[bunny]

I hope this is a mistake on this review at:
http://www.optics4birding.com/RevLei...id8XGroup.aspx

All Trinovid binoculars are built on die-cast aluminum chassis with hard rubber armoring. The 42-mm objective size is available in black or olive green; the others are only available in black. All three feature broad longitudinal ridges designed to improve the grip, but the ridges are of such a hard rubber that many reviewers noted they are uncomfortable to hold. That brings us to the next point: these are fairly heavy binoculars. The 8x50 BN weighs 40.6 oz., the 8x42 BN weighs 31.4 oz. and the 8x32 weighs 22 oz. Of the three, only the 8x32 is unlikely to cause fatigue over a long day in the field. The 8x32 has thumb grooves on the barrels that would have been a welcome feature on the larger models.

Is this just a silly mistake or have Leica gone mad and put stupid thumb grooves on otherwise excellent binoculars?

[Mike Johnston]

No thumb grooves on the Trinovids.

[matt green]

Mikes right,they've all gone mad.

there are no thumb grooves on any trinovids,only on ultravids.

i'd also disagree with the reported problems with the eyecups,all the trinovids i've handled or owned have had a very secure locking mechanism.

matt

[Alexis Powell]

bunny,
The Leica 8x32 BN are identical in every way to your old Leica 8x32 BA except that they have a close focus of about 6.5 ft instead of 8.5 ft. They have no thumb grooves or thumb ridges (which is what the Ultravids have), but they do have more room between the barrels, and thus more room for one's thumbs, than the full-sized Ultra Trinovids because their barrels are smaller in diameter.

If you liked the Leica 8x32 BA, I'll be surprised if you like the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I have both, and much prefer the optics and ergonomics of the Leica. The Leica has much less astigmatism and a MUCH bigger sweet spot, is much more forgiving of eye placement, is slightly smaller than the Zeiss, and fits my hands and big thumbs perfectly (I got the Zeiss for its close-focus and 52 mm minimum interpupillary). I join many others in considering it the best 8x32 roof-prism bino ever. I also like the Ultravid--identical optics to the BN except sligtly brighter and more color neutral, but I haven't had a chance to test its ergonomics as thoroughly as the BA/BN. Likewise, I love the optics and ergonomics of the Swarovski 8x32 EL, but its longer body doesn't pack into as small a space as the others.

Incidentally, how is it that some reviewers complain of the ridges on the BA/BNs hurting their hands???? I can't imagine how tightly or how one would have to rub these against one's hands ??? in order for these binos' ridges to be a source of discomfort, even if they were cast in metal.
--AP

[PYRTLE]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

bunny,
The Leica 8x32 BN are identical in every way to your old Leica 8x32 BA except that they have a close focus of about 6.5 ft instead of 8.5 ft. They have no thumb grooves or thumb ridges (which is what the Ultravids have), but they do have more room between the barrels, and thus more room for one's thumbs, than the full-sized Ultra Trinovids because their barrels are smaller in diameter.

If you liked the Leica 8x32 BA, I'll be surprised if you like the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I have both, and much prefer the optics and ergonomics of the Leica. The Leica has much less astigmatism and a MUCH bigger sweet spot, is much more forgiving of eye placement, is slightly smaller than the Zeiss, and fits my hands and big thumbs perfectly (I got the Zeiss for its close-focus and 52 mm minimum interpupillary). I join many others in considering it the best 8x32 roof-prism bino ever. I also like the Ultravid--identical optics to the BN except sligtly brighter and more color neutral, but I haven't had a chance to test its ergonomics as thoroughly as the BA/BN. Likewise, I love the optics and ergonomics of the Swarovski 8x32 EL, but its longer body doesn't pack into as small a space as the others.

Incidentally, how is it that some reviewers complain of the ridges on the BA/BNs hurting their hands???? I can't imagine how tightly or how one would have to rub these against one's hands ??? in order for these binos' ridges to be a source of discomfort, even if they were cast in metal.
--AP

Surprisingly I also used to feel this after a long days use with some 10X42 BAs that I had a few years ago; particularly in hotter, drier climates such as Asia....it was, as described, a source of discomfort, the optics although were absolutely superb for what I wanted at that time.

[Otto McDiesel]

No ridges on Trinovids. The 8x32 Ultravid (no thumb rests) is a bit smaller and slimmer than the Trinovids, and has a slightly better view than the Trino or any other 8x32. Don't buy them without handling them first.Alexis is right. If you liked the Trinovids you will probably not like the FL. Again, i think that you will be happy with the Trino BN.

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

bunny,
The Leica 8x32 BN are identical in every way to your old Leica 8x32 BA except that they have a close focus of about 6.5 ft instead of 8.5 ft. They have no thumb grooves or thumb ridges (which is what the Ultravids have), but they do have more room between the barrels, and thus more room for one's thumbs, than the full-sized Ultra Trinovids because their barrels are smaller in diameter.

If you liked the Leica 8x32 BA, I'll be surprised if you like the Zeiss 8x32 FL. I have both, and much prefer the optics and ergonomics of the Leica. The Leica has much less astigmatism and a MUCH bigger sweet spot, is much more forgiving of eye placement, is slightly smaller than the Zeiss, and fits my hands and big thumbs perfectly (I got the Zeiss for its close-focus and 52 mm minimum interpupillary). I join many others in considering it the best 8x32 roof-prism bino ever. I also like the Ultravid--identical optics to the BN except sligtly brighter and more color neutral, but I haven't had a chance to test its ergonomics as thoroughly as the BA/BN. Likewise, I love the optics and ergonomics of the Swarovski 8x32 EL, but its longer body doesn't pack into as small a space as the others.

Incidentally, how is it that some reviewers complain of the ridges on the BA/BNs hurting their hands???? I can't imagine how tightly or how one would have to rub these against one's hands ??? in order for these binos' ridges to be a source of discomfort, even if they were cast in metal.
--AP

I had a pair of 8x32 BN's that I had bought to replace a 7x30 SLC. Never could warm up to the BN's... felt like a rock around my neck and I prefer the ergonomics and accessories of the SLC's so I bought an 8x30 SLC. Good bin. However, in an expansive moment I decided I "needed" an 8x32 Ultravid... it's what I really wanted all along so I decided to "bite the bullet"... IMO, there's nothing quite like the 8x32 Ultravid from nearly every standpoint.

[matt green]

Originally Posted by Brad_A

I had a pair of 8x32 BN's that I had bought to replace a 7x30 SLC. Never could warm up to the BN's... felt like a rock around my neck and I prefer the ergonomics and accessories of the SLC's so I bought an 8x30 SLC. Good bin. However, in an expansive moment I decided I "needed" an 8x32 Ultravid... it's what I really wanted all along so I decided to "bite the bullet"... IMO, there's nothing quite like the 8x32 Ultravid from nearly every standpoint.

do you get enough eye relief from those?

matt

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by matt green

do you get enough eye relief from those?

matt

Matt, are you talking about the 8x32 Ultravid?

[matt green]

Originally Posted by Brad_A

Matt, are you talking about the 8x32 Ultravid?

sorry,the ultravids.

though the eye relief are the same for both current trinovid bn and ultravid
8x32 models.i guess the only problem i have with short eye relief is the fact that the occular lenses tend to steam up quicky in humid conditions,no doubt caused by your warm eyeball being closer to cold glass surface of the lenses.

matt

[bunny]

Cheers everyone for your detailed replies!

Was just wondering tho, why some of you thought I wouldn't like the Zeiss Fl 8x32?

I loved the Leica 8x32 Trinovid, as you could get your thumbs in between the barrels when they are folded closest together - is this not the same with the new Zeiss 8x32FL bins?

This is actually the main issue for me with any binocular - CAN I GET MY THUMBS IN BETWEEN THE BARRELS?

Thats why I don't like the Leica 8x42BR Ultravid.

So if I couldn't get my thumbs between the barrels of the Zeiss 8x32Fl when they are at their closest IPD setting, then that counts them out.

Then I guess its between the Leica 8x32BN Trinovid or the Swarovski 8x32 EL...

[Otto McDiesel]

Originally Posted by bunny

Was just wondering tho, why some of you thought I wouldn't like the Zeiss Fl 8x32?

The 8x32 FL is very nice, but somehow the image and the handling differ from Leica binoculars, and i have a difficult time explaining to myself why.

As to the Swaro EL 8x32, which is my everyday birding binocular (and i do literally watch birds about 3 hours every day), they are addictive. When you pick one up, the only thing left is to get your credit card out. Try it, and you will see what i am talking about.

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by Luca

The 8x32 FL is very nice, but somehow the image and the handling differ from Leica binoculars, and i have a difficult time explaining to myself why.

As to the Swaro EL 8x32, which is my everyday birding binocular (and i do literally watch birds about 3 hours every day), they are addictive. When you pick one up, the only thing left is to get your credit card out. Try it, and you will see what i am talking about.

See my comment on the SLC Swaro thread... I absolutely would not reccomend the 8x32 EL over the 8x32 BN, BR or Zeiss FL. It's an inferior bin from nearly any standpoint except ergonomic's.

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by Brad_A

See my comment on the SLC Swaro thread... I absolutely would not reccomend the 8x32 EL over the 8x32 BN, BR or Zeiss FL. It's an inferior bin from nearly any standpoint except ergonomic's.

Brad,

Could you be more specific about the difference in optics? I am half considering replacing the my Bn with an Fl. I could not find a good reason to do so, when comparing them in a shop.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Otto McDiesel]

Originally Posted by Brad_A

inferior bin from nearly any standpoint except ergonomic's.

Well, bunny wants to stick his fingers in a certain place, and the EL offer plenty of opportunity to do that.
As to the ergonomics of binoculars, it is like sex: it has to feel good to be any fun.
And yes, the Ultravid 8x32 has a better view than the EL 8x32, but not that much better to spark another Trojan War.
Just don't be so vehement and let the lad have a try and decide for himself.

[bunny]

Originally Posted by Luca

Well, bunny wants to stick his fingers in a certain place, and the EL offer plenty of opportunity to do that.
As to the ergonomics of binoculars, it is like sex: it has to feel good to be any fun.
And yes, the Ultravid 8x32 has a better view than the EL 8x32, but not that much better to spark another Trojan War.
Just don't be so vehement and let the lad have a try and decide for himself.

The only other top binocular I can do this with is the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42, the best bins ever, let down only by their lack of waterproofing. The wrap-around grip is fantastic.

I guess the Swarovski EL is my best bet, but I prefer the Leica and Zeiss brands.

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Brad,

Could you be more specific about the difference in optics? I am half considering replacing the my Bn with an Fl. I could not find a good reason to do so, when comparing them in a shop.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Arthur, are you replacing the BN with an FL or EL... guess I'm unclear.

[Otto McDiesel]

Originally Posted by bunny

The only other top binocular I can do this with is the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42, the best bins ever, let down only by their lack of waterproofing. The wrap-around grip is fantastic.

I guess the Swarovski EL is my best bet, but I prefer the Leica and Zeiss brands.

This is from Alula Magazine, written by Kimmo Absetz, one of the two people whom i trust when it comes to binoculars.

"Resolution: in our tripod-mounted resolution distance test, the Nikon 8x32 scored the best result I have thus far obtained with an 8x binocular. A Swarovski 8.5 EL tested alongside the Nikon got a distance which was longer by exactly the ratio of their magnifications. The EL 8x32 was not quite as sharp, although the measured difference to the HG was only 15cm at a distance of about 4.5m. "

The EL had 96.6% of the resolution of the best 8x ever tested. When mounted on a tripod. If anyone will ever see that difference when handholding binoculars and birdwatching, i will give them my daughter to marry and half of my estate. Besides, Swarovski is a company known for making small changes in coatings without much fanfare, and i am absolutely sure that there was some small tweaking done in the last two years.

bunny, just relax. Get out there, try them, and get the one that you like and that feels good. Ignore the name, brand, and anything else. Just try them all and trust your gut feeling. You'll be fine.

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by Brad_A

Arthur, are you replacing the BN with an FL or EL... guess I'm unclear.

Dear Brad_A,

I am considering replacing my 8x32 Leica BN with an 8x32 Zeiss FL. I have had no opportunity to use the Zeiss 8x32 FL in the field. Can you compare the optics of the two? I will have to work out the ergonomics, on my own.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by Pinewood

Dear Brad_A,

I am considering replacing my 8x32 Leica BN with an 8x32 Zeiss FL. I have had no opportunity to use the Zeiss 8x32 FL in the field. Can you compare the optics of the two? I will have to work out the ergonomics, on my own.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Arthur, did you read the Alula review comparing the 8x32 Ultravid against the FL?

Really, the only thing the FL seems to have going for it over the Ultravid is slightly better eye relief. I just sold a pair of 8x32 BN's and a pair of 8x30 SLC's. I could have gotten a pair of 8x32 FL's at cost but opted to pay the extra $ for the 8x32 Ultravid... it's the most wonderful bin I've ever snuggled up to!

The FL series in general has had such spotty reports quality-wise I'd be very apprehensive plunking down that sort of cash for an un-known quantity. Leica is a know quantity, the Ultravids have been out several years and, as usual, are built like the proverbial Teutonic Tank.

Brad

[henry link]

The difference in eye relief as measured in the Alula review was more than slight; 15mm for the Zeiss and 11mm for the Ultravid.

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by henry link

The difference in eye relief as measured in the Alula review was more than slight; 15mm for the Zeiss and 11mm for the Ultravid.

Henry you're correct, the difference is substantial and for some will be a meaningful difference no doubt. I never needed more eye relief than what was available from my BN's so the Ultravid's are certailny not an issue.

I thoroughly agreed with the Alula reviewer that the ideal 8x32 bin would be a combination of the BR and FL... course for me it'd be a 7x32!

[bradshrike]

Originally Posted by Luca

Just don't be so vehement and let the lad have a try and decide for himself.

Hmmm... and you don't think the below is "vehement"?

Originally Posted by Luca

As to the Swaro EL 8x32, which is my everyday birding binocular (and i do literally watch birds about 3 hours every day), they are addictive. When you pick one up, the only thing left is to get your credit card out. Try it, and you will see what i am talking about.

Me thinks you want it all your own way...

[Alexis Powell]

Bunny,
Based on the preferences you've shared, I think your hands and interpupillary distance must be like mine, or at least you must hold your binos like I do.

My favorite binocular of all time ergonomically is the Zeiss 7x42 Classic, in large measure because of the wrap-around grip it allows, but also for its fast but smooth and precise focus and huge exit pupils which makes it so easy to bring up to one's eyes and see things instantly.

My second favorite bino ergonomically is the Swarovski 8x32 EL (second to the Zeiss because of shorter eye-relief, smaller exit pupil, slower focus). Long barrels give you some choice of how to position your hands, just like the Zeiss. And by the way, despite my usually ungenerous assessment of the view provided by most binos, I'm with Luca when it comes to criticism of this model's optics--the view is wide, comfortable, and plenty sharp. Nothing to complain about, plenty to like. Plus, the design and build are awesome.

My other second favorite ergonomically is the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. I don't like the way these fit my hands quite as much as the above two because the barrels are wider (I prefer to grip slender things--I'd never use one of those foam steering wheel covers on my car that some people like), but these are easier to see through than the 8x32 because of the bigger exit pupil and longer eye-relief. These are my favorite overall birding bino.

My third favorite ergonomically is the Leica 8x32 BA/BN--fits my hands perfectly despite its solid center bridge (one of few such binos that I really like ergonomically). Only a step down ergonomically from the Swarovski 8x32 because its shorter body enforces a single (very comfortable and natural) best hand position. For me this is the complete package when it comes to a compact but no compromise travel bino--supremely good optics, beautiful design, solid build, compact size, nice weight.

In contrast, the Zeiss 8x32 FL has fatter barrels than the Leica and they aren't shaped as nicely, so there isn't quite as much thumb room. Also, I think the bridge extends too far forward--I'd have liked to have had more unrestricted projection of the barrels in front to wrap my pinkies around them the way I can with the Leica. As it is, if I want to do the pinky wrap (which I need to do for a stable and comfortable grip) the bridge forces me to place my hands just a little farther forward than I'd prefer. My index finger falls naturally on the focus knob in this position, but in the Leica both my index AND middle fingers fall on the knob, which I prefer. Otherwise, the focus knob itself works beautifully. Optically, these are brighter than the Leica BN and more color neutral, and they have very little CA (the Leica has typical substantial roof-prism levels). However, they suffer from WAY TOO MUCH ASTIGMATISM which gives them a TINY SWEET SPOT compared to the Leica and Swarovski (no, I don't have a lemon, I've tried five units at this point), and eye placement is critical to minimize abberations. Finally, these are plastic-y and there are slots for sand/debris to get trapped in the top of the bridge.

Oh, and as far as eye-relief goes, the need for precise eye-placement with the Zeiss 8x32 FL more than nullifies any advantages it has. Also, the larger diameter eyepiece housings reduce their functional eye-relief for folks with large-lensed glasses (like aviator style, as I've explained on a different thread). I wear eyeglasses and generally like plenty of eye relief (I've NEVER had problems with blackout), but I find that both 8x32 Leicas and the Swarovski 8x32 are just within my comfort limit. By comparison, I find the 8.5x EL, Zeiss 7x Classic, Leica 8x42 Ultravid, Nikon 8x and 10x42 LX, and Nikon 8x SE more comfortable (all of these I consider perfect). I find the eye-relief of the Nikon 8x E II, Eagle Optics 8x32 Platinum Ranger (and most other cheap 8x32 roofs), most 10x roofs, and the Swift 8.5x porro Audubon too short.

Just make sure to try SIDE BY SIDE before you buy.
--AP

[Otto McDiesel]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

Just make sure to try SIDE BY SIDE before you buy.
--AP

Alexis, your review is, as always, excellent.
The SIDE BY SIDE comparisson is a must.