Bob,
From your picture, yours are also longer than mine. Looks pretty obvious from your picture, but I can't really be sure. Mine are 4.5" long. Mine also have the rubber knurling on the ocular adjustments. I wonder if the extra length somehow improves depth of field or other optical performance. You seem to like yours better than I do mine. Maybe this is partly why.
It dawned on me during this IF discussion here and at the other two forums I've seen this topic discussed, that all binoculars are IF. Even the most expensive CF glass has to be focused for each eye. So I wondered how my IF glass would compare to my various CF glass. I gathered up the following binoculars;
1. Swift Model 771 Extra Wide Angle Nighthawk 8x40. 499'@1000yds. First binocular I bought for my biology major classes/field work in college in I guess 1968. Still do not feel the least bit optically disadvantaged using it even today.
2. Leupold Gold Ring 9x35 IF. The subject of this thread.
3. Steiner 8x30 IF Predator.
4. Vortex Viper 10x42.
5. Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42.
6. Swift Eaglet 7x36. A new one with the new CFT coatings.
So these binoculars and I did a little looking around today. This is all subjective assesment on my part, as I did not measure distances or try to make any sort of attempt to adjust for any magnification differences. The chief things I loked at to do this was a flock of Wild Turkeys picking through the newly clipped grass in a Walnut orchard, the several dozen Turkey Vultures soaring in the bright blue sky, and a bunch of Yellow Billed Magpies. The turkeys were good to check how each performed as the birds moved at various distances through the orchard and the magpies and vultures for contrasty objects. I focused each binocular on a large yellow implement carrier about 100 yards away. After I focused the initial time, I did not touch the CF dial on any of that type of binocular.
So, quite subjectively assessing these glasses, the best IF binocular I own is the Vortex Viper, then the Swift Nighthawk, then the Swift Eaglet, then the Nikon Monarch, then the Leupold, and last and certainly least, the Stiener. The Viper beat the Nighthawk because it is a very much brighter glass. 2x greater magnification probably didn't hurt either. The Eaglet beat the Monarch because it is brighter. The Eaglet is sharper and brighter than the Monarch in any comparison I've done with mine. I have no experience with any other IF glass other than these two. For the sake of curiosity, I'd like to look through the Fujinon 7x50. My CF glasses tended to focus from about 30-50 feet or so closer to the objective when focused as I did at 100 yards. Except for the Nighthawk, which was more like the IF. But then again, roofs will focus closer than porros, so maybe this explains it. The IF glasses focused from about 150 feet to infinity. The IF binoculars were not as bright as the CF roofs I have, so it seems easier to discern at distance with them. In spite of its age the Nighthawk resolved detail better than both Leupold and Steiner. The Nighthawk also had a marked 3-D advantage.
This points to my preference for CF. There is a technique I learned in college to focus back and forth through a tree full of warblers or other birds, or even waterfowl spread over the surface of the water. It is especially useful as a scanning technique for hunting if one starts at the front of a bunch of brush and focus slowly backward through the foliage. You can pick up lots of things that will be missed relying solely on depth of field. This even works with Swarovski EL's which are renowned for their depth of field. You just can't do that with an IF glass and you really have no idea of what you might be missing.
So, if you like IF glasses, may your views be sharp and your enjoyment high. Thanks to Bob for posting this in the first place. I wound up learning some things.