Roxant Viper Monocular Telescope – 10x25 Monoculars for Adults High Powered | Military Grade BAK4 Prism Pocket Scope | Weatherproof with Case, Wrist Strap & Smartphone Adapter

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.

My old monoscope gifted to me was a 5x20 non focusable unit. It works and is easily pocketable. It has a wide view angle that works while wearing glasses and not wearing glasses. I wanted more viewing reach.This Roxant Viper is 10x25 giving me further sight reach while still maintaining pocketability. Bonus is it is focusable! This is far more clear than my old monoscope, I am pleased with it’s lightness snd function. The only downside is viewing while wearing glasses is not optimal. While using this Roxant, I put my glasses on top of my head, not a huge deal. I kinda’ wish the view angle was wider, but thats nit picking. This unit is $21 , its affordable and suits my needs. I recommend this product for a quality to cost ratio. I’m not interested in a larger more cumbersome $80 unit. Just buy this Roxant Viper

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 had this monocular for 3 months, worked well when i received it. nice and light weight. I the focus working after 3 months of very gentle and barely any use. Do not recommend, buy something else.

This offers "entry level " image quality but is OK considering the price. It has a little color variarion, a little image distortion, and it blurs at the edges. I'm surprised it claims to have a BAK-4 prism. The belt loop stitching disconnedcted after wearing it only twice, but I has stitched it back on. Others have mentioned that the belt loop is unreliable. It would have been a trivial manuafcturing cost to use stornger thread.