6x24 trinovid price (1 Viewer)

Don't wish to rain on anyone's parade, but the current Leica 6x24 going prices are slightly inflated - actually grossly. As a relic and a mechanical piece the 6x24 is a marvelous instrument - for its time. I have had 3-4 of them over the years. Can't remember precisely. But someone always came along and offered to pay me more than it was worth to me. I believe nostalgia had something to do with those offers.

Certainly not optical performance if compared to the old Bushnell Custom 6x24, which surpasses it by a wide margin. But then I am a utilitarian kind of old man who doesn't care for jewelry, Rolex watches, or other things that glitter.

John

. I'm not sure if it is a Bushnell custom 6×24 or 6 x 25.
But if it only has an 8° field it is not in the same class as the Trinovid or even the Amplivid with about 12.2° or 12.3° fields.

The performance of the two Leitz binoculars is quite adequate.
I and probably quite a few others are more than happy to use these older binoculars in preference to modern day wonder binoculars with narrow fields.

To illustrate. The binoculars that I use are
4×22 16.5° field
5×25 12.2° field
6×24 12.4° field
7×35 11.05° field
8×40 9.5° field
10×40 6.5° field
12×45 5.5° field
10×50 7.8° field
12×50 5.7° field
15×70 4.4° field
20×80 3.5° field

The average apparent fields of view of the above binoculars is 70° in old measure.
many are elderly and have given years of good service and many are optically a lot better than some current wonders even though I realise that new glasses and new coatings have improved binoculars at least at the upper end of the range in the last 10 years.

I have absolutely no desire to use a 20 x 60 Pentax binocular with a 2.2° field or even a Takahashi 22×60 narrow field binocular even if it has maybe the best performance of nearly any binocular.

Similarly 8×42 birding binoculars with 6.5° fields are also not much use to me.

If one wants a 6×24 or 6×25 binocular with a 12° field what current offerings are there that make any sense.
I do have the 6×30 Russian binocular with a 12.5° field but mechanically it is not up to much and I don't use it.

It is not that these old binoculars are necessarily relics it is that modern equivalents that are usable don't exist.

John Dracon said:

Don't wish to rain on anyone's parade, but the current Leica 6x24 going prices are slightly inflated - actually grossly. As a relic and a mechanical piece the 6x24 is a marvelous instrument - for its time. I have had 3-4 of them over the years. Can't remember precisely. But someone always came along and offered to pay me more than it was worth to me. I believe nostalgia had something to do with those offers.

Certainly not optical performance if compared to the old Bushnell Custom 6x24, which surpasses it by a wide margin. But then I am a utilitarian kind of old man who doesn't care for jewelry, Rolex watches, or other things that glitter.

John

Click to expand...

Well,....never having had an opportunity to peer through an old Busnell Custom 6X24,....nor even find any specs or pics after a brief google search,.....i can only say i will keep it on my list of "keep an eye out for"!

I do know my samples of Leitz trinovids vary a little in ultimate sharpness achievable between the various models i have. None are dogs,......but this 6X24 Trinovid sample and my 6X30 Trinovid are the best of the 5 Trinovids i currently have, and ones i have traded off in the past. Perhaps the 6X24 Trinovid samples you ran across needed service or adjustment, or were not one of the "gems" we all search out and would never let go. I count myself lucky i have a sample which i cannot fault, as it serves my needs and meets my expectations in it's size class. The current "moon" pricing is the only reason i haven't picked up another,.....but i'm still looking up to about $600.00

I'm not one to get all gaga over the latest, greatest, and certainly more expensive gear anyway. Frankly, i use a glass generally in nicer weather, so fully "waterproof" is not a high priority. I do bring a plastic zip lock "just in case" i get caught in an unexpected downpour! :C

Generally i'm out in daylight,....sometimes at dawn or dusk but usually not,.....so i've never missed a lack of multiple coatings or phase coatings. When i was out a hour ago feeding a few dozen ducks a few loaves of whole wheat bread,.....the 1963-1965 era (with a re-issue in 1967) Leitz 6X24 Trinovid was PERFECT for my needs.

The wide FOV and sharpness were as good as my 57 year old eyes are probably capable of anyway. I didn't even need eyeglasses until i was 40, and was a bench jewelry repaiman from age 15 to 50, so i KNOW what "sharp" vision is,....i needed it every day setting diamonds from as small as 1.5mm to 15mm as i recall.

I wonder how that Busnell compares in other areas, since i have yet to find any specification on it.

For me,......FOV, close focus capability, ergonomics, esthetics, weight, size, and build quaility are much more important to "me" than maximum light transmission and ultimate sharpness. (by today's standards)

Even with modern coatings,......alpha roof prism binos often take 2nd seat to 20, 30, or more year old "top grade" porros in the sharpness department. (porros added size, weight, and lack of waterproofing their main shortcomings, at least from my experience)

If you have any specs on the Bushnell Custom 6X24,....i would be interested in comparing the two. I'll take a guess that they are larger, heavier, and less ergonomic than the Trinovid, if they didn't use the same Uppendahl prism.

Binastro said:

. I'm not sure if it is a Bushnell custom 6×24 or 6 x 25.
But if it only has an 8° field it is not in the same class as the Trinovid or even the Amplivid with about 12.2° or 12.3° fields.

The performance of the two Leitz binoculars is quite adequate.
I and probably quite a few others are more than happy to use these older binoculars in preference to modern day wonder binoculars with narrow fields.

To illustrate. The binoculars that I use are
4×22 16.5° field
5×25 12.2° field
6×24 12.4° field
7×35 11.05° field
8×40 9.5° field
10×40 6.5° field
12×45 5.5° field
10×50 7.8° field
12×50 5.7° field
15×70 4.4° field
20×80 3.5° field

The average apparent fields of view of the above binoculars is 70° in old measure.
many are elderly and have given years of good service and many are optically a lot better than some current wonders even though I realise that new glasses and new coatings have improved binoculars at least at the upper end of the range in the last 10 years.

I have absolutely no desire to use a 20 x 60 Pentax binocular with a 2.2° field or even a Takahashi 22×60 narrow field binocular even if it has maybe the best performance of nearly any binocular.

Similarly 8×42 birding binoculars with 6.5° fields are also not much use to me.

If one wants a 6×24 or 6×25 binocular with a 12° field what current offerings are there that make any sense.
I do have the 6×30 Russian binocular with a 12.5° field but mechanically it is not up to much and I don't use it.

It is not that these old binoculars are necessarily relics it is that modern equivalents that are usable don't exist.

Click to expand...

Ditto! :t:

That's the problem today,....there simply ISN'T ANYTHING in the same class for FOV, size or weight. I love going to a concert or sporting event with the 6X24 Trinovids mainly because of the huge (and unmatched today) FOV. Until you have one in hand to compare, most don't know what they're missing.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread,......if Leica went back and re-issued (for a THIRD time) the Trinovid 6X24, but with modern multicoatings (phase coating possibly also, but not sure if it's needed here?), and sealed as a true waterproof model.....they would have a real winner with nothing else soming close in super compact performance!

They ALREADY KNOW folks are willing to pay serious $$$ for one with the old specs! A no-brainer" but tough to get through corporate BS and produced.

It's a Bushnell 6x25; I hit the wrong key, Sure the field is only 8 degrees, but how much of the Trinovid wide field is usable? Compare them on optical charts. Have you? I have many times. No contest. That generation of roofs had prisms unlike anything today. Now if they did, I would pay even more for modern prisms and coatings. The Leica 6x24 is a mechanical tour de force. It ought to be resurrected with modern optics, and then it would be worth even more.

John

Your second post came while my second post was on its way. I see we are both porro fans. I'll tell you what I will do. You pay the postage both ways and I'll send you an old Bushnell Custom 6x25 to play with for a month or so.
Those particulars binoculars are in high demand here in the states - mostly bow hunters, They in fact were chosen for astronauts to use in our space program.

John

John Dracon said:

It's a Bushnell 6x25; I hit the wrong key, Sure the field is only 8 degrees, but how much of the Trinovid wide field is usable? Compare them on optical charts. Have you? I have many times. No contest. That generation of roofs had prisms unlike anything today. Now if they did, I would pay even more for modern prisms and coatings. The Leica 6x24 is a mechanical tour de force. It ought to be resurrected with modern optics, and then it would be worth even more.

John

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "....but how much of the Trinovid wide field is usuable?"

I want to say ALL of it,.....as edge to edge sharpness is certainly plenty sharp for my needs! I've never put it up against a strict scientific "chart test",.....but in real world use i notice no distracting falloff in edge sharpness.

For all practical purposes (isn't that what we buy a compact bino for?),.....i can't find a fault with my particular example

So yeah,......i think i will say i use ALL of it!

Also,....yes,....i am a fan of a well made porro. I currently have a mint Zeiss (Oberkochen) 8X32B out for service, as there is a slight film seen on the internals,...typical age related gassing of lubricants.

These were's used much at all, can't find a flaw on them cosmetically, and the case is almost as blessed! They are the smaller FOV model, and were very sharp even with the slight film on the internals,.......so can't wait to get them back from Zeiss in Va. Someday i hope to find the wider FOV version of this well build porro.

i appreciate your offer in the previous post to loan me your Bushnell Custom 6X25 example, but i will have to hesitatingly decline.

While you would have no problem with me, i'd hate to think of an instance where the bino got lost, stolen in transit either way, or accidently damaged in some way and would be tough to replace,....not being of current production.

I know how i'd feel about that if it were me,....and wouldn't wish to take that chance on another's property of which they have a high regard.

The much smaller FOV would be tough for me live with in the long run,....so i doubt i'd ever own one personally.

Thanks for the offer though......


Edited: I did find this thread based on your corrected 6X25 size,....and i wasn't really thrilled at their lack of durability as mentioned in the thread. I've yet to find a prone to get out of allignment Leitz Trinovid,....the build quality was superior for the time period.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=214679

Specifically,

spyglass said:

Hope u didn't give the seller 5 stars on feedback. Shipping binos that way is inexcusable. And the Custom Compacts are not know for toughness. I've had at least 6, maybe 7, in all 3 body styles, and it only takes a fairly light jolt to give you double vision (predominatly vertical). When they're perfectly collimated, they are, to me, the best of any glass under 30mm, but ya really gotta be careful with 'em.

The Bushnell/B&L svc dept in Kansas City usta be a 1st rate operation.....they'd repair virtually any of their products for $10 (mainly for return shipping) and did excellent work. But since being bought by Ocean Partners, no longer the case.

Click to expand...

This 6x24 Trinovid was outstanding in many ways - I used it myself, though, in the long run, I preferred the higher contrast of the Nikon 8x30 EII and that is why the Leitz stayed at home most of the time and was later sold.

In my opinion, 6x24 is an ideal format for a compact binocular. The exit pupil is wide enough to allow comfortable observations, and the instrument doesn't immediately fail once light levels turn low. Also, it is not easy to hold those small binoculars steady - at 6x this is no problem, and the outstanding depth of field at 6x adds to the overall ease of use.

Such a Trinovid, with modern coatings and somewhat more eye-relief would outperform any one of the existing high end compacts with their tunnel views and their inconvenient tiny exit pupils.

Cheers,
Holger

Joe - my offer for a loan was to Binastro, but if you have never had a pair to examine, I can arrange for that., too. I note that even Spyglass' comments are thrown into the mix. The Bushnell Custom 6x25 was never noted for its ruggedness, and I concur, yet Spyglass states, "When they are perfectly collimated, they are, to me, the best of any glass under 30 MM." I haven't found them fragile, but when compared to the Leica 6x24, the Leica wins hands down.

Now Dr. Merlitz has joined the discussion, and his technical knowledge on optics is outstanding. But unless he has used the Bushnell Custom 6x25 on a comparative basis, I can only concur with his overall comments - they do not address the issues I was raising, viz., Leica 6x24 overall optical quaity compared to the Bushnell 6x25 and what I consider an exaggerated second hand value. But then it was Twain who stated,
"It is a difference of opinion that makes a horse race." By the way the Bushnell 6x25 allows for the full FOV for eyeglass wearers. The Trinovid's ER does not accommodate that.

John

John Dracon said:

Joe - my offer for a loan was to Binastro, but if you have never had a pair to examine, I can arrange for that., too. I note that even Spyglass' comments are thrown into the mix. The Bushnell Custom 6x25 was never noted for its ruggedness, and I concur, yet Spyglass states, "When they are perfectly collimated, they are, to me, the best of any glass under 30 MM." I haven't found them fragile, but when compared to the Leica 6x24, the Leica wins hands down.

Now Dr. Merlitz has joined the discussion, and his technical knowledge on optics is outstanding. But unless he has used the Bushnell Custom 6x25 on a comparative basis, I can only concur with his overall comments - they do not address the issues I was raising, viz., Leica 6x24 overall optical quaity compared to the Bushnell 6x25 and what I consider an exaggerated second hand value. But then it was Twain who stated,
"It is a difference of opinion that makes a horse race." By the way the Bushnell 6x25 allows for the full FOV for eyeglass wearers. The Trinovid's ER does not accommodate that.

John

Click to expand...

Sure - I didn't comment on the Bushnell because so far I haven't seen it. The Leitz is definitely overpriced, since it has become a collector's item. It would need a couple of improvements, including ER, before it could be regarded a modern binocular, yet, its combination of low power, relatively wide exit pupil and wide field inside a compact body is pointing into the right direction.

Cheers,
Holger

John Dracon said:

Joe - my offer for a loan was to Binastro, but if you have never had a pair to examine, I can arrange for that., too. I note that even Spyglass' comments are thrown into the mix. The Bushnell Custom 6x25 was never noted for its ruggedness, and I concur, yet Spyglass states, "When they are perfectly collimated, they are, to me, the best of any glass under 30 MM." I haven't found them fragile, but when compared to the Leica 6x24, the Leica wins hands down.

Now Dr. Merlitz has joined the discussion, and his technical knowledge on optics is outstanding. But unless he has used the Bushnell Custom 6x25 on a comparative basis, I can only concur with his overall comments - they do not address the issues I was raising, viz., Leica 6x24 overall optical quaity compared to the Bushnell 6x25 and what I consider an exaggerated second hand value. But then it was Twain who stated,
"It is a difference of opinion that makes a horse race." By the way the Bushnell 6x25 allows for the full FOV for eyeglass wearers. The Trinovid's ER does not accommodate that.

John

Click to expand...

Ahhh,....thanks for correcting my misuderstanding of the "loan".

Regarding the Leitz 6X24 Trinovid,....i too feel a lot of the recent offerings are greatly overpriced. Perhaps the pricing is just a bit premature, however,.....as i believe i'm into my exc+++ pair for just a little over $600, from back in 2009. With the 1 or 2% inflation often "claimed" by our gooberment,....my glass surely isn't figured into that mix! Otherwise you'd see nice examples offered for $625 or so!

Lately i've seen some offered between $900 and $1500,.....but of course the higher one is almost guarenteed to sit around a VERY long time!

However, looked at from another point of view,.....what else out there can do what the 6X Trinovid can, from ANY era?

Absolutely nothing else is (or was) available if you wanted a HUGE field of view, light weight, small size, durable & quality build, and at least a 4mm EP. So here we are, the now "ancient" in coatings technology Leitz 6X24 Trinovid, the ONLY choice ever available that could do all that.

The only down side is a little less contrast, glare control, and ultimate achievable sharpness over what's currently available. But there's no free lunch,......you'll give up much of what made the old 6X24 Trinovid so special.

That's a tradeoff i won't make for my most used, everyday carry binocular. I focus on a group of ducks at a local pond,....or wildlife in the woods,....and the image is plenty sharp and contrasty to bring a smile to my face.

It only takes ONE buyer of anything at any offered price. With some folks the money doesn't really matter. Do you think Bill Gates (or someone close in net worth) would be put off picking up the mint $1,500 example if he had a mind to, and desired the features that model offers? I don't........

Regarding the lack of full FOV for eyeglass wearing,......that's never been a consideration for me (and i suspect a lot of folks). Although i wear prescription eyeglasses, i prefer the sharper view of a "B" type bino with the eyecups in the UP position.

I'm annoyed wearing eyeglasses and using a good bino over any length of time. For a quick search,....not a problem. But for anything beyond that i simply am not thrilled with the "feel" of eyeglasses between me and the binoculars. The feeling to me is like having to wear a "raincoat" when getting frisky with the misses!

As time goes on, most lenses in eyeglasses tend to develope hairlines that can't easily be taken out, and smears that can but need regular attention to do so. Also, over extended viewing time there can be wear imparted to your eyeglasses.

You'll also never get the same "locked in" feel using eyeglasses, as you do with well fitting eyecups pressed gently agasinst your eye sockets,....so steadiness of image is usually compromised while wearing eyeglasses. (at least in my experience)

So lack of a "B" longer eye relief design in the old 6X24 Trinovid was never a concern for me, and is not a factor in any binocular i look at seriously for possible purchase.

....and for what it's worth,......the HUGE 212m/1000m FOV would never be possible with any extension of eye relieve. It's just one of the trade offs decided upon when this glass was designed, and which in my opinion was the correct choice.

I wouldn't opt to reduce the FOV down to 170m/1000m just to gain Eye Relief, but that's what would probably result with an extension of ER to allow eyeglass wearing ability.

For what it's worth, i don't believe i'll ever see a more modern incarnation of this design, built from the bottom up.

But i WOULD pay $500 to $700, were it an option, to have Leico provide the parts and labor to take my already exhisting 6X24 Trinovid into the modern performance age of sharpness and brightness.

.......don't change another thing though, else the deal's not worth doing!

joejeweler said:

Ahhh,....thanks for correcting my misuderstanding of the "loan".

Regarding the Leitz 6X24 Trinovid,....i too feel a lot of the recent offerings are greatly overpriced. Perhaps the pricing is just a bit premature, however,.....as i believe i'm into my exc+++ pair for just a little over $600, from back in 2009. With the 1 or 2% inflation often "claimed" by our gooberment,....my glass surely isn't figured into that mix! Otherwise you'd see nice examples offered for $625 or so!

Lately i've seen some offered between $900 and $1500,.....but of course the higher one is almost guarenteed to sit around a VERY long time!

However, looked at from another point of view,.....what else out there can do what the 6X Trinovid can, from ANY era?

Absolutely nothing if you want a huge field of view, light weight, small size, durable and quality build, etc.

It only takes ONE buyer of anything at any offered price. With some folks the money doesn't really matter. Do you think Bill Gates (or someone close in net worth) would be put off picking up the mint $1,500 example if he had a mind to, and desired the features that model offers? I don't........

Regarding the lack of full FOV for eyeglass wearing,......that's never been a consideration for me (and i suspect a lot of folks). Although i wear prescription eyeglasses, i prefer the sharper view of a "B" type bino with the eyecups in the down position.

I'm annoyed wearing eyeglasses and using a good bino over any length of time. For a quick search,....not a problem. But for anything beyond that i simply am not thrilled with the "feel" of eyeglasses between me and the binoculars. The feeling to me is like having to wear a "raincoat" when getting frisky with the misses!

As time goes on, most lenses in eyeglasses tend to develope hairlines that can't easily be taken out, and smears that can but needed regular attention to do so. And over extended viewing time there can be wear imparted to your eyeglasses.

So lack of a "B" longer eye relief design in the old 6X24 Trinovid was never a concern for me, and is not a factor in any binocular i look at seriously for possible purchase.

....and for what it's worth,......the HUGE 212m/1000m FOV would never be possible with any extension of eye relieve. It's just one of the trade offs decided upon when this glass was designed, and which in my opinion was the correct choice.

I wouldn't opt to reduce the FOV down to 170m/1000m just to gain Eye Relief, but that's what would probably result with an extension of ER to allow eyeglass wearing ability.

For what it's worth, i don't believe i'll ever see a more modern incarnation of this design, built from the bottom up.

But i WOULD pay $500 to $700, were it an option, to have Leico provide the parts and labor to take my already exhisting 6X24 Trinovid into the modern performance age of sharpness and brightness.

.......don't change another thing though, else the deal's not worth doing!

Click to expand...

30% longer ER would imply 30% wider eye-lenses of the oculars - that would still be OK without driving the binocular too far out of balance.

Cheers,
Holger

. Hi John,
thanks for the offer but being in England it is not practical even as regards transport and customs duty etc.

In the 1970s I got a 5 1/8 inch F5 Jaeger's objective from the USA, coated and in its correct cell.
This was professionally made into a wonderful Richfield telescope with a 3 inch drawtube, which accommodated a giant Kodak World War II extra wide angle eyepiece coated but some of these contain thorium although mine didn't.
The Telescope worked from 16 times to 145 times superbly and with a 3 mm Clave eyepiece it gave 200 times but this revealed a tiny amount of not being perfectly aligned but it still worked well.
I could see stars down to magnitude 13.1 from a light polluted town at 100 times with this excellent telescope.
incidentally, the Swift 4 mm Orthoscopic eyepiece in 0.965 inch fit giving 145 times did contain thorium. at least two out of the three did.
The rear element was ground up and a radiochemist analysed this and was surprised at the amount of alpha particles given off.
This is relevant because such a short focal length eyepiece has almost zero eyerelief and from memory alpha particles can travel almost 20 mm in air and these would impact the front surface of the eye.
The reason I mention this is that British customs opened the parcel and inspected it and when I got it the object glass was completely loose in the packet, with the packet being broken and the lens almost falling out.
I wouldn't trust British customs or the post office with anything made of glass.

I don't wear glasses when using binoculars so small eye relief is no problem for me.

If extra wide-angle binoculars were made nowadays especially with modern coatings and modern glass that is what I would buy but in the main they don't exist.

Someone's really happy now

... but I'm not the lucky bidder.