| Silverseeker wrote:|
To what degree are the Leupolds sharper, brighter, etc.
I am basically an ignorer of Bushnell stuff. Mostly because of entirely unsatisfactory personal experience with their service and repair incompetence.
One of the reasons I asked the question I did about what you needed to upgrade is the simple fact that these days there are few poor binoculars in the mid price range stuff. As far as I can see, a non obsessed optics user can get along just fine with a $2-300 purchase. I also see little to no need of ever having to spend more than $600.
There is precious little, real world, practical improvement to be had above that price. The newer $900-1,200 class is functionally equivalent to thee $2K+ stuff. Yes there are differences at each level, but you have to have a magnifying glass and a nit picker to ferret out the subtle differences that exist. You also have to enjoy arguments akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" philosophical questions. At some point in a quest for the latest upgrade, you will pass the point where you will think that the differences, however slight is more significant than it really is. Beware and start saving, for you will never be satisfied at that point. I guess that is the reason I say that upgrades for the sake of the upgrade may not be the best thing to do.
I like the McKinley. I like the ZEN Prime. You will not improve them much, if any, without significant higher outlays of $$$'s. I have had them both side by side with both the new Swarovski SV EL and the SLC-HD. The differences are there but subtle and not worth, to me certainly, the $$$ difference. If you can't see it with a McKinley you won't see it with a Swarovski either.
I would venture a guess that if you really like what you see with the Bushnell 10x42 you have, the views are likely to be similar enough to be inconsequential.