8x32 UVHD+ vs 7x35 Retrovid (1 Viewer)

[Mike F]

I’ve been following the recent threads on both of the above, but AFAIK there is no thread dedicated to a comparison of these two binoculars.

One of the downsides to this wonderful site, which is full of interesting and useful information as well as a real sense of camaraderie, is that it can lead to a case of GAB (get another binocular), a disease that I think many of us suffer from - at least from time to time!

I’ve long tried to convince myself that I really don’t need an 8x32 Ultravid or, despite their immense appeal, a 7x35 Retrovid. However, despite my best efforts, I find myself on the verge of buying an ex-dem 8x32 UVHD+ for what I believe is a very good price.

I would be grateful if those if you who have experience of both could summarise the optical differences / viewing experience between the two. I think I am aware of the other ergonomic and technical differences. For some context they would be in addition to 10x25 BCA’s and 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42’s. Those are the bins I have with the most similar size and magnifications (the 8x32’s would be in between of course).

Any help in justifying (or not) the purchase of one or the other would be appreciated! They would be used as an alternative to the above mentioned bins as a general purpose bin for use from home or travel.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I’ve been following the recent threads on both of the above, but AFAIK there is no thread dedicated to a comparison of these two binoculars.

One of the downsides to this wonderful site, which is full of interesting and useful information as well as a real sense of camaraderie, is that it can lead to a case of GAB (get another binocular), a disease that I think many of us suffer from - at least from time to time!

I’ve long tried to convince myself that I really don’t need an 8x32 Ultravid or, despite their immense appeal, a 7x35 Retrovid. However, despite my best efforts, I find myself on the verge of buying an ex-dem 8x32 UVHD+ for what I believe is a very good price.

I would be grateful if those if you who have experience of both could summarise the optical differences / viewing experience between the two. I think I am aware of the other ergonomic and technical differences. For some context they would be in addition to 10x25 BCA’s and 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42’s. Those are the bins I have with the most similar size and magnifications (the 8x32’s would be in between of course).

Any help in justifying (or not) the purchase of one or the other would be appreciated! They would be used as an alternative to the above mentioned bins as a general purpose bin for use from home or travel.

I believe your title is in error (7x42 Retrovid)?

 

[Mike F]

I believe your title is in error (7x42 Retrovid)?

Fixed. Thank you!

 

[tenex]

My guess: the 7x35 would be an interesting complement to the two bins you have; the 8x32 HD+ is likely to replace your Trinovid 42... which you can then trade in for a 7x35?

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve been following the recent threads on both of the above, but AFAIK there is no thread dedicated to a comparison of these two binoculars.

One of the downsides to this wonderful site, which is full of interesting and useful information as well as a real sense of camaraderie, is that it can lead to a case of GAB (get another binocular), a disease that I think many of us suffer from - at least from time to time!

I’ve long tried to convince myself that I really don’t need an 8x32 Ultravid or, despite their immense appeal, a 7x35 Retrovid. However, despite my best efforts, I find myself on the verge of buying an ex-dem 8x32 UVHD+ for what I believe is a very good price.

I would be grateful if those if you who have experience of both could summarise the optical differences / viewing experience between the two. I think I am aware of the other ergonomic and technical differences. For some context they would be in addition to 10x25 BCA’s and 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42’s. Those are the bins I have with the most similar size and magnifications (the 8x32’s would be in between of course).

Any help in justifying (or not) the purchase of one or the other would be appreciated! They would be used as an alternative to the above mentioned bins as a general purpose bin for use from home or travel.

GAB funny, I like that and so true. There’s almost nothing you won’t like with the The 8 x 32 ultravid, they are that good. The Retrovid not as much. Beautiful build quality, luxurious so we don’t need to go on about that. Optics are beautiful, bright Leica’s Delicious, but there is noticeable distortion at about 25% of field so the sweet spot is small.

id like to here some other opinions on this From our fellow members.

Thank you

 

[Trinovid]

There’s almost nothing you won’t like with the The 8 x 32 ultravid, they are that good.

id like to here some other opinions on this From our fellow members.

Sorry, I can only offer the same opinion. - signed, Satisfied Ultravid Convert

 

[Soliderity]

I don't know much about the 8x32 but i own a 7x35 and it has been working great for me .

 

[John Frink]

Any help in justifying (or not) the purchase of one or the other would be appreciated! They would be used as an alternative to the above mentioned bins as a general purpose bin for use from home or travel.

I have both and they're two of my favorites. For me, the 8x32 UVHD is slightly more compact and portable, and it's armored and waterproof. The 7x35 has a slightly easier view, a larger exit pupil, and longer eye relief (I wear glasses). I would be hard-pressed to decide between them if I had to make that choice. I commonly use the 7x35 at home and take the 8x32 when traveling. Hope this helps.

 

[galazie1]

I briefly tested them side by side. The UVHD is better optically. Sharper and more mellow natural colour. The Retrovid is still good enough and has its stronger points: wider sweet spot, better edges, more expansive views to my eyes

 

[Mike F]

Thanks for all the input so far - always good to get experienced opinions.

On reflection I think my real problem is that I already have a 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42 and a 7x42 UVHD+. The 7x42 is already so compact and light that I can hardly justify a 7x35 Retrovid except on the grounds of looks, and apart from the advantages of size a weight (which are not a major concern for me) I wonder if I can justify the 8x32 UVHD+. The earlier Trinovid is widely regarded as having optics equivalent at least to an Ultravid BR, if not HD, and I would have thought that the 42 vs 32 objective would make the optical performance at least very competitive, if not even possibly better, than the 8x32 HD+.

Can anybody offer an opinion on the Trinovid 8x42 vs 8x32 UVHD+?

 

[Paultricounty]

Thanks for all the input so far - always good to get experienced opinions.

On reflection I think my real problem is that I already have a 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42 and a 7x42 UVHD+. The 7x42 is already so compact and light that I can hardly justify a 7x35 Retrovid except on the grounds of looks, and apart from the advantages of size a weight (which are not a major concern for me) I wonder if I can justify the 8x32 UVHD+. The earlier Trinovid is widely regarded as having optics equivalent at least to an Ultravid BR, if not HD, and I would have thought that the 42 vs 32 objective would make the optical performance at least very competitive, if not even possibly better, than the 8x32 HD+.

Can anybody offer an opinion on the Trinovid 8x42 vs 8x32 UVHD+?

If you're speaking about the Trinovid 8 x 42 BN, I don't have any experience with them myself, but people here rave about them. From my understanding they're better than the more contemporary HD. The two Leica's you have are great binoculars. I don't think you're picking up that much more on a UVHD+ 32 and 7x42 are nice and small. The retroverted is another animal. Yes they are optically beautiful just like your 7X and 8X's.

The Retrovids (Trinovid Classics) bring something of a nostalgia, the beauty and construction of yesteryear, with modern optics. Optically I don't think they bring anything to your table. But if you like having beautiful things, then the retrovids certainly will fill that niche. As far as tools, the two you have are all around better birding binoculars due to different factors. But it's not always about the tools.

Good luck.

Paul

 

[Mike F]

Paul, Thanks for your input and suggestions.

I was actually talking about the Trinovid 8x42 (40008). Here's an old thread about those Trinovids:- Trinovid

 

[dorubird]

Initially you did not specify that you also have Ultravid 7x42. So if you already have an excellent Ultravid 7x42, a fairly compact and good Trinovid 8x42 and a super compact binoculars like Trinovid 10x25BCA, I would never think of Retrovid 7x35 or Ultravid 8x32 in your place. You already have very good binoculars for different purpose. Only you will decide if you will resist to GAB attack (get another binocular)

 

[Mike F]

Initially you did not specify that you also have Ultravid 7x42. So if you already have an excellent Ultravid 7x42, a fairly compact and good Trinovid 8x42 and a super compact binoculars like Trinovid 10x25BCA, I would never think of Retrovid 7x35 or Ultravid 8x32 in your place. You already have very good binoculars for different purpose. Only you will decide if you will resist to GAB attack (get another binocular)

Thanks for your helpful response. I’m sure that someone might think that I should change the 8x42 Trinovid 40008 for an 8x32 UVHD+, but nobody has suggested it so far.......! 😂
I think it would only make sense if I really needed the small weight/size of the 32, but I’d be interested if there were any optical advantages......

 

[galazie1]

Just go ahead and get whatever new binoculars you want. Life is short. You won't regret buying quality binoculars. Just don't do it every month. You'll be fine.

 

[Paultricounty]

Thanks for your helpful response. I’m sure that someone might think that I should change the 8x42 Trinovid 40008 for an 8x32 UVHD+, but nobody has suggested it so far.......! 😂
I think it would only make sense if I really needed the small weight/size of the 32, but I’d be interested if there were any optical advantages......

I agree with Galazie1, life is short. Go for it, you’ll love them and have a good time with them. Just don’t buy 2 or 3 or 4 a month. 🤪😉.

Paul

 

[dorubird]

Mike F question remains legitimate: what are the differences between Ultravid 8x32 and Trinovid 8x42?

Here are some general thoughts based on technical data information of this binoculars, which we all know for sure, but which is good to be structured a little:
Ultra 8x32 is better at:
1 more compact body and lighter (3cm shorter and 200g lighter)
2 larger field of view (7.7deg vs 7 deg)
Trino 8x42 is better at:
1 is brighter in low light conditions. (1.7x larger lens area and 5.25mm vs 4mm exif pupil)
2 has much larger eye relief (17mm vs 13.3mm). Much easier to see through it and to be positioned at the eyepieces even for those who do not wear glasses (for example in cold weather the warm eye will not come into contact with the lens of the eyepiece causing condensation.)

To balance the discussion a little I will take the side of Trinovid...
From my point of view Trino 42mm is a better all around binocular than Ultra 32mm. It is already a compact enough for 42mm format to use very often.
Of course, the Ultravid 8x32 is optically better than the Trinovid 8x42, but I bet it's not much because of Trinovid's great aperture advantage. It would have been interesting that someone can say, by direct comparison, that Trinovid 42mm retains something from the image signature of Ultravid 32mm. For me the greatest weakness of the Ultravid is the inadmissibly small eye relief, that does not qualify him to be a versatile pair of binoculars for every day use. If Utravid 8x32 didn't have this big inconvenience paid by the small body, it was my choice by far...

Life is too short to make decisions too fast (we can look at it from this perspective also )

 

[MiddleRiver]

I own the opposite - 8x32 Trinovid and 8x42 UV (non HD). The UV is 'better' tho not by a landslide. I assume the HD+ even moreso. Is it the bigger glass or just UV vs Trinnie? In my case probably a combination of both.

I think the original question is apples and oranges. My guess is that given two binos in generally the same league (Trinnie is no slouch imho), the 42 is always going to be more user-friendly and seem more open and bright. So the question is reduced to form-factor and ergos.

If I owned 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42 and a 7x42 UVHD+, I would not change a thing, other than maybe an 8x20UV so I always had something in my pocket. If I had money to burn, I might upgrade the T 8x42 to another 8x42UVHD. Given the resale on the Trinnie, that would not be a huge hit.

ymmv...

 

[eitanaltman]

Thanks for all the input so far - always good to get experienced opinions.

On reflection I think my real problem is that I already have a 2011-15 Trinovid 8x42 and a 7x42 UVHD+. The 7x42 is already so compact and light that I can hardly justify a 7x35 Retrovid except on the grounds of looks, and apart from the advantages of size a weight (which are not a major concern for me) I wonder if I can justify the 8x32 UVHD+. The earlier Trinovid is widely regarded as having optics equivalent at least to an Ultravid BR, if not HD, and I would have thought that the 42 vs 32 objective would make the optical performance at least very competitive, if not even possibly better, than the 8x32 HD+.

Can anybody offer an opinion on the Trinovid 8x42 vs 8x32 UVHD+?

Just a point of contrast from those who say the 8x32 won’t fill a useful niche given your current binoculares…

I used to own the Trinovid 10x42 (2011-15) and still own the 7x42, 8x32 and 8x20 Ultravids. Yes it’s true that the 7x42 is so compact and light for a 42mm that it has basically obsoleted most 8x32’s for me, especially the larger 8x32’s which are essentially the same size as the UV.

HOWEVER…. the 8x32 UV is no ordinary 8x32. It is uniquely and ridiculously small and light for a premium 8x32; in fact there is NO premium 8x32 that even comes close (save the discontinued Zeiss 8x32 FL, which is still noticeably larger in the hand). Just as the 8x20 UV is so tiny that IMO it’s not really competing in the same niche as the 8x25’s with which it is often (erroneously) cross-shopped, the 8x32 UV is more comparable in size and weight to the mini 8x30 class (like the Monarch HG). So you’re really stepping down two rungs on the size/weight ladder, as the 8x32 UV is a noticeable size/weight reduction from any other premium 32mm offering.

There is a VERY noticeable difference in size and weight between the 7x42 and 8x32, and IMO they make a wonderful complement for each other. To illustrate the point, some photos.…

side by side, 2011-15 Trinnie, 7x42 UV, 8x32 UV:



Ultravid 7x42, 8x32, 8x20:



Trinnie 10x42 vs Ultravid 8x32 vs EDG 10x32. This angle really illustrates (1) how much smaller the UV is than the typical large premium 8x32 and (2) how much smaller and less bulky the 8x32 UV is than the 42mm Ultravid/Trinovid you have:



And one more to emphasize the point, the UV 8x32 vs the 33mm Kowa Genesis. The Kowa is a pretty ”average” sized 32, about the same size as the 32mm Zeiss Conquest HD or Leica Trinovid HD. The Ultravid is still MUCH smaller:

 

[Mike F]

Thanks for your thorough and helpful post @eitanaltman. Much appreciated!

But dang - just as I had satisfied myself that I didn’t need the 8x32 UV after all! 😂

I think that ultimately the question boils down to whether the expense of exchanging my Trinovid 8x42 for the 8x32 UV is justified in terms of ergonomics and convenience, but also most importantly (as size and weight are not the most important consideration for me) optical performance.....

But, maybe I should just have both.....😀