The Pulsar Axion 2 XG35 LFR is broadly comparable to its budget brother the XQ35. The main difference is a larger sensor. You can find the core technical data below. As a user, I'm actually much more interested in the performance in practice, and of course whether the additional price of around 800€ to the XQ is justified.

So I went out and compared the XG35 with the XQ35. I used the Helion 2 XP50 as a benchmark. So I had all sensor types together, and hopefully I can give you a good comparison.

So much in advance: Each device is a joy to use in practice.

The benchmark, the Helion 2 XP50 is clearly superior to both devices in terms of image quality, and in my opinion, the focus can also be adjusted better. The eyepiece is also more comfortable to look through due to the eyecup. However, the Helion lacks something that has proven to be extremely useful in practice - the rangefinder.

Personally, I can say that in practice I am happy to sacrifice some image quality if I have a rangefinder to help me estimate the distance and size of the game.

In the field, the XG35 has served me very well. The image quality has always been sufficient and the rangefinder has worked very well except for one evening with very bad weather. Battery life, like its little brother, has been excellent. A whole evening (about 8 hours) of continuous use - no problem. We never got the battery empty. I consider the stated 11 hours to be realistic, at least in summer.

However, the picture quality is not satisfactory in my eyes compared to the XQ35. It does not justify a price premium of around 800€,

My choice, should I have to buy an observing instrument today, would therefore be the Axion 2 XQ35 LRF - an inexpensive instrument in the truest sense of the word. Improvements could be made to the eyepiece and a design that is easier to use with the left hand.