Leica 8x42 Ultravid vs Zeiss 8x42 FL (1 Viewer)

This is my first post on the forum and i thought i would share my experience with these two binoculars. I owned the Zeiss first and used it for about a year. The image through the Zeiss is fantastic in its lack of internal reflections and over all cleanliness of the image. It is also vary well color corrected for chromatic aberration. ( purple and green fringes in high contrast situations). When I bought the Zeiss and after using it for the first time I thought it was the best binocular I had ever used or owned and I have owned many. Waaay tooo many!

I recently looked through the Leica Ultravid line and here are my thoughts on the Leica's. I thought I would try a 10x binocular just for kicks and to see if I would like it better than the 8 or 7x that I normally use. I looked at the 10x42 Ultravid and the image was nice but I like more depth of field as my eyes cant accomadate like they used to when I was younger. I am 42. I was really turned off by the color fringing on the 10x42 Ultravid. It seemed excessive to me but my eyes are really sensitive to this. I am also an amatuer astronomer and after years of looking through telescopes my eyes have become vary well trained and that is really a bad thing because when I look through most binoculars it does not do much for me. Enter the 7x42 and 8x42 Ultravid! I bought the 8x42 Ultravid at Bass Pro Shop in Clarksville, IN. This binocular is really really nice.

The Zeiss was also nice but the color rendition never seemed quite right. After comparing it to the Leica I can really see the difference. For instance the reds and yellows in the Leica's are so vivid and true. All the colors for that matter are so pure in the Leica's. I thought that they were in the Zeiss until I compared them side by side. Also even as sensitive as my eyes are to secondary color the 7x and 8x versions of the Ulravid series do not have the problem that the 10x has. I can detect vary little in the 7x and 8x Ultravid with the seven showing the least.

I choose the 8x42 because of the beautifully wide apparent field of view and it seemed to be the sharpest and well corrected. ( flat field ). I am vary impressed with the 8x42 Ultavid and would recommend it to any one who is looking for a top off the line binocular.

Hi Robert,

That was a very nice way to jump in, and I for one profited from the comparitive review. Welcome to the warm waters of BF.

If you have a chance to evaluate the 10x42 FL it might be interesting to hear how it compares with the 10x Ultravid, particularly along the lines of color fringing.

Ed

Robert Moore said:

This is my first post on the forum and i thought i would share my experience with these two binoculars. I owned the Zeiss first and used it for about a year. The image through the Zeiss is fantastic in its lack of internal reflections and over all cleanliness of the image. It is also vary well color corrected for chromatic aberration. ( purple and green fringes in high contrast situations). When I bought the Zeiss and after using it for the first time I thought it was the best binocular I had ever used or owned and I have owned many. Waaay tooo many! I recently looked through the Leica Ultravid line and here are my thoughts on the Leica's. I thought I would try a 10x binocular just for kicks and to see if I would like it better than the 8 or 7x that I normally use. I looked at the 10x42 Ultravid and the image was nice but I like more depth of field as my eyes cant accomadate like they used to when I was younger. I am 42. I was really turned off by the color fringing on the 10x42 Ultravid. It seemed excessive to me but my eyes are really sensitive to this. I am also an amatuer astronomer and after years of looking through telescopes my eyes have become vary well trained and that is really a bad thing because when I look through most binoculars it does not do much for me. Enter the 7x42 and 8x42 Ultravid! I bought the 8x42 Ultravid at Bass Pro Shop in Clarksville, IN. This binocular is really really nice. The Zeiss was also nice but the color rendition never seemed quite right. After comparing it to the Leica I can really see the difference. For instance the reds and yellows in the Leica's are so vivid and true. All the colors for that matter are so pure in the Leica's. I thought that they were in the Zeiss until I compared them side by side. Also even as sensitive as my eyes are to secondary color the 7x and 8x versions of the Ulravid series do not have the problem that the 10x has. I can detect vary little in the 7x and 8x Ultravid with the seven showing the least. I choose the 8x42 because of the beautifully wide apparent field of view and it seemed to be the sharpest and well corrected. ( flat field ). I am vary impressed with the 8x42 Ultavid and would recommend it to any one who is looking for a top off the line binocular.

Click to expand...

I second that opinion of the Leica's! VIVID is the word when it comes to describing their color rendition. There is nothing quite like them.

Dennis

Hi Robert, I see this is your first post, so may I welcome you on behalf of all the staff and moderators at Bird Forum.

D

elkcub said:

Hi Robert,

That was a very nice way to jump in, and I for one profited from the comparitive review. Welcome to the warm waters of BF.

If you have a chance to evaluate the 10x42 FL it might be interesting to hear how it compares with the 10x Ultravid, particularly along the lines of color fringing.

Ed

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

I have compared the 10x Zeiss FL to the 10x Ultravid and I would choose the Zeiss. It is vary sharp and well corrected for chromatic aberration. I really like the color rendition in the Leica but the 10x to me has to much fringing. It would be best if you can compare them your self and see what you think. Every ones eyes are different and my opinion might not be the same as yours.
I am 42 years old and I had to start wearing glasses when I turned 40. I have a slight astigmatism so I get the sharpest views with my glasses on. Eye relief is also important to me now that I have to wear glasses. The Zeiss FL is a fantastic binocular and you could not go wrong with either one. I myself like the Leica Ultravid in the 7x and 8x versions better than the Zeiss just because the view is so relaxing and you can not beat the color rendition.


Rob

Rob,

Definitely a great way to step into the forum. As with Ed I found your comparison very informative. A question though, how wide did you find the focused field (sweet spot if you like) between the Zeiss and the Ultravid? Were they comparable? I recently spent some time comparing these bins along with two of the Swaro models and would be interested to hear your impressions of the issue.

FrankD said:

Rob,

Definitely a great way to step into the forum. As with Ed I found your comparison very informative. A question though, how wide did you find the focused field (sweet spot if you like) between the Zeiss and the Ultravid? Were they comparable? I recently spent some time comparing these bins along with two of the Swaro models and would be interested to hear your impressions of the issue.

Click to expand...

Hi Frank,

I am not sure which one you wanted the opionion on 7,8 or 10x.
The differnce between the 8x Zeiss and Leica are comparable as far as ( sweet spot). I still think the leica is a more relaxed view and part of it might be that the collimation on the Leica's seem to be spot on. I looked through a couple of pair of the FL'S that were out of collimation. You could still merge the images fine but when looking into the sky like when hawk watching instead of getting one perfect circle when looking through the binocular it would over lap slightly. I have not found any of the Leica's out of collimation so far. You are probably thinking oh no this guy is Leica bias. One year ago I thought so highly of the Zeiss I never thought I would want anything else and I thought they were the best money could buy. Only after looking through them in the field did i change my mind. The Zeiss is still superb and it would be my second choice. First choice in the 10x version. When I mount my 8x42 Ultravid on a tripod and look at the stars they are sharper to the edge of the field than in the Zeiss. I think that is another reason the view is more relaxed when birding with them. The Swarovski EL probably has the largest sweet spot of them all but I hate the color rendition in them. Remember my eyes might be differnt than others i am just telling you what i see. The only reason i like the Leica better is mainly because of its color rendition. The build quality of the Leica is also top notch and i do not have any problems with the focuser like I have read some people reporting about.

Rob

Robert Moore said:

Hi Ed,

I have compared the 10x Zeiss FL to the 10x Ultravid and I would choose the Zeiss. It is vary sharp and well corrected for chromatic aberration. I really like the color rendition in the Leica but the 10x to me has to much fringing. It would be best if you can compare them your self and see what you think. Every ones eyes are different and my opinion might not be the same as yours.
I am 42 years old and I had to start wearing glasses when I turned 40. I have a slight astigmatism so I get the sharpest views with my glasses on. Eye relief is also important to me now that I have to wear glasses. The Zeiss FL is a fantastic binocular and you could not go wrong with either one. I myself like the Leica Ultravid in the 7x and 8x versions better than the Zeiss just because the view is so relaxing and you can not beat the color rendition.


Rob

Click to expand...

Hi Rob,

That's more or less what I expected to hear. This would be consistent with Zeiss' use of FL glass, in that there is less apparent fringing with increasing power. It's interesting that you and some others find color vividness to be characteristic of Ultravids, enough so that it's the factor of choice at lower powers. As I understand it, there are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of ways that multi-coatings can be applied to optics that will effect color balance as perceived by the eye. So, it makes sense that the various manufacturers have probably hit upon unique proprietary formulations that attract their own loyal followers. To my experience, for example, Swaro optics have a mellow color balance that I've become conditioned to prefer, — but I can't explain that to anyone else.

Enjor the view,

Ed

elkcub said:

Hi Rob,

That's more or less what I expected to hear. This would be consistent with Zeiss' use of FL glass, in that there is less apparent fringing with increasing power. It's interesting that you and some others find color vividness to be characteristic of Ultravids, enough so that it's the factor of choice at lower powers. As I understand it, there are, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of ways that multi-coatings can be applied to optics that will effect color balance as perceived by the eye. So, it makes sense that the various manufacturers have probably hit upon unique proprietary formulations that attract their own loyal followers. To my experience, for example, Swaro optics have a mellow color balance that I've become conditioned to prefer, — but I can't explain that to anyone else.

Enjor the view,

Ed

Click to expand...

Ed,

The eye is a vary complex optical device. The way our brain perceives colors for example. I know this may sound crazy but we are used to seeing things in a certain shade or color. I guess think of it as how certain camera lens would record colors on a color grid. A canon lens will not show it the same as nikon.
I think the human eye will also vary in what we think is normal and when you find a binocular that shows colors the same as you are used to seeing them with the naked eye i think that is when you will know it is right. The Swarovskis must match what your eye perceives as normal.

Rob

Even our left and right eyes differ. I know that my right eye "sees' red differently than my left eye "sees" it. With both eyes, the brain makes up for it.
Bob

The differnce between the 8x Zeiss and Leica are comparable as far as ( sweet spot). I still think the leica is a more relaxed view and part of it might be that the collimation on the Leica's seem to be spot on. I looked through a couple of pair of the FL'S that were out of collimation. You could still merge the images fine but when looking into the sky like when hawk watching instead of getting one perfect circle when looking through the binocular it would over lap slightly. I have not found any of the Leica's out of collimation so far. You are probably thinking oh no this guy is Leica bias. One year ago I thought so highly of the Zeiss I never thought I would want anything else and I thought they were the best money could buy. Only after looking through them in the field did i change my mind. The Zeiss is still superb and it would be my second choice. First choice in the 10x version. When I mount my 8x42 Ultravid on a tripod and look at the stars they are sharper to the edge of the field than in the Zeiss. I think that is another reason the view is more relaxed when birding with them. The Swarovski EL probably has the largest sweet spot of them all but I hate the color rendition in them. Remember my eyes might be differnt than others i am just telling you what i see. The only reason i like the Leica better is mainly because of its color rendition. The build quality of the Leica is also top notch and i do not have any problems with the focuser like I have read some people reporting about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your experiences Rob. My experiences tend to mirror yours in comparing the Leica and Zeiss. I don't have an issue with the Swaro colors but, as you explained, it may just be a preference of perception. Truth be told I actually prefer the Nikon color rendition but am more than happy to experience what the others have to present. I am still trying to determine though whether or not I prefer "absolute" center resolution or better edge sharpness. It seems difficult to find a set of roofs that does both equally well though there are a few that come close.

Ed,

I see that same bit of yellow in the SLCs, and occasionally in my Venturers, but only ever so slightly and only when in direct comparison with something else that is more color neutral.

FrankD said:

I am still trying to determine though whether or not I prefer "absolute" center resolution or better edge sharpness. It seems difficult to find a set of roofs that does both equally well though there are a few that come close.

Click to expand...

This issue has come up before, usually while discussing the Zeiss FL models. I have above average visual acuity but I must declare that I have yet to understand what people are talking about when they say, for example, that the Zeiss 8x42 FL is sharper in the center of its (in my opinion irritatingly small) sweet spot than the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL is in the center of its wide and easy sweet spot. I can see nothing of the sort and so am left to think that the effect must be a mistaken perception of the brain/eye system (kind of like the way that so many people seem to think that binoculars with a narrow apparent FOV are brighter than those with a wide apparent FOV). Has anyone actually MEASURED (using line charts or other quantifiable test targets) better naked eye (or even, for that matter, boosted) resolution or effective sharpness in the 8x42 FL as compared to any other top-end 8x42? Furthermore, although I think the differences are probably so small as to be of no practical significance, I would imagine that the slightly higher magnification of the 8.5x EL would more than make up for its marginally inferior contrast such that it would allow for as good or better unboosted resolution performance than the 8x42 FL. On the other hand, I find that differences in ergonomic properties have a VERY big effect on my ability to see fine details, and since I only put my binos on a tripod when testing them, in the end, it is this issue that should be of most consequence when choosing among the many excellent top-end offerings.
--AP

have above average visual acuity but I must declare that I have yet to understand what people are talking about when they say, for example, that the Zeiss 8x42 FL is sharper in the center of its (in my opinion irritatingly small) sweet spot than the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL is in the center of its wide and easy sweet spot.

Click to expand...

Alexis,

I have yet to actually do any "scientific" tests of the resolution of the aforementioned binoculars however, my brain (or eyes) tells me that some bins just appear "sharper" than others. Now this maybe because of increased contrast, brightness, a combination of each or something else entirely but the effect is much the same. The image just looks a bit sharper. Even my, soon becoming beloved, 7x42 SLCs don't truly have a sharp image compared to some of the bins I have looked through. Are they soft? No, not at all but I have seen some bins that appear to offer an even more crisp, sharp image...namely the Zeiss FLs and to some extent the Ultravids... at least in a specific portion of the view.

John and I have been discussing this issue off and on for some time now. The conclusion we have reached based on specific observations is that there must be some trade-off for obtaining the very sharpest of images.....in this case the width of the "sweet spot". Though bins like the Nikon Venturer, Swaro EL and SLC have very good images overall and very wide sweetspots there are other bins with apparently sharper images over a portion of their view with more distortion around the edges. One possible explanation would be that there is some design issue which limits manufacturers from obtaining the very sharpest possible image over a majority of the field of view. Would there be some fault in that reasoning?

Alexis and others,

I fully agree with you that the definition of "sharpness," in the center or elsewhere, begs a real definition. For most people I think it's a subjective judgment unadorned by formal aided-acuity testing. I have no problem with that, actually, because if I believed something to be "sharper," which upon testing were found to be inferior in some measured respect, I'd probably go with my global perception anyway (within limits, of course). The reason is that the integrated eye-brain response is ultimately what is important, and there are many limitations/constraints to "formal" testing. For example, take the clever NEED test that Steve Ingraham developed using the back of a dollar bill, which really measures relative aided-acuity. Almost all of the results can be accounted for by differences in published magnification, and those that can't lead one to question whether the published magnifications might not be biased between manufacturers or samples. A little error goes a long way. Also, I might add, the back of a dollar bill is green and off-white — a far cry from the multi-colored and shaded details of birds. Could it be that certain coatings have an advantage for aiding the acuity of green lines, and others, perhaps, for blue or red? Think about the use of yellow filters to aid in shooting tasks and other sports. So, the fundamental issue underlying all testing, IMO, is the assumed validity of the test results relative to the ultimate criteron: the total view.

Incidentally, the observation that a narrow AFOV binocular seems relatively brighter than a wide field one may be due to the contrast effect of the non-illuminated retinal surround, which is perceived like a solid black background. As the AFOV increases, the perception of the black surround diminishes or disappears.

Just a thought.
Ed

Ed,

I think the NEED test is valuable, but in addition to what you point out as its weaknesses, it suffers from the line pattern only having horizontal lines. This means that astigmatism cannot be easily evaluated, and astigmatism is unfortunatley one of the more common optical aberrations of the kind which are present by sloppiness in the manufacturing process, not by design. The USAF chart is a bit better, since it has line patterns in both vertical and horizontal orientation.

On the other hand, the beauty of the NEED test is that since you use a constant target and vary the distance instead of the line spacing, you can really rather precisely determine the resolution limit for a given binocular under given lighting conditions. Since the USAF is gradaded, people usually do not bother to look for "intermediate readings," and the gradation is not particularly subtle.

Kimmo

I just remeasured the resolution of my Zeiss 8x42 FL and Swarovski 8.5x42 EL with the magnifications boosted to about 80X, using the USAF 1951 glass slide from Edmund. Oddly enough, this time, as if I had read Kimmo's post, I moved the tripod back and forth to make some "intermediate readings". The Zeiss has truly spectacular resolution for a binocular, 2.84 arc seconds (astronomical rather than ophthalmolgical method of figuring), essentally diffraction limited. That's the best figure I have measured for any binocular with an aperture of 50mm or less. The Swarovski measures 3.59 arc seconds which is also quite good for a 42mm binocular. While I was at it I measured 4.02 arc seconds for my Nikon 8x32 SE, excellent for a 32mm binocular. Of course I can see none of this when I simply look through the binoculars. What I see is my own eyesight acuity (90-100 arc seconds, astronomical method) divided by the magnification of the binoculars, so around 12 arc seconds through 8x binoculars with tripod mounting and maybe 16 arcseconds hand held on a good day. Even so, I count myself among those who see better "sharpness" in the Zeiss FL than many other binoculars including the Swaro EL.

There could be an eye/brain component in the phenomenon of seeing better sharpness where no extra detail can be seen, but there are also other possibilties in the optical performance of the binoculars besides raw resolution. In a star test (boosted magnification to 40x and using a light bulb reflecting the image of the sun at about 100'), there is a very obvious difference in the aberration levels of my FL and EL. The FL star tests extremely well for a binocular. It shows both less longitudinal chromatic aberration and less spherical aberration than the EL. The lower chromatic aberration presumably results from the Fluoride glass. The lower spherical aberration might result from the use of one more element in the FL objective compared to the EL. Both of these aberrations begin to rob the image of sharpness and contrast long before actual detail is lost. I think the FL's unusually low aberration levels (by binocular standards) probably account for most of the very sharp, clean and transparent look of it's image at the center of the field even though I can see no extra detail compared to any other good quality 8x binocular.

Hey fellas, that sounds a bit defensive to me, although I knew this would bring you a'runnin. Kimmo, if you look back at my post #14 it should be clear that I didn't say the NEED or any other acuity test wasn't useful, just limited and possibly misleading. Or, Henry, I didn't say optical aberrations aren't worth measuring or don't have detrimental effects if large enough (however large that might be). Indeed, I find myself (see earlier posts) pioneering the notion that axial and lateral CA reducion, well below the level of normal consciousness, is probably THE essential basis for what you've reported by way of clarity with the 8x42FL, and what I've experienced with the 804ED. Note, I'm not saying that the use of ED glass is essential, since there are other ways to reduce CA. I am saying that CA is an under-appreciated aberration with regard to it's effects. This runs counter to the proclamations of a few wise men on CN to the effect that ED glass serves no purpose wilh low-power optics. I'll stand my ground. The effect is perceptual, and they are not photopic vision experts.

My broader point is that at the end of the day measurements don't tell the whole story; the eye-brain does the information integration, and as far as I know nobody (optician, psychologict, etc.) really has a calculus for creating the whole percept from the sum of the parts. I know it's hard to accept, but the human does contribute to the equation in ways that are both learned and innate. Much of this is easily cast aside by classifying obvious effects under the rubric of "optical illusions," as if that exhaused the extent or importance of the subject, — but, in fact, there is every reason to believe that at the upper end of optical engineering the human perceptual factor becomes the deciding factor.

Where we probably differ most, is that I resist the imperative of going through special procedures to explain what I can see plainly by looking at the view. That's not to say that I don't greatly enjoy and benefit from reading your exceptional evaluations.

Best regards,
Ed

kabsetz said:

Ed,

... On the other hand, the beauty of the NEED test is that since you use a constant target and vary the distance instead of the line spacing, you can really rather precisely determine the resolution limit for a given binocular under given lighting conditions. Since the USAF is gradaded, people usually do not bother to look for "intermediate readings," and the gradation is not particularly subtle.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

Procedurally I certainly agree with you about Steve's clever NEED test, and the advantage of easily getting intermediate readings. Still, all is predicated on the assumption that advertised power is true power, and no account is taken of differential acuity based on the color filtering effects of glass or coatings. We all know that the eye's sensitivity is distributed over the color spectrum, and here illumination (hence contrast), is measured at the source not the retina. So, not to detract from his cleverness, I think Steve's procedure still warrants caution by way of interpretation. Does the test reveal something you can't tell by using the binocular?

Ed
PS. I'll be away for a week starting in a few hrs. So, my further responses to this interesting discucssion will be delayed.

henry link said:

... There could be an eye/brain component in the phenomenon of seeing better sharpness where no extra detail can be seen, but there are also other possibilties in the optical performance of the binoculars besides raw resolution. ...
The FL star tests extremely well for a binocular. It shows both less longitudinal chromatic aberration and less spherical aberration than the EL. The lower chromatic aberration presumably results from the Fluoride glass. The lower spherical aberration might result from the use of one more element in the FL objective compared to the EL. Both of these aberrations begin to rob the image of sharpness and contrast long before actual detail is lost...
I think the FL's unusually low aberration levels (by binocular standards) probably account for most of the very sharp, clean and transparent look of it's image at the center of the field even though I can see no extra detail compared to any other good quality 8x binocular.

Click to expand...

Henry,

Very interesting comments and in a way they reflect more underlying agreement than disagreement. I'm not at all surprised at the lower chromatic aberration of the FL than the EL. In fact, by comparison with my ED, which I'm willing to assume has less longitudinal and lateral CA than my Swaros, my 10x42 SCL has become a disappointment. By comparison it's dull and unsharp. Perhaps differences in SA contribute as well, but you'd be more qualified to speculate than I. The statement I'm most taken with, though, is that you "can see no extra detail." Does that mean that you also see no extra color gradation? In the case of the ED, extra or improved color gradation is quite evident to me even though feather count is probably the same. To my mind, color gradation qualifies as detail — but then I haven't heard you mention this with regard to the FL.

Ed

I would be interested to know what others here on the forum think about the color rendition between the 8x42 Ultravid and the 8x42 FL. I think the Zeiss might be a touch sharper at the center but they are vary close. I have to mount them on a tripod to see any difference and then it is hard to tell. Maybe I just have an exceptional Ultravid that is out of the norm.

Rob