Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus review (2 Viewers)

[Tobias Mennle]

I have spent a couple of weeks with this little gem of a binocular - the glass I was most curious about, especially as the 8x42 Ultravid HD Plus is amazing and definitely a favorite of mine. Review here:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/ultravid8x32hdplus/ultravid8x32hdplus.html

Most binoculars have to be a compromise and many were designed with some main goal. For the Leica 8x32 it must have been smallest possible size combined with highest contrast and sharpness, whereas the 8x42 is more about total ease of view and brightness...

 

[A2GG]

Nice review ... and well organized. Thanks for sharing.

 

[elkcub]

Eye relief is 13.9 mm, definitely on the short side. ... I guess this could be a difficult glass for spectacle wearers, ...".

Really, ya' think?

Great review, :t: (particularly for emmetropes).

Happy New Year,
Ed

 

[Kevin Conville]

It's real simple for me. If I could have any current field bin made, it would be the 8x32 Uvid HD+s.
-Cue the critics- FWIW

The collective of all it's features make it the most desirable bin I can imagine. I won't be buying one however as I have a perfect 8x32BN and the differences I'd enjoy aren't worth $2K to me. But, if I were in the market the choice would be easy. I also don't wear glasses other than reading.

 

[Hermann]

It's real simple for me. If I could have any current field bin made, it would be the 8x32 Uvid HD+s.
-Cue the critics- FWIW

The collective of all it's features make it the most desirable bin I can imagine. I won't be buying one however as I have a perfect 8x32BN and the differences I'd enjoy aren't worth $2K to me. But, if I were in the market the choice would be easy. I also don't wear glasses other than reading.

I've also got one of the old Trinovids, an 8x32 BA dating back to 1993, and I'm still not sure if I really "need" the upgrade. But it is an upgrade, no doubt about it - contrast and transmission are clearly better.

Hermann

 

[ibramr]

I've also got one of the old Trinovids, an 8x32 BA dating back to 1993, and I'm still not sure if I really "need" the upgrade. But it is an upgrade, no doubt about it - contrast and transmission are clearly better.

Hermann

Greetings. I hear you Hermann, and agree with you. With an excellent sample of a late production Trinovid 8x32 BN, I am hesitant to upgrade for now. But I am getting older, and lighter weight to me comes with a premium. I may resist for a year or two, but it is almost certain that the new one will be the Ultravid 8x32 HD Plus. Enjoy in good health.

 

[Chosun Juan]

"Brightness
The 8x32 Ultravid at daylight used with closed pupil is visibly darker than the 8x42 Ultravid. This is puzzling and disappointing, because the 8x42 HD Plus shows what prisms made from HT glass can do. The aggressive baffling with a truncated exit pupil and a slightly more skewed transmission curve with a hint of red in the 8x32 will make the view darker, too. In lowlight things get worse, of course. Is there really HT glass in the 8x32 at all? I do miss the lovely high transmission sparkle of the Ultravid 8x42."
..........
"Cons:
1. ....
2. ....
3. Brightness is lower than expected.
4. .... ..... "

Very strange and disappointing brightness results for the 32mm indeed ?? :h?: :brains:


Chosun :gh:

 

[CloseFocus]

"Brightness
The 8x32 Ultravid at daylight used with closed pupil is visibly darker than the 8x42 Ultravid. This is puzzling and disappointing, because the 8x42 HD Plus shows what prisms made from HT glass can do. The aggressive baffling with a truncated exit pupil and a slightly more skewed transmission curve with a hint of red in the 8x32 will make the view darker, too. In lowlight things get worse, of course. Is there really HT glass in the 8x32 at all? I do miss the lovely high transmission sparkle of the Ultravid 8x42."
..........
"Cons:
1. ....
2. ....
3. Brightness is lower than expected.
4. .... ..... "

Very strange and disappointing brightness results for the 32mm indeed ?? :h?: :brains:


Chosun :gh:

It sounds like Leica wanted to avoid the horrible flaring of the Swarovision by aggressive baffling, and improve the contrast and color reproduction by creating "crisper" images than the 8x42, but not necessarily compete in the brightness category. And a 42mm binocular would be the more natural choice for low light conditions anyway. The 32mm HD Plus sounds like a winner to me, and Leica seems to have successfully avoided the mistakes Swarovski made when they designed their 32mm line.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Many thanks for this review Tobias !!!!!!!!

Now the SV 10X50 VS LEICA HD plus 10x50 maybe for your the next review ?

 

[james holdsworth]

It sounds like Leica wanted to avoid the horrible flaring of the Swarovision by aggressive baffling, and improve the contrast and color reproduction by creating "crisper" images than the 8x42, but not necessarily compete in the brightness category. And a 42mm binocular would be the more natural choice for low light conditions anyway. The 32mm HD Plus sounds like a winner to me, and Leica seems to have successfully avoided the mistakes Swarovski made when they designed their 32mm line.

I don't get this. The 8x32 SV has been out for years, reviewed professionally several times and reviewed here by hundreds. In that time, it was considered the best 8x32 ever made, and the problems with glare almost never mentioned.

Why, now, does this bin come with the ''glare-monster'' tag and the impression that the design is fatally flawed? Why did this take years to come out?

 

[Torview]

I don't get this. The 8x32 SV has been out for years, reviewed professionally several times and reviewed here by hundreds. In that time, it was considered the best 8x32 ever made, and the problems with glare almost never mentioned.

Why, now, does this bin come with the ''glare-monster'' tag and the impression that the design is fatally flawed? Why did this take years to come out?

I have wondered the same, and it took ownership for me to establish how badly it glared for myself, no matter how good a binocular performs a lot of the time, missing out on Birds completely because of such a basic requirement as glare control means it has to go for me.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I have wondered the same, and it took ownership for me to establish how badly it glared for myself, no matter how good a binocular performs a lot of the time, missing out on Birds completely because of such a basic requirement as glare control means it has to go for me.

I just wonder if it's something to do with the flat field design, edge sharpness,
and also the large eye piece design, I think it makes complete baffling difficult.

But Zeiss SF seem to be better here, but don't have the same level of edge sharpness.

I agree glare can be annoying in the SV:s, my Zeiss FL is better,
but the Leica Ultravid HD 10x42 did have some strange flares according to allbinos.
(The 8x42 and 8x32 were better)

But this makes me a bit curios on the Leica HD Plus,
I wasn't available when I got my SV, unfortunately.

 

[Mark9473]

It sounds like Leica wanted to avoid the horrible flaring of the Swarovision by aggressive baffling, and improve the contrast and color reproduction by creating "crisper" images than the 8x42, but not necessarily compete in the brightness category.

For "aggressive baffling" to affect the brightness, the effective aperture of the binoculars would need to be reduced and the exit pupil size therefore smaller than 4 mm. Are there any indications this is the case?

 

[Hermann]

I don't get this. The 8x32 SV has been out for years, reviewed professionally several times and reviewed here by hundreds. In that time, it was considered the best 8x32 ever made, and the problems with glare almost never mentioned.

Why, now, does this bin come with the ''glare-monster'' tag and the impression that the design is fatally flawed? Why did this take years to come out?

Calling the design "fatally flawed" is a bit over the top, I think. It is sharp, has good ergonomics and is very easy to use due to its large eyepiece lenses. But unfortunately it has that (to me) pretty obvious glare problem.

But in principle you're right, of course. I think people liked the easy, wide view and the sharp edges so much that they sort of "overlooked" the glare problems the binocular undoubtedly has. In addition, there were hundreds of posts by one particular poster here who wrote time and time again, even in threads that had nothing at all to do with the SV 8x32 (or indeed any other Swarovski binocular), how fantastic the SV 8x32 is, that everyone needed to buy one and all the rest of it. When you read the same nonsense day in and day out, no matter which thread you're looking at, you may well start to believe it's true. Interestingly that particular poster has switched his loyaties to a different binocular recently ...

Also, nowadys more people seem to have realized they don't really *need* sharp edges, and that other characteristics of a binocular may be more important - such as glare resistance.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

For "aggressive baffling" to affect the brightness, the effective aperture of the binoculars would need to be reduced and the exit pupil size therefore smaller than 4 mm. Are there any indications this is the case?

Check Tobias' photos of the exit pupils on his website.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

I agree glare can be annoying in the SV:s, my Zeiss FL is better, but the Leica Ultravid HD 10x42 did have some strange flares according to allbinos.
(The 8x42 and 8x32 were better)

You still believe Allbinos? I don't.

Anyhow, I don't see any strange flares in the 10x42 in the field. Even though I tried pretty hard.

Hermann

 

[Vespobuteo]

You still believe Allbinos? I don't.

Anyhow, I don't see any strange flares in the 10x42 in the field. Even though I tried pretty hard.

Hermann

I don't believe Allbinos more than any other source on the internet,

I'm more concerned in glare than flare,
the 10x42 Uvid HD had to much CA for me to consider it,
and I wonder if it's gotten any better in the HD Plus.

all bins have their pros and cons,
and the perfect bins just don't exist,
not for me at least..

 

[Hermann]

I'm more concerned in glare than flare,
the 10x42 Uvid HD had to much CA for me to consider it,
and I wonder if it's gotten any better in the HD Plus.

From what I can see the HD Plus is pretty good with regard to glare as well. I can't see any. CA ... No idea. I don't seem to notice CA unless it's really bad.

all bins have their pros and cons,
and the perfect bins just don't exist, not for me at least..

Absolutely true.

Hermann

 

[Vespobuteo]

Also, nowadys more people seem to have realized they don't really *need* sharp edges, and that other characteristics of a binocular may be more important - such as glare resistance.

Hermann

Just lifting your bins and making and ID, the edge sharpness is not important,
but for long time studies, finding birds, scanning, I love the edge sharpness.
An easy view with minimal eye strain is what the Swarovisions are all about.

For the best glare control...look elsewhere...

 

[Chosun Juan]

I don't get this. The 8x32 SV has been out for years, reviewed professionally several times and reviewed here by hundreds. In that time, it was considered the best 8x32 ever made, and the problems with glare almost never mentioned.

Why, now, does this bin come with the ''glare-monster'' tag and the impression that the design is fatally flawed? Why did this take years to come out?

James, I'm with you on this.

I'm not at all discounting the valid experiences of users that have been reported here. Everybody is going to have an individual impression of course, but hey, it's not like there is a Star Wars type of bar full of varied and disparate aliens species gathered here on BF. :eek!: Well ..... mostly! :-O We all share a common genetic make-up, and so there must be some commonality to the reported views smack bang in the middle of a normal distribution curve.

Due to my myopia correcting eyeglasses |8.| I need nearly all of the 8x32 SV's 20mm ER (hence the Leica 8x32 UVHD+ is not even an option for me) and I find the 8x32 SV to have absolutely outstanding slap 'em to your face, ease of view for just a 4mm EP. Trust me, this is a very important feature for the 4-eyed among us! :king: In several outings I have never noticed glare issues (the next time I get my hands on a pair I will be sure to grill them extensively specifically for glare issues). Also noted are the many many concomitant benefits that better glare suppression has - I'm sure even the 8x32 SV can be improved .... I hope Swarovski is listening! :news:

Perhaps the generous "Randpupille" design of the 8x32SV divides the user experience of glare into two camps - those that wear glasses, and those that don't ?? It would be interesting to hear more feedback from members on this ...... :cat:


Chosun :gh: