Roxant Viper Monocular Telescope - 10x25 High Definition Weatherproof Pocket Telescope with Hand Grip & BAK4 Prism - with Compact, Case, Wrist Strap, etc for Adults High Powered

I bought this along with the similarly priced monocular from Celestron and Barska along with the much more expensive Vortex, all 10x25. I needed something small for quick and simple looks at targets, or for some nice views while hiking, in situations where a proper spotting scope was unnecessary. After comparing, the Roxant is the only one I kept and I'm very happy with it (Celestron was good too).Some details:The Barska was the only one with meaningfully inferior optics, mostly chromatic aberration. To my delight, both the Celestron and Roxant were close to if not comparable to the ostensibly higher quality Vortex, with the Roxant possibly just edging out the Celestron (no complaints with either).The Roxant mono's ergonomics are very similar to the Vortex, just slimmed down. I actually prefer this. The Vortex is built like a freakin' tank, which is great, but I intentionally wanted something small and light to keep on my belt and to grab at a moment's notice. For this the Roxant is a little better. Moreover, the placement and resistance of the focus dial on the Vortex made it just a little more awkward to use single-handed. Not a huge deal, but again subtle benefit to the Roxant.This of course is not even touching on the price. For $20-25 this is a fantastic piece of gear that I can just keep in my bag or belt without having to overthink it. The Roxant says it's waterproof, and it might be, but I haven't tested that. The Vortex makes the same claim, and build quality feels a little more reassuring, but the Roxant doesn't feel cheap and the truth is if it does get a little banged or beat up and I have to replace it, I can do that at least three times before matching the price of the Vortex... so yeah, great value.For what it's worth, the Celestron had perfectly acceptable optics and easy focus action as well. It's slightly less ergonomic (different traction and finger grooves), but by no means was it uncomfortable or difficult to use. Feels a little less rugged than the the Roxant though. For my purposes I went with Roxant, but if you like the Celestron better and are looking for a budget 10x25 mono I doubt you'll be disappointed.The ONLY critique I have, which isn't even that bad, is the case it comes with definitely does feel cheap. It's a very thin polyester rip-stop kind of material, compared to the Vortex which comes with a strong, beefy ballistic nylon case. With that said, for $22 I'm absolutely not complaining. If you do intend to have this on a belt or in a bag with things that can bump it maybe consider getting a different case; this one will get the job done though, just not super protective.

I bought 2 of these to use at my daughters archery events. 1 came broken and I returned it. So no beef there.We use the other on the weekends. I just wish I had bought a bigger/clearer unit.Focuses decent at 20-30 meters, but isn't truly clear. Could use a better magnification or clarity.

I usually don’t write reviews, but since I went through some extra effort here to trial 4 brands at the same time, so I hope this is helpful information.Background: I wanted to find a good monocular that I can easily throw in my fanny pack or in my pocket in case I need it … mainly for hiking, site-seeing, etc. This is a good time to establish the value of a monocular: It is strictly for go-anywhere compactness – the viewing image will never be as good as a pair of good binoculars (my compact Nikon 7x20 binocs are superior to any monocular I’ve tried). Onto my testing …I tried four different models – at different specs and price points (listed):Vortex Solo ($ 67.00, 10x25): Hi quality construction and grip BUT larger & heavier than most (wouldn’t want it in my pocket). Good optics quality BUT the eyepiece created interference with viewing and adjustment was very stiff.Carson Monozoom ($ 29.99, 7-21x21): Design was funky and the dual controls (separate for magnification (from 7 to 21) and focus made it difficult to use. Optics were just so-so … high magnification was too blurry, low mag was OK.Roxant Viper ($24.99, 10x25): Good quality, compact design (small/light enough to go in your pocket), and the easiest to use. Optics were surprisingly good and the adjustment was the easiest to use.Leonuoraso ($12.79, 10x22): OK quality and easy to hold and use – these were the smallest and lightest of the four. Optics were OK, with a bit lower light coming thru the smaller (x22) aperture.Decision: The Roxant Viper was a stand-out value, providing a good quality compact monocular that hit the right features and compromises – it will be my go-anywhere optics. Due to the super-low price, I also kept the Leonuoraso as a dedicated accessory for my RV (I recently went to Yellowstone and FORGOT to bring any optics – that won’t happen again . I wanted to like the Vortex Solo, but the size and eyepiece awkwardness made it easy to eliminate. The Carson was just too gimmicky and clunky to operate.

Uselessly bad.So unclear as to be useless. The lenses were not aligned and it gave the effect of being very drunk. They were so bad it gave an oval picture instead of a circle. Could not focus because it was all misaligned.

Roxant viper monocular lets light in but the resolution is low when you look at far distant object and that’s when you need high magnification the most.After comparing it with Carson 7-21 ,The Carson 7-21 appeared clearer at 7x and 8x than the 10x roxant viper! although roxant is brighter but it lacks the resolution. The Carson 7-21 is more versatile and it’s best clarity at 7x to 8x (at 7x the objective lens of Carson gives a bigger 3mm pupil size compared to the fixed 2.5mm pupil size of the roxant viper) and then start losing resolution, brightness and focus control as you go up but still gives a nice performance for its price and smaller objective lens size.The roxant fill from a car dashboard on a hard object inside the car (70cm hight) and became blind with objects shaking inside. Opening it showed how the inside glass broke a thin and cheaply plastic holder easily..! What is the benefit of using a strong rubber outside and using cheap thin plastic pins inside that can’t hold the glass for a moderate hit!.

Arrived quickly. Very simple. Sturdy. Easy to use. Compact and easy to carry. Quality, for the price, is good.