• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Leica Ultravids (thread contains a variety of topics, optic reviews & other binos) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leif said:
I'm sure some people do overrate their bins for the reasons you give. If you search the web you'll find many reviews which are less than fawning and taken as a whole you can build up a rounded feel for a given product.

Mind you reviews on web sites such as epinions should be taken with a pinch of salt as reviewers are paid a small commission. I know because I have earned a massive $5. :king: Similarly I don't trust reviews attached to shops - BVD excepted - for obvious reasons.

Looks like I am trying to catch up a bit: BVD has not posted anything on Leica for a very long time, they have not even reviewed the new small Leica spotting scopes. And, not surprisingly, the shop this site is now attached to, does not carry Leica.
 
Hi Robert,

Welcome to Birdforums.

(I don't mind a plate of venison stew occasionally!)

Good to see you're 'getting stuck in' already.

Regards,

Andy.
 
[/QUOTE] Looks like I am trying to catch up a bit: BVD has not posted anything on Leica for a very long time, they have not even reviewed the new small Leica spotting scopes. And, not surprisingly, the shop this site is now attached to, does not carry Leica.
Not only did Stephen Ingraham (BVD) fail to cover the new Leica scope, he did not consider the Leica 8x20 BC or BCA when he reviewed compact binoculars, and the Leica is one of the top performers in that class. On the other hand, he ranks the Leica 8x32 among the finest all-around binoculars. He is not the only reviewer who has liked the 8x32 but not the other Trinovid BN Ultras. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, in its now dated review, "Desperately Seeking Binos," had the same conclusions about Leica.

The Ultravid is unquestionably one of the very finest binoculars on the market, and it will be interesting to see how it fares with these reviewers.
 
Leica Ultravids (long)

Just thought I'd add my two-pennyworth...

Over the years I have moved ever upwards through binoculars, reaching my zenith with the purchase of a pair of Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42s some five years ago. They served me well, proving to be supremely versatile in meeting my varying demands: birding, walking companion and sweeping the skies at night. They were sharp almost to the edge of the field, very comfortable to hold, very close focusing. Sadly, they met their demise a month or so ago and I had to look for a replacement.

For me weight was an important criteria and I had decided to stay with the 8x42 configuration, but I was prepared to be flexible. The choice, for me, was quickly reduced to five alternatives: another pair of Elites, Nikon LX, Zeiss Victory II, Swarovski EL and Leica BN. Much research was done on the internet and use made of such sites as BetterViewDesired (more of that later) and www.kikkertspesialisten.no.

However, early in the search I was shown the Nikon 8x32 LX (HG in the UK) and was stunned by the abilities of such a small package. Optically they were amazing and, combine this with light weight and near perfection in the hand, I was sold on them and bought a pair there and then. But honeymoon period was relative short as, in twilight conditions, I discovered they were no match for my old Elites, and at night they couldn’t even show the moons of Jupiter. So they went back and the search continued.

Elites are rapidly becoming ‘yesterday’s choice’ (“special order only”) and so I was looking again at those listed above. The Leica BN was soon ruled out by virtue of its bulk – I got cramp between my thumb and index finger in 10 minutes flat! The Zeiss, whilst being a nice light package and optically good (but not brilliant), have angled eyecups which stopped my spectacles from resting comfortably against them. So that was them out of the competition.

The 8x42 Nikons were of the same optical and build quality as their smaller 8x32 sibling but, and for me it was a Big But, they are Heavy. Never mind words like ergonomics, balance or weight distribution, at 980 gms they were just too much to have hanging around my neck for a full day’s walking.

That left the Swarovskis. Overall they were probably the best, aided by that little extra magnification. Optically bright, contrasty and with good full width sharpness (although with some colour fringing at the edges) they seemed to represent the end of my search. But the one thing I could not get used to was the 2.5 turns it took to get from close focus to infinity – I was used to the speed and accuracy of the Elites. So, now what?

Well, it was at this point that I remembered the Leica Ultravids which I had earlier dismissed as being too expensive. The long-suffering salesman had them in stock and all the other contenders were brought out again and comparative testing recommenced. Picking the Leica up immediately revealed their ergonomic qualities – the thumb ridge guided my hands into place and my index finger fell naturally onto the focus wheel. Open the hands and let them rest on the thumbs and they are exactly at their point of balance. Open the focus wheel to focus either the left or right eye to make the dioptre adjustment, click it closed, note the setting on the scale and they are ready for use.

The eyecups screw up/down with a click-stop in the down position and two stops in the up. With my spectacles they are somewhere in between, but they stay exactly where I want them. With a fov of 7.4 degrees they provide a view that is the equal to all the top grade alternatives (and wider than the Nikons). In the end the choice, for me, was the Leica and the Swarovskis and there was very little to choose between them, except that the Leicas are discernably brighter. That, together with their quicker focus and smaller size, was enough to decide me to pay the extra (slightly more than the Swarovskis) and I bought them.

Weighing 770gms (27.5oz) they are not the lightest of the bunch but with the Nikon-provide contoured 42mm neck strap I have already walked with them for hours, hardly noticing their presence.

Now, after 4 weeks of everyday use in all conditions I have nothing but praise for them. In bright light they are brilliant and contrasty, in low twilight they are better than my old Elites and at night stars are sharp points of light. I have my own version of BVD’s NEED test using the back of a 10 ukp note and the Leica was a full 10 inches better than the Nikon 8x32s. As for chromatic aberration, a full moon, even when viewed at the edge of the field, displays no colour fringing at all. None! The only time I miss my Elites is close focusing. At 2.3m the Leicas are one of the poorest performing of all those compared.

And one other comment, which may reflect their build quality. My eyes, with spectacles, are just about perfectly balanced and with all the other binoculars the dioptre adjustment was always a small way +/- from zero. But on the Ultravids it is dead centre. If I have one criticism, it is with the smoothness of the focus wheel; it is not as silky smooth as the Nikon. However, this may reflect the lubricant used as, when the temperature dropped to –5C the Nikon becomes stiff. The Leica, on the other hand, claim their binos are good down to –25C. So, into a freezer bag and into the freezer overnight at about –20C and in the morning the focus is still easy. Even the lens caps are a snug fit that stops condensation forming on sub-zero lenses.

I await BetterViewDesired’s review of these with some interest, but will not hold my breath as I note that the website has not been updated since October 2002 and Leicas have not been reviewed since the BA in December 2000. It is curious to note that Simpson Optics (BVD’s sponsor) do not sell Leica although they do sell every Nikon/Swarovski/Zeiss going. Is there any correlation between that fact and the awards of Reference Standard/BVD/BB status? I’m sure there isn’t.

Overall, it is my opinion you cannot buy a better 8x42. With a 5/30 year guarantee they should outlast me (and my son has already requested they be left to him in my will). Nuff said!
 
Hi all

with regard to my earlier post the Zeiss 7 x 42s hardly need focussing because of their amazing depth of field nothing to do with the age of your eyes as suggested above!

never unstood birders going on about one pair of bins being 50 grams heavier than another when they're carrying huge and hefty scopes most of the time......
 
Leica 8x20 and 8x32 etc

Not only did Stephen Ingraham (BVD) fail to cover the new Leica scope, he did not consider the Leica 8x20 BC or BCA when he reviewed compact binoculars, and the Leica is one of the top performers in that class. On the other hand, he ranks the Leica 8x32 among the finest all-around binoculars. He is not the only reviewer who has liked the 8x32 but not the other Trinovid BN Ultras. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, in its now dated review, "Desperately Seeking Binos," had the same conclusions about Leica.[/QUOTE]


I own a pair of 8x20s, I have had them for the last 4 years. They are close to perfect as a pair of binos that you simply have with you all the time. I had a pair of the predecessors which never suited my bespectacled eyes. But the present pair is fine, with excellent optics, as far as I am concerned. Of course, you don't want to compare them with a 32 or 42 mm objective type. But of what use are those sitting at home. At the same time I use these little beauties for cultural events like concerts where one does not like to show up with a "field" instrument. And, last but not least, they are my spare pair on all the extended travels where just the thought of having to do without any binoculars gives you the creeps.

I also own one of those much praised Leica 8x32 Trinovids. I used to be quite happy with them. Meanwhile, they do show some wear, and one of the barrels shows an ever so slight "fogging". Instead of going for another expensive repair, I think I'd rather go for a "replacement" (without any real intention to get rid of the old pair, though). I never liked the feel on those Trinovids, which resulted in my trying to file off some of the ribbing on the bottom side. This would now mean that I would hardly be able to sell them at a decent price, anyway. So I may just as well keep them in order to equip another one of the windows for immediate use. My - still undecided - question is now whether I should again get a pair of 8x32 (I'd have to wait a bit longer if I decide to get Ultravids). They are so light weight, which helps my neck a lot. On the other hand, those 8x32s were decidedly too dark in the tropical rain forest of Peru. Thus, I now tend to consider one of the 42mm bunch.

Finally, we also own a pair of Zeiss 10x40 Victory (I). They are mostly my wife's, and she likes them a lot with their very bright view. And I am quite happy using them, too, except for those well known problems like flares and strap attachment. However, my brother also owns one of them,and they already look very much worn. That rubbery outside sure does not seem to last very well under heavy use. Thus, that is one reason that I do not consider the Victory II now. The second one being that I very much like the higher contrasts of the Leicas.
 
And one other comment, which may reflect their build quality. My eyes, with spectacles, are just about perfectly balanced and with all the other binoculars the dioptre adjustment was always a small way +/- from zero. But on the Ultravids it is dead centre. If I have one criticism, it is with the smoothness of the focus wheel; it is not as silky smooth as the Nikon. However, this may reflect the lubricant used as, when the temperature dropped to –5C the Nikon becomes stiff. The Leica, on the other hand, claim their binos are good down to –25C. So, into a freezer bag and into the freezer overnight at about –20C and in the morning the focus is still easy.[/QUOTE]


The diopter adjustment on my Ultravid 7x42 is not as "dead on" as Chris Zorro's. My Nikon SE and Leica 8x20 are both set properly at zero, but my Ultravid has to be set at +1.25 diopters. One might think this is due to an imperfection in manufacture, though it makes little difference, except perhaps for another user who might need +3 diopters to use them effectively. But since I have become addicted to their feel and performance, I don't think anybody else will ever pry them from my hands.

As for Chris' comments on focusing mechanisms, he is quite right. The Nikon SE's focusing wheel stiffens considerably in cold weather, but the Ultravid is completely unaffected by the cold.
 
william j clive said:
Birdwatching is anti-Nikon.

Having now chosen a new Nikon ED82 scope I, certainly Birdwatch magazine's review of this scope, whilst very positive indeed if you read carefully, seems quite carefully slanted by the inclusion of some some pretty irrelevant but negative comments that simply don't bear out in practice.
 
Last edited:
yes Scampo

although never had a pair until quite recently it has always been clear to my eyes at least that Nikon bins and scopes have the best glass and coatings. Only never got a scope of theirs because of the 'flask' reputation which I guess is not the case now?

I'd still quite like one of those Nikon Ed11 60 mm jobs - they were so good, and light too

Don't put any store by any review in the birding press - just read some of the book reviews - very shallow - bins I guess likewise
 
As an English teacher with a real fascination for the way language can be used, I even thought about asking my A-level students to analyse two reviews from that magazine just to see how cleverly English can be very subtly slanted. The Nikon ED82 scope review was I believe, rightly complimentary, yet contained just sufficient (but in practice wholly irrelevant or highly personal) negative comments - which seem not to occur with certain other brands. Intentional or not we'll never know.
 
Last edited:
scampo said:
As an English teacher with a real fascination for the way language can be used, I even thought about asking my A-level students to analyse two reviews from that magazine just to see how cleverly English can be very subtly slanted. The Nikon ED82 scope review was I believe, rightly complimentary, yet contained just sufficient (but in practice wholly irrelevant or highly personal) negative comments - which seem not to occur with certain other brands. Intentional or not we'll never know.

Would you care to give us an example, please? I assume you can't just copy the whole thing here, but it is difficult in Switzerland to get hold of the article.

By the way, even as a biologist and non-native English speaker I try to get into the finer distinctions of the language. I do teach two weekly hours of Biology in English to a small group of students, and this topic is by no means neclected. Well, sorry, that is now off the point, but it does matter how we all perceive the info we find.
 
It is impossible to show the effect of the apparent or perceived slant without the context provided by the whole article - and copyright probably forbids me posting this, but here is a taster:

The October 2003 Birdwatch review was given an ambiguous headline "Nikon Gets Heavy" but it seems to me that for a high quality 82mm scope the Nikon is not especially heavy when compared with its typical competition, viz. Leica, Zeiss and Opticron scopes are all around the same weight or even heavier. The statement: "while light-gathering ability is of the top order, this is a high price to pay in terms of weight. " then becomes rather meaningless. The Nikon is a very compact design indeed - a major and unusual point in its favour but ignored.

The lens cap - so very important! - was described: "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the cap for the objective lens, which was next to useless and wouldn't stay in position at all". The cap on my scope and the others in the shop fits well and tightly.

Then the optics: "One other gripe is the relatively narrow field of view of just 33m at 1,000 m, which seems a little poor for a wide-angle eyepiece...". Anyone who looks through this eyepiece in comparison with other leading scopes will surely be impressed with the field of view it offers. The reviewer chose the 38xW eyepiece (a high magnification if you are interested in a very wide field of view) and, from what I can tell, the Nikon view at 38x is actually 3 metres wider than, for example, the superb Zeiss 85*T at 40xW.

Buried somewhere in the middle of all this was a comment about the Nikon's optical performance:

"As with other Nikon products.... the optical performance.... was faultless and it performed outstandingly... give superb colour rendition."

And on to the stay-on case: "Other accessories include a rather pricey stay-on case for protection..". The case seems to be similarly priced to all others and is superbly made, even rather swish.

And to end the review, back to the dubious weight issue:

"Ultimately, for both birders and digiscopers who are searching at the highest-quality end of the market, the Nikon ED82 models should prove to be a hit, particularly for those willing to make the effort to carry a little extra weight around to obtain."
 
Last edited:
Swissboy said:
Would you care to give us an example, please? I assume you can't just copy the whole thing here, but it is difficult in Switzerland to get hold of the article.

By the way, even as a biologist and non-native English speaker I try to get into the finer distinctions of the language. I do teach two weekly hours of Biology in English to a small group of students, and this topic is by no means neclected. Well, sorry, that is now off the point, but it does matter how we all perceive the info we find.

There's a non-subtle example from the big optics tests done by Bird Watching magazine last year. The B&L Elite 8x42 were described as having a good field of view. The Nikon 8x42 HG were described as having a disappointing field of view. In fact both had, and still have, the same field of view.

It's odd comparing the 2002 test with the recent one. The Leica 8x42 BN was described as chunky but "well balanced and very comfortable to hold". This year it is "looking dated", and let down by "large size, chunky shape and heavy weight" and "not for small hands". All you Leica 8x42 BN owners had better upgrade PDQ before your binoculars are described as "makes a good paper weight" ...
 
I agree, Leif - some of the comments in that latest review were nothing less than odd even to someone not looking for evidence of slant.
 
The problem maybe is that we all tend naturally to support our own choice and prefer the scope we have bought - so when asked to review another scope we might subconsciously naturally lean our view against a different make. Maybe some reviewers are perhaps falling into this trap?
 
Leif said:
It's odd comparing the 2002 test with the recent one. The Leica 8x42 BN was described as chunky but "well balanced and very comfortable to hold". This year it is "looking dated", and let down by "large size, chunky shape and heavy weight" and "not for small hands". All you Leica 8x42 BN owners had better upgrade PDQ before your binoculars are described as "makes a good paper weight" ...

What's so unusual? The same happens in hifi mags as well. Lots of folks complain about the RSPB Birds mag being "an advertisement rag" but that's why its free, lets be honest Birdwatch and Birdwatching depend heavily on advertising. I don't imagine Leica would be impressed if they said "well marginally better but not really worth trading your BN's for" now would they?
 
scampo said:
Free? How much is your subscription, Peter?
Well Stephen, the RSPB CLAIM that the mag is paid for by advertising not out of subscriptions!!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top