Hi, this is my first post here and I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I really enjoy using binoculars and am in the lucky position to have a few pairs.
Leitz 10x40 B Trinovid ( Portugal). Leica 8x40 Ultravid non HD. Zeiss 10x40 BGAT and the new FL 8x32 LT zeiss.
The new FLs are really fantastic but took a while to get used to. I wear Zeiss varifocal specs for astigmatism and initially I thought that the FL collimation was out when I viewed through the very top part of my specs. Took me ages to realize that I needed to looks through the sweet spot of my specs to get the best from the FL. and they really are astounding when this is done. Like the other contributor in this thread, I have never seemed to have this problem with the Leica or BGAT. So it does look as though the positioning of the optics relative to the pupils is quite important.
The next surprise is that the BGAT which are the T P still perform superbly and look just as bright as the FL . I am sure that technically the FL will be better, but in reality it is just so difficult to notice much difference. The Leica Ultravids are beautifully made but now feel on the heavy side and don't seem to offer much benefit over the lighter FL Zeiss. When out walking I always take the FL due to its light weight and brilliant close focus. I do not like the way the body seems to rattle if tapped with a finger. I know there is a plastic sealing ring around the central bridge that can rattle, but this is the mechanism inside the bins that appears to make the noise. They certainly dont have the tank like feel of the old BGAT but they are much lighter to use which is good.
As for the old Trinovids. Well they are jus a work of art with their Uppendahl prisms and elegant shape. They are light and still have a crisp image, but there is a faint yellowy cast compared with the others. Does it make a difference. Well in my view (sic) not very much. When perched on a Tripod it is possible to see all the same detail in twilight as with the same magnification BGAT, but not quite as bright. Main downfall is the poor by modern standards close focus.
They are all wonderful binocs and each has a place. The most used pair will undoubtedly be the new FL Zeiss. They really do deliver. As for the Lotutech ( awful name) well it seems to attract dust pretty well and appears not to work brilliantly with light drizzle, but if there is a real downpour then the water does indeed run off. Not that this helps since I cAn not see much through my specs in these conditions Anyway. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the law of diminishing returns is working well and that since the advent of phase coating there is little to choose between al of the top manufacturers. Subtle
differences to be sure, but nothing to stop one enjoying any of these top offerings.
Regards to all
Roger
Leitz 10x40 B Trinovid ( Portugal). Leica 8x40 Ultravid non HD. Zeiss 10x40 BGAT and the new FL 8x32 LT zeiss.
The new FLs are really fantastic but took a while to get used to. I wear Zeiss varifocal specs for astigmatism and initially I thought that the FL collimation was out when I viewed through the very top part of my specs. Took me ages to realize that I needed to looks through the sweet spot of my specs to get the best from the FL. and they really are astounding when this is done. Like the other contributor in this thread, I have never seemed to have this problem with the Leica or BGAT. So it does look as though the positioning of the optics relative to the pupils is quite important.
The next surprise is that the BGAT which are the T P still perform superbly and look just as bright as the FL . I am sure that technically the FL will be better, but in reality it is just so difficult to notice much difference. The Leica Ultravids are beautifully made but now feel on the heavy side and don't seem to offer much benefit over the lighter FL Zeiss. When out walking I always take the FL due to its light weight and brilliant close focus. I do not like the way the body seems to rattle if tapped with a finger. I know there is a plastic sealing ring around the central bridge that can rattle, but this is the mechanism inside the bins that appears to make the noise. They certainly dont have the tank like feel of the old BGAT but they are much lighter to use which is good.
As for the old Trinovids. Well they are jus a work of art with their Uppendahl prisms and elegant shape. They are light and still have a crisp image, but there is a faint yellowy cast compared with the others. Does it make a difference. Well in my view (sic) not very much. When perched on a Tripod it is possible to see all the same detail in twilight as with the same magnification BGAT, but not quite as bright. Main downfall is the poor by modern standards close focus.
They are all wonderful binocs and each has a place. The most used pair will undoubtedly be the new FL Zeiss. They really do deliver. As for the Lotutech ( awful name) well it seems to attract dust pretty well and appears not to work brilliantly with light drizzle, but if there is a real downpour then the water does indeed run off. Not that this helps since I cAn not see much through my specs in these conditions Anyway. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the law of diminishing returns is working well and that since the advent of phase coating there is little to choose between al of the top manufacturers. Subtle
differences to be sure, but nothing to stop one enjoying any of these top offerings.
Regards to all
Roger