Opticron? What size I use the Opticron Rubber Objective Lens Covers 32mm OG S Pair fits models with Outer Diameter 40~42mm for my 7x35 Retrovid's.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I3ZZZOA/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Retrovid 8x40: A brief review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I3ZZZOA/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1
Look closely, they say Kowa.
Canip. Where did you get those? What O.D. size are they for reference in case I get an Retrovid 8x40. Thanks!
Hermann
Well-known member
Really? Well, some excellent birders I know still use Trinovid BAs or BNs ... And even though there are a lot of Swarovskis around, over here you still see a healthy mix of different binoculars, from ancient to new models. Although I must admit Swarovskis seem very, very common in Holland.
Well ... what can I say? I personally don't give a lot on what other people say. And I still use my Trinovid 8x32 BA and the much maligned Zeiss Victory 10x40, the one BVD criticized so much. So what?
And if Leica hadn't taken the IMO totally idiotic step of only selling the Retrovid through their own stores, I might well have got one at some stage, probably the 8x40.
Hermann
Picked them out of a box of unused objective covers (I take them off those binos that only get occasional use), they are from one of my Kowa glasses, as dipped (post #63) rightfully mentioned.
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Ah, very nice bin. Enjoy! I myself would buy a retro 7x42 Trinovid in a heartbeat, which for obvious reasons will never happen. Alas, but very good for the heart.
Renze
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Hi Canip,
The THING that I really like, seeing your dynamic front end photo of your new Leica binoculars, is the old-style one piece rainguard, which I am going to guess will fall back unbidden to cover the eyepieces as you lower the binoculars from your face. Small as that sounds, that is the sort of practical feature together with the small size and 7x35 format that could get me interested.
Just me, but I'd rather forgo the objective covers and have that one-piece rainguard than have both in the modern two-piece style. Just like my old Dialyt 7x42 B
Tom
PS Loved your review!
MandoBear
Well-known member
Yeah, and that FieldPro (ahem...) fastening system didn't half chafe... |:$|
Thanks for your informative review and commentary Canip! My impressions of the three models had many similarities to yours - eg. feeling a bit heavier than I had expected from such a compact binocular. The slimness of the eyecup rims was a detail I definitely noticed and ought to have commented on. Most noticeable in the 7x35, the slimmest of the three, the result is that what is outside your field of view is not as effectively blacked out as with (for example) the fatter eyecups of something like the Zeiss FL. Even though it takes away somewhat from the "immersivity" of the view, I don't completely object to it, as the increase in your peripheral vision can be a real advantage. The field stops are very clean - I would have to agree with the poster who mentioned Leica binoculars as having neat and perfect field stops - and I was able to set the binocular up so that the field stops were a long way out from the center, both of which help mitigate this effect. It's less apparent in the x40 models which are larger in diameter.
Eye relief - I found the Retrovids all had slightly more than the 10x40 Dialyt (nominally 15mm), as I needed to turn the eyecups out very slightly. I wear rimless glasses set close to my eyes.
CA - I must be relatively tolerant to it as I didn't notice it in all three Retrovids I tried, certainly not in the center.
I think the 8x40 is in a very competitive corner of the market - there are a lot of really good binoculars around now that weren't during the era when Leitz and Zeiss were the two great names. The 7x35 has less competition (most of the quality 7xs on the market being the significantly larger x42s) and is somewhat unique in being a quality 7x in a very small package. Although certainly not a pocket binocular, it's still compact enough to fit in a lady's handbag, and I could imagine that if the likes of Camilla Parker Bowles ever wanted a replacement for the Ross Stepruva (?) I recall her being pictured with, this would be the ideal candidate. The 10x40 is also in a bit of a separate corner of the marketplace, being so much sleeker than most 10x42s - I can't say I agree with most of Ken Rockwell's (in)famous web page discussing his Leitz 10x40 non-B, but I do agree that they handle and point beautifully. I can see the logic of Leica reserving them for their own stores, as the dedicated birder or shooter will almost certainly go with something else. They are really there for the LEICAMAN (thank you, Ken Rockwell...) who wants a pair of binoculars to go with his camera. I don't know how all that translates into a profit-making venture for Leica, or whether that's even the point, but I'm not really bothered about that. I'm certainly glad they are in existence - it would be nice if a 10x40 became available secondhand at a price I can justify in a few years...
Eye relief - I found the Retrovids all had slightly more than the 10x40 Dialyt (nominally 15mm), as I needed to turn the eyecups out very slightly. I wear rimless glasses set close to my eyes.
CA - I must be relatively tolerant to it as I didn't notice it in all three Retrovids I tried, certainly not in the center.
I think the 8x40 is in a very competitive corner of the market - there are a lot of really good binoculars around now that weren't during the era when Leitz and Zeiss were the two great names. The 7x35 has less competition (most of the quality 7xs on the market being the significantly larger x42s) and is somewhat unique in being a quality 7x in a very small package. Although certainly not a pocket binocular, it's still compact enough to fit in a lady's handbag, and I could imagine that if the likes of Camilla Parker Bowles ever wanted a replacement for the Ross Stepruva (?) I recall her being pictured with, this would be the ideal candidate. The 10x40 is also in a bit of a separate corner of the marketplace, being so much sleeker than most 10x42s - I can't say I agree with most of Ken Rockwell's (in)famous web page discussing his Leitz 10x40 non-B, but I do agree that they handle and point beautifully. I can see the logic of Leica reserving them for their own stores, as the dedicated birder or shooter will almost certainly go with something else. They are really there for the LEICAMAN (thank you, Ken Rockwell...) who wants a pair of binoculars to go with his camera. I don't know how all that translates into a profit-making venture for Leica, or whether that's even the point, but I'm not really bothered about that. I'm certainly glad they are in existence - it would be nice if a 10x40 became available secondhand at a price I can justify in a few years...
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
I know he is irritating but Ken Rockwell does genuinely amuse me with his LEICAMAN and other observations. He has plenty of nice things to say about my favourite and most used lens, the 1960s 35/1.4 Summilux for the M-series, so I can forgive him almost anything!
Tom
You can please all the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all the time but you can't please all the people all the time.
The leather on the Retrovids is actually quite thick and cushy for leather. I think it would offer pretty good protection. These are classic retro binoculars. You are not supposed to expose them to extremely rough use anyway.
Last edited:
You can please all the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all the time but you can't please all the people all the time.
But it isn't real leather is it Dennis?
Lee
Mark9473
Well-known member
Can you explain what you mean, Lee?
Is this about leather vs real leather vs genuine leather vs natural leather or something like that?
Yes. My wife still has her 1976 Trinovid 8x40s (see pic) and I had 2 Zeiss Dialyts with a similar 'leather' covering. These coverings were very, very thin and do not look like leather, but rather look like some other material that is more durable but has been made to look like leather. Look at the picture and you can see how the paint has worn away around the objectives and hinge, but there is no sign of wear on the 'leather'. It seems likely to me that this is because the material isn't leather at all.
Lee
Attachments
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I have a very early Binuxit circa 1930 and a late Bidoxit circa 1960. The coverings are clearly not leather, but they're not the same either. The Binuxit covering is quite thin and very well preserved for a 90 year old binocular. The only problem is that one seam has lifted a little. I think the 1960 Bidoxit used Gutta-Percha like some early Leica M series cameras. It's thicker and more textured, but Gutta-Percha was notorious for eventually crumbling away. About half was gone when I bought the binocular 20 years ago and now there's only a small area still clinging to the body.
The only genuine leather production binocular I know about was a "ladies" version of the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht, available in ruby or brown as recently as the early 90s.
Henry
The only genuine leather production binocular I know about was a "ladies" version of the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht, available in ruby or brown as recently as the early 90s.
Henry
Last edited:
Do you think Leica would use faux leather on a $1400.00 binocular? It has to be the real thing. It smells like leather. Maybe you are right. It is a new super durable faux leather.
