Leica 8x42 Ultravid vs Zeiss 8x42 FL

[Robert Moore]

This is my first post on the forum and i thought i would share my experience with these two binoculars. I owned the Zeiss first and used it for about a year. The image through the Zeiss is fantastic in its lack of internal reflections and over all cleanliness of the image. It is also vary well color corrected for chromatic aberration. ( purple and green fringes in high contrast situations). When I bought the Zeiss and after using it for the first time I thought it was the best binocular I had ever used or owned and I have owned many. Waaay tooo many!

I recently looked through the Leica Ultravid line and here are my thoughts on the Leica's. I thought I would try a 10x binocular just for kicks and to see if I would like it better than the 8 or 7x that I normally use. I looked at the 10x42 Ultravid and the image was nice but I like more depth of field as my eyes cant accomadate like they used to when I was younger. I am 42. I was really turned off by the color fringing on the 10x42 Ultravid. It seemed excessive to me but my eyes are really sensitive to this. I am also an amatuer astronomer and after years of looking through telescopes my eyes have become vary well trained and that is really a bad thing because when I look through most binoculars it does not do much for me. Enter the 7x42 and 8x42 Ultravid! I bought the 8x42 Ultravid at Bass Pro Shop in Clarksville, IN. This binocular is really really nice.

The Zeiss was also nice but the color rendition never seemed quite right. After comparing it to the Leica I can really see the difference. For instance the reds and yellows in the Leica's are so vivid and true. All the colors for that matter are so pure in the Leica's. I thought that they were in the Zeiss until I compared them side by side. Also even as sensitive as my eyes are to secondary color the 7x and 8x versions of the Ulravid series do not have the problem that the 10x has. I can detect vary little in the 7x and 8x Ultravid with the seven showing the least.

I choose the 8x42 because of the beautifully wide apparent field of view and it seemed to be the sharpest and well corrected. ( flat field ). I am vary impressed with the 8x42 Ultavid and would recommend it to any one who is looking for a top off the line binocular.

[elkcub]

Hi Robert,

That was a very nice way to jump in, and I for one profited from the comparitive review. Welcome to the warm waters of BF.

If you have a chance to evaluate the 10x42 FL it might be interesting to hear how it compares with the 10x Ultravid, particularly along the lines of color fringing.

Ed

[denco@comcast.n]

This is my first post on the forum and i thought i would share my experience with these two binoculars. I owned the Zeiss first and used it for about a year. The image through the Zeiss is fantastic in its lack of internal reflections and over all cleanliness of the image. It is also vary well color corrected for chromatic aberration. ( purple and green fringes in high contrast situations). When I bought the Zeiss and after using it for the first time I thought it was the best binocular I had ever used or owned and I have owned many. Waaay tooo many! I recently looked through the Leica Ultravid line and here are my thoughts on the Leica's. I thought I would try a 10x binocular just for kicks and to see if I would like it better than the 8 or 7x that I normally use. I looked at the 10x42 Ultravid and the image was nice but I like more depth of field as my eyes cant accomadate like they used to when I was younger. I am 42. I was really turned off by the color fringing on the 10x42 Ultravid. It seemed excessive to me but my eyes are really sensitive to this. I am also an amatuer astronomer and after years of looking through telescopes my eyes have become vary well trained and that is really a bad thing because when I look through most binoculars it does not do much for me. Enter the 7x42 and 8x42 Ultravid! I bought the 8x42 Ultravid at Bass Pro Shop in Clarksville, IN. This binocular is really really nice. The Zeiss was also nice but the color rendition never seemed quite right. After comparing it to the Leica I can really see the difference. For instance the reds and yellows in the Leica's are so vivid and true. All the colors for that matter are so pure in the Leica's. I thought that they were in the Zeiss until I compared them side by side. Also even as sensitive as my eyes are to secondary color the 7x and 8x versions of the Ulravid series do not have the problem that the 10x has. I can detect vary little in the 7x and 8x Ultravid with the seven showing the least. I choose the 8x42 because of the beautifully wide apparent field of view and it seemed to be the sharpest and well corrected. ( flat field ). I am vary impressed with the 8x42 Ultavid and would recommend it to any one who is looking for a top off the line binocular.


I second that opinion of the Leica's! VIVID is the word when it comes to describing their color rendition. There is nothing quite like them.

Dennis

[delia todd]

Hi Robert, I see this is your first post, so may I welcome you on behalf of all the staff and moderators at Bird Forum.

D

[Robert Moore]

Hi Robert,

That was a very nice way to jump in, and I for one profited from the comparitive review. Welcome to the warm waters of BF.

If you have a chance to evaluate the 10x42 FL it might be interesting to hear how it compares with the 10x Ultravid, particularly along the lines of color fringing.

Ed

Hi Ed,

I have compared the 10x Zeiss FL to the 10x Ultravid and I would choose the Zeiss. It is vary sharp and well corrected for chromatic aberration. I really like the color rendition in the Leica but the 10x to me has to much fringing. It would be best if you can compare them your self and see what you think. Every ones eyes are different and my opinion might not be the same as yours.
I am 42 years old and I had to start wearing glasses when I turned 40. I have a slight astigmatism so I get the sharpest views with my glasses on. Eye relief is also important to me now that I have to wear glasses. The Zeiss FL is a fantastic binocular and you could not go wrong with either one. I myself like the Leica Ultravid in the 7x and 8x versions better than the Zeiss just because the view is so relaxing and you can not beat the color rendition.


Rob

[FrankD]

Rob,

Definitely a great way to step into the forum. As with Ed I found your comparison very informative. A question though, how wide did you find the focused field (sweet spot if you like) between the Zeiss and the Ultravid? Were they comparable? I recently spent some time comparing these bins along with two of the Swaro models and would be interested to hear your impressions of the issue.

[Robert Moore]

Rob,

Definitely a great way to step into the forum. As with Ed I found your comparison very informative. A question though, how wide did you find the focused field (sweet spot if you like) between the Zeiss and the Ultravid? Were they comparable? I recently spent some time comparing these bins along with two of the Swaro models and would be interested to hear your impressions of the issue.

Hi Frank,

I am not sure which one you wanted the opionion on 7,8 or 10x.
The differnce between the 8x Zeiss and Leica are comparable as far as ( sweet spot). I still think the leica is a more relaxed view and part of it might be that the collimation on the Leica's seem to be spot on. I looked through a couple of pair of the FL'S that were out of collimation. You could still merge the images fine but when looking into the sky like when hawk watching instead of getting one perfect circle when looking through the binocular it would over lap slightly. I have not found any of the Leica's out of collimation so far. You are probably thinking oh no this guy is Leica bias. One year ago I thought so highly of the Zeiss I never thought I would want anything else and I thought they were the best money could buy. Only after looking through them in the field did i change my mind. The Zeiss is still superb and it would be my second choice. First choice in the 10x version. When I mount my 8x42 Ultravid on a tripod and look at the stars they are sharper to the edge of the field than in the Zeiss. I think that is another reason the view is more relaxed when birding with them. The Swarovski EL probably has the largest sweet spot of them all but I hate the color rendition in them. Remember my eyes might be differnt than others i am just telling you what i see. The only reason i like the Leica better is mainly because of its color rendition. The build quality of the Leica is also top notch and i do not have any problems with the focuser like I have read some people reporting about.

Rob

[elkcub]

Hi Ed,

I have compared the 10x Zeiss FL to the 10x Ultravid and I would choose the Zeiss. It is vary sharp and well corrected for chromatic aberration. I really like the color rendition in the Leica but the 10x to me has to much fringing. It would be best if you can compare them your self and see what you think. Every ones eyes are different and my opinion might not be the same as yours.
I am 42 years old and I had to start wearing glasses when I turned 40. I have a slight astigmatism so I get the sharpest views with my glasses on. Eye relief is also important to me now that I have to wear glasses. The Zeiss FL is a fantastic binocular and you could not go wrong with either one. I myself like the Leica Ultravid in the 7x and 8x versions better than the Zeiss just because the view is so relaxing and you can not beat the color rendition.


Rob

Hi Rob,

That's more or less what I expected to hear. This would be consistent with Zeiss' use of FL glass, in that there is less apparent fringing with increasing power. It's interesting that you and some others find color vividness to be characteristic of Ultravids, enough so that it's the factor of choice at lower powers. As I understand it, there are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of ways that multi-coatings can be applied to optics that will effect color balance as perceived by the eye. So, it makes sense that the various manufacturers have probably hit upon unique proprietary formulations that attract their own loyal followers. To my experience, for example, Swaro optics have a mellow color balance that I've become conditioned to prefer, — but I can't explain that to anyone else.

Enjor the view,

Ed

[Robert Moore]

Hi Rob,

That's more or less what I expected to hear. This would be consistent with Zeiss' use of FL glass, in that there is less apparent fringing with increasing power. It's interesting that you and some others find color vividness to be characteristic of Ultravids, enough so that it's the factor of choice at lower powers. As I understand it, there are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of ways that multi-coatings can be applied to optics that will effect color balance as perceived by the eye. So, it makes sense that the various manufacturers have probably hit upon unique proprietary formulations that attract their own loyal followers. To my experience, for example, Swaro optics have a mellow color balance that I've become conditioned to prefer, — but I can't explain that to anyone else.

Enjor the view,

Ed


Ed,

The eye is a vary complex optical device. The way our brain perceives colors for example. I know this may sound crazy but we are used to seeing things in a certain shade or color. I guess think of it as how certain camera lens would record colors on a color grid. A canon lens will not show it the same as nikon.
I think the human eye will also vary in what we think is normal and when you find a binocular that shows colors the same as you are used to seeing them with the naked eye i think that is when you will know it is right. The Swarovskis must match what your eye perceives as normal.

Rob

[ceasar]

Even our left and right eyes differ. I know that my right eye "sees' red differently than my left eye "sees" it. With both eyes, the brain makes up for it.
Bob

[FrankD]

The differnce between the 8x Zeiss and Leica are comparable as far as ( sweet spot). I still think the leica is a more relaxed view and part of it might be that the collimation on the Leica's seem to be spot on. I looked through a couple of pair of the FL'S that were out of collimation. You could still merge the images fine but when looking into the sky like when hawk watching instead of getting one perfect circle when looking through the binocular it would over lap slightly. I have not found any of the Leica's out of collimation so far. You are probably thinking oh no this guy is Leica bias. One year ago I thought so highly of the Zeiss I never thought I would want anything else and I thought they were the best money could buy. Only after looking through them in the field did i change my mind. The Zeiss is still superb and it would be my second choice. First choice in the 10x version. When I mount my 8x42 Ultravid on a tripod and look at the stars they are sharper to the edge of the field than in the Zeiss. I think that is another reason the view is more relaxed when birding with them. The Swarovski EL probably has the largest sweet spot of them all but I hate the color rendition in them. Remember my eyes might be differnt than others i am just telling you what i see. The only reason i like the Leica better is mainly because of its color rendition. The build quality of the Leica is also top notch and i do not have any problems with the focuser like I have read some people reporting about.

Thanks for sharing your experiences Rob. My experiences tend to mirror yours in comparing the Leica and Zeiss. I don't have an issue with the Swaro colors but, as you explained, it may just be a preference of perception. Truth be told I actually prefer the Nikon color rendition but am more than happy to experience what the others have to present. I am still trying to determine though whether or not I prefer "absolute" center resolution or better edge sharpness. It seems difficult to find a set of roofs that does both equally well though there are a few that come close.

Ed,

I see that same bit of yellow in the SLCs, and occasionally in my Venturers, but only ever so slightly and only when in direct comparison with something else that is more color neutral.

[Alexis Powell]

I am still trying to determine though whether or not I prefer "absolute" center resolution or better edge sharpness. It seems difficult to find a set of roofs that does both equally well though there are a few that come close.

This issue has come up before, usually while discussing the Zeiss FL models. I have above average visual acuity but I must declare that I have yet to understand what people are talking about when they say, for example, that the Zeiss 8x42 FL is sharper in the center of its (in my opinion irritatingly small) sweet spot than the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL is in the center of its wide and easy sweet spot. I can see nothing of the sort and so am left to think that the effect must be a mistaken perception of the brain/eye system (kind of like the way that so many people seem to think that binoculars with a narrow apparent FOV are brighter than those with a wide apparent FOV). Has anyone actually MEASURED (using line charts or other quantifiable test targets) better naked eye (or even, for that matter, boosted) resolution or effective sharpness in the 8x42 FL as compared to any other top-end 8x42? Furthermore, although I think the differences are probably so small as to be of no practical significance, I would imagine that the slightly higher magnification of the 8.5x EL would more than make up for its marginally inferior contrast such that it would allow for as good or better unboosted resolution performance than the 8x42 FL. On the other hand, I find that differences in ergonomic properties have a VERY big effect on my ability to see fine details, and since I only put my binos on a tripod when testing them, in the end, it is this issue that should be of most consequence when choosing among the many excellent top-end offerings.
--AP

[FrankD]

have above average visual acuity but I must declare that I have yet to understand what people are talking about when they say, for example, that the Zeiss 8x42 FL is sharper in the center of its (in my opinion irritatingly small) sweet spot than the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL is in the center of its wide and easy sweet spot.

Alexis,

I have yet to actually do any "scientific" tests of the resolution of the aforementioned binoculars however, my brain (or eyes) tells me that some bins just appear "sharper" than others. Now this maybe because of increased contrast, brightness, a combination of each or something else entirely but the effect is much the same. The image just looks a bit sharper. Even my, soon becoming beloved, 7x42 SLCs don't truly have a sharp image compared to some of the bins I have looked through. Are they soft? No, not at all but I have seen some bins that appear to offer an even more crisp, sharp image...namely the Zeiss FLs and to some extent the Ultravids... at least in a specific portion of the view.

John and I have been discussing this issue off and on for some time now. The conclusion we have reached based on specific observations is that there must be some trade-off for obtaining the very sharpest of images.....in this case the width of the "sweet spot". Though bins like the Nikon Venturer, Swaro EL and SLC have very good images overall and very wide sweetspots there are other bins with apparently sharper images over a portion of their view with more distortion around the edges. One possible explanation would be that there is some design issue which limits manufacturers from obtaining the very sharpest possible image over a majority of the field of view. Would there be some fault in that reasoning?

[elkcub]

Alexis and others,

I fully agree with you that the definition of "sharpness," in the center or elsewhere, begs a real definition. For most people I think it's a subjective judgment unadorned by formal aided-acuity testing. I have no problem with that, actually, because if I believed something to be "sharper," which upon testing were found to be inferior in some measured respect, I'd probably go with my global perception anyway (within limits, of course). The reason is that the integrated eye-brain response is ultimately what is important, and there are many limitations/constraints to "formal" testing. For example, take the clever NEED test that Steve Ingraham developed using the back of a dollar bill, which really measures relative aided-acuity. Almost all of the results can be accounted for by differences in published magnification, and those that can't lead one to question whether the published magnifications might not be biased between manufacturers or samples. A little error goes a long way. Also, I might add, the back of a dollar bill is green and off-white — a far cry from the multi-colored and shaded details of birds. Could it be that certain coatings have an advantage for aiding the acuity of green lines, and others, perhaps, for blue or red? Think about the use of yellow filters to aid in shooting tasks and other sports. So, the fundamental issue underlying all testing, IMO, is the assumed validity of the test results relative to the ultimate criteron: the total view.

Incidentally, the observation that a narrow AFOV binocular seems relatively brighter than a wide field one may be due to the contrast effect of the non-illuminated retinal surround, which is perceived like a solid black background. As the AFOV increases, the perception of the black surround diminishes or disappears.

Just a thought.
Ed

[kabsetz]

Ed,

I think the NEED test is valuable, but in addition to what you point out as its weaknesses, it suffers from the line pattern only having horizontal lines. This means that astigmatism cannot be easily evaluated, and astigmatism is unfortunatley one of the more common optical aberrations of the kind which are present by sloppiness in the manufacturing process, not by design. The USAF chart is a bit better, since it has line patterns in both vertical and horizontal orientation.

On the other hand, the beauty of the NEED test is that since you use a constant target and vary the distance instead of the line spacing, you can really rather precisely determine the resolution limit for a given binocular under given lighting conditions. Since the USAF is gradaded, people usually do not bother to look for "intermediate readings," and the gradation is not particularly subtle.

Kimmo

[henry link]

I just remeasured the resolution of my Zeiss 8x42 FL and Swarovski 8.5x42 EL with the magnifications boosted to about 80X, using the USAF 1951 glass slide from Edmund. Oddly enough, this time, as if I had read Kimmo's post, I moved the tripod back and forth to make some "intermediate readings". The Zeiss has truly spectacular resolution for a binocular, 2.84 arc seconds (astronomical rather than ophthalmolgical method of figuring), essentally diffraction limited. That's the best figure I have measured for any binocular with an aperture of 50mm or less. The Swarovski measures 3.59 arc seconds which is also quite good for a 42mm binocular. While I was at it I measured 4.02 arc seconds for my Nikon 8x32 SE, excellent for a 32mm binocular. Of course I can see none of this when I simply look through the binoculars. What I see is my own eyesight acuity (90-100 arc seconds, astronomical method) divided by the magnification of the binoculars, so around 12 arc seconds through 8x binoculars with tripod mounting and maybe 16 arcseconds hand held on a good day. Even so, I count myself among those who see better "sharpness" in the Zeiss FL than many other binoculars including the Swaro EL.

There could be an eye/brain component in the phenomenon of seeing better sharpness where no extra detail can be seen, but there are also other possibilties in the optical performance of the binoculars besides raw resolution. In a star test (boosted magnification to 40x and using a light bulb reflecting the image of the sun at about 100'), there is a very obvious difference in the aberration levels of my FL and EL. The FL star tests extremely well for a binocular. It shows both less longitudinal chromatic aberration and less spherical aberration than the EL. The lower chromatic aberration presumably results from the Fluoride glass. The lower spherical aberration might result from the use of one more element in the FL objective compared to the EL. Both of these aberrations begin to rob the image of sharpness and contrast long before actual detail is lost. I think the FL's unusually low aberration levels (by binocular standards) probably account for most of the very sharp, clean and transparent look of it's image at the center of the field even though I can see no extra detail compared to any other good quality 8x binocular.

[elkcub]

Hey fellas, that sounds a bit defensive to me, although I knew this would bring you a'runnin. ;) Kimmo, if you look back at my post #14 it should be clear that I didn't say the NEED or any other acuity test wasn't useful, just limited and possibly misleading. Or, Henry, I didn't say optical aberrations aren't worth measuring or don't have detrimental effects if large enough (however large that might be). Indeed, I find myself (see earlier posts) pioneering the notion that axial and lateral CA reducion, well below the level of normal consciousness, is probably THE essential basis for what you've reported by way of clarity with the 8x42FL, and what I've experienced with the 804ED. Note, I'm not saying that the use of ED glass is essential, since there are other ways to reduce CA. I am saying that CA is an under-appreciated aberration with regard to it's effects. This runs counter to the proclamations of a few wise men on CN to the effect that ED glass serves no purpose wilh low-power optics. I'll stand my ground. The effect is perceptual, and they are not photopic vision experts.

My broader point is that at the end of the day measurements don't tell the whole story; the eye-brain does the information integration, and as far as I know nobody (optician, psychologict, etc.) really has a calculus for creating the whole percept from the sum of the parts. I know it's hard to accept, but the human does contribute to the equation in ways that are both learned and innate. Much of this is easily cast aside by classifying obvious effects under the rubric of "optical illusions," as if that exhaused the extent or importance of the subject, — but, in fact, there is every reason to believe that at the upper end of optical engineering the human perceptual factor becomes the deciding factor.

Where we probably differ most, is that I resist the imperative of going through special procedures to explain what I can see plainly by looking at the view. That's not to say that I don't greatly enjoy and benefit from reading your exceptional evaluations.

Best regards,
Ed

[elkcub]

Ed,

... On the other hand, the beauty of the NEED test is that since you use a constant target and vary the distance instead of the line spacing, you can really rather precisely determine the resolution limit for a given binocular under given lighting conditions. Since the USAF is gradaded, people usually do not bother to look for "intermediate readings," and the gradation is not particularly subtle.

Kimmo
Kimmo,

Procedurally I certainly agree with you about Steve's clever NEED test, and the advantage of easily getting intermediate readings. Still, all is predicated on the assumption that advertised power is true power, and no account is taken of differential acuity based on the color filtering effects of glass or coatings. We all know that the eye's sensitivity is distributed over the color spectrum, and here illumination (hence contrast), is measured at the source not the retina. So, not to detract from his cleverness, I think Steve's procedure still warrants caution by way of interpretation. Does the test reveal something you can't tell by using the binocular?

Ed
PS. I'll be away for a week starting in a few hrs. So, my further responses to this interesting discucssion will be delayed.

[elkcub]

... There could be an eye/brain component in the phenomenon of seeing better sharpness where no extra detail can be seen, but there are also other possibilties in the optical performance of the binoculars besides raw resolution. ...
The FL star tests extremely well for a binocular. It shows both less longitudinal chromatic aberration and less spherical aberration than the EL. The lower chromatic aberration presumably results from the Fluoride glass. The lower spherical aberration might result from the use of one more element in the FL objective compared to the EL. Both of these aberrations begin to rob the image of sharpness and contrast long before actual detail is lost...
I think the FL's unusually low aberration levels (by binocular standards) probably account for most of the very sharp, clean and transparent look of it's image at the center of the field even though I can see no extra detail compared to any other good quality 8x binocular.
Henry,

Very interesting comments and in a way they reflect more underlying agreement than disagreement. I'm not at all surprised at the lower chromatic aberration of the FL than the EL. In fact, by comparison with my ED, which I'm willing to assume has less longitudinal and lateral CA than my Swaros, my 10x42 SCL has become a disappointment. By comparison it's dull and unsharp. Perhaps differences in SA contribute as well, but you'd be more qualified to speculate than I. The statement I'm most taken with, though, is that you "can see no extra detail." Does that mean that you also see no extra color gradation? In the case of the ED, extra or improved color gradation is quite evident to me even though feather count is probably the same. To my mind, color gradation qualifies as detail — but then I haven't heard you mention this with regard to the FL.

Ed

[Robert Moore]

I would be interested to know what others here on the forum think about the color rendition between the 8x42 Ultravid and the 8x42 FL. I think the Zeiss might be a touch sharper at the center but they are vary close. I have to mount them on a tripod to see any difference and then it is hard to tell. Maybe I just have an exceptional Ultravid that is out of the norm.

Rob

[henry link]

Rob,

I've compared the 8x42 FL's and Ultravids a few times, but always casually for only a few minutes. On those occasions color accuracy was not among my priorites, so I'm sorry to say I just don't remember much about it. The main things that struck me each time were a slightly softer field center and a little darker image through the Leica. I also recall pretty similar edge performance, with the Leica perhaps just a little better. I've seen results of one published test of the light transmission of these two (a German firearms journal) which measured the Zeiss at 93.3% and the Ultravid (10x42) at 87.6%. Is it possible that some of the color differences you've described are caused by colors in the Ultravid image appearing more saturated because they're a little darker?

Henry

[Robert Moore]

[QUOTE=henry link]Rob,

I've compared the 8x42 FL's and Ultravids a few times, but always casually for only a few minutes. On those occasions color accuracy was not among my priorites, so I'm sorry to say I just don't remember much about it. The main things that struck me each time were a slightly softer field center and a little darker image through the Leica. I also recall pretty similar edge performance, with the Leica perhaps just a little better. I've seen results of one published test of the light transmission of these two (a German firearms journal) which measured the Zeiss at 93.3% and the Ultravid (10x42) at 87.6%. Is it possible that some of the color differences you've described are caused by colors in the Ultravid image appearing more saturated because they're a little darker?

Henry[/QUOTE


Hi Henry,

Thanks for the feedback. You may be correct and I guess I never thought of
that because I did not think the brightness differnce between the two would be enough to cause this. I have noticed it when looking through 32mm bins compared to 42mm. The specific colors that stand out in my mind were the yellows and reds. The leica I think shows these colors just like I see them with my eyes. In the Zeiss on reds it is like a shade lighter than it shoud be and also on the yellows it seems lighter. If you get a chance to look through them again check these two colors and see what you think. It is such a tough choice for me to decide on what binocular I like best between these two.

Thanks,
Rob

[Takis]

Thank you Henry for the very interesting measurements! Now, you mention that all these resolutions of the binoculars are way above what our eyes can do. Does this mean they must be irrelevant?

Let me illustrate this with an example:

My computer screen has 1440x900 pixels (on a 15.4'' across LCD screen). I can distinguish individual pixels when I go really close to the screen, but not from a wider distance, say 2 meters. Is it impossible that the screen would look less sharp from 2 meters if I had set it to a lower resolution? (A resolution which is still too high to distinguish individual pixels.)

I would suggest that we limit the discussion to greyscale images for the time being, trying to find out the importance of angular resolution for these. (I have heard people saying both that resolution charts are essential and that they are pointless, esp. with boosters.)

By the way, I found these useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A800347580/EmbedTitelIntern/Test_Pirsch_11-06/$File/Test_Pirsch_11_2006.pdf
(the German hunting magazine "Pirsch" test on Zeiss' site [!], where transmission rates are distinguished btw. daylight and nightlight. - I would like to see their earlier tests of smaller binos if someone has them.)

[henry link]

Thanks for the Zeiss link, Takis. Although I don't read German I was able to extract the day and night transmission figures from the text. The figures I supplied were for daylight. Night figures were Zeiss 8x42 FL 90.5% and Leica 10x42 Ultravid 83,6%. Were "day" and "night" transmission explained in the "Pirsch" test? I've been assuming that "day" meant transmission at 555nm and "night" 510nm to correspond to maximum sensitivity of the eye.

I know many people question the relevance of measuring resolution with boosted magnification. My feeling is that above a certain level small differences don't matter, however a relatively poor result, even when there is still more detail than the eye can see is a good indication that something is wrong. Usually star testing with boosted magnification will reveal exactly what that something is. I wouldn't be much concerned about any 42mm binocular with resolution better than 4 arc seconds, but 4.5-5 or worse would begin to make me suspect that the binocular is either defective or not very good. Sometimes defects are obvious from just looking through a binocular, but sometimes they are subtle. Star testing and resolution testing with boosted magnification makes these things much easier to see.

[kabsetz]

Ed,

I know you won't be reading this or responding to it for a while, but I would nevertheless like to ask you to read carefully both your own posts and mine and Henry's over again. Having followed your suggestion and done so myself, I feel that you are needlessly casting things in terms of agreement/disagreement over the validity of resolution testing. Rather than disputing what you said in post #14, in post 15# I pointed out some other aspects which also limit the validity of the NEED-test.

What you say in post #18: "Where we probably differ most, is that I resist the imperative of going through special procedures to explain what I can see plainly by looking at the view," would be a very good summary of our viewpoints except for two things. Firstly, in order to highlight a perceived antagonism between viewpoints, you use the rhetorical tool of using the word "imperative" to label our efforts to find some quantifiable data, and secondly you make the non-quantifiable, subjective assessment of optics sound easier than what it usually is by calling it "what I can see plainly by looking at the view." Of course, this may very well be your experience, but mine is that although I can tell whether a binocular is good or not by looking at the view, there are very often subtle things about the view that I feel are either slightly wrong or exceedingly right, and I like to use methods such as star-testing and resolution target testing with or without a booster in order to better understand what it is that makes my perception what it is.

Kimmo

[Takis]

Hi, the "Pirsch" article on 8x50/56 binoculars (13 models >800 Euro) mentions that for night vision the transmission of blue light is more important than of yellow or red, but they don't specify the conditions of measurement (at least not in the reprint Zeiss made available, which seems to be cut off at the end).

You may be interested in the other testing they subjected the binoculars to:

- a diagonal hit with the edge of the hand (karate style) on the eye piece

- freezing at -20 C (-4 F) for 48 hours and then quick defrosting in lukewarm water to test watertight construction and mechanics

At no binocular do they mention that these tests were not passed.

[FrankD]

Interesting test criteria. ;)

Seriously though I wish there was an English version as I am always hungry for new optics articles/reviews to read.

Thanks for posting the link.

[Robert Moore]

Hi Robert,

That was a very nice way to jump in, and I for one profited from the comparitive review. Welcome to the warm waters of BF.

If you have a chance to evaluate the 10x42 FL it might be interesting to hear how it compares with the 10x Ultravid, particularly along the lines of color fringing.

Ed

Hi Ed,

I went back to Bass Pro Shop today and looked at the leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL's again. I originally told you that I would choose the Zeiss in the 10x version and I want to apologize for that statment. I returned my 8x42 Ultravid that I just bought last weekend and ended up walking out with the 10x42 Ultravid. The one 10x42 Ulravid I looked at before must have been a demo or something because the one i tested tonight was fabulous and vary well corrected for chromatic aberation. I compared them for about two hours and looked at all sorts of stuff inside the store. If you have ever been to a Bass Pro Shop you know what I am talking about. There is all kinds of stuffed animals and alot off different lighting conditions. The 10x42 Ultravid was just as sharp as the 10x42 FL and I also loved the contrast of the 10x42 Ultravid.
One of the 10x42 FL's I tried had a problem with the focuser so when you would turn it the diopter adjustment would move with the focuser. I have seen this before and really think Zeiss needs to address this problem. If you just push in on the focus wheel of the FL's while turning the focus the diopter adjustment will move and change your setting. I returned one pair of 7x42 FL's for the same problem that I bought from Eagle Optics a few months ago. I have owned all the Zeiss FL's 7x 8x and 10x. They are really nice optically but I just do not think they are made as well as the Ultravid. This is just my opinion. I looked at the Moon tonight with the Ultravid and the limb of the Moon is pure white with pitch black sky surrounding the Moon. I could see no false color or light scatter of any kind. Vary nice!

Rob

Well Ed after looking through the Leica today I have changed my mind yet again. it was an overcast day and every time I focused on a bird with the bright sky background I would get unacceptable fringing. I knew I would never be happy with them so back to Bass Pro Shop for the second time this weekend. It is a six hour drive both ways. This is getting expensive. I tested three pair of Zeiss FL's in the10x42 and found one that was faultless. Perfect collimation and smooth focuser. I inspected the insides with a penlight and it was spotless. Now that I have used the Zeiss it does seem to have better snap to focus. The images are so sharp that their is no eyestrain what so ever. It was still overcast when I got home and the Zeiss is incredible in its color free images. I could detect no fringing at all and the field of view is sharper to the edge than in the Leica 10x42. I think the 10x42 is the best between the 7,8,and 10x for sharpness accross the field of view. It is also the sharpest 10 power binocular that I have looked through. I have spent $90.00 in fuel for this little adventure and I think I am going to keep the Zeiss. Optically they can not be beat and if I have any problems than I guess that is what the warranty is for. Thanks for listening.

Rob

[WmCCO-5]

Robert/Ed

I do not think that construction and durability are issues with the FL. I have completed two safaris and one hunt in the Brooks Range in rough terrain and under extremely poor weather conditions; all with no ill effect to/on the FL's. They appear to be as tough or tougher than my old retired BN's. In a practical sense, they remind me of the binocular equivalent of the Glock pistol. I am of the opinion that an engineered polymer/steel/alloy combination does handle shock, temperature and other forms of punishment better than more conventional construction materials. Just refrain from sailing them like a frisby.

Bill

[FrankD]

On a related note to this discussion and the thread I started titled "I have an itch...."....

..after using the Swaro 7x42 SLCs for awhile I decided that they just didn't give the image qualities I would be truly satisfied with for the price. The most notable issue that I had with them is what seemed like less than optimal resolution (to me eyes) even in the center of the field. The image was bright with very good contrast and flat to almost the edge of the field but I found myself fiddling with the focuser constantly trying to get just a bit sharper image. The pair I purchased was the last they had in stock so my issue may have been the result of quality control rather than the typical optical quality of this particular SLC configuration. I have no way of knowing.

So, back to Cabelas I went. I had an idea of which 3 bins that I was likely to walk out with...8x42 Meopta, 8x40 Zeiss ABK Conquest or that pair of 7x42 Zeiss FLs in the Bargain Cave. As you must have guessed at this point I walked out with the FLs. Though both of the other bins were absolutely excellent compared to most of the bins I have owned the FL was just so much noticeably brighter and sharper (at least over most of the field) than either of the other two bins. The colors were so vibrant and the image was so sharp that I just couldn't resist them.

Since I bought them I have taken them out on three hawk watches and one warbler outing. They have performed to my expectations. The noticeable distortion around the outer 1/3rd of the image is distracting and annoying at times but the center field resolution more than makes up for it in my opinion. The image doesn't give me that relaxed feeling that the Venturers and the SLCs have but it is one of the few images where I actually feel like I could see more if my eyes would allow me to.

In addition, as most of the others have mentioned I tend to center the birds in the field of view which makes the outside distortion something I have become accustomed to. I have also adjusted the eyecups up about a half of a position which, though it decreases the field of view slightly, also seems to have gotten rid of of a portion of the perceived distortion.

The only issue I have not totally worked out with them is the diopter setting. I had it left at "0" for the first few days but then one evening noticed that the image in one of the barrels seemed a bit blurry. I readjusted the diopter somewhere between -1 and -2 and was fine but have subsequently readjusted it back to "0" again. I believe this has something to do with my eyes rather than the bins as my readjustments from "0" always seem to occur in the evening..I am guessing as my eyes get tired. Last night I used a "booster" on the image and found that the sharpest image came with one click to the negative so I am going to leave it at that for now.

All in all I must say I am very pleased with the 7x42 FLs.....not enough for me to store the Venturers though. ;)

[elkcub]

Hi Kimmo,

Ed,

I know you won't be reading this or responding to it for a while, but I would nevertheless like to ask you to read carefully both your own posts and mine and Henry's over again. Having followed your suggestion and done so myself, I feel that you are needlessly casting things in terms of agreement/disagreement over the validity of resolution testing. Rather than disputing what you said in post #14, in post 15# I pointed out some other aspects which also limit the validity of the NEED-test.
I see where you're coming from. But, in my own defense, my use of words like agree or disagree has been in the context of discussion, and refer to what I perceive to be the amount of overlap in thought. I can only portray my intent here, not provide assurance of being taken the right way.

What you say in post #18: "Where we probably differ most, is that I resist the imperative of going through special procedures to explain what I can see plainly by looking at the view," would be a very good summary of our viewpoints except for two things. Firstly, in order to highlight a perceived antagonism between viewpoints, you use the rhetorical tool of using the word "imperative" to label our efforts to find some quantifiable data, and secondly you make the non-quantifiable, subjective assessment of optics sound easier than what it usually is by calling it "what I can see plainly by looking at the view." Of course, this may very well be your experience, but mine is that although I can tell whether a binocular is good or not by looking at the view, there are very often subtle things about the view that I feel are either slightly wrong or exceedingly right, and I like to use methods such as star-testing and resolution target testing with or without a booster in order to better understand what it is that makes my perception what it is.
If you don't mind me saying, Kimmo, I really think you've read a great deal more into what I said than was intended. And it is not I who is being combative or taking insult. Holy mackerel, I'd have to be a clever man, indeed, to select the one word in the English language, "imperative," to convey all those negatives. No, what I simply said is that I (elkcub, Ed) personally resist (fight against, inhibit) the imperative (sense of urgency) of "going through special procedures ... ", etc. Whew!

I am, after all, an experimentalist by training and profession, and have such urges to resist, — but I do appreciate your efforts, which I did say explicitly! In context, your findings can provide valuable insights, and I am also aware that you carefully guard against making "this product is better than that one ..." sort of pronouncements. In light of the enormous complexity of the human's photopic visual system, however, my background leads me to be very cautious about the interpretation of any collection of empirical measures, and as a result I've chosen to rely on what I can see wholistically in normal birding tasks. In other words, heretical as it may sound, I simply don't completely share your view that "star-testing and resolution target testing with or without a booster..." would help me to better understand what it is that makes my color perceptions what they are. For me, if there is an answer it lies elsewhere.

Over the last two years I've enjoyed delving into optics, most recently intstrument design modeling. The topic is very complex and would take a lifetime (for me, at least) to understand fully. Several things, however, are rather apparent. First, the several aberration responses to design parameter changes are quite complex and interactive in nature. The best empirical measurements, I'm confident, are not really up to the task of mapping out these multidimensional response surfaces, and are probably best used for spot checking model predictions or manufacturing errors. Second, opticians use heuristics, or rules of thumb, to make product design selections based on what they believe to be the limits of human perceptual abilities. Unfortunately, these rules are not comprehensive relative to subtle color perceptions that are so essential in birding. Not surprisingly, staying below conscious awareness of color fringing seems to be the heuristic employed by most manufacturers — as if that were the primary if not the only color issue. So, finally, as a psychologist I can't help but conclude that the full blown, 3-D color percept obtained from a high quality birding binocular (i.e., the "view") is beyond formulation by simple heuristic rules, and must therefore be experienced to be appreciated. In the end, choosing between such products will probably always be a personal aesthetic one, underline personal.

I hope this fleshes out my non-antagonistic thinking somewhat better, and I apologize for offending inadvertently. ;)

Best regards,
Ed

[ceasar]

Now that seems to me to be somewhat like Duke Ellington's dictum on Jazz. "IF IT SOUNDS GOOD, IT IS GOOD!"

That is to say, "IF THE "VIEW" LOOKS GOOD, IT IS GOOD!"

Cheers,
Bob B (:

[elkcub]

Hi Ed,

I went back to Bass Pro Shop today and looked at the leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL's again. I originally told you that I would choose the Zeiss in the 10x version and I want to apologize for that statment. I returned my 8x42 Ultravid that I just bought last weekend and ended up walking out with the 10x42 Ultravid. The one 10x42 Ulravid I looked at before must have been a demo or something because the one i tested tonight was fabulous and vary well corrected for chromatic aberation. I compared them for about two hours and looked at all sorts of stuff inside the store. If you have ever been to a Bass Pro Shop you know what I am talking about. There is all kinds of stuffed animals and alot off different lighting conditions. The 10x42 Ultravid was just as sharp as the 10x42 FL and I also loved the contrast of the 10x42 Ultravid.
One of the 10x42 FL's I tried had a problem with the focuser so when you would turn it the diopter adjustment would move with the focuser. I have seen this before and really think Zeiss needs to address this problem. If you just push in on the focus wheel of the FL's while turning the focus the diopter adjustment will move and change your setting. I returned one pair of 7x42 FL's for the same problem that I bought from Eagle Optics a few months ago. I have owned all the Zeiss FL's 7x 8x and 10x. They are really nice optically but I just do not think they are made as well as the Ultravid. This is just my opinion. I looked at the Moon tonight with the Ultravid and the limb of the Moon is pure white with pitch black sky surrounding the Moon. I could see no false color or light scatter of any kind. Vary nice!

Rob

Well Ed after looking through the Leica today I have changed my mind yet again. it was an overcast day and every time I focused on a bird with the bright sky background I would get unacceptable fringing. I knew I would never be happy with them so back to Bass Pro Shop for the second time this weekend. It is a six hour drive both ways. This is getting expensive. I tested three pair of Zeiss FL's in the10x42 and found one that was faultless. Perfect collimation and smooth focuser. I inspected the insides with a penlight and it was spotless. Now that I have used the Zeiss it does seem to have better snap to focus. The images are so sharp that their is no eyestrain what so ever. It was still overcast when I got home and the Zeiss is incredible in its color free images. I could detect no fringing at all and the field of view is sharper to the edge than in the Leica 10x42. I think the 10x42 is the best between the 7,8,and 10x for sharpness accross the field of view. It is also the sharpest 10 power binocular that I have looked through. I have spent $90.00 in fuel for this little adventure and I think I am going to keep the Zeiss. Optically they can not be beat and if I have any problems than I guess that is what the warranty is for. Thanks for listening.

Rob

Rob,

Good for you, and enjoy the view. The 10x42 configuration has a lot to recommend it and has been a joy to use among the various high-end brands. If I were looking for one again, the Zeiss FL would be a prime candidate. As it is I bought a Swaro 10x42 SLC a few years ago and have been quite pleased with it. The day will probably arrive when you wish to complement this with a different configuration, and I hope we can look forward to using that event to kick off another philosophical discussion. :-O

Ed

[Robert Moore]

Rob,

Good for you, and enjoy the view. The 10x42 configuration has a lot to recommend it and has been a joy to use among the various high-end brands. If I were looking for one again, the Zeiss FL would be a prime candidate. As it is I bought a Swaro 10x42 SLC a few years ago and have been quite pleased with it. The day will probably arrive when you wish to complement this with a different configuration, and I hope we can look forward to using that event to kick off another philosophical discussion. :-O

Ed


Hi Ed,

I think in March or April of next year i am going to look at getting a 7x bino.
It will be between the Leica Ultravid and the Zeiss FL. I really like the Ultravid in the 7 and 8 power. Since i have the Zeiss in the ten power i thought i would get the Leica in the 7x that way i could have one of each brand.

Rob

[adw73uk]

Hi Ed,

I think in March or April of next year i am going to look at getting a 7x bino.
It will be between the Leica Ultravid and the Zeiss FL. I really like the Ultravid in the 7 and 8 power. Since i have the Zeiss in the ten power i thought i would get the Leica in the 7x that way i could have one of each brand.

Rob

A bit worrying that there is so much variation and unrelaibility eve in these top-end bins...........

[Leif]

I am of the opinion that an engineered polymer/steel/alloy combination does handle shock, temperature and other forms of punishment better than more conventional construction materials. l

I was wondering if that might be the case. To me the engineering of Leica and Swaro looks nicer - I find machined metal a thing of beauty - but plastics do handle shock better. I'll skip the Frisbee test if that's okay with everyone here.

Leif

[elkcub]

A bit worrying that there is so much variation and unrelaibility eve in these top-end bins...........
Top-end binoculars are somewhat like highly intelligent friends. They can always perform worse than they are capable, but when they perform well it's worth all the aggravation just to have one. :'D

Ed