I am looking for a multi purpose binocular (watching airplane landing, looking mountains from 2 miles away, sightseeing). I am about to get Leica UV HD+ either 10x50 or 12x50. I have tried these two binoculars at my local Leica store and was wondering if any other model of Zeiss better suits my demand. Need your advice forum brothers, 10x50 or 12x50 since I will be watching a moving airplane or other recommended binoculars. Thanks in advanced.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Need Help On Selecting Binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter suitor
- Start date
Unless your hands are very steady, you may find 10x magnification hard to hand-hold steadily, which is why the usual recommendation is to get 8x binoculars, typically 8x42 or 8x32. A 8x50 or 10x50 is heavier than most people are willing to carry. You might want to drive to Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto to view competing binoculars like the Zeiss Victory HT, Victory SF or the Swarovski EL series (with Swarovision flattener lenses). Another option is the Canon 10x42L IS stabilized binocular.
Swarovskis are usually the sharpest across the frame. Leicas are usually the lightest and most compact, at the expense of diminished eye relief and field of view. Zeiss is somewhere in-between. The Canons are optically not as good at rest, but the stabilization makes them competitive in practical conditions.
Swarovskis are usually the sharpest across the frame. Leicas are usually the lightest and most compact, at the expense of diminished eye relief and field of view. Zeiss is somewhere in-between. The Canons are optically not as good at rest, but the stabilization makes them competitive in practical conditions.
Hmmm. It looks like KSP may not carry the Swarovski or Zeiss. I'm pretty sure Samy's Camera in San Francisco do, but call beforehand to make sure.
dwever
Well-known member
For the purposes you describe the 10x50 UV HD Plus in my opinion. Nice sized exit pupil, easy to use if you don't mind the extra size over the 42mm's. For the 12x50, perhaps more ideal for airplane viewing, but FOV may be a compromise with mountains, and may not be so easy to hold steady depending, and of course the smaller EP. No bad choice here though, especially if you've found a retailer that lets you try them.
My overall favorite UV HD Plus, and favorite glass overall is the 7x42. But, for your purposes I don't think the 7x42 has enough magnification. While I agree with the comment that Swarovski's are usually the sharpest across the frame, you have to decide if edge to edge sharpness matters to you. I find the HD Plus Ultravids are the most pleasing image along with the Zeiss HT's with better color reproduction, great transmission, and sharpness; I want to use those more, even though the edges don't resolve as well as the Swaro's, I don't need that (and I don't need the Swaro's rolling ball as I am susceptible to it in the 10x).
May I please ask what retailer. I've never been able to actually use a 12x50 uv hd plus.
My overall favorite UV HD Plus, and favorite glass overall is the 7x42. But, for your purposes I don't think the 7x42 has enough magnification. While I agree with the comment that Swarovski's are usually the sharpest across the frame, you have to decide if edge to edge sharpness matters to you. I find the HD Plus Ultravids are the most pleasing image along with the Zeiss HT's with better color reproduction, great transmission, and sharpness; I want to use those more, even though the edges don't resolve as well as the Swaro's, I don't need that (and I don't need the Swaro's rolling ball as I am susceptible to it in the 10x).
May I please ask what retailer. I've never been able to actually use a 12x50 uv hd plus.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi,
About "sharpness" I have not seen (in the samples I have seen) the Swarovski El SV to be sharper than the Zeiss HT.
To me, along the SLC HD and the Leica HD+ (I saw only one last year), the center resolution or "sharpness", is practically equal on all of them. Looking carefully and with support to eliminate hand shaking, at different objects, buildings and trees, etc,.
Perhaps there are more, or same, differences between samples of each one inside brand/model, than between one brand or the other....
About "sharpness" I have not seen (in the samples I have seen) the Swarovski El SV to be sharper than the Zeiss HT.
To me, along the SLC HD and the Leica HD+ (I saw only one last year), the center resolution or "sharpness", is practically equal on all of them. Looking carefully and with support to eliminate hand shaking, at different objects, buildings and trees, etc,.
Perhaps there are more, or same, differences between samples of each one inside brand/model, than between one brand or the other....
soloflyfisher
Active member
I'm not an expert on what's best for your uses, but in general, I'd lean more toward 10X than 12X. The extra magnification produces a larger image, but sometimes the advantages of a larger image are negated by the extra magnification of any hand shake (and even if you have very steady hands, hand-held binoculars will always shake a bit—even more so for big binoculars like these).
Almost all the other variables also play in favour of lower magnification. These include a larger field of view, a larger exit pupil (which means more light reaching your eye when light is low), larger eye relief (useful if you wear eyeglasses), and slightly less weight.
Not to confuse you more, but I'd also consider an 8X binocular and maybe with a smaller objective lens (42 versus 50), particularly if you are carrying the binocular around a lot. For your uses, I wouldn't go smaller than a 42mm objective, but I might consider 8X42. If you do decide to stick with 10X, I'd probably stay with the 50mm objective, but that's only because I like my exit pupils to be at least 5mm.
Also, I think the Leica's are a very good choice. You won't go wrong with Zeiss or Swarovski either, but my personal choice would probably be Leica. The best thing to do is try them all and see what you like.
Last edited:
My first reaction to that is that I would consider requirements for plane spotting and sightseeing are almost polar opposites. For plane ID you do need high magnification and as shake free as possible. I have a heavy Chinese made 42oz porro prism binocular which would easily out gun almost anything I've tried. It' rock steady in the hand and has a resolution to match the very best. It's colour rendition may not be great but it can cut through the haze better than some of the top makes in my opinion. I don't find the Canon image stabillised binoclar as effective as most others seem to do but they offer magnifications up to 18x and may be the best option for planes. Might well be worth a try.
I really wouldn't want to take either of those options or any of the 35oz x50s sightseeing. I'd want something small and light. I personally like the Nikon M7 8x30 but the Japanes made Kite lynx or Maven B3 are a little better but not so spectacle friendly.
Generally, most binoulars over about $250 are made to the same DIN ISO resolution standard. While there are a few notable exceptions, they generally should deliver far more detail than the average eye can see. In strong light and good clean air they should all have the same ability to show detail like identification codes etc.. However, with different light conditions and dirty air there will be different levels of apparent contast. Which design works best will vary. Generally for long distance viewing will have better contrast (or sharpness) with those models with lower blue transmission. In the warm light of sunset the advantage may shift to those with higher blue transmission. At the risk of oversimplification, a Swarovski will typically have have the best blue transmission, Leica the best red, and Zeiss somewhere in the middle. I personally feel the Zeiss colours can appear a little muted at close range compared to the other two, but it might well be the best choice for more challenging light conditions.
I still think my $100 porro might give the big guys a run for their money over 2 miles though.
David
I agree that a 12X is really too much magnification for "general sightseeing." Magnification isn't the only problem....larger size, heavier, smaller FOV, etc.
Like some of the others suggested, I'd start out with a nice 8X binocular, 30 to 42mm objectives, your preference....then ADD your nice 12X if you still need/want one. I have a nice 12X50, a Swarovski EL. It's my most expensive binocular, AND my least used.
Like some of the others suggested, I'd start out with a nice 8X binocular, 30 to 42mm objectives, your preference....then ADD your nice 12X if you still need/want one. I have a nice 12X50, a Swarovski EL. It's my most expensive binocular, AND my least used.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
For multipurpose use, I would start with a 8x42.
Would cover most use-cases.
Would cover most use-cases.
Hi Suitor,
For aircraft the Canon 18x50 IS is unsurpassed at that weight limit.
When you engage the stabilizer the resolution immediately doubles.
The Takahashi 22x60 tripod mounted is better but much heavier as is the Zeiss 20x60S.
The Canon 15x50 would suit more general views.
Even the Canon 12x36 or 10x30 will outresolve any hand held normal 10x,12x binocular.
The Canon 10x42 IS is excellent.
If you can brace a Leica 10x or 12x it will be good also.
For aircraft the Canon 18x50 IS is unsurpassed at that weight limit.
When you engage the stabilizer the resolution immediately doubles.
The Takahashi 22x60 tripod mounted is better but much heavier as is the Zeiss 20x60S.
The Canon 15x50 would suit more general views.
Even the Canon 12x36 or 10x30 will outresolve any hand held normal 10x,12x binocular.
The Canon 10x42 IS is excellent.
If you can brace a Leica 10x or 12x it will be good also.
I agree with the others. Aircraft spotting is different from general purpose binocular use. If you want to watch planes land and take off any Canon Image Stabilized bin should work great. Lots of users have raved about these in BF. Canon refreshed the compact 12x36 iii model last year with improved performance and was discussed in this forum - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=304939
The cons are batteries and lack of weatherproofing. If used from a back porch or in a dry climate these will be better for hand holding than Alpha bins in the 12x format and at a third of the prize. Some users reported the skin disintegrating in the older 12x32 ii model after some years of use. Hopefully Canon fixed that in the new version. Canon also has all weather 10x42, 15x50 and 18x50 models, but these are bulkier.
Comparing the Canon IS 12x36iii to Leica UV 12x50, the Leica has more FOV. It is 262'@1000yd for Canon and 299'@1000yd for Leica. At two miles or at a little over 3000yds, Canon 12x36 will show 786'@3000yds and Leica 897'@3000yds and you should be able to fit three Airbus 380's in the Canon view. The IS should take care of the hand shakes and make it much more enjoyable. This is a very short video of the feature by Binomania's Pergiovanni who is a regular contributor to BF - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izSC4h6Z7II. The tremors disappear magically when IS is enabled.
IMO it would be ideal to have a 12x IS bin for specialized needs and a 8x roof bin for general purpose use.
The cons are batteries and lack of weatherproofing. If used from a back porch or in a dry climate these will be better for hand holding than Alpha bins in the 12x format and at a third of the prize. Some users reported the skin disintegrating in the older 12x32 ii model after some years of use. Hopefully Canon fixed that in the new version. Canon also has all weather 10x42, 15x50 and 18x50 models, but these are bulkier.
Comparing the Canon IS 12x36iii to Leica UV 12x50, the Leica has more FOV. It is 262'@1000yd for Canon and 299'@1000yd for Leica. At two miles or at a little over 3000yds, Canon 12x36 will show 786'@3000yds and Leica 897'@3000yds and you should be able to fit three Airbus 380's in the Canon view. The IS should take care of the hand shakes and make it much more enjoyable. This is a very short video of the feature by Binomania's Pergiovanni who is a regular contributor to BF - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izSC4h6Z7II. The tremors disappear magically when IS is enabled.
IMO it would be ideal to have a 12x IS bin for specialized needs and a 8x roof bin for general purpose use.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
A small 3mm exit pupil does not seem very appealing to me, like in the 12x36 IS,
the 10x42L is still a "bulky" and heavy binocular, good optics though,
if you like things with batteries.
For aircraft landing and taking off at two miles you need batteries or a tripod.
For aircraft in the air, batteries.
That is, if you want to see good detail.
If you want to see blurred fuzzy detail and not read what is written on the aircraft you use a standard handheld binocular.
The 3mm exit pupil is not in my opinion significant, other than it reveals more detail in some situations.
For general use an 8x42 will probably be better.
For aircraft in the air, batteries.
That is, if you want to see good detail.
If you want to see blurred fuzzy detail and not read what is written on the aircraft you use a standard handheld binocular.
The 3mm exit pupil is not in my opinion significant, other than it reveals more detail in some situations.
For general use an 8x42 will probably be better.
Similar threads
