Is greatestbinoculars.com The Real Deal? Leica 8X42 Review (1 Viewer)

dwever · Jan 31, 2016

Is http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html the real deal?

If Tobias Mennle is a credible reviewer whose words are generally considered among the experts, he just sold me a pair of Leica Ultravid 8X42 HD Plus, edging out the Zeiss HT's (although that's a Zeiss SF pictured) with Leica's almost-as-phenomenal imaging and Leica's superior compactness, industrial design, and finish.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/ultravid8x42hdplus/ultravid8x42hdplus.html

Picture Credit: Tobias Mennle from cited review.

Bencw · Jan 31, 2016

Interesting review, i'm still happy with my old BN, but it certainly tempts you does it not. I agree with him about the bridge design, I much prefer this to the double / open type, but that is personal. Nice old Binuxit pictured, I had one of those.

A2GG · Jan 31, 2016

I totally understand now about the "sparkle" in daytime sunny conditions with
the UV+ which Tobias describes. Up until yesterday , all of my experiences out with my new 7x42+
were very overcast gray days. The UV performs well under these conditions , but
it wasn't until yesterday when I finally saw the full capability and was pretty blown away. I'm still at the stage of
being wowed by the optics since it's all still new. Yesterday was a cloudless , blue sky with
abundant sunshine and sun reflecting off the snow. The images through the bino were nothing
short of stunning; beautiful colors , sharpness and contrast ... colors especially look
gorgeous. Best money I ever spent on a binocular. It's a significant step up from my previous
Opticron 8x42 which was a good bino.

SuperDuty · Jan 31, 2016

I used to think my Minox and Zen ED2 couldn't be improved upon to any significant degree, then I looked through a 10X42 SV. At first I couldn't wrap my mind around such an expenditure, but after biting the bullet on my first SV there's no turning back. Some people see either zero or little difference between the top tier and the next one down, for me the the difference is large, but I can't of won't try to quantify it with a percentage or other measure. I'm sure your Leica is solidly at the top level and will give years of enjoyment. All that really matters about any binocular is that you enjoy them wether they cost $200 or $2000.:t:

Gilmore Girl said:
Best money I ever spent on a binocular. It's a significant step up from my previous
Opticron 8x42 which was a good bino.

perterra · Jan 31, 2016

SuperDuty said:
I used to think my Minox and Zen ED2 couldn't be improved upon to any significant degree, then I looked through a 10X42 SV. At first I couldn't wrap my mind around such an expenditure, but after biting the bullet on my first SV there's no turning back. Some people see either zero or little difference between the top tier and the next one down, for me the the difference is large, but I can't of won't try to quantify it with a percentage or other measure. I'm sure your Leica is solidly at the top level and will give years of enjoyment. All that really matters about any binocular is that you enjoy them wether they cost $200 or $2000.:t:

I second what SD says

SUPPRESSOR · Jan 31, 2016

dwever said:
Is http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html the real deal?

If Tobias Mennle is a credible reviewer whose words are generally considered among the experts, he just sold me a pair of Leica Ultravid 8X42 HD Plus, edging out the Zeiss HT's (although that's a Zeiss SF pictured) with Leica's almost-as-phenomenal imaging and Leica's superior compactness, industrial design, and finish.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/ultravid8x42hdplus/ultravid8x42hdplus.html

Picture Credit: Tobias Mennle from cited review.

And more CA than you can shake a stick at!!
suppressor

A2GG · Feb 1, 2016

SUPPRESSOR said:
And more CA than you can shake a stick at!!
suppressor

Hooray for CA ! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Can't comment on CA in the 8x42 plus , but it's very low in the 7x
and only detectible towards the edges to my eyes. But, this could be more due to
lower power I'm thinking. A couple of reviews I read have stated CA
control seems a tiny bit better in the 8x HD plus compared to regular HD, but
all eyes are different and some are bothered more by CA than others.

SuperDuty · Feb 1, 2016

3

Gilmore Girl said:
Hooray for CA ! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

dwever · Feb 1, 2016

Okay. Well thanks for staying focused.

I read all Mennle's 8x42 alpha reviews, and as a result I'm buying the Ultravid HD Plus, so I just wanted to know if I can take the reviews seriously before I sent MidwayUSA the money.

Peace.

NDhunter · Feb 1, 2016

dwever said:
Okay. Well thanks for staying focused.

I read all Mennle's 8x42 alpha reviews, and as a result I'm buying the Ultravid HD Plus, so I just wanted to know if I can take the reviews seriously before I sent MidwayUSA the money.

Peace.

I have read all of those reviews, and this reviewer seems to be one of
few, that places the Leica ahead of the others mentioned.

I have 4 plus years of experience with both the Swarovision and the Nikon EDG. Mennie lost much credibility with me with his dim review of the Nikon EDG.

After a couple of months with the Zeiss Victory SF, it performs much better than the reviewer mentions, and it performs very well.

I have not tried the new Leica, but go slow, and don't get any of these
top line binoculars until you have tried all of them out.

The flat fields, and great optics of the rest of these, do offer more than
the Leica.

Jerry

chill6x6 · Feb 1, 2016

dwever said:
Okay. Well thanks for staying focused.

I read all Mennle's 8x42 alpha reviews, and as a result I'm buying the Ultravid HD Plus, so I just wanted to know if I can take the reviews seriously before I sent MidwayUSA the money.

Peace.

I like his reviews. They are really good. But remember EVERY review is an opinion.

I spent several days last week looking thru a 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD +, and a SF 8X42. My money would be on a SV 8.5X42(if 8X is what you want) all day. Hunt around and you can probably find a NIB pre-Field Pro for around $2000(you can). Soon that will be around $2800 when those are gone. BUT if you want the Leica...it will be fine too. Optically I just think the SV is a little better.

A2GG · Feb 1, 2016

dwever said:
Okay. Well thanks for staying focused.

I read all Mennle's 8x42 alpha reviews, and as a result I'm buying the Ultravid HD Plus, so I just wanted to know if I can take the reviews seriously before I sent MidwayUSA the money.

Peace.

Hope you like it. I checked out the Midway site and looks like they
have an excellent return policy, so that's good if it turns out the bin
is not for you.

A2GG · Feb 1, 2016

chill6x6 said:
I like his reviews. They are really good. But remember EVERY review is an opinion.

I spent several days last week looking thru a 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD +, and a SF 8X42. My money would be on a SV 8.5X42(if 8X is what you want) all day. Hunt around and you can probably find a NIB pre-Field Pro for around $2000(you can). Soon that will be around $2800 when those are gone. BUT if you want the Leica...it will be fine too. Optically I just think the SV is a little better.

So true about user reviews.

I like the 8x32 SV the best myself out of all Swaros offerings and the
8x32 FL out of all Zeiss. The HT is nice too. I prefer Leica for their approach to design and the fact they are a little smaller and lighter...and I like the renowned Leica styled view. It always comes down to individual taste in the end. All of the binos you mention are excellent.

dwever · Feb 1, 2016

Gilmore Girl said:
Hope you like it. I checked out the Midway site and looks like they
have an excellent return policy, so that's good if it turns out the bin
is not for you.

Yeah, I get that optically the Ultravid HD Plus may be edged out for some users by EL's and HT's and SF's. But given the close distance between them, the compactness of the Ultras, and the Leica design and finish, I'm good to go. I've been primarily using Zeiss Marines for the last three years.

dwever · Feb 1, 2016

NDhunter said:
I have 4 plus years of experience with both the Swarovision and the Nikon EDG. Mennie lost much credibility with me with his dim review of the Nikon EDG.

The flat fields, and great optics of the rest of these, do offer more than
the Leica.

Confusing re the EDG, because his conclusions are just glowing saying in the end, "Nikon should boost transmission in the next version and so give us the the best 8x42 for general use." With a little more light then this is the top dog hardly reads like a dim review. But the conclusions may have shifted as these reviews are dynamic over time I'm advised.

Agree re the optics, but an Ultravid is diminutive next to an SF, HT, or EL. The trade off is worth it to me as my Zeiss Marines have been all over SubSahara Africa and I'm catching myself starting to leave them packed due to size and weight. At any rate, the starting point for me will be the 8X42 Ultravid HD Plus, and I'll go from there if necessary.

ceasar · Feb 1, 2016

Gilmore Girl said:
Hooray for CA ! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Can't comment on CA in the 8x42 plus , but it's very low in the 7x
and only detectible towards the edges to my eyes. But, this could be more due to
lower power I'm thinking. A couple of reviews I read have stated CA
control seems a tiny bit better in the 8x HD plus compared to regular HD, but
all eyes are different and some are bothered more by CA than others.

Correct! All eyes are different. Yours could be lateral CA that most people see when they look for it along the edges of brightly lit buildings or the ridges of mountains. It is easier to see if the binocular is held off axis. Center it on the object and it is not there. It can also come about if the binocular is not sharply focused.

Some people are prone to see CA where others don't see it. If it normally doesn't bother you ignore comments like the one above until you can actually try the binoculars. Even then it could be an issue caused by a defect in an individual binocular. I had an inexpensive 7x36 than had a lagging focus in one objective tube and it resulted in bad and very obvious CA, especially when looking at Turkey Vultures against a bright overcast sky.

Bob

Troubador · Feb 1, 2016

ceasar said:
Center it on the object and it is not there. It can also come about if the binocular is not sharply focused.

Bob

Bob I couldn't agree more and I sometimes wonder when a model is crticised for CA (and 'sharpness') how carefully the dioptre adjustment was set and also how much the unit was held 'bent' off axis while the reviewer gazes at the edge of the FOV to estimate the sharpness there and finds CA there as well.

Lee

SUPPRESSOR · Feb 1, 2016

Troubador said:
Bob I couldn't agree more and I sometimes wonder when a model is crticised for CA (and 'sharpness') how carefully the dioptre adjustment was set and also how much the unit was held 'bent' off axis while the reviewer gazes at the edge of the FOV to estimate the sharpness there and finds CA there as well.

Lee

I have owned ultravid,ultravidhd and ultravid hd+ and they all show more CA than zeiss fl,ht and sf. Just because some people do not see it does not mean its not there.
suppressor.

Troubador · Feb 1, 2016

SUPPRESSOR said:
I have owned ultravid,ultravidhd and ultravid hd+ and they all show more CA than zeiss fl,ht and sf. Just because some people do not see it does not mean its not there.
suppressor.

Hi Suppo

In the scenario that I was suggesting (which may or may not be realistic, but is certainly possible), whatever CA is present is being exagerated by careless setting of the dioptre and by inappropriate alignment of the eye and optical axis.

In other words I was wondering if some proportion of the CA mentioned by some critics was due to the operator. I am by no means suggesting that this explains all CA in all models.

Many optical aberrations are present in the bag of compromises we call binoculars, some of which are found to be intolerable by some people and are not noticed by others. If an aberration doesn't spoil the view for an observer then for all practical purposes, for that observer, it doesn't exist.

Lee

Torview · Feb 1, 2016

I often wonder if the CA is in the binocular at all, but rather a combination of user, eyeglasses and handling of the instrument, claims of much/no CA in any model are far too random to take seriously IMO.

Is greatestbinoculars.com The Real Deal? Leica 8X42 Review (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Beth

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Beth

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Experienced observer

Registered User

Beth

Beth

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread