Leica 10x42bns?

[peteh]

Hello,
I am thinking about purchasing these binos,
but with no shop over here selling them I am having to buy them via mail order.
My one query is the diameter of the eyepiece.
My binoculars at the moment have a tiny diameter and are doing my head in but I dont want to spend all this money to find the Leica's are the same.
Is there anyone out there with 10x42 Bn's that could measure the eyepiece diameter and tell me please.
(Ive checked all the places I can think of for this spec and can't find it..doh)

Thanks
Pete.

[Rufus]

Pete - I've taken a ruler to the eyepiece of Trinovid 10 x 40 and the diameter is 17.5 mm. Hope this may help.

Rufus

[Rufus]

P.S.

I've had a pair of Leica Trinovids since 1974, and they are superb. Just about the best purchase of anything I ever made.

Rufus

[Paul Rule]

Hi Pete,

I have 8 x 42's and I'm pretty sure the diameters are the same (at least I could not see or feel any difference when I tried them side by side), so getting out my measuring stick the measurements are as follows

3.7cm (outer edge to outer edge)
2.7cm (inner to inner)

Hope that helps

[Paul Rule]

Pete those last figures were for the eye cups, the diameters of the glass is 2cm

[CJW]

Pete have you read this?

http://www.birdforum.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5395

[peteh]

Paul,
why did you decide on the 8x42s over the 10x42s?
ta
pete.

[Paul Rule]

Pete

I feel a 8X is a better all round birding bino than a 10x although you get a bit less magnification but this is offset by having a wider field of view, greater depth of field, a reduced risk of shake and better resolution in poor lighting conditions. So I would always choose the 8x version over a 10.

Paul

[wizard]

hello Pete,
all i can say is what i found myself so here goes. i have a pair of 8=12x42 duovid and would not change them for anything. they really are outstanding. i think most supliers will give you the option to change them if you dont like them when spending this sort of money. shop around & get the best deal. good luck.
send for the leaflet & check spec & sizes.

[Vectis Birder]

I have a pair of 8x42 BN's and the eyepieces are big. Very big. I can easily use them with or without glasses. They are the best bins I have ever owned and are totally superb. I wouldn't have any hesitation in recommending them to anyone. The only slight whinge, is that the eyecups in the down position are too low.

[Leif]

Hello,
I am thinking about purchasing these binos,
but with no shop over here selling them I am having to buy them via mail order.
My one query is the diameter of the eyepiece.
My binoculars at the moment have a tiny diameter and are doing my head in but I dont want to spend all this money to find the Leica's are the same.
Is there anyone out there with 10x42 Bn's that could measure the eyepiece diameter and tell me please.
(Ive checked all the places I can think of for this spec and can't find it..doh)

Thanks
Pete.

I am curious as to why you want to know the eyepiece diameter? Is it a comfort against the face thing?

[Bluetail]

This thread's a year old, Leif. Today I'd be asking why anyone would want to go for the Leicas. Unless the new ultravids are a marked improvment optically on what's gone before, there are far sharper bins out there now.

[Leif]

This thread's a year old, Leif. Today I'd be asking why anyone would want to go for the Leicas. Unless the new ultravids are a marked improvment optically on what's gone before, there are far sharper bins out there now.

Bluetail: Ooops. Thanks. I only saw the latest reply which was very recent.

[Vectis Birder]

This thread's a year old, Leif. Today I'd be asking why anyone would want to go for the Leicas. Unless the new ultravids are a marked improvment optically on what's gone before, there are far sharper bins out there now.

The pair of Leicas I own are superb, and are easily the best bins I have ever looked through, bar none. I did get a look through a pair of Swarovski 8x bins a few weeks before I got the Leicas, but preferred the Leicas. I can see details on birds, ships and other things that were not visible through other brands, due to the sheer brightness of the image.

However, like everything else it all comes down to personal preference as much as anything.

[pduxon]

This thread's a year old, Leif. Today I'd be asking why anyone would want to go for the Leicas. Unless the new ultravids are a marked improvment optically on what's gone before, there are far sharper bins out there now.

I know of one partner of a BF member who tried out all the latest bins (except the new Zeiss - they weren't announced at the time) and went for the Trinovids..... you pays your money.......

[Vectis Birder]

Out of my personal possessions (apart from photos and one or two books) the only things I'd save in a disaster would be the Leicas. I know they are replaceable, but that's not the point. I'd also try and grab the cameras too (sentimental value as they have been everywhere with me over the years).

[Ragna]

Jason How about naming the binoculars that are far sharper than Leicas.

[Bluetail]

Well, let's put it this way. I've been running on an old pair of Leitz Trinovid 10x40s for the last 20 years. Back in 1985 they were the bee's knees, side by side with the Zeiss Dialyts. Optically they are excellent. When Leitz changed their name to Leica and brought out the Trinovid's succesor, the 10x42 BNs, I considered upgrading, but decided against it because the optics were hardly any sharper. A year or so back an optical company held a field day near here and I tried the 10x42 BNs side by side with the Swarovski 10x42 ELs. The Swarovski knocked spots off the Leics in terms of resolution and clarity of image. There really was no contest. I hear people speak of the Nikon models as being comparable with the Swarovskis, though I haven't had the chance to try those.

I'm now saving up for a pair of Swarovskis, but, like I said, I'd be interested in knowing whether the newer Leica models are a significant improvement on Leica's previous ones. Similarly, if there are bins in the 10x40 range that are sharper than the Swarovskis I'd sure like to know about them.

[Ragna]

Jason 5 months ago i switched to Leica Ultravids from Zeiss 7x42s which id had for almost 15 years. I compared them to Swaroviski 8x42ELs 8x32ELs and Nikon 8x42HGs,i chose the Ultravids because i considered them to be the most comfortable to use e.g good weight, field of view,easy to look through.Opticaly there was very little difference between all 3,I rejected the Nikons on weight,Cant comment on Leica BNs as its a long time since ive look through a pair.

[hinnark]

Jason 5 months ago i switched to Leica Ultravids from Zeiss 7x42s which id had for almost 15 years. I compared them to Swaroviski 8x42ELs 8x32ELs and Nikon 8x42HGs,i chose the Ultravids because i considered them to be the most comfortable to use e.g good weight, field of view,easy to look through.Opticaly there was very little difference between all 3,I rejected the Nikons on weight,Cant comment on Leica BNs as its a long time since ive look through a pair.

Hi,

I´ve compared Leica Trinovid with the new Ultravid some months ago. The new coatings of the Ultravids gives more brightness and more contrast. But differences are also quite small.

Steve

[Bluetail]

There's an interesting point coming out here, as it has in other posts in the past. Clearly a lot of people see very little difference in optical quality between the top makes of binoculars, the deciders tending to boil down to things like weight and colour-casting. Yet, as I said, my eyes definitely found the resolution of the Leica Trinovids and BNs much less razor-sharp than the Swarovskis. In fact, though the Leicas are sharp enough, I wouldn't call them razor sharp at all. Which makes me wonder whether it's the binoculars or whether it's my eyes. Do binoculars behave differently with different eyes?

[Leif]

There's an interesting point coming out here, as it has in other posts in the past. Clearly a lot of people see very little difference in optical quality between the top makes of binoculars, the deciders tending to boil down to things like weight and colour-casting. Yet, as I said, my eyes definitely found the resolution of the Leica Trinovids and BNs much less razor-sharp than the Swarovskis. In fact, though the Leicas are sharp enough, I wouldn't call them razor sharp at all. Which makes me wonder whether it's the binoculars or whether it's my eyes. Do binoculars behave differently with different eyes?

The BVD web site reckons that the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL has slightly higher resolution than the 8x competition, presumably due to the extra magnification.

Binoculars do behave slightly different for different users. Older people will be less able to accommodate for field curvature, hence will notice it more. They will also see less DOF for the same reason. Also the amount that your irises can dilate will determine how useful binoculars are in low light. In low light an 8x60 will be no brighter than an 8x40 if your eyes can dilate to no more than 5mm, but will be much brighter if your eyes can dilate to 7mm.

[hinnark]

There's an interesting point coming out here, as it has in other posts in the past. Clearly a lot of people see very little difference in optical quality between the top makes of binoculars, the deciders tending to boil down to things like weight and colour-casting. Yet, as I said, my eyes definitely found the resolution of the Leica Trinovids and BNs much less razor-sharp than the Swarovskis. In fact, though the Leicas are sharp enough, I wouldn't call them razor sharp at all. Which makes me wonder whether it's the binoculars or whether it's my eyes. Do binoculars behave differently with different eyes?

Agreeing with all Leif has written I would say that the differences between individual users - their eyes, their hands and so on are much more important than differences in optics if they are one of the tops. There are birders who like the old Leica eyecups more than the newer ones because they meet their needed eye relief exactly and using them is as easy as it can. I´ve heard from a dealer of optics that a lot of people decide for Swarovski EL just because they feel perfect in their hands and I think that´s ok. Fun and comfort with the optics are very important for birding IMO. In 1999 Swarovski invented their Swarobright coatings which was a step foward in optical quality. Now Leica has overhaul in terms of contrast and brightness with their new HLS-coatings again. But all these are no real quantum jumps. Technical evolution is going on. So if one is satisfied with his optics there is no need to dispute of what is the best.

Steve

[CDK]

Today whilst at a friend house, saw a number of Red Kites in the sky, as I didn't have my bins I borrowed my friends new Leica 8x42 BN. Enjoyed watching the Kites, BUT, watching them in the sky did highlight the distinct yellowing around the bird. I have used Leica in the past and maybe did not see the CA, or did not want to see it, but today it was certainly there.

[hinnark]

Today whilst at a friend house, saw a number of Red Kites in the sky, as I didn't have my bins I borrowed my friends new Leica 8x42 BN. Enjoyed watching the Kites, BUT, watching them in the sky did highlight the distinct yellowing around the bird. I have used Leica in the past and maybe did not see the CA, or did not want to see it, but today it was certainly there.

Visibility of CA depends on more than 1 factor. First the binocular itself. Here we have to assess every type for itself. So if let us say a 10x42 model shows CA that doesn´t mean the 8x42 of this brand works the same in this respect and vice versa. In the past Leica Trinovid 10x50 BN was the bino of all I´ve ever tested with the best performance in respect of CA. But 10x32 Trinovid BN and also the 10x42 Ultravid showed CA to me even in the centre of view in very high contrsty objects.

Second factor as mentioned here many times is the object to view. Examples of objects with a maximum of contrast providing an effective CA testing are:
power lines, the smaller branches of trees, aerials for tv on the houses - all these against the bright sky. If you are in a shop you can go outside and find easily one of these objects. I promise you: if the bino is working fine at these objects they will work also good in the field.
Watching raptors against the bright sky as you did is also a challenge in the field for almost every binocular.
If I´m doing these testing I can find CA with every bino and every scope available today.

The third factor frequently forgotten but also important are weather and light conditions. It´s not that easy that one can say in sunshine CA is better than in bad weather. My experiences are these: when humid air, high fog and bright light come together CA is most visible. (That´s why I buy binoculars only in November ;))That means: looking at the same object the one day CA could be visible and at another it is not.

I can´t say how differences from person to person affect perception of CA. But they certainly exist.

Steve

[Vectis Birder]

Well, The Swarovski knocked spots off the Leics in terms of resolution and clarity of image. There really was no contest. I hear people speak of the Nikon models as being comparable with the Swarovskis, though I haven't had the chance to try those.

I'm now saving up for a pair of Swarovskis, but, like I said, I'd be interested in knowing whether the newer Leica models are a significant improvement on Leica's previous ones. Similarly, if there are bins in the 10x40 range that are sharper than the Swarovskis I'd sure like to know about them.

As I mentioned I tried out a pair of Swarovski's and preferred the Leica's. I found the Leica's to be far more comfortable, and I have no complaints with the view through them - very bright and far sharper than anything else.

I am pretty certain though, Jason, that the view through any given pair of binoculars varies depending on the person looking through them. No two pairs of eyes are the same.

A few years ago I dropped, and knocked out of collimation, a pair of Centon binoculars. I was gutted as they were an excellent piece of kit. Anyway, a friend of mine who is an optics expert repaired them, but they were never the same afterwards, although everyone else swore they were fine. I guess it is the same with personal preferences as regards favoured bins.

The only grumble I have with the Leicas is that the eyecups are too low when in the down position (I wear specs).

[Vectis Birder]

Today whilst at a friend house, saw a number of Red Kites in the sky, as I didn't have my bins I borrowed my friends new Leica 8x42 BN. Enjoyed watching the Kites, BUT, watching them in the sky did highlight the distinct yellowing around the bird. I have used Leica in the past and maybe did not see the CA, or did not want to see it, but today it was certainly there.

I would venture to say it could be a fault with your friend's bins. My Leica's (also 8x42 BNs) do not have that problem - I was experimenting with them today after reading your post yesterday - by looking at birds, and the masts of ships, etc, against the sky and I could not detect any chromatic aberration even though I was deliberately searching for it.
Also before I bought these, I looked through other people's and don't recall a problem of this nature.

[Pileatus]

I would venture to say it could be a fault with your friend's bins. My Leica's (also 8x42 BNs) do not have that problem - I was experimenting with them today after reading your post yesterday - by looking at birds, and the masts of ships, etc, against the sky and I could not detect any chromatic aberration even though I was deliberately searching for it.
Also before I bought these, I looked through other people's and don't recall a problem of this nature.


If you don't "see" chromatic aberration (CA), count your blessings. Based on my limited understanding, CA exists to one degree or another in all binoculars regardless of price. I have read numerous accounts of CA and here's my take on what's being reported. One person will say model X has no CA, while another won't buy model X because of CA. I've seen ads saying brand Y has no CA whatsoever; then someone buys a pair of Y binoculars and reports seeing CA.

I believe that each of us is susceptible to CA in varying degrees. Age, eye health, lighting, and many other variables all contribute to whether or not CA is a PROBLEM for us and, therefore, something we complain about. Assume you never bird in situations where CA is often noted. Fortunately, you may never be aware of CA and we won't be hearing from you. You could bird for years like this and then one day find yourself looking at a bird in the sky with a fuzzy warm glow all about it. Then we'd hear from you! Same bin, same person, different setting, different outcome.

Zeiss has announced a new bin with claims of dramatically reduced (or absence of) chromatic aberration. Much of the conversation surrounding the new bin deals with concerns about CA. Based on my reading, I can only assume many people are seriously bothered by CA and they want a better solution. If Zeiss has "conquered" CA we'll hear about it as the reports start rolling in.

John

[Hermann]

I believe that each of us is susceptible to CA in varying degrees. Age, eye health, lighting, and many other variables all contribute to whether or not CA is a PROBLEM for us and, therefore, something we complain about. Assume you never bird in situations where CA is often noted. Fortunately, you may never be aware of CA and we won't be hearing from you. You could bird for years like this and then one day find yourself looking at a bird in the sky with a fuzzy warm glow all about it. Then we'd hear from you! Same bin, same person, different setting, different outcome.

I'm just back from a two-day birding trip to the coast. Nothing spectacular, but wader migration has started with lots of adults returning from their breeding grounds. During these two days I used my Zeiss Victory 10x40's. Now, the Zeiss have some CA, and I found this quite objectionable on more than one occasion in the past. However, on this trip I didn't notice it once, even though I was looking for it, at least when there wasn't something nice to look at. Go figure.

BTW, I had a chance to do a quick comparison with a pair of Ultravid 10x42's. They're nice, no doubt about it, but I prefer the Zeiss Victory. To my eyes they seem somewhat sharper at the edges; the Ultravid seems me to have a more uneven image quality across the field of view. And I prefer the focussing of the Victory's. No contest there at all, I think.

Hermann