Jump to content


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Opinions on Bausch & Lomb Legacy 7x35 EWA

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3 replies to this topic

#1 harbinjer


    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008

Posted 05 February 2010 - 11:11 AM

Does anyone know about the B & L Legacy line? The 7x35's seem like early 90's and are Multi-coated. Does anyone know if the 572ft FOV is anywhere close? Also is their sharpness reasonable or very small? Is their multi-coating just barely MC, or MC on most surfaces?

Anyone have a comparison to older, fully coated, EWA binocs?

#2 Erik D

Erik D


  • *****
  • Posts: 4,067
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003

Posted 05 February 2010 - 05:11 PM

Is this the pair you have in mind:


572 ft FOV would be just under 11 deg FOV. Fairly wide but not SWA.

I have not looked thru a pair of B & L Legacy but I seem to recall the B & L used to be positioned at above average price point than low cost Bushnells. I have three pairs of vintage 7X35s marked as having 11 deg or wider FOV. Also have a pair of Russian 6X30 SWA listed as having 12.5 deg FOV. from about 2005

To me it's difficult or nearly impossible to predict the overall viewing experience, unless someone has looked thru the same exact model and offer a first hand report. MC, FMC, Broad Band FMC are just marketing words. A brand name or model can have all the desirable specs: Broadband multicoating, phase coating, EWA FOV but fall short on the execution. My Swift Holiday 7X35 must be 40 or more years old. They are marked "COATED OPTICS" only. May well have BK7 prisms. But their brightness and resolution rivals my best 21 st century roof prisms with modern coating, to my eyes anyway.

FOV by itself is not a good indictor either. By using a tape measure and comparing the FOV to my Celestron Regal 10X42 certified by EdZ I came up with the following:

Swift Holiday, listed 11 deg FOV, measured 10.3 deg, Busnell Explorere II, listed 11.5 deg, measured 10.2 to 11.2 deg. Stellar listed 11 deg, measured 10.2 deg. The number for Stellar and Swift are very close. But the Swift has much better resolution across a much wider area. The Stellar edge performance is so poor it's difficult to read the marking on the tape measure from 50% out.

I gave two figures for the Bushnell Explorer II. The smaller FOV is if I look thru both tubes at the same time as I would a pair of binos. The bigger, 11.2 deg FOV is if I look thru the left tube first and placed the Field stop at the extreme left edge. Then again right eye only and the field stop at the extreme right edge. The binocular view and FOV thru EACH tube do not exactly overlap.

Quality of view thru the Swift is best, followed by Bushnell Explorer II. Clear last place goes to the Stellar 7X35. Reading the specs and coating alone is not an good predictor of view quality.

I don't think I spent more than $30 per pair so my expectations were less lofty.

ERik D

#3 GlennLeDrew



  • *****
  • Posts: 15,850
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008

Posted 06 February 2010 - 06:11 PM

I'm curious about your 'tape measure' test for FOV. I ask because if you're working at close distances the effective magnification is a little greater and hence the FOV a bit smaller.

#4 litesong


    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2010

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:33 PM

I just got a used B&L 7x35 Legacy binocular, comparing it with my used Penny's, Sears, & Kanto 7x35 & Bell & Howell 8x40 very wide angle binoculars. My friend & I used to have an astronomy optics shop & sold the B&L 7x50 Legacy binocular because we both liked & endorsed its excellent star field presentations to our customers.
First, the Kanto is the 7x35 version of the Bell & Howell 8x40, which I love for its pleasant, easily viewable image. The Kanto, tho, is even better than the B&H. The Kanto is pleasant to use, needing little image fine tuning, or diopter dickering, & giving a fine accessible image with little need to turn your neck to see the far perimeter of the field. Of course, the B&H 8x40 is similar to the Kanto, except the 8x40 image is a bit more in your face. My B&H may be a little off in collimation, too. If you roll down the eyepiece shades, Sears 7x35 gives a nice 3D view, tho its presentation doesn't match the Kanto. The Penney's 7x35 is OK, but it has an insta-focus set up which handicaps getting the sharpest focus, tho it gets to an approximate focus quickly. Also, you must work to get & keep the image focus of both eyepieces in sync.
With its 'multi-coated' lenses I expected more from the B&L Legacy. Initially, I thought the contrast of the Legacy may have been better than my other less expensive binos & I was pleased. I noted that the perimeter of the image was harder to access with the Legacy, tho. The next day on an often viewed wooded scene, I thought the Legacy gave a very nice 3D view. Comparing with my other binos, I noted that the Kanto's also gave a very nice 3D view, I would have to say, with equal pleasure of the Legacy's. Now something occurred, that I should have noted earlier. But I was hoping the Legacy's would be my best 7x35 super wideangle optics. The Legacy's didn't have as large a sharp sweet spot as the Kanto's or even the Sears 7x35's! Couldn't quite believe it. But yeah, the Legacy's lacked a truly wide sharp central image! I will try to test the Legacy's on the night sky to see what the star images are like. But I think I have my answer already. The Legacy's are nice, but NOT as nice as the Kanto 7x35. With the lack of a flat field, the Legacy must be said NOT to be as good as the Kanto sibling, the B&H 8x40 binoculars, even with the B&H 8x40 collimation being just a tad off.

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Recent Topics

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics