Has anyone used a Brunton Echo Pocket Scope? It seems like a simple, inexpensive ($20) and lightweight (1.8 oz) monocular. Thanks.

I have not. But I have looked through many others. You get what you pay for.

With less expensive you often get just a small central area that is almost acceptable.
Because it is a monocular it is difficult to steady with one hand, so shake makes that small center more of a problem.

And if you are looking at the 7x18 with a twilight factor of only 2.5 don't expect a lot out of it around dusk or dawn, or heavily shadowed canyons.

I'd find one to spend some time with (REI?) or be sure you can return it "No questions asked".

With most scopes I can see details better with my eyeballs

If I take a picture with max optical zoom, then look at the image and zoom in, I can see way more detail than eyeball

I have one, received it as a gift. It really depends on what you intend on using it for. It is helpful if you are trying to enhance things that are relatively close, I would look for other alternatives if you plan on trying to magnify things at a great distance.

What was your planned use?

I looked at the Bruton at REI and was not impressed. I have looked at other monoculars in the $30 range that are much sharper and brighter. With respect to what REI sells, the Alpen 8 x 25 Waterproof Monocular is much better, albeit heavier at aout 5 oz.

I was hoping to have something lightweight for when I spot some wildlife off in the distance (un-aided) I could get a better view with. I sometimes bring my heavy Nikon binos on day hikes but I never bring them on overnights. I would like to have a lightweight option for watching wildlife.

I almost never see interesting wildlife in bright sunny weather. It is more likely to be early morning or late evening. When the light conditions are limited, some really good optics will pay off. That means good binoculars or a good long camera lens. Unfortunately, glass is heavy.

--B.G.--

You are correct. What would be a reasonably lightweight option for lower light situations.

"What would be a reasonably lightweight option for lower light situations."

Asked and answered.

Binoculars have a lens rating like 8x25. The 8 tells you the magnification factor. The 25 tells you how large the front lens is, and the larger it is, the better it can gather light. So, 8x50 gathers a lot more light than 8x25.

Camera lenses are similar. Typically the focal length is expressed in millimeters, like 400mm, and then the maximum aperture number, like f/2.8. The smaller that aperture number is, the better it gathers light when fully open. Photographers refer to that as a fast lens, although it really doesn't mean velocity of anything. If you gather more light via the wide aperture, you can speed up the shutter. Often that is good for wildlife.

--B.G.--

You can get Carson 7x32 for $42 from B&H, inc shipping . About twice as bright as tjhe 8x25. (8oz)
Franco

If you're thinking about a 5- or 8-ounce monocular, why not just get compact binoculars? They're a lot easier to use. I have a pair of Zeiss Conquest 8x20 compact binoculars that weigh 6.5 ounces and have terrific optics. They're not cheap (I paid over $200), but they're great for seeing wildlife.

I looked at the Great Nebula tonight -- a rare clear night -- and it was a fuzzy, while the stars in the belt were clear. So I would say 1000 light years is an upper limit.

The focus is tough -- min to max is about 30 degrees so it takes a light touch.

20 bucks and 1.8 ounces. What do you expect.

Like with most things there is a law of diminishing returns.
So I am aware that my suggestion is twice as much as the original budget, however I am pretty positive that it will appear to most to be "twice" as good (or better) for the extra $20.
Now those Zeiss binos are indeed nice but at $450 they are about 22 times more expensive....
Franco