Comments on Henry's informative posting:
"I don't understand why Schmidt-Pechan was chosen over Porro. "
I think they are smaller and lighter hence save weight. But I agree with your comments.
"It's a bit odd that the APO is given a protective cover glass, but the HD version isn't. Does this mean the front glass of the APO is a glass type Leica consider to be too delicate for an exterior surface?"
As you obviously know, if it was flourite crystal, that would be the case, as it is more delicate than normal glass.
It is also possible that damage to the front element is common. Postings here have suggested that the objective elements in the Swarovski scopes are matched, and hence a damaged front element requires replacement of the entire objective. That might be the case with Leica, hence a cover glass might make sense.
There have also been more than a few reports of coating damage on the front elements of Leica Televid scopes. It might be that this is rare, but it might not be. A cover glass would allow refurbishment at modest cost as and when required. It might also be seen as a benefit for birders who use a scope in destructive environments e.g. near the sea.
Personally I love the idea of a wide field 25-50x zoom. Bring it on.
You wonder about the image quality in the 82mm scope. In my opinion the APO Televid 77mm has excellent IQ with less CA than many competing instruments. It is entirely possible that Leica have decided to make sacrifices in aspects of IQ in order to get a bigger objective and lighter weight, and hence compete better against the competition. I hope so 'cos then I will continue to be happy with my Televid.
Well, I will continue to be happy with such a good scope anyway.
We look forward to your review.