Pretty disapointed with double Leica purchase. (1 Viewer)

[Redneckbmxer24]

I recently decided to pick up some Ultravid HD+ 8x32's and Geovid R 10x42's because they both fit the bill of what I was wanting and both pair of binoculars came defective out of the box. The UV's have something going on with the metal on the hinge underneath the coating, and the Geovids have either a chip or crack in one of the internal lenses of the left barrel and debris can also be seen inside of the of the left barrel when looking in the objective lens. Beyond that the clarity on the edge is quite frankly poor. The image is good for about 60-70% of the FOV with the rest on the outside being super blurry and the Geovids being slightly worse than the UV's. I was expecting glass and build quality for the UV's on par with my EL's since the lines retail for the same price range.

 

[dries1]

If you purchased these new from a retailer, simply return them and ask for replacements.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Thankfully I did buy them from an excellent dealer, but they're going back to be replaced by the Swarovski's I should have bought and not more of these models. Two pair of defective binos in one go completely turns me off from them. Getting NL 8x32's to replace the UVHD+ and who knows what for BLRF's since the new EL TA's have their shortcomings too. I may give the Geovid Pro 10x42's a try once they've been out on the market for a year or better.

 

[dries1]

Now I understand when folks ask the retailer to check prior to shipment, but the dealer should let Leica know about those samples. This can occur with any premium glass, however not too common.

 

[[email protected]]

Thankfully I did buy them from an excellent dealer, but they're going back to be replaced by the Swarovski's I should have bought and not more of these models. Two pair of defective binos in one go completely turns me off from them. Getting NL 8x32's to replace the UVHD+ and who knows what for BLRF's since the new EL TA's have their shortcomings too. I may give the Geovid Pro 10x42's a try once they've been out on the market for a year or better.

Maybe you should check out the Zeiss SF with all the armor issues with Swarovski's. I don't think they rectified any of their problems yet. It really makes me question Leica QA because every one of these alpha level binoculars should be inspected before being shipped.

 

[tenex]

Beyond that the clarity on the edge is quite frankly poor. The image is good for about 60-70% of the FOV with the rest on the outside being super blurry and the Geovids being slightly worse than the UV's. I was expecting glass and build quality for the UV's on par with my EL's since the lines retail for the same price range.

This part doesn't sound like a defect, just hyperbole ("super blurry") regarding the difference between flat-field designs like EL/NL and more conventional optics with some field curvature, which you should avoid if you dislike that. Too bad about the rest though, it can happen though rare.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Maybe you should check out the Zeiss SF with all the armor issues with Swarovski's. I don't think they rectified any of their problems yet. It really makes me question Leica QA because every one of these alpha level binoculars should be inspected before being shipped.

I had some Zeiss victorys years ago and didn't care for them, excellent glass and image but still has that rolling globe effect and I didn't like the eye cups. I also don't believe the armor "issue" is very much of an issue, I have never had a problem with any of mine despite handling them all the time with bug spray and sunscreen on my hands. Regardless, it's a sacrificial armor layer so even if I do have to spend $100 to have it replaced after years of hard use I don't really care. If the extremely slim chance I have to replace the armor is the only shortcoming I'll take it.

I also had a warranty issue with a Zeiss riflescope where they denied the warranty because it was a display model and I had to fight them tooth and nail to get them to fix it, so I'll likely never buy another Zeiss product for that reason alone.

This part doesn't sound like a defect, just hyperbole ("super blurry") regarding the difference between flat-field designs like EL/NL and more conventional optics with some field curvature, which you should avoid if you dislike that. Too bad about the rest though, it can happen though rare.

It's not because it's not a flat field design, you can even read about UV's lack of edge sharpness on allbinos reviews and I had but just didn't think it would be so bad. I have a sub $200 pair of Vortex Diamondback HD's that have better resolution and sharpness on the edges than these $2K+ Leicas.

 

[tenex]

It's not because it's not a flat field design, you can even read about UV's lack of edge sharpness on allbinos reviews

No, they don't actually criticize the 8x32 for "lack of edge sharpness"; indeed they find it sharp to 80% of the field, quite a good result, whereas you gave it just "60-70%". I've tried it myself and had no complaint about its outer field, so I feel quite comfortable calling yours (which I've never heard before on this forum) exaggerated, and will stop wondering why.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

No, they don't actually criticize the 8x32 for "lack of edge sharpness"; indeed they find it sharp to 80% of the field, quite a good result, whereas you gave it just "60-70%". I've tried it myself and had no complaint about its outer field, so I feel quite comfortable calling yours (which I've never heard before on this forum) exaggerated, and will stop wondering why.

First of all, if you go back and actually read that paragraph you will see that it's an estimate of both units combined and that I stated that the UVHD+ are the better of the two.

Secondly, it's not an exaggeration at all, it's in fact a very accurate estimate. I spent several hours with them on a tripod glassing the driving range at the golf resort I'm at looking at their chainlink fence that runs perfectly 90 degrees from my viewing location and is 509 yards away and over 400 yards long with evenly spaced posts. It's not exactly hard to count fence posts one can see clearly and total on the FOV and do some second grade math and figure it out. I'm glad you know more about the image of my binoculars that you have never seen than I do though.

When they have less clear FOV than the norm by 10% or so I think it's pretty safe to call these defective in that regard too despite your previous comments.

When I can take Vortex's that cost less than 10% of the UV's and Leupold BX4's that cost less than 25% and they have a 90% or so clear FOV for a fraction of the price, then these are pretty terrible.

These are not $2K+ binoculars, period.

Here’s some pics so you can see for yourself the “quality” of these two binoculars.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Everyone can take from this post what they wish. If some want to chalk the image quality issues up as subjective or personal when it's clearly not that's fine, but you cannot ignore the fact that TWO pairs of binoculars showed up in the same shipment one with debris and a chip/crack and the other with some issue with the material on the hinge. Even if the debris could be attributed to shipping after the fact, shipping surely didn't cause the chip on one and the hinge on the other, they left the factory in Portugal that way and passed final inspection with these defects.

I think anyone else who spent this much money on either of these units and this is the kind of stuff that showed up they would be deeply disapointed. If they're not then there's some serious fanboyism happening to forgive such terrible QC.

 

[Paultricounty]

First of all, if you go back and actually read that paragraph you will see that it's an estimate of both units combined and that I stated that the UVHD+ are the better of the two.

Sounds to me like you got two lemons or something fishy going on.

Secondly, it's not an exaggeration at all, it's in fact a very accurate estimate. I spent several hours with them on a tripod glassing the driving range at the golf resort I'm at looking at their chainlink fence that runs perfectly 90 degrees from my viewing location and is 509 yards away and over 400 yards long with evenly spaced posts. It's not exactly hard to count fence posts one can see clearly and total on the FOV and do some second grade math and figure it out. I'm glad you know more about the image of my binoculars that you have never seen than I do though.

When you look for something, especially when you read about on Allbinos you’ll find it, Dennis always does 100% of the time.

When they have less clear FOV than the norm by 10% or so I think it's pretty safe to call these defective in that regard too despite your previous comments.

When I can take Vortex's that cost less than 10% of the UV's and Leupold BX4's that cost less than 25% and they have a 90% or so clear FOV for a fraction of the price, then these are pretty terrible.

I have at least one of each of the Vortex line except for the HD , which I exchanged for the UHD. The diamondback is only sharp to avoid 60% if your lucky. These two aren’t even in the same country in image comparison. If you have an EL your spoiled on edge performance, but your overlooking something good in a curved field bino because your focused ( no pun intended) on the flat edge image. It’s like missing the forest for the trees.

These are not $2K+ binoculars, period.

I don’t think any binocular is worth $2000 ,but that being said the Leica image and quality stand up to any of the top bins on the market. I’ll also ad I’ve had similar QC issues with Swaro, Nikon and Zeiss. It’s possible you could get a lemon with Swaro as well, considering you 0 and 2 ✌🏼.

Here’s some pics so you can see for yourself the “quality” of these two binoculars.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Sounds to me like you got two lemons or something fishy going on.

When you look for something, especially when you read about on Allbinos you’ll find it, Dennis always does 100% of the time.

I have at least one of each of the Vortex line except for the HD , which I exchanged for the UHD. The diamondback is only sharp to avoid 60% if your lucky. These two aren’t even in the same country in image comparison. If you have an EL your spoiled on edge performance, but your overlooking something good in a curved field bino because your focused ( no pun intended) on the flat edge image. It’s like missing the forest for the trees.

I don’t think any binocular is worth $2000 ,but that being said the Leica image and quality stand up to any of the top bins on the market. I’ll also ad I’ve had similar QC issues with Swaro, Nikon and Zeiss. It’s possible you could get a lemon with Swaro as well, considering you 0 and 2 ✌🏼.

There's nothing fishy going on, I ordered two pair of Leicas from a huge US dealer/distributor and these are what showed up.

I only have one set of Diamondback HD's to compare and the FOV before it gets blurry is greater than either of these Leicas. In the center of the image they do not begin to compare in overall glass quality, but the resolution the Diamondbacks have makes up a larger percentage of the FOV than either of these Leicas. I have perfect vision and know what I see. I also have curved field binos and while I certainly prefer the flat field of the Swarovski I don't mind the curved and that's not a contributing factor here.

Regarding the price, I'll gladly pay what I did again for my EL's and NL's without giving it a second thought. I gave these a try because they cost considerably less than what I would have bought in the Swaro line (saved me about $3000 total) and people compare them to Swarovski all the time. Defects in anything is of course possible but two pair with such blatant QC issues that should have never left the factory is telling. Even if they are in fact two lemons, that's a very high rate of lemons when one person gets two in one purchase.

 

[chill6x6]

I'd be disappointed if a premium binocular showed up at my house with a quality issue. That has happened to me before but it wasn't a Leica. Of all the binoculars I've owned I've never returned a Leica product for any reason. I'm saying this not to discount your situation but say that if I had to bet on which binocular brand would arrive at my door in perfect condition, if would be a Leica binocular.

I'd be pretty pissed with that on the exterior(would be easy to catch) and the debris on the inside. There's really no excuse.

Two binoculars and two issues... Hmmm.. You mind me asking...What dealer?

 

[Paultricounty]

There's nothing fishy going on, I ordered two pair of Leicas from a huge US dealer/distributor and these are what showed up.

I only have one set of Diamondback HD's to compare and the FOV before it gets blurry is greater than either of these Leicas. In the center of the image they do not begin to compare in overall glass quality, but the resolution the Diamondbacks have makes up a larger percentage of the FOV than either of these Leicas. I have perfect vision and know what I see. I also have curved field binos and while I certainly prefer the flat field of the Swarovski I don't mind the curved and that's not a contributing factor here.

Regarding the price, I'll gladly pay what I did again for my EL's and NL's without giving it a second thought. I gave these a try because they cost considerably less than what I would have bought in the Swaro line (saved me about $3000 total) and people compare them to Swarovski all the time. Defects in anything is of course possible but two pair with such blatant QC issues that should have never left the factory is telling. Even if they are in fact two lemons, that's a very high rate of lemons when one person gets two in one purchase.

Maybe your the lucky one😜. But seriously it’s possible you got two bad specimens , I know I have with Zeiss, third time was the charm on an SF. I’ve had more QC issues with the other three than with Leica, and I think others here might agree. I have many of the Swaros , Zeiss and Nikons and I seem to grab the Leica’s most of the time, although I also like a flat field bins, the color saturation, warm and easy on the eyes of Leica is lacking in the others, imo.

I’d say stick with Swarovski and Vortex if I was you, until you get a bad one of those 😉.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

I'd be disappointed if a premium binocular showed up at my house with a quality issue. That has happened to me before but it wasn't a Leica. Of all the binoculars I've owned I've never returned a Leica product for any reason. I'm saying this not to discount your situation but say that if I had to bet on which binocular brand would arrive at my door in perfect condition, if would be a Leica binocular.

I'd be pretty pissed with that on the exterior(would be easy to catch) and the debris on the inside. There's really no excuse.

Two binoculars and two issues... Hmmm.. You mind me asking...What dealer?

I'm not going to put the dealer on blast here because the rep I deal with is a friend and this is no fault of theirs. When they have several million dollars worth of Leica inventory alone they can't really be expected to open and inspect everything.

Maybe your the lucky one😜. But seriously it’s possible you got two bad specimens , I know I have with Zeiss, third time was the charm on an SF. I’ve had more QC issues with the other three than with Leica, and I think others here might agree. I have many of the Swaros , Zeiss and Nikons and I seem to grab the Leica’s most of the time, although I also like a flat field bins, the color saturation, warm and easy on the eyes of Leica is lacking in the others, imo.

I’d say stick with Swarovski and Vortex if I was you, until you get a bad one of those 😉.

It's possible? Did you bother looking at the pictures I posted? It's not possible, it happened and I posted pictures to support the obvious defects aside from the image quality. You're a Leica fanboy, that's fine.

I'm not brand biased, I own a lot of stuff. I also own a separate Leica handheld LRF that has been issue free so I have no bias against Leica.

I've received duds from Vortex, they are not my favorite company nor do they make my favorite products but the DIamondback HD's are quite good at that price point and they stand behind their stuff even if the end user damages it so I have a pair that get used as loaners because if someone scratches the lenses wiping them off with their shirt like they shouldn't, or drops them and damages them all I have to do is call Vortex and they'll send me a prepaid label to send them back and they'll give me a brand new pair as they already have when I dropped the previous pair and broke the hinge assembly. Not only did they give me a new pair but they upgraded me from my non HD's that I had originally bought to the current HD models.

I'm sure Swarovski has made duds too but in my sample of dozens of pieces of glass from them between 6 different EL's, 1 EL range, 1 NL, 2 SLC's, 3 spotters, 2 laser guides, and well over a dozen riflescopes I've yet to receive any defective ones. I did have to send one Z5i riflescope in for service because it stopped tracking correctly, but it was fine out of the box. At this point even if I do receive a dud my defect ratio would be incredibly low compared to 2/5 Leica's I've owned being defective.

 

[dries1]

Do you feel better now releasing your grievance regarding your recent Leica purchase.
Simply return your purchase, and go somewhere else. I surely would have informed the retailer, and moved on to another vendor.

 

[norway]

First of all, if you go back and actually read that paragraph you will see that it's an estimate of both units combined and that I stated that the UVHD+ are the better of the two.

Secondly, it's not an exaggeration at all, it's in fact a very accurate estimate. I spent several hours with them on a tripod glassing the driving range at the golf resort I'm at looking at their chainlink fence that runs perfectly 90 degrees from my viewing location and is 509 yards away and over 400 yards long with evenly spaced posts. It's not exactly hard to count fence posts one can see clearly and total on the FOV and do some second grade math and figure it out. I'm glad you know more about the image of my binoculars that you have never seen than I do though.

When they have less clear FOV than the norm by 10% or so I think it's pretty safe to call these defective in that regard too despite your previous comments.

When I can take Vortex's that cost less than 10% of the UV's and Leupold BX4's that cost less than 25% and they have a 90% or so clear FOV for a fraction of the price, then these are pretty terrible.

These are not $2K+ binoculars, period.

Here’s some pics so you can see for yourself the “quality” of these two binoculars.

Was the box sealed and undamaged? One thing I'd be wondering about immediately is whether they've been dropped or taken a serious knock somewhere in the supply chain.

 

[Paultricounty]

I'm not going to put the dealer on blast here because the rep I deal with is a friend and this is no fault of theirs. When they have several million dollars worth of Leica inventory alone they can't really be expected to open and inspect everything.



It's possible? Did you bother looking at the pictures I posted? It's not possible, it happened and I posted pictures to support the obvious defects aside from the image quality. You're a Leica fanboy, that's fine.

Yes that’s kind of true, but only because I also have the Zeiss, Swarovski’s and Nikons.

I'm not brand biased, I own a lot of stuff. I also own a separate Leica handheld LRF that has been issue free so I have no bias against Leica.

I've received duds from Vortex, they are not my favorite company nor do they make my favorite products but the DIamondback HD's are quite good at that price point and they stand behind their stuff even if the end user damages it so I have a pair that get used as loaners because if someone scratches the lenses wiping them off with their shirt like they shouldn't, or drops them and damages them all I have to do is call Vortex and they'll send me a prepaid label to send them back and they'll give me a brand new pair as they already have when I dropped the previous pair and broke the hinge assembly. Not only did they give me a new pair but they upgraded me from my non HD's that I had originally bought to the current HD models.

No doubt vortex is one of the best in warranty and customer service, love them. But they really only make one high end binocular that can compete with Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss in the UHD.

I'm sure Swarovski has made duds too but in my sample of dozens of pieces of glass from them between 6 different EL's, 1 EL range, 1 NL, 2 SLC's, 3 spotters, 2 laser guides, and well over a dozen riflescopes I've yet to receive any defective ones. I did have to send one Z5i riflescope in for service because it stopped tracking correctly, but it was fine out of the box. At this point even if I do receive a dud my defect ratio would be incredibly low compared to 2/5 Leica's I've owned being defective.

Sounds like someone is a Swarovski fan boy.

 

[Binastro]

I think you would be disappointed with the Zeiss 20x60S because of edge performance quality.

Nobody has perfect vision.

We had two new Rolls Royces.
One had no faults.

The other had three faults.
A Rolls Royce technician drove three hundred miles.
He fixed the problems and left after a good meal.
There was no paperwork involved and no record of his visit.

I have driven a Rolls Royce that was so abused by the previous owner that it was a death trap.
I told my boss and after a day driving it he scrapped it.

Regards,
B.

 

[Redneckbmxer24]

Was the box sealed and undamaged? One thing I'd be wondering about immediately is whether they've been dropped or taken a serious knock somewhere in the supply chain.

Yes both optics are brand new and there was no damage. There is zero doubt that they left the factory like this. How could an internal lens get a chip in it, or the hinge material have defects under the finish post assembly?

Yes that’s kind of true, but only because I also have the Zeiss, Swarovski’s and Nikons.

No doubt vortex is one of the best in warranty and customer service, love them. But they really only make one high end binocular that can compete with Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss in the UHD.

Sounds like someone is a Swarovski fan boy.

I've owned a lot of Swarovskis because they have always been the best when comparing them, not a single purchase has ever been because of the brand name. I like having a variety of stuff, hence why I gave this garbage a try. I've owned all levels of Zeiss, I've owned Leica, I've owned Meopta, I've owned Nikon, and I still own other brands of glass too. Swarovski makes the best binoculars and spotters out there, PERIOD. That said, I can't always justify the price tag, which is why it's not the only brand of bino's I own.


I get that a lot of people are going to defend their favorite brand no matter what, but there's a lot of consumers out there that appreciate hearing the bad too so that they can be aware of the worst case scenario when spending thousands of dollars on two metal tubes with glass lenses in them. If you've got an issue with someone reporting a bad experience so others can be aware then perhaps you should stay off the internet and take up knitting as a hobby instead.