TheSkySearchers

A couple years back I picked up this monocular because it was relatively inexpensive (<$20) and because it is a Bushnell. I own a pair of Bushnell 10X50 binos and they are of good quality so I thought this mono would not disappoint. It is advertised as 16X50 monocular. At first inspection, I could tell it certainly did not have a 50mm objective. But the 16X does seem to be reasonably accurate. And then I noticed the numbers on the other side of this monocular. Anyone care to hazard what information they are trying to convey here?
So this is an image looking straight down from the objective end with some measurements. The true aperture measurement turns out to be 37mm. When did Bushnell start lying?

Just another of the unanswered questions from the curiosities contained in my weird optical drawer.

Cheers,
JT

Even funnier they lie with precision. Not 16x50, but 16x52.

I can't find it on the official Bushnell web site.
Chinese knock off maybe?

I thought that if it were a Chinese knockoff, it would be spelled Buschnell.

JT

Very interesting JT. I have never seen a case such as this. I hope it is a knock-off and not something from Bushnell. I have a pair of 10x50's from them that are fine.

A while back, I bought one of the cheap monoculars sold all over Amazon/Ebay under different names and prices for around $20. 12x50, Bak4 prism, Waterproof/Fogproof Nitrogen Purged (they say). Can be kept in the car and fits in a (baggy) pocket, the front lens cap is attached. Comes with a useless mini tripod and phone mount which might be repurposed.
Same aperture problem, the outside diameter of the monocular is 50mm, not the objective lens. And maybe it is purged with 80% Nitrogen

Views are not too bad, and the twist up eyecup fits my 1.25" filters.

I was given a similar item by a friend to evaluate. Looked identical to your item except no Bushnell label, in fact no label at all and was claimed 20X 50 and zoom!!!
It turned out to be 6 X 32 (no zoom) and the view was AWFUL! Horrible field curvature and only about 20 % of the field was in focus and rainbow colored at that!
I also could not even guess the intention of the barrel scale. Field of view different between day and night?
It came with a phone adapter which didn't fit.
I was very happy to return it to my friend so that he could consign it to the garbage and spare me the trouble.
I can't believe Bushnell would ever agree to attaching their name to such a piece of junk.
I have a pair of Bushnell 6 x 42 bins that are excellent, in fact better than another pair of 6 x 42 Olympus' I own at X3 the price.
I suspect foul play here......

Bushnell !
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33031210184.html

Non Bushnell
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32929537772.html

Bushnell

The last one, from Amazon, with the elegant appearance as they say, is the most expensive.

Thank you for the chuckle,
JG

OK, I can understand fake Rolex, but fake Bushnell?

Bigzmey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:49 am OK, I can understand fake Rolex, but fake Bushnell?

Yup, pretty much like a fake Casio watch. So let's call it for what it is. A cheap knock-off, probably Chinese.

The exterior housing diameter is 53.7mm, so none of the numbers match. Boy, wouldn't that throw off the calcs for mag, FOV, eye relief (ER) if we used the exterior housing diameter when figuring those numbers!

So, the focused image in the center of the FOV is clear enough for daytime use. It would work adequately well for sporting events, birding, even the theatre. But the spherical aberration and the CA are pretty atrocious. Plus at 16X, which I believe it is, makes for a very shaky experience. As a little kids toy though, it would be prize possession. [mention]notFritzArgelander[/mention] maybe this is the scope you should have gotten your grandchild (just kidding).

Anyway, thanks for all your responses. It is now going back into the optical curiosity (read junk) drawer.

Cheers,
JT

Did you read the reviews?
Almost as fake as the product - "it ship on time no crush"

JayTee wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:39 am I thought that if it were a Chinese knockoff, it would be spelled Buschnell.

JT

Or maybe Buxnell....

Bigzmey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:49 am OK, I can understand fake Rolex, but fake Bushnell?

It's because no one would be fooled by fake Zeiss or Takahashi?

JayTee wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:18 am

Bigzmey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:49 am OK, I can understand fake Rolex, but fake Bushnell?

Yup, pretty much like a fake Casio watch. So let's call it for what it is. A cheap knock-off, probably Chinese.

The exterior housing diameter is 53.7mm, so none of the numbers match. Boy, wouldn't that throw off the calcs for mag, FOV, eye relief (ER) if we used the exterior housing diameter when figuring those numbers!

So, the focused image in the center of the FOV is clear enough for daytime use. It would work adequately well for sporting events, birding, even the theatre. But the spherical aberration and the CA are pretty atrocious. Plus at 16X, which I believe it is, makes for a very shaky experience. As a little kids toy though, it would be prize possession. @notFritzArgelander maybe this is the scope you should have gotten your grandchild (just kidding).

Anyway, thanks for all your responses. It is now going back into the optical curiosity (read junk) drawer.

Cheers,
JT

I missed the OP due to being "on the road". Thanks for the chuckles.

It seems that the numbers are a distance-scale from 1...?..... to infinity. But no pointer. Probably no turning of the middle part too?
Or a zoom-factor? In that case I would like to see how an infinity zoom looks like.
More likely the instrument has someone else's coat on.
But the numbers look interesting and do well in a picture..