7x42 FL vs. 8x42 FL (1 Viewer)

All,

I have read several posts that compare different bins, but they are typically comparing the same size bins made by different manufacturers.

I am wondering if anyone has compared different sizes of bins made by the same company. I am interested in the 7x and 8x FLs, but I am not sure which would be the best for general usage.

I understand from reading several posts that the FOV of the lower power bins is going to be wider and that you can generally hold a 7x with less noticable hand shake than you can the 8x, but I can tell little difference in this area.
While not a very good comparison, my Leitz 7x35BA bins seem to present as steady a view as my 8.5x42 ELs. I have also read that the 7x bins present an image that is "easier on the eyes", but that seems difficult to quantify.

Does anyone have any other experiences with the 7x vs. 8x bins made by the same manufacturer? Is there any difference in general clarity or optical quality if you stick to a lower power? I have read that Leica Ultravid 7x bins use one less lens in their design vs. their 8x models and that this may account for a slightly sharper image. It could be all heresay as well.

I am also very temped by the Lieca Ultravids as well, so any 7x vs 8x comparisons that the Leicaphiles may have would be much appreciated as well.

Please help to educate this desert dweller.

Thanks to all for the help.

Rgds,

Steffan

Greetings!

Yes... there is less shake with 7x than 8x - surprisingly, there is enough difference to notice. I've done extensive comparisons between 7x and 8x binoculars from Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, and Swarovski... comparing 7x and 8x models from the same lines (trinovid, ultravid, SLC, HG, etc.) and same objective lens sizes, and have concluded that for my own style of birding and other binocular uses, 7x suits me better all around.

I have personally found that I cannot see anything with 8x that I can't see with 7x, and sometimes it is actually easier to see fine detail with the 7x than it is with the 8x! I believe that this is due to the lower amount of optical "leverage" where any hand movement is magnified into shakiness, the 7x really are easier on the eyes all-around and more optically "stable" for handheld purposes. Almost like having a pair of image stabilized binoculars, but without the cost, complexity, or need for batteries!

I've also done a bit of birding from boats, and for me 7x is REALLY the only way to go when you are rocking back and forth from waves... in my opinion 10x is completely out of the question for boating use - unless you have a pair of Canon IS binoculars.

Low light performance seems marginally better with the 7x than 8x as well, although I generally prefer 10x50 or larger configurations for low-light use.

Hope all this helps... good luck with your decision!

Best wishes,
Bawko

Atomic Chicken said:

I have personally found that I cannot see anything with 8x that I can't see with 7x, and sometimes it is actually easier to see fine detail with the 7x than it is with the 8x! Best wishes,
Bawko

Click to expand...

This is also my experience, and I use 7x Ultravid. Even over long distances 7x provides me more information due to its stability and greater depth of focus, and it also causes much less strain on my eyes/brain over many hours of birding. One day last fall I was birding with two friends in the rain under heavy clouds. A Cooper's Hawk flew in and perched nearly 200 yards from us. I was able to make out the streaks on the breast readily and identify it as a juvenile. The others, both with expensive 10x bins, could not initially see this and had to study the bird to make it out, eventually agreeing with me. I am certain the movement of their 10x bins prevented them from seeing detail at that distance, while their bins mounted on a tripod would have shown more detail than mine.

On the other hand, I have birded with another guy, around 70 years old, who has Trinovid 12x and has no problem holding it steady. I couldn't do that on a bet.

Magnification, to me, is the least important factor for bins, the only caveat being the ability to hold them steady. I have never noticed a difference in the detail I perceive between my 8.5x Swifts of 7x Bausch & Lombs. The 7x provides an easier view for me, but the Swifts have fantastic detail. Let me paraphrase Mr. Ingraham's website, if you can't make the call with 7x, 10x won't be enough either, you need a scope."

I use low power scopes as well, usually around 25x max. My "high powered" bins are the 8.5x, 44s and I have never felt undergunned.

I have no specific information to add as I have never had either the Ultravids or FLs in both powers side by side. I can however reassure you that you will not be giving up any usefulness going with 7x but you will be gaining wider field, better depth of focus, and a steady view.

So far only 7X advocates have posted their opinions. Just so you will know there is not complete consensus about this let me put in a good word for 8X and above. I've used small bins from 5X to 16x and over the years have settled on 8.5X or 9X as my personal comfort zone. I definitely can see more detail hand holding at 8X than 7X and even more at 8.5X or 9X. 10X is where hand shake and long term comfort problems set in for me, even though there are glimpses of more detail hand holding at 10X or 12X. I think this will come down to a very personal choice, and it may be a difficult choice to make without actually living with bins of different magnifications for awhile.

Quite right henry. I am very sensative to hand shake. If my hands were steady I would probably pick 10x or even 12x. I suppose I wasn't so much advocating 7x as trying to point out that how well they work in one's hands is more important than the magnification.

I also use my bins for astronomy, and if I crane my neck up using anything over 7x I get terribly wobbly, whereas my pals use 10x50s exclusively.

I will add another vote for 7X and also suggest the manufactures should bring back 7x35 with a field of view at least as wide as my old trinovids (150M). To make the case even more interesting, I also use 6x24 trinovids and find not only do I still see the detail, but the 212M field makes locating moving objects much much easier. Having said that I do use 8x20 compact trinovids because they are small and the great binocular companies don't seem to make a 6x20 which would probably be a much better travel binocular since it would have a reasonable field and almost no shake (shaking is worse for me with compacts since they are harder to hold). I own a trinovid 8x32 BN and find them amazingly robust and great if I think rain or splash is likely, but not near as easy to use. I also own 10x42 BN and find almost no circumstance when they are useful - although they are good for things like a lunar eclipse.

Marley said:

All,

I have read several posts that compare different bins, but they are typically comparing the same size bins made by different manufacturers.

I am wondering if anyone has compared different sizes of bins made by the same company. I am interested in the 7x and 8x FLs, but I am not sure which would be the best for general usage.

I understand from reading several posts that the FOV of the lower power bins is going to be wider and that you can generally hold a 7x with less noticable hand shake than you can the 8x, but I can tell little difference in this area.
While not a very good comparison, my Leitz 7x35BA bins seem to present as steady a view as my 8.5x42 ELs. I have also read that the 7x bins present an image that is "easier on the eyes", but that seems difficult to quantify.

Does anyone have any other experiences with the 7x vs. 8x bins made by the same manufacturer? Is there any difference in general clarity or optical quality if you stick to a lower power? I have read that Leica Ultravid 7x bins use one less lens in their design vs. their 8x models and that this may account for a slightly sharper image. It could be all heresay as well.

I am also very temped by the Lieca Ultravids as well, so any 7x vs 8x comparisons that the Leicaphiles may have would be much appreciated as well.

Please help to educate this desert dweller.

Thanks to all for the help.

Rgds,

Steffan

Click to expand...

Steffan,

as you can see with this discussion it´s a matter of taste which magnification one prefers. Personally when I go birding with a spotting scope I prefer the bino with the larger field of view since this helps me to detect the birds e.g. in the woods, in shrubbery and so on. That means a 7x would work better than a 8x. While walking I put my scope on my shoulder and use the bino with one hand to scan the surrounding area. If I want to come for a closer view I just use the scope. Without a scope I prefer a bino with a magnification of 10x or higher.
I compared the 7x42 Leica Utravid with the 7x42 Zeiss Victory FL and found them very close together in respect of optical performance. The Zeiss is very slightly brighter and has a noticable wider fov. But there was nothing that the Zeiss shown and the Leica not. What really bothered me with the Zeiss was its distinct tendancy to show pincushion distorsion. High buildings seemed to be bent by this in a way my brain can´t accept. I guess this could be the reason why I felt the view withf the Ultravid as more comfortable and relaxed. The pincushion distorsion is probably also responsible for the unsharp area around the fov of the FL. So the sharp area across the fov for my eyes seemed to be of the same size with both, the Leica and the Zeiss. The only shortcoming with the Leica for my purposes is its close focus (3,3 m vs. 2 m with the Zeiss). I like to watch at insects, butterflies and so on and so I can´t decide between one of these binos.
With the 8x Zeiss FL the pincushion distorsion is getting lesser and with the 10x it´s even better and doesn´t bother me at all.

Sometimes it seems to me that when the manufacturers develop series of binoculars of the same aperture (32, 42, 50 mm) there´s one near to perfect type of construction (with the Zeiss FLs for example the 10x42). The other types are got as clones from this, only by stretching some single optical properties they want to aim (e.g. fov) at. But the price of this could be trade offs with other optical properties. Ok, that´s speculation. But maybe there are others who found the same?

Steve

hinnark said:

Sometimes it seems to me that when the manufacturers develop series of binoculars of the same aperture (32, 42, 50 mm) there´s one near to perfect type of construction (with the Zeiss FLs for example the 10x42). The other types are got as clones from this, only by stretching some single optical properties they want to aim (e.g. fov) at. But the price of this could be trade offs with other optical properties. Ok, that´s speculation. But maybe there are others who found the same?

Click to expand...

Steve,

I agree with you about this. The motivation often appears to be cost saving by using as many of the same components as possible in the different models. Sometimes it makes perfect sense as when a 10X40 and an 8X30 are identical except for larger, longer focal length objectives and longer objective tubes on the 10X40. Changing the eyepiece focal length only, as I speculate was done with the 8.5X42 and 10X42 EL (and I think the Leica Trinovid/Ultravid 42's) resulted in those cases in a significant reduction of eye relief for the 10X. The trade off in the 7X42 Leica is a reduction in apparent field because there isn't sufficient width inside the eyepiece barrel to increase the fieldstop diameter enough to compensate for the increased eyepiece focal length. If the eyepiece barrels were made larger then the prisms would have to be enlarged to avoid vignetting. The result would be a larger heavier binocular made of mostly different parts.

In the FL's Zeiss appears to me to have done something different. The 8X and 10X have identical physical lengths and identical eye relief specifications (though in fact the eye relief of the 10X may be slightly shorter according to Kimmo's measurements). My speculation is that the eyepiece focal length may have been slightly increasd and the magnification factor of the focusing element slightly decreased in the 8X compared to the 10X. The 7X is physically shorter than the other two suggesting that it uses a shorter focal length objective, presumably to decrease the scale of the aerial image formed at the focal plane. That allows the real field width to be increased while still using the same or nearly the same focal length eyepiece with close to the same diameter field stop as in the 8X, so eye relief and apparent field in the 7X are almost the same as the 8X. The resulting increase in aberrations from the lower f-ratio might have been considered unimportant because of the reduction in magnification, but perhaps the eyepiece was redesigned with more pincushion distortion to compensate for an increase in field curvature (or some other edge problem) resulting from the faster objective and wider real field. I hope I have used enough "might's" and "could have's" as this is certainly pure speculation on my part, based on nothing more than hints in the specifications and physical dimensions.

Henry

7x42's on order!

Thanks to all who provided me with 7x vs 8x feedback.

I just got off the phone with Eagle Optics and I ordered both the 7x42 FL as well as the 7x42 Ultravid. I will do my best to put forth a unbiased review of both as soon as I get my hands on them. I will also keep them for a few weeks so that BF members can ask for clarification regarding certain aspects that I may not make clear or fail to cover. Then I will decide which one to keep and which one to return.

I just wish I had a store around here that stocked a full range of high end bins. Oh well. I'm destined to be an Internet shopper!

Rgds,

Steffan