Ultravid 8x32 or 8x42 What is the real difference?

[Gray C]

Very briefly, I am considering adding a big brother to my 8x20 BL Ultravids.

I am considering either the Ultravid 8x32's or the 8x42's. Is there are real difference between the two or is the difference so marginal that most people would not know the difference. At the end of the day both models are not that far apart in price (approx £100 between the two)

I would be interested to hear your views on both models. They will be used for birding and general use, with hiking and walking being reserved for my 8x20's. I do not use my bins that much in low light, but I would be interested to hear your views on their pros and cons in these conditions.

Please help me make up my mind

Graham

[John Finnan]

I have not had a chance to compare the two side by side but I have tried them seperately. I felt that the size/weight of the 7x42 and 8x42 Ultravids is about ideal and I liked them very much. If you have the chance I recommend that you try a pair of the 7x42s before making your decision. Even though the power is a little low, it is so easy to hand hold them steady that they are very relaxing to observe with.

As for the 8x32 Ultravids, I was not impressed with them. Their optics seemed clear and sharp enough but they are almost too small for me to comfortably hand hold them. I was turned off by that right away and did not spend much time looking through them. I very much liked the older Leica 8x32 BA and BN models, they were small and compact but "just right" and not "too small".

As far the optical differences go between an 8x32 and 8x42 I have both the 8x32 Swarovski ELs and the 8.5x42 ELs. In dimmer light situations the 42mm models are brighter and this is especially evident if you use them for astronomy. On many objects I see a little more detail in the 8.5x42s but that is also partially do to their slightly higher magnification. Both binoculars are very nice optically and ergonomically but the 8.5x42s retain their sharpness further towards the edge of the field than the 8x32 ELs do. Where the latter excel is in how comfortable they are to hand hold. What I'd like to see if Swarovski bring out a 7x35 EL and if they did that I'd probably let the 8x32s go. For now, I'll keep them because their size and weight makes them so easy to take them everywhere. If the Leica 8x32 Ultravids were as comfortable to hold as the 8x32 ELs were I'd would not hesitate to recommend them.

John Finnan

[pduxon]

Hi Graham

optically the 8x32 Ultravid's are very good BUT I found the eyecups too small and the focus doesn't seem very smooth, if you are insistent that it has to be Leica then look at the 8x32 Triniovids. If I had to buy a Leica 8x32 that's what I'd buy.

Got the chance to play with all the big name 8x32's briefly on Sunday. Probably my fave would be the Zeiss FL although the Nikon remains best value for money they need to shave the weight more. The Swaro ELs are very attractive and nice to hold but optically not worth the premium in my view BUT you may disagree.

The 8x42's ultravids are excellent but again compare against the others particularly the Nikon HGL and the Zeiss FL.

If you haven't already go somewhere where you can compare some different brands.

[Klos]

็Hmm. The biggest differences IMO are picture size and weight. The 32s would give better mobility and casual feel. The 42s offer view which is easy on the eyes every single time one raises his binocs. For me the result of using 32 is I lift my binocs more often while walking the trail, and be in better shape at the end of the day. However, using 42s gives me more pleasure, my neck may hurt but I would feel I truely got the bird there!

For you I'd be more incline towards the 42 since they'll give you a wider range of equipment, get you some more low light ability.

Don't forget to try both before buying, their different handling alone might change the whole picture here :D

[angelo225544]

Hi Graham. I would urge you to try any Ultravid before buying. They are wonderful optically, but the focus mechanism is very stiff and notchy which can make them tiresome to use. I have owned both the 8x32 and 8x42 Ultravids and Trinovids. For most lighting conditions the 8x32 is plenty bright and amazingly portable - I think they obviate the need for the 8x20. Only in low light does the 8x42 have any real advantage. I have gone back to using an 8x32 Trinovid, even though the Ultravid is optically superior, because of the stiff focusing of the latter.

[PennineBirder]

I am a recent convert to 8x32 Ultravids from 10x40 type bins. Although I agree the focus mechanism of the Ultravids leaves something to be desired, to me at least, this is outweighed by the superb optics.
8x32 provides a nice bright image and the light weight of the smaller model is very noticeable and makes for comfortable handling.
As everyone else says you must try before you buy - in my case the 8x32 feel just right in my hands.
Cheers

Peter

[BMR]

I don't find the 8X42 Trinovid too bulky in the least bit. To me, it is the perfect size for carrying and very low light viewing. I would not want to give up those 42 mm objective lenes for 32 mm.

[bradshrike]

A lot of the choice between 32 or 42mm objectives comes down to personal preference. I've use 30/32mm objectives for twenty years so am comfortable with them. For me they're the best compromise between light weight, small size and performance. In the end all optics are a compromise weighted in one direction or the other... the trick is knowing what compromises are acceptable to you.

I have an 8x32 Ultravid and love it. The supposed "ratchety" focus is a Leica trademark and is found in all their bins. They don't use lube in the focus mechanism to avoid freeeze-up in very cold conditions. It's strictly a design choice (compromise) Leica made to accomodate those of us that use bins in cold. I, for one, appreciate it!