Long, long time no see, Steve. Looks like you've kept busy

. I'll have to take the drive to Wickenburg, see if we can spend some sky time together.

---

Responding to Argonav's question: As it happens, I do own a pair of Leupold Wind River Mesa 10x50s. And while I haven't compared them to Steve's Leupold Olympic 10x50s, I can post a bit of info of how the Mesa model performs (or at least my sample).

To refresh my memory I went out tonight and did a quick comparison with a few other binocs, none of which are truly similar, but as similar as I could get: Swarovski 8.5x42 ELs, Minox HG 8.5x43 BRs, Celestron 12x36 IS II's.

And, for good measure, I brought out the Vortex Kaibab 15x56s and Leupold Katmai 8x32s. The 15x56 Kaibabs I often use for astronomy, while the tiny Katmai roofs are a personal favorite, the little Mighty Mouse of binoculars -- chunky little over-achievers that I take almost everywhere.

The thing that first comes to mind about the Mesa binocs is how comfortable they are. I (purposely) haven't checked the specs tonight, but they feel light in the hand and the objective barrels provide a very comfortable grip. The light weight, excellent balance, and comfy barrels make them very easy to hold steady. As with Steve's Olympics the twist-out eyepieces seem just right -- good light-blocking, yet not so enclosed that they are prone to eye-fogging, and they are comfortable enough for hours of observing.

There's a half-moon out tonight and the Mesas show very good crater detail down to the limits of my personal eyeballs. There's a hint of color fringing when the very bright moon is dead-center in the field, but only a tiny bit more than on the Swarovski and Minox, which show virtually none. Flare is visible all around the Moon, but that's to be expected and in that regard the Mesas are a good match to the Swarovskis, which show a bit of roof-prism "star filter" flare. (A bright moon -- the ultimate flare-control torture test -- is the only place I've ever seen that on the Swaros; it is not visible in any other situation. But of course porro prisms never have that problem at all. Neither do the Minox, for that matter. Minox binocs are very underrated, IMO.)

Vega is bright, sharp, and small. Its star image is so well-formed in the center of the field that I'm almost sure that with 2x or 3x multiplier on the Mesas the diffraction rings could be seen. Epsilon Lyrae looks like one could drive a truck through it. Under my magnitude 4-something city skies M57 is visible, but if I didn't know it already I don't think I'd swear it's non-stellar. Sidus Ludovicianum (Ludwig's Star, the "third star" between Mizar and Alcor in the handle of the Big Dipper, mag 8.8) is not visible to me tonight, but I suspect it would be fairly easy under better skies. I couldn't see it with the Vortex 15x56s either. That convinced me to go pull out my amazingly ugly but very capable Canon 15x50 IS binocs, and with those I think at times I could see Ludwig's Star just teasing at the edge of visibility...or maybe my imagination was playing tricks on me. But again, I blame urban civilization -- under dark skies I think the Mesas (and the Vortex and Canon) would have pulled it out easily.

On the Mesas everything from center to about 60% of the way to the edge is very sharp and stars well-formed. Beyond that there's a bit (a little bit) of stellar distortion, and near the very edges the distortion is severe. The edge distortion is more noticeable on the Mesas than some other binocs because the Mesas do not have a very large apparent FOV, so no eyeball contortions are required to see to its edges. With other binocs that have a larger apparent field it's so hard to look directly at the edges that far-edge distortion is less noticeable.

Other notes about the Mesas:

- Mine have a bit of a hard spot in the focuser rotation, but I attribute that to its years and hard knocks. I don't remember that little hard spot being there before.
- I wish Leupold provided them with tethered caps. Mine came with four cheap, simple loose caps, which are a bit of a nuisance and prone to getting lost.
- The Mesas look and feel very well made. I paid something like $200 for these several years ago, but they have the quality feel of much more expensive binocs.

Finally, a word about Leupold in general: Over the last 30+ years I've owned a lot of Leupold products -- not only binoculars but also rifle scopes, rangefinders, and a few other things -- and everything I've ever used by Leupold was of very high quality, very well made, and built to last. There are not many companies, of any kind, of which I could say something like that. After much experience with their products, they've earned my assessment that if they make something, I automatically assume it's very well made. I've never been disappointed. (And no, I have no connection with Leupold other than as a satisfied customer.)

I've heard that Leupold's product service is very good too, but I've never had to have anything repaired by them (nothing's ever broken), so I don't know that from first-hand experience. My Mesas came with a lifetime warranty, but again that was several years ago and I don't know if that's the warranty currently offered with them.

That's my take on the Mesas for astro use -- all-around very good to excellent binoculars for a very reasonable price.

For terrestrial use I'm not quite so quick to reach for the Mesas. Like all porro-prism binoculars, they are rather bulky, and their closest focus distance is not very close at all (over 20 feet). For some people close focus doesn't matter, to me it does because I like to look at things like insects. For that kind of use it's hard to beat the Swaros and Minoxes, both of which focus down to 8 feet or so, and particularly the little Katmais, which focus down to less than 5 feet. At that distance at 8x you can read the license plate on a gnat.

So that's one man's take on a pair of slightly aged Leupold 10x50 Wind River Mesas. I hope it helps.