Leupold BX-4 and BX-5

[cdowns]

Does anybody have any experience with either of these two options, particularly in the 10x42 and 12x50

 

[Drenalin]

Lots of good info on the BX-4s...they usually come up in discussions around sub $500 binos as an alternative to Vipers and Maven C1s. I picked up a pair new, including tax and shipping, for just under $400 a few months ago and am very very happy with them so far. I was coming from Vortex Diamondbacks though, so it would have been a shock if the BX-4s weren't a big improvement. I'd recommend them, but if your budget goes to the BX-5 you have a lot of really good options.

 

[nobody]

Haven't spent much time between either one, but the BX-4's, to my eyes, are no better or worse than any other $500 binocular on the market. They compete nicely with the Vortex Vipers, I don't think you'd be disappointed, but I also wouldn't rush out to hurry up and buy them. They're great, but definitely nothing mind blowing.

But I will say, if you're looking into binoculars in that price range, check out the Maven C series. For $500 and less, you can't beat them. They fall in line as far as glass quality is concerned with most stuff that retails for about $900, and you'll have enough left over for a few more tags this fall!

 

[Nethero]

Does anybody have any experience with either of these two options, particularly in the 10x42 and 12x50

Finally something I feel competent enough to answer.

I have used both pretty consistently for the past few years for scouting/vehicle binos. I believe both the BX-4 Pro Guide HD and BX-5 Santiam HD use the same glass so they are equal there. The differences I notice are size, build quality, color rendition, contrast, internal reflections, field of view, and resolution. When listed out like that it looks like a lot, but in reality their images are more similar that different.

the BX-4 is smaller and more compact, has more of cooler color tones, less contrast, more internal reflections, has a smaller field of view, and are able to resolve less. The biggest optical flaw or frustration, however you see it, are they show more reflections that can present the image as more washed out compared to the BX-5. This is probably why the BX-5 appears more contrasted and able to resolve minute details better.

However, I am confident that either will allow for proper ID, sizing of game, finding game, etc., all the same. It really comes down to how much scrutiny do you give an oak tree’s bark that is 650 yards away from your back window like I do. That is really the only time I notice much difference. Real world use, their images present themselves very similarly.

In comparison to other binos others know and use- both are better than a Vortex Viper HD. The BX-5 would be comparable to a Razor HD and Tract Toric UHD. However, the Maven B series, Conquest HD, and Trinovid HD are steps above both Leupolds. I have no experience with Maven C series binos, so I can’t comment there.

As for build quality, I have not seen a bad copy of the BX-4, but almost every BX-5 I have seen has had the worst hinge tension I have ever seen. They just flop on themselves. Which is concerning considering their price point.

As for 10x42 and 12x50, I have compared both BX-4 and BX-5 in 8x42 and 10x42. Both formats had similar images with no real differences other than magnification between each series. I have not looked through a BX-5 12x50, but I have looked through a BX-4 12x50, and again, similar to the others within the series.

 

[BassAssassin04]

I have had the BX-5 10x42 for 3 full seasons now and I'm very happy with them. No complaints. Only other bino I have used on a regular basis are in the $200 range, so not really any comparison to be made there. I'm happy I upgraded.

 

[Trooper]

Finally something I feel competent enough to answer.

I have used both pretty consistently for the past few years for scouting/vehicle binos. I believe both the BX-4 Pro Guide HD and BX-5 Santiam HD use the same glass so they are equal there. The differences I notice are size, build quality, color rendition, contrast, internal reflections, field of view, and resolution. When listed out like that it looks like a lot, but in reality their images are more similar that different.

the BX-4 is smaller and more compact, has more of cooler color tones, less contrast, more internal reflections, has a smaller field of view, and are able to resolve less. The biggest optical flaw or frustration, however you see it, are they show more reflections that can present the image as more washed out compared to the BX-5. This is probably why the BX-5 appears more contrasted and able to resolve minute details better.

However, I am confident that either will allow for proper ID, sizing of game, finding game, etc., all the same. It really comes down to how much scrutiny do you give an oak tree’s bark that is 650 yards away from your back window like I do. That is really the only time I notice much difference. Real world use, their images present themselves very similarly.

In comparison to other binos others know and use- both are better than a Vortex Viper HD. The BX-5 would be comparable to a Razor HD and Tract Toric UHD. However, the Maven B series, Conquest HD, and Trinovid HD are steps above both Leupolds. I have no experience with Maven C series binos, so I can’t comment there.

As for build quality, I have not seen a bad copy of the BX-4, but almost every BX-5 I have seen has had the worst hinge tension I have ever seen. They just flop on themselves. Which is concerning considering their price point.

As for 10x42 and 12x50, I have compared both BX-4 and BX-5 in 8x42 and 10x42. Both formats had similar images with no real differences other than magnification between each series. I have not looked through a BX-5 12x50, but I have looked through a BX-4 12x50, and again, similar to the others within the series.

Thanks for this. Do you think the tension issue is intentional or a QC issue?

 

[Nethero]

Thanks for this. Do you think the tension issue is intentional or a QC issue?

I have no clue on that. Maybe both?

I found a few that had OK tension, but were still incredibly easy to adjust.

Also, I seem to think there was more of a loose hinge issue with 8x42 BX-5’s more so than 10x42’s.

I just figured QC, but you brought up a good point. I doubt it would be intentional, but one never knows.

 

[Hoodie]

I just tried a 12x50 BX-4 last week.

I thought the pure image quality was great, but I'd echo what was said above about the lack of flare control/veiling glare.

At sunset for me almost half the field of view had a white-ish haze over it. That's a deal breaker for me.

This is the second 12x50 I've tried in that general price range that had that issue.