Celestron Showdown: Battle of the 10x42's

If you’ve ever shopped for binoculars as a beginner, you’ll have probably noticed that they all look similar, they’re packed full of jargon about coatings and prisms, and the price tags range from “that’s cheaper than going out for dinner” to “I could buy a used car for that”. This is particularly apparent in the world of 10×42 binoculars — the Goldilocks size that’s just right for just about everything, from spotting birds in the garden to sweeping across the night sky.

So why should you go for a 10×42? In short, it’s the jack-of-all-trades of binocular specs; ideal if you want to look at a variety of general subjects without necessarily specializing in a particular niche. The 10x magnification gets you close enough to see detail without resulting in too much shake, and the 42mm objective lenses gather plenty of light without weighing you down. It’s no surprise that this size is the best seller across almost every brand.

But here’s the catch: not all 10x42s are created equal. The glass, coatings and materials can be the difference between “hey look, there’s a bird” to “wow, I can see every feather”. Celestron offers six models across four different ranges in this size — Outland X, Nature DX (plus an ED version), TrailSeeker (plus an ED version) and Regal ED. These range from budget-friendly to “treat yourself,” with each step up adding a little more sophistication (and a little more strain on your wallet).

You may like

Image 1 of 2

We found them satisfactory for casual use, but they fell short compared to the others.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)The addition of a textured grip would have been improved their handling, but overall, they were fine.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

There was noticeable chromatic aberration around high-contrast subjects, and the overall picture was softer and duller than the rest of the lineup. The build quality feels solid yet lightweight, although it lacks some of the premium features you’ll find on the more expensive models. Still, it’s waterproof and nitrogen-purged to prevent fogging, which is important for an outdoor binocular. The focus wheel is fairly smooth, although the diopter is noticeably stiffer than the other models.

Overall, we’d recommend the Outland X series if you just want to get a closer look at subjects without spending too much money, and you aren’t bothered about having highly detailed views. We’re not sure we’d pay $119 for the 10×42, so it might be worth waiting for Black Friday to take advantage of a deal, or downsizing to the 8×25 or 10×25 if you don’t need to use them in low light.

Would we buy them? No.

The TrailSeeker had lots of subtle improvements over the standard Nature DX, but the price was a dealbreaker. (Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

In the TrailSeeker, we see the introduction of phase and dielectric-coated prisms. The latter enables more light to be reflected off the prism, resulting in a brighter image than the Nature DX and Outland X, which only have phase coating. The combination of phase and dielectric maximizes light transmission, making this pair better suited for wildlife observation in low light and stargazing. The differences in brightness, sharper image quality and reduced glare compared to the Nature DX are small, but noticeable. The build has also been upgraded to lightweight and durable magnesium alloy.

When we tested them out at a nature reserve, we noticed a fair amount of chromatic aberration when observing ducks on a pond, which was completely eliminated once we switched to a pair with ED glass. There’s a bit of fringing around the moon, and we enjoyed using them for stargazing as they are comfortable to use for long periods.

Image 1 of 2

We found the TrailSeeker one of the more comfortable pairs to use.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)They’re lightweight with a good grip and comfortable eyecups — alongside excellent optics.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

Putting the TrailSeeker in fifth place does feel a bit harsh, because they are undoubtedly a fantastic pair of binoculars. Before we introduced the ED models into our group test, the TrailSeeker was initially our favorite. However, the addition of the Nature DX ED, in particular, has presented a better option for a lower price, so it’s hard to justify placing the TrailSeeker any higher.

Overall, the TrailSeeker performed very similarly to the Nature DX, and although they were slightly better in terms of sharpness, brightness and overall clarity, we didn’t notice enough of a difference to make the price jump worth it. At the end of it, it came down to value for money.

Would we buy them? No, but only because there are better options — not because there’s anything wrong with these ones.

The Nature DX effortlessly combines performance with affordability. (Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

It’s easy to see why the Nature DX is a bestseller. They offer a great balance of decent performance and affordability, making them good for beginners and hobbyists who want to get their money’s worth without having to spend too much on exceptional optics.

We took them to our local nature reserve and struggled to make out finer details when observing waterfowl. There was also noticeable color fringing on birds and trees, both near and in the distance. For this reason, we wouldn’t recommend them for birdwatching, specifically, but they performed quite well for stargazing and general purpose viewing.

In many of our tests, the Nature DX actually performed very similarly to the more expensive TrailSeeker, with only a fraction of a difference in sharpness across the frame, chromatic aberration and overall brightness. For more casual users, these differences certainly won’t warrant spending the extra $100-$140 to upgrade to the TrailSeeker.

Image 1 of 2

The Nature DX is the lightest of the six models we tested.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)They’re great for beginner birders and casual stargazing.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

The Nature DX is the lightest of the six models, and the weight difference is particularly apparent when compared to the Regal. They’re perfectly suited to throwing in your bag on a hike or taking on camping trips where you’ll want to view a whole range of subjects, and we think they’re good value for money overall — but we would pay the extra to upgrade to the Nature DX ED.

Would we buy them? No, we’d pay the extra for the ED variant.

8×42 and 12×56 variants

The TrailSeeker ED 10×42’s were brilliant, but we have trouble recommending them. (Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

This is where the fun starts. The TrailSeeker ED are bright, sharp and excellent in low light, and we have no complaints about them at all. So, why have we placed them third, you may ask? Well, the pricing makes them a bit redundant when the Nature DX ED and Regal ED are on the table. Although the TrailSeeker ED are slightly better than the Nature DX ED, we don’t think they’re worth the extra cost, so we’d recommend the Nature DX ED for beginners or anyone on a budget.

On the other end, the Regal ED has everything the TrailSeeker ED has, plus flat-field technology to improve edge-to-edge sharpness, but the TrailSeeker ED are more expensive, so it’s a no-brainer there as well.

The TrailSeeker ED is fantastic, but the problem is that the price prevents our being able to recommend them, as there’s always a more attractive option.

Image 1 of 2

There is a big difference between the TrailSeeker and TrailSeeker ED when it comes to long-distance clarity.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)They boast a solid, premium build.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

During our group test at the nature reserve, we noticed the TrailSeeker ED was definitely brighter, sharper and clearer than the Nature ED, but again, not by the kind of margin that might warrant such a huge price jump. The trees in the distance had more definition, so the TrailSeeker ED would be better for long-distance viewing, specifically, in addition to low-light observation. The TrailSeeker ED was also much more detailed than the standard TrailSeeker when we were looking at leaves on a pond. They’re fantastic for both birdwatching and stargazing, but we just wish they were priced better.

The TrailSeeker ED was one of two pairs where we felt truly immersed in the scene we were observing. With the other four pairs, it felt obvious that we were looking through binoculars.

Would we buy them? Currently, no. If they were cheaper, yes.

The Nature DX ED are a triumph for the price. (Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

Financially, the Nature DX ED seems to make the most sense out of Celestron’s lineup. While they don’t quite have the optical power of the Regal ED, the Nature DX ED still excels in comparison to the Nature DX and TrailSeeker, and packs a lot of punch for the price.

We noticed a big reduction in chromatic aberration when comparing them against the normal Nature DX and TrailSeeker models, both for close-up viewing and objects in the distance. This was particularly apparent when observing birds in flight, and when peering at a bright moon, where we barely noticed any color fringing whatsoever.

Image 1 of 2

We had a hard time differentiating the Nature DX ED from the TrailSeeker ED.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)The Nature DX ED fit in the hand perfectly.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

For birdwatching, there wasn’t a huge amount of difference between the Nature DX ED and the TrailSeeker ED, despite the latter having dielectric coatings. While the TrailSeeker ED had the edge overall, the Nature DX ED give more bang for your buck and are fantastic overall.

Despite their polycarbonate build, we think they’re an excellent choice that combines substance with affordability.

Would we buy them? Yes.

The Regal ED are the most premium of the models we tested. (Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

Regal by name, regal by nature. These powerful 10x42s seem to tick all the boxes, and after spending some time with them, we are impressed — particularly after we spent a couple of nights stargazing with them in the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park in Wales, enjoying sights of Andromeda, the Summer Triangle and the Coathanger asterism.

The feature that sets them apart from the other models, which could arguably make it a little unfair to compare them, is their flat-field technology. This eliminates the natural curvature that typically occurs with standard convex lenses, to ensure edge-to-edge sharpness across the entire field of view. As you can see from the graphic further up the page, we found these to be the sharpest binoculars by far.

Image 1 of 2

They’re the heaviest of the models we tested, although we were still able to use them comfortably for long periods.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)The flat-field technology ensures razor sharp views across the entire frame.(Image credit: Kimberley Lane)

They also come with ED objective lenses as standard, whereas the other models don’t. They offer the same prism and lens coatings as the TrailSeeker models, along with the same field of view and body materials.

The views were tack-sharp throughout, with bright, contrasty views in any light. The moon looked perfect with no color fringing, and we could easily follow a Kingfisher dancing above a pond with no issues at all. Like the TrailSeeker ED, we felt truly immersed in the scene as opposed to feeling like we were looking through binoculars.

If we’re being picky, their weight could potentially deter users who are looking for a more lightweight and compact pair of binoculars. Not only is the Regal the heaviest of the lot, but the eyecups are the biggest, and we found them to be bigger than our eye sockets (yet another unrealistic beauty standard!). This meant we couldn’t, for lack of a better term, get our face in them properly without being a little uncomfortable.

This shouldn’t deter you, as this is just a personal preference, but it’s small details like this that can make a big difference in finding the right pair of binoculars for you.

Would we buy them? If we were serious about birding, yes.

Celestron Showdown: Battle of the 10×42’s

Tags: