldnt find the Yosemites on Eagle Optics. Just the pink Camo's and those are $98.00, far above the $74.95 that SWFA.com is listing.

From the SWFA.com Website:

"The item must be in stock and available for purchase...... "

:\

Do you see it?

 

[lilcrazy2]

Looks like EO dropped them from the website. Looks like you will have to pay somewhere between $81 to $84 - Amazon or SWFA or Ebay.

 

[Alexis Powell]

... they are discontinuing the Yosemite Green Ring 6x30 & 8x30 and are introducing the new BX-1 model which will have different specs. ...

I like the listed specs for improved close focus on both 6x and 8x, and the improved eye-relief spec on the 8x. Hope the latter is for real.

--AP

 

[Kevin Purcell]

But a slightly worse FOV at 8x (7.4 rather than 7.5 but not that you'd notice that much of a change).

 

[ceasar]

Let us hope they are built as well as the old Yosemites are. They are little tanks! These look like those scrawny Celestron 8 x 30's that sell for about the same price.
Bob

 

[mayoayo]

I like the simple,clean look of the original Yosemites..

 

[WiscTJK]

what about the warranty?

I wonder if the warranty will stay the same. Green ring had a lifetime warranty to the original purchaser. Will the RX series have that warranty?

Why do companies take a successful product and change it - most times for the worse. I guess we will have to wait and see how the new model is.

 

[phorts]

This response was from there Tech Support Dept in response to an email requesting info on the new product:

"We do have some new Yosemites coming out after the first of the year. They will have some subtle differences and I understand the close focus distance will be better. Unfortunately we, (technical service) have not been given any of the specs. on them yet. You might inquire again later in January.

We do offer some other binoculars with a shorter close focus distances. Have you seen the Olympic 8X25? It's 8.2 feet."


Ahh the ole bain n switch! hah. Jk.

I may purchase those if the Celestron 8x30's i just picked up dont work out. We'll see!

 

[lilcrazy2]

Phorts

The Olympic 8x25 roofs sell for about $200 and you would find it difficult to pick up a used pair on Ebay for less $150. An interesting alternate would be the newly discontinued 8x25 Kruger/Columbia Backcountry for $79 which actually has better specs on paper.

In addition to the "batmanish" look of the new BX-1 Yosemites, Leupold is also changing the larger Cascades, Olympic and Mojave lines to a BX-2 & BX-3 with the same armoring look as can be seen on the SWFA website.

It is difficult to get any logical answers from Leupold as to the actual specifications, and optical differences at this point. Here is a series of email exchanges today:

Leupolds 1st email to me:
"We are putting the honest actual measured exit pupil from the optical prescription on the spec, ie: 4.6. 99% of the brands communicate the simple mathematic calculation of objective divided by magnification, ie: 30/6=5. Again, 99% of the time, that simple math number is not a true representation of what the actual product performance capability is."

My response:
"Chuck - in order for the actual measured exit pupil to be 4.6, doesn't either the actual objective size or actual magnification have to change as well? The formula that objective divided by magnification equals exit pupil seems to an accepted scientific principle. Are you saying this formula/principle is incorrect?"

Leupolds 2nd response:
"That is what I am going to find out when I get the rest of the specification sheet. I am assuming the actual magnification is slightly different then what is posted."

My 2nd response:
"Since the latest craze among your competitors has been 6.5x32 & 8.5x32, then your exit pupil of 4.6 would compute to 6.5x30, but when I look at the 8x30 exit pupil of 3.4 it does not compute. Since Leupold will probably be announcing these at the January Shot show, I would think the info and explanations would be easier to come by. I understand SWFA kind of jumped the gun in posting on their website the BX-1 as well as several other models, BX-2 & BX-3."

The SWFA website say that the new BX-1 Yosemites still have the lifetime warranty and the only outward difference appears to be the rubber armoring pattern, but the differences in ER, close focus and exit pupil are unexplained.

As Henry pointed out in the 8x30 Celestron review that the actual measured specs were different from the published ones, I am wondering if Leupold is now not doing the same in reverse.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Interesting that Leupold published the measured value for the exit pupil (good for them!) but I agree that makes it look like a 6.5x and an 8.5x 30mm bins.

That would also account for the slightly narrower FOV too.

This might even help Leupold get their story straight for the SHOT show!

Why do companies take a successful product and change it - most times for the worse. I guess we will have to wait and see how the new model is.

Because that's what they do. Make new products to stimulate people to buy new ones. Even if they're worse!

It's a shame but it seems to be true. The idea that you might have a bin with a 20 year old design (even if you updated coatings over time as they improved) seems to horrify modern marketers.

It's a problem in all sorts of markets: bins, cars, cameras, consumer electronics, etc

 

[henry link]

Undersized exit pupils might result from stopped down objectives rather than increased magnification. As I recall the current "30mm" Yosemites are stopped down to about 27mm by an internal baffle.

 

[spyglass]

I just bought a new 6x off e bay for $70 for a glovebox unit.....now I wait.

 

[spyglass]

Well, it arrived 2day & I'm not disappointed....at all. Very lite, compact, sharp, bright, exc eye relief and popups to boot. (Case is a little flimsy, but ya can't have everything). Bought for the glove box, but may replace the 8x SE in the camera bag....dunno yet. At any rate, it'll always go along as a spare.

Realized the value of having an extra a week ago last Sat when our Audubon club helped with the CBC. An ol' gal who wanted to join the group saw our ad online & showed up to help....but no bino. I left my 7x42 home, since we were gonna to a couple of city reservoirs, a river & a local refuge, and had my 8x SE in the camera bag. The only other thing I'd brought along was the scope, since the lakes are fairly large & I needed the reach. One of our group had a (lousy) old Bushnell 10x50 that he let her use, but if I'd had this little 6x it woulda been a great loaner.

As an aside, why is it virtually every 6x30 I've ever seen or heard of has a paltry 8* fov? Do they all use the same optical formula? A 10-10.5* would really be something. Also noticed a large majority of 8x30-32's have a 7.5*, 10x42's a 6 or 6.5*, etc.....Henry?.....Ed?....Ron?.....Ron?.....Kimmo?...anyone?

 

[ceasar]

An 8 degree FOV really isn't paltry.

Anyway, the FOV is determined by the ocular lenses used and I suppose most 6x30 binoculars use the same ones. Ones that give really wide FOV's are rather expensive.

Bob

 

[spyglass]

Well, yes, I'm aware of that, Bob, but the "wide angle" view is a very captivating effect, most especially on the lower powered glasses. 8* on a 7x (as on a B&L Discoverer I used to have) can be very satisfying, tho' not quite as eye-popping as the 8.6 on the Zeiss 7x. I once had a Celestron 10x50 Nova with an 8* and it was amazing. There were a few minor flaws at the edges, but it was still a stunning panorama. But that wide afov (and I'm referring to the "layman's" method, i.e., mag x tfov) is likely the reason Dennis and some others are so bowled over by the EII's. I'd sure liketa have a really wide, bright 6x...I think that could be quite useful, and even tho' my 7x FL really fills the bill for panoramic view, it's no midget, and I believe any optics concern worth its salt could make a 6x30 10* glass of good quality and sell profitably under $300. I'd get one in a New York minute (providing, of course, it had the brightness, sharpness, etc, of the above mentioned Green Ring).

 

[ceasar]

I agree that it would be nice if one was available. I'd probably get one but I'm not optimistic. It is tough enough to sell 7x let alone 6x at prices over $200.00 so I'm skeptical about whether enough would sell to make it profitable to make them and market them. And it would probably require a redesign of the standard body. The prism housings on the EII are quite big, bigger for instance than the Swarovski Habicht 8 x 30. I believe the EII's use oversized prisms to help get that wide FOV.
Bob

 

[Kevin Purcell]

As an aside, why is it virtually every 6x30 I've ever seen or heard of has a paltry 8* fov? Do they all use the same optical formula? A 10-10.5* would really be something. Also noticed a large majority of 8x30-32's have a 7.5*, 10x42's a 6 or 6.5*, etc.....Henry?.....Ed?....Ron?.....Ron?.....Kimmo?...anyone?

The original Yosemite had kids in mind in the design so price, weight and size was an issue with the bins. I think the follow on bins have kept a very similar design idea in mind.

I suspect its because to get a bigger FOV you need larger prisms to enclose the light cone so the weight goes up (quite quickly too as the glass is the heaviest thing in the bin roughly as the cube of the FOV).

The other issue is going for lower (but apparently wide) FOVs is they can use older 3 element EP designs. Cheaper to make.

Otherwise adding modern (4 element) 60 to 60 degree AFOV eyepieces shouldn't be a big issue and would give a wider FOV.

I know it's disappointing a wide 6x would be something to behold. Around 11 degrees, perhaps.

I've used similar explanations too with wide 10x50 bins and why they aren't around any more. A similar sort of argument but mostly a weight argument there.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

I really do think that the Yosemite 6x use a 3 element EP.

If you scale the FOV for a 7.1° FOV for a 7x (typical of a Kellner 3 element EP) to 6x you get an FOV of 8.2°.

I suspect the 8x might use a different EP design to get 7.5° at 8x but with rather less ER.

 

[spyglass]

A followup here.....I've yet to see a bino that had as stiff a diopter ring as this little 6x. It's not just stiff, but also very hard to get a grip on, due to being very narrow and close to the twistup. The sharp little tits on the ring almost require you to use fingernails to adjust it. Anyone else have this problem?