8x42mm bins...Zeiss FL v. Swaro (8.5) EL v. Leica HD?

[Sancho]

I know it´s a totally subjective thing, but just out of interest (one can´t test these three models where I live)....what do BF members, who´ve seen all three, prefer? No need for in-depth analysis, just gut reactions.

[JohnJos]

Sancho,

My impression is based upon a totally unscientific approach. I tested all three last year at the Cape May Bird Observatory Northwood Center store. I didn't like the EL mainly from a ergonomics standpoint, the open bridge design just isn't for me. I spend an hour or so outside with the Leica HD and the Zeiss FL. The center attracts a lot of small birds, titmice, chickadees, nuthatches, warblers, etc., so it was a very good test ground. I liked both of these instruments very much. But I came away with the FLs. I just liked how they felt in my hands, the smooth quick focus knob, and the weight and balance of the unit. But above all, the view was fantastic. Bright, sharp, good depth of field, wide. Not a lot better that the Leica but suffciently enough for me to favor the FLs. After about 6 months, I had the opportunity to try the Leicas again at the Eagle Festival. I still favored the FLs. So now I've had the FLs for over a year and they are still unequaled in my opinion.

I'm looking for a pair of 8x32 bins and don't want to spend as much as I spent on the FLs. But everything is coming up short. Spoiled I guess.

Anyway, that's my assessment, for what it's worth.

[Kevin Conville]

Sancho, Sancho, Sancho. Stirring the pot are you?
Since this is really a poll, and is a lot like asking chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry, I'll keep my answer very brief.

Leica.

[FrankD]

I have not tried the new Leica HDs yet. However when looking for a 7x bin I did compare the SLC with the FL and the Ultravid. I preferred the FL also. The clarity of the image (sharpness, contrast and brightness) seemed to be a step above the other two. It is one of the few images produced by a binocular where I actually felt that my eyes were truly incapable of showing all of the detail that the binocular was delivering. I have not owned or tried another binocular that gave me this effect.

[dalat]

Hi,
I recently bought the Leica 8x42 HD after comparing side by side with the Swarowski El and Zeiss Fl.

Of course it was very close and I am sure I would be happy with either of them.

Most important criteria for me were handling (ergonomics) and optical peformance in difficult light conditions typical for forest birding such as back light or strong differences of light and dark.

The Zeiss I liked a little less because of handling and of somewhat more flare than the other two. It was very close between the Swaro and the Leica. I really loved the ergonomics of the Swaro. I decided for Leica because I thought the image to be sharper (in the centre) than the Swaro and because of the compactness of the Leica.

Florian

[Alexis Powell]

Swarovski 8.5x42 EL

[ThoLa]

..., just gut reactions.

And which one does Mrs. Sancho favour? ;)

[Sancho]

And which one does Mrs. Sancho favour? ;)

Sancho, Sancho, Sancho. Stirring the pot are you?


3:-) I guess so, Kevin. It was the new Chinese-made ED´s that started me thinking about it. Tom, Mrs. Sancho prefers the ones that cost nothing, i.e. I have to sell off kit to pay for them...which is fair enough. I might just think about it in the New Year.

Thanks for the evaluations, guys. Many reviews are available to be perused at leisure, but your gut reactions are extremely welcome because they say more than the mere spec details.:t:

[Nick Elliston]

Tried them all a year or so back but tore my notes up after I had purchased. Small differences in each but basically fould all of them excellent which to me then comes down to ergonomics (and cost). Ignoring cost, my preference was Leica > Swaro > Zeiss.

[postcardcv]

They are all very good, but when I tested them a while back the Swaro won out for me (so now I have a pair), I don't see me changing in a hurry.

[Robert / Seattle]

... my preference was Leica > Swaro > Zeiss.

ditto

[Kevin Conville]

...my preference was Leica > Swaro > Zeiss.

Yes, more specifically than my earlier post, I agree.

For giggles, I went by an optics store in town today and revisted Swaro ELs and Zeiss FLs. I haven't looked at/through them in a while and I guess I wanted to see if my recollections were still accurate.

The view through them all are great and I'd be happy with any of them for that. The ergos and mechanicals are what (slightly) separate them for me.

[John M Robinson]

I haven't been able to try a Zeiss 8x42, but I took both an 8.5x42 EL and a 8x42 Ultravid home for a weekend checkout and I kept the Ultravid. It really could have gone either way and smoetimes I wonder if I'm missing anything passing on the Swaros.

[APSmith]

For some time I considered the EL 8x32 to be my dream binocular. This was based on a repeated preference over all contenders at the sales counter. Then, I did an extensive field eval and decided that they were not for me. This was in part because they didn't quite match my beloved Nikon EII, but even as stand alone bins, there was something just not satisfying; I kind of grew tired of looking through them; there was nothing to really complain about, just not the WOW I expected.

Now, I have since done the same with a pair of Trinovid 8x32s. While there are some things not to like, I just simply enjoy the view, even after some time; and it does have that WOW factor, especially under certain conditions, slightly surpassing the mighty EII in some light. Even the less than smooth focuser has grown on me. Now I have begun to wonder about the 8x42 Leica.

Finally, the Zeiss FL: I've noticed variation with all the specimens I've handled in stores. And a brief comparison with the Trino outdoors on tree top birds in Cape May last year was also disappointing. I would like to try them for an hour in the field, but as it is, they are not a temptation.

Question about the Leicas: What is the sweet spot size ranking between the Trino 8x32, Ultravid 8x32, and Ultravid 8x42?

APS

[denco@comcast.n]

I just compared the Leica 8x42 Ultravids to the Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL the other day at Sportman's Warehouse. They are both awesome binoculars! It would really be personal preference in deciding which one to buy. I thought maybe the Swarovski was a little brighter. The build quality of both of them is amazing!

Dennis

[temmie]

zeiss.

All three have rather mediocre build quality compared to e.g. SLC, Trinovid, Zeiss Classic.
I have seen:
Leica HD with rubber coming off after 2 years of use
Swarovski EL with water in the binocular after 1 month of use
Swarovski EL with rubber coming of and one lens coloring yellow after 5 years
Zeiss with rubber coming off after one year of use, and top cap of barrel adjuster falling of after one year.

Just to say they have all flaws, because they are made of plastic and are made too light to be durable as the ones they used to make. I have also seen perfect ones after many years. It all depends on the intensity of use: how many here go out in the pooring rain, and eat, sleap, camp with their bins, and use them in the tropics and on high altitudes? Or how many are just coming out with their bins on a lazy sunday afternoon in dry weather, or from the window of their car?

My opinion is based on optics (and overall, I still consider optics most important). If I had to rank them according to ergnomics: Swarovski. Build quality: Leica.

[Alexis Powell]

It all depends on the intensity of use

More like intensity of abuse. I've known plenty of folks who use their binoculars heavily under all conditions, but the best predictor of whether their binos deterorate is if they abuse them. It seems to me that there is a contingent of birders (tropical high altitude and otherwise) who think that real birders abuse their binoculars. For example, they take every opportunity to scratch the lenses by never casing their bino when packing it, and by not removing sand or salt before cleaning the lenses in the field. Actually, one of the most extreme forms of abuse is to leave them on the dashboard of the car/truck for days at a time in the heat and sun, and while bouncing down unmaintained vehicle trails. They never engage in preventive maintenance (e.g. by using rubber preservative on armor or eyecups). All the "intensly used" binos that I've seen that look heavily worn are ones that have been similarly abused. In general, the top-end binos can survive a lot of unnecessarily rough treatment, but it's always possible for the odd Leica, Zeiss, or Swarovski unit to have problems with rubber armoring, waterproofing, or other such issues. However, from what I've seen, for problems to occur is just as likely with the older models (SLC, Trinovid, Classic) as the newer ones.

--AP

[dogfish]

For what it's worth, Zeiss have had to replace two of my 7x42FLs because of a focusing problem that a factory repair in Germany made worse, and a replacement pair that let in water on a rainy day.Then the focusing became unusably rough on the second replacement pair and had to be fixed.
I take the view that my experience goes beyond what I what consider bad luck, and is indicative of poor build quality or quality control, or both.
And yes, I know some people have had them for ages without any problems...

Sean

[Sancho]

Thanks guys. That´s 3 votes for Zeiss, 4/5 for Leica, and 2 for Swaro. Plus some observations about quality control issues. Now it´s a question of deciding which of the spec features are my greatest priorities. Or simply not bothering and taking my EII´s out for a walk.;)

[ThoLa]

Thanks guys. That´s 3 votes for Zeiss, 4/5 for Leica, and 2 for Swaro. Plus some observations about quality control issues. Now it´s a question of deciding which of the spec features are my greatest priorities. Or simply not bothering and taking my EII´s out for a walk.;)

Sancho, face it: you'll need one of each! ;)



apart from that I#d like to cast a vote for Swarovski. I decided to have one this summer .... then they announced a new version .... then they announced a delay .... :-C

ergonomically they win; optically the top enders are so close to each other.


Rudolph is already doing his annual high altitude training,
yours,
Santa

[Sancho]

Sancho, face it: you'll need one of each! ;)

Santa

I´m afraid the Clear-Out of Sancho´s Optics cupboard won´t cover that, Mr. Santa Sir...and anyway I don´t believe in You!!! (Gasps from the assembled Elves and Reindeer).

I think I´ll wait until these Fancy New Nikons come out early next year.

[ThoLa]

I´m afraid the Clear-Out of Sancho´s Optics cupboard won´t cover that, Mr. Santa Sir....

So you#re telling me you need a new cupboard, too ?!

Hey, Rudi, it's going to be a really big bag we have to carry this year.


I think I´ll wait until these Fancy New Nikons come out early next year.

Will they jump the gun and be in the shops before the new ELs?

(beware: there's a BIG hole in them!)

S. Claus

[Sancho]

Will they jump the gun and be in the shops before the new ELs?

S. Claus
According to Nikon Yourp, they´ll be available in February 2009. I found a spec of them online (see Nikon forum). In every respect they´re my dream 8x42mm bino (ED glass, great ER and exit pupil, open-bridge, FOV of 7.7 degrees). But almost as heavy as the EL 8.5x42. So we´ll have to wait and see.

[Kevin Conville]

I think I´ll wait until these Fancy New Nikons come out early next
year.

I don't know if you're interested in the 7x42 EDGs as they are available now, at least in the States. I vote for you getting these, as I want to read your review! If you don't get the Nikons, help out Leica by buying theirs :t:

I think they may be the most financially fragile right now.

Addendum: Ah, for 8x42s, I guess you'll have to wait. BTW, considering the economic climate, do you think that maybe Nikon will yet again postpone delivery of the EDGs?

[ThoLa]

According to Nikon Yourp, they´ll be available in February 2009. I found a spec of them online (see Nikon forum). In every respect they´re my dream 8x42mm bino (ED glass, great ER and exit pupil, open-bridge, FOV of 7.7 degrees). But almost as heavy as the EL 8.5x42. So we´ll have to wait and see.


fov 56,6 deg - not too impressive.


According to Swaro: new ELs in Oct 08 ......... Jan 09 ............ 2010.
According to Nikon: EDG in Feb 09.......
Yes, let's wait, .... wait .... w....

Gives me time to get rich in the meantime!

Best wishes, Tom

[Kevin Purcell]

fov 56,6 deg - not too impressive.

The arithemtic is a bit off ... so I checked the previously referenced site

http://www.nikonhunting.com/binoculars-edg-8x42.html

Real Angular Field of View 7.7
Apparent Angular Field of View 56.6

So they're wrong too. Wouldn't be the first time a marketer got that wrong ;)

The EDGs either have a 7.1 degree FOV or 63.2 AFOV.

And might account for the "delay" (changing the aperture stop from 7.1 to 7.4) so now they look as wide as a Swaro EL with the same (widest) AFOV and the widest FOV of the Alpha 8x42s. Gotta look good on paper and "biggest" in the view!

Nikon EDG
FOV 7.7 degrees
AFOV 63.2 degrees

Zeiss 8x42 FL
FOV 7.7 degrees
AFOV 56.6 degrees

Leica Ultravid 8x42
FOV 7.4 degrees
AFOV 59.6 degrees

Swarovski EL 8.5x42
FOV 7.4 degrees
AFOV 63.1 degrees

[Sancho]

If you don't get the Nikons, help out Leica by buying theirs :t:

I think they may be the most financially fragile right now.

Addendum: Ah, for 8x42s, I guess you'll have to wait. BTW, considering the economic climate, do you think that maybe Nikon will yet again postpone delivery of the EDGs?

According to Swaro: new ELs in Oct 08 ......... Jan 09 ............ 2010.
According to Nikon: EDG in Feb 09.......
Yes, let's wait, .... wait .... w....

Gives me time to get rich in the meantime!

Best wishes, Tom
I think all bets are off until the new financial year. Then the extent of global balance sheet holes (never mind focussing-bridge holes) will be evident, and we´ll know just how deep this is....8x42 bins might be the least of our worries!;)

[mak]

The arithemtic is a bit off ... so I checked the previously referenced site

http://www.nikonhunting.com/binoculars-edg-8x42.html



So they're wrong too. Wouldn't be the first time a marketer got that wrong ;)

The EDGs either have a 7.1 degree FOV or 63.2 AFOV.

And might account for the "delay" (changing the aperture stop from 7.1 to 7.4) so now they look as wide as a Swaro EL with the same (widest) AFOV and the widest FOV of the Alpha 8x42s. Gotta look good on paper and "biggest" in the view!

Nikon EDG
FOV 7.7 degrees
AFOV 63.2 degrees

Zeiss 8x42 FL
FOV 7.7 degrees
AFOV 56.6 degrees

Leica Ultravid 8x42
FOV 7.4 degrees
AFOV 59.6 degrees

Swarovski EL 8.5x42
FOV 7.4 degrees
AFOV 63.1 degrees

Kevin.

Where did you get these figures from? 8x42 FL = 56.6 degrees!!!

it is: 135m@100m = 61.8 degrees

mak

[henry link]

Kevin,

Don't jump to conclusions about Nikon's math. See this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=109343

Henry

Edit: The Nikon link in the thread above doesn't work. Try this one:

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/binoculars/img/chart_001.jpg

[Kevin Purcell]

Kevin.

Where did you get these figures from? 8x42 FL = 56.6 degrees!!!

it is: 135m@100m = 61.8 degrees

mak

My own calculation from data on Eagle Optics web site

FOV = FOV in feet @ 1000 yds / 52.5
AFOV = FOV * magnification

You quote

135m@100m = 61.8 degrees

which isn't right

135 m @ 1000m (not 100m) gives a FOV of arctan(135/1000)

I do love Google Calculator ;)

http://www.google.com/search?q=arctan%28135%2F1000%29+in+degrees
arctan(135 / 1000) = 7.68844777 degrees

and AFOV of 8 times that

7.68844777 * 8 = 61.5075822

Close enough for government work (they do like to round off number for the linear measurement why they just can't use degrees for FOV ...)

[Kevin Purcell]

Kevin,

Don't jump to conclusions about Nikon's math. See this thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=109343

Henry

Edit: The Nikon link in the thread above doesn't work. Try this one:

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/binoculars/img/chart_001.jpg

Thanks, Henry.

Interesting I'd not see that before. I guess the old way is an approximation because tan theta ~ theta (in radians) for 5 degrees or less (for theta < 0.1ish).

And if you follow the ISO recommended math on that graphic

7.7 degrees = 0.134390352 radians

2 * arctan(8 * tan(0.123918377 / 2)) = 52.791216 degrees

which is what Nikon quote. I stand corrected!

I wonder if that will punish them if other people do a similar calculation rather like ThoLa did ;)

So all the AFOV numbers for the Alpha bins above (not the FOV) need to be reduced a bit. But they're still in the same ballpark (same FOV and same magnification so same FOV).

EDIT: I see the encoding system for URLs here seems to mangle Google calculator URLs when you edit them ;)

[Sancho]

...............why they just can't use degrees for FOV ...
I agree...speaking for the Mathematically Challenged, I can just about understand degrees, I test FOV by counting fence-posts, and I break out in a cold sweat when I see a diagram with lots of triangles and the expression "tan" written on it someplace....angular FOV works fine for me.

[Kevin Purcell]

I agree...speaking for the Mathematically Challenged, I can just about understand degrees, I test FOV by counting fence-posts, and I break out in a cold sweat when I see a diagram with lots of triangles and the expression "tan" written on it someplace....angular FOV works fine for me.

It would be nice if they would all agree to do just that ... so we wouldn't have to make silly assumptions!

[ThoLa]

The arithemtic is a bit off ... so I checked the previously referenced site

So they're wrong too. Wouldn't be the first time a marketer got that wrong ;)


Well, ... no!

It's not a marketer's mistake (not this time).

It is in fact the simply multiplying (mag x "true" fov) we are used to that is wrong.

The 56,6° is the apparent field of you according to an acknowledged ISO protocol! (it is given as a footnote in the pdf I have added)

It is the apparent field of view in degrees which alone determines what the image looks like in the eyepieces.

You will find deviations of the apparent fov and the fov on the objectives' side in most catalogues. (For example the "true" fov of the new Swaro EL 8,5 is given as 7,6; multiplied by the magnification yiels 64,6°. The actual (apparent) fov is (accurately) given in the brochure as 60 degrees, i.e. that's what you or I will SEE).

People should realize there is a difference and get used to forget the fovs in "feet per square mile" or whatever nonsense is regularly circulated.


Time to see things as they are,
says
Tom

[henry link]

Even the ISO standard doesn't predict the AFOV with complete accuracy because it doesn't include the influence of distortion.

For a given true field, barrel distortion will cause the AFOV to be smaller than calculated and pincushion distortion will cause it to be larger. The extra apparent field added by pincushion might be thought of empty or artificial field, because it comes from objects growing larger toward the edge of the field, not from any real increase in field width. Binoculars can vary from having almost no pincushion to some wide field designs having quite large amounts added intentionally to reduce the "rolling globe" effect when panning. Even with a zero distortion design, AFOV can only be accurately calculated if the real field and the magnification are accurately specified, which is not always the case.

Since we aren't likely to achieve complete accuracy, I think, for comparison purposes we should just continue to use the easy arithmetic of multiplying the real field by the magnification to arrive at an approximate AFOV. After all, most manufacturers specs have been done that way for a long time and still are. In this case consistency is more important than absolute accuracy.

[mak]

My own calculation from data on Eagle Optics web site

FOV = FOV in feet @ 1000 yds / 52.5
AFOV = FOV * magnification

You quote
which isn't right
135 m @ 1000m (not 100m) gives a FOV of arctan(135/1000)



Kevin.

Yes I missed out a zero (things happen - typo errors) riflescopes are based on 100m, but as this is a bird forum, lets not go there.

The easy calculation, which I use for dealers is: FOV (135m) / 17.45 (= 7.73 degrees) x mag (8) = 61.8 degrees (I think this agrees with the Zeiss web site 61.8). We could obviously go much deeper into this with the maths, but not on a general forum.

Another thing: wide angle field of view is 60 degrees or more (I believe the Japanese use a different figure). In the UK the easy way to remember the fov / figure (17.45) is to think of UK vat (17.5).

Your calculations came from a respected retailer, no doubt, mine came from my employer. I will stick with my employers training, if you don't mind. But the Zeiss FL range of 42mm & 32 mm models has wide angle field of view.

mak

[Kevin Purcell]

Your calculations came from a respected retailer, no doubt, mine came from my employer. I will stick with my employers training, if you don't mind. But the Zeiss FL range of 42mm & 32 mm models has wide angle field of view.

No, my calculations came from my (PhD trained!) brain not some retailer. They just gave the givens (which are the same as the manufacturer distributes).

Along with hints from Henry Link on how to do the AFOV calculation properly at least according to ISO standard that Nikon uses (which is where this started) that gives smaller numbers than the simple but incorrect "easier" calculation (that both you use and I used earlier too).

Both Henry and I explained in an earlier posts that these don't work because they're based on an approximation that tan theta ~ theta that fails for FOV > 5 degrees. See the links provided by Henry too.

So I trust my calculations ...

[Sancho]

.........the Zeiss FL range of 42mm & 32 mm models has wide angle field of view.

mak

So...how many fence-posts at the top of my street will I see with them?;). I propose that "Sancho´s Fence-Posts" be used as the International Reference Standard for FOV. So bins will henceforth be Two, Three or Four Sancho-Posts and we´ll all know what we´re on about. (Well at least I will.)

[mak]

Kevin.

In your earlier post you state FOV (ft) / 52.5. If you take the 8x42 FL measurement in feet (405) / 52.5 = 7.71 degrees x mag (8) = 61.7 degrees. Difference to my figures of 0.1 degrees, but a long way from 56.6 degrees.

Shall we agree to disagree?

mak.