Leica 8x32 Ultavid or Swaro 8x32 EL? (1 Viewer)

Hello, I narrowed it down to these 2 choices. Which one will be the better? I will be using these for hunting and need a rugged bino. Low light is a plus also. I can get either one for the same price. I was told Leica's are not as durible as the Swarovski's, but the Lieca's will be brighter. Please give me your input on these two. I will also post this on the Swarovski section too. Thanks, Erik

What About Zeiss?

erikschupp said:

I was told Leica's are not as durible as the Swarovski's, but the Lieca's will be brighter. Please give me your input on these two. I will also post this on the Swarovski section too. Thanks, Erik

Click to expand...

Hi,
You don't mention the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I find the FL a superb bino, easily beating the Swaro for sharpness, lack of chromatic aberration and brightness. An annoying charactaristic of the ELs is the amount of light reflected in the eyepieces, especially when the sun is low. As for durability, well, I have no qualms about its build quality or the use of polycarbonates which is much less brittle than magnesium.

One other characteristic of the 8x32 FL that works for me is its steadiness. I find that because the focus wheel is high up the body, when my hands are wrapped around it, my R thumb naturally rests on the bony part of my nose! Sounds weird, but it cuts out movement due to handshake. For me.

Chris

You will hear from Brad, no doubt.
Here are my opinions, after closely examining all three (FL, Ultravid, and EL). My wife has an FL, and me and my older daughter have ELs.
Fl brightest and sharpest image, free of color fringing. The image also is somewhat cold, bluish, and very distorted. The center of the field is the best in this model, but there is so much color fringing, astigmatism, and loss of sharpness at the outer 50% of the field, that it makes it unpleasant for me. In fact, my wife is starting to reconsider her decision because of this. The field of view is 420 ft., but it feels less because the image is not good at the edges. It's not a relaxing and pleasant view. On top of that, the FL has the least depth of field, and is the most unstable and shaky of them - its small and light and the image needs adjusted often. The small sweet spot also adds to the shaking feel.
The EL is not the brightest and the sharpest of the three, but it offers more than the human eye can see anyway. On the other hand, it has a very pleasant view - free of astigmatism and bending almost to the edge. Also, this model has the best depth of field. It is also the most stable, because of the superb ergonomics.
The Ultravid has the most color true and the most contrasty and vivid images, it probably is the most durable and strong. It's image has the most color fringing and it has a reasonable distortion at the edges: less than FL and more than EL. It also has a focuser that will take a year or two to become smooth - it will be rough and notchy for a while, or even worse, it will have play and slap.
I would be a happy birder with any of them, but since i can afford to choose and i can afford to change my mind, i choose the EL. My decision was based on: ergonomics and handling, depth of field, the most pleasant and most relaxing overall view, and after sale customer service (nobody beats Swarovski or Leupold).
Whatever your choice, you need to have in mind that center of field sharpness or brightness is not everything. A great birding binocular needs to have many more qualities and you should base your choice on whatever feels good to you. After all, you will pay a lot of money for a toy that is supposed to make you happy. Just be open minded when you go shopping, and ignore the names and the brands.

erikschupp said:

Hello, I narrowed it down to these 2 choices. Which one will be the better? I will be using these for hunting and need a rugged bino. Low light is a plus also. I can get either one for the same price. I was told Leica's are not as durible as the Swarovski's, but the Lieca's will be brighter. Please give me your input on these two. I will also post this on the Swarovski section too. Thanks, Erik

Click to expand...

Erik, here's my choice (yes, I've compared the 8x32 EL and BR side by side... no offense meant to Luca but I don't think they're close):

I'm in close agreement with Luca's optical and ergonomic evaluation of these three binos (only significant difference from anything he wrote is that I do not see the significant chromatic abberation off-axis that he notes for the Zeiss). I have the 8x32 EL, FL, and Trinovid (a close optical relative to the Ultravid, differing only in its coatings) and I've handled the Ultravids (which are brighter and have truer color than the Trinovids, as well as closer focus) on a number of occasions.

Ergonomically, optically, and esthetically/build-wise I like the Zeiss least, despite its superior performance in its little sweet spot. I probably wouldn't even own these if it weren't for their excellent performance (including 5 foot close focus) as a combo butterflying/birding glass. These also have the best eye-relief if you wear glasses, but positioning your eyes perfectly is more critical in these for minimizing abberations.

I like the ergonomics of the x32 Ultravid, Trinovid, and EL equally well. The two Leicas are definitely smaller (shorter) than the EL, so they pack better for travel use. I don't consider the size/weight diffs bewteen the Leicas to be of any practical significance. The handling of the EL is closest (and betters) the comfortable feel of a full-sized bino, and it takes up about as much packing space as some full-sized binos, but it is lighter in weight. I wish the eye-relief of all these models were a bit longer--they work for me and my glasses, but they aren't quite as comfortable as my x42 EL and Ultravids in that respect.

If I were to start from scratch and only own one of these binos, I'd go for the 8x32 Ultravid paired with an 8.5x42 EL (for when size and weight were of less importance, which for me is most of the time). If I could have only one premium full or 2/3 sized bino, I'd pick the 8.5x42 EL over any of these because of the greater ergonomic comfort of its larger exit pupils and longer eye-relief. I recommend you try them out side by side before you buy to see what fits you best.
--AP

I've looked and compared all three at 8x32 on a number of occaisions, most recently comparing the Zeiss T FL to the Swaro EL (yesterday). I've written up some of the comparisons elsewhere in these forums. My preference is for the Zeiss. I think it has the best combination of optical performance, features, compact size, and ruggedness (perceived anyway) for my purposes.

Of course, this is for my eyes and only for the individual examples of the bins that I looked at. As most will agree, the best bet is to do your own comparisons and arrive at your own conclusions.

I had same decision to make

I had the same decision to make (but mine was a 10x40 choice). I found that the color rendition of the Leica was far and away better than the Swaro. Looking into a group of trees, the Leica made the greens jump out, the Swaro made it look like an overcast day. Other than that, I found no difference.

I have a pair of Opticron, my husband has a 40 year-old pair from Dolland & Aitcheson, still superb in use, but I bought the Leica 8x32 Ultravid and the biggest advantage for me is that I can use them with my specs on.
If it were not a matter of weight I think I'd go for 8x42.