Celestron Trailseeker Ed Roof Binocular, 10 X 32 Mm Size

Not as good optically as bins I already have and have sold used such as some of the big name brands, so sadly not for me but I am fairly picky though I do use cheaper bins also if I like them.I have an Athlon Midas 10x25 and that has impressed me a lot (I have already Leica Ultravid and Zeiss Victory compacts) and prompted me to try this 10x32 for something with a little more capability.I also have a 10x42 Viking Peregrine ED and I can see that the Celestron optics are very similar to the Peregrine though it has a larger and brighter view but is a much larger binocular and probably both from the same China factory. They both have the same high colour saturation and I think that is what leads to the lesser contrast and apparent sharpness and the purple fringing and none of my other binoculars have this effect and I prefer them not to. I also have the Peregrine ED in 8x32 and that has impressed me.It's difficult to know how you feel about a binocular until you actually get it to try and if like me you try quite a few over the years, then sometimes you get what impresses and sometimes not and I think this binocular needs less rich colour with purple edges and more brightness and sharp contrast, well for me anyhow.Edit: I actually subsequently ordered the non ED version and just received it and I am very surprised and gladly relieved to say that I actually prefer it and it's much better value! Has nice colour and I got some very rich colour, sharp and contrasty views when out on a bright day and otherwise the view was generally good and useful. Some glare and softness at times around the outer edge of the view, I think due to the object lens edges not being blackened but shielding the binocular with my hand got rid of this so not a major problem.The optics in the two 10x32 versions are very similar but this non-ED version is not as high colour saturation or oversaturated like the ED version. I think it's a better colour balance and it also seems no worse for purple fringing than the ED version though I have not tested them both in lots of light conditions. I also like the non-ED version as it doesn't have all those silver bits on the bodywork and I prefer the mainly black. I actually don't see the point in buying the ED version after having both. I had returned the ED & maybe it has more expensive glass but the glass in this non-ED version is perfectly fine. The objectives have a nice green coating instead of the bright blue of the ED version objectives.You decide but one problem with both of the 10x32's are the small ocular lenses i.e the eyepieces which are more compact type size and therefore not as easy for relaxed eye placement but they aren't terrible. There also is not a lot of eye relief but generally I was pleased enough with this 10x32 to then order the non-ED 8x32 version and it's possibly even better with wider, brighter more relaxed view and larger eyepieces and the 2 non-ED versions cost me less than the one ED version so for me the non-ED versions were definitely the way to go in the end but at least I did try the 10x32 ED version first to see if I favoured that and was surprised that I actually do not so why pay double the price?

Jest warta ceny, także po podwyżce. Ma bardzo dobrą rozdzielczość. Zniekształcenia typu aberracja dystorsja na bardzo niskim poziomie. Obraz jest lekko ocieplony, ale na pierwszy rzut oka tego nie widać. Poza tym ma bogate wyposażenie. Czytałem, że lornetki Celestrona mają jakby zamglone obrazy, ale nic z tych rzeczy. Mój egzemplarz ma obraz jak "żyleta" od krawędzi do krawędzi.

Good value for the money.