Ultravid, EL, HG, SLC (1 Viewer)

I had no idea where to put this post, so I created this thread...

Review of:
Nikon HG 8X42
Swarovski SLC 7X42
Swarovski 8.5 EL
Leica Ultravid 8X42

I went to Cabela's looking for a pair of Zeiss FL's, but they haven't arrived yet. Since I was in the store I decided to put my time to good use comparing some old and new bins.

Cabela's does not sell new Nikon LX/HG models, but they do sell refurbished Nikon's in their Bargain area. I found a slightly used SLC 7X42 and several 8X42 LX/HG to compare.

As many of you know I use and love a Nikon SE 8X32. It isn't perfect, but the SE view has become an old friend. Naturally, I thought a Nikon roof would be the perfect foul-weather complement. Sorry, Nikon, the LX/HG 8X42 doesn't work for me and I am not sure why. The image is bright, clear, etc. but the focus snap I'm looking for fails to materialize in my eyes. I had the SAME difficulty with the 8X32 LX/HG and, again, I have no explanation. Yes, I got the same result with several pair.

I tested the SLC 7X42 side-by-side with the Nikons and, after looking all over the store (it's a really big store with plenty of mounted animals to look at), I concluded that I preferred the SLC. Yes, the SLC is somewhat old, but it's still a killer bin and so easy to use. The SLC snapped into focus every time and it was as comfortable in my hands as any bin I've used. If Swarovski would reduce the 13' close focus to about 9', brighten the optics a tad, and remove some weight, the SLC 7X42 would be a killer woodland birding bin. Come to think of it, it already is.

Next, I went to the optics shop where there are more bins than you can count except, of course, the new FL's! I asked them to put a Leica Ultravid 8X42 (they didn't have a 7X), a new SLC 7X42, and an 8.5 EL on the countertop for comparison. I spent the next hour working these 3 bins over from top to bottom. The SLC lost the brightness battle, so I put it aside and concentrated on the EL and the Ultravid.

Brightness <Virtual tie>
For my eyes, in this cavernous store, looking at every obscure thing I could find the Ultravid seemed brighter by an amount that was so small it was almost impossible to discern. Has anyone compared EL/Ultravid brightness in a more scientific manner?

Sharpness (center and across the field) <Tie>
Equal. Excellent. Superb.
The loss in sharpness across the fields of these bins is meaningless.

Aberrations <Tie>
If you scan across a vertical beam with either of these bins you will see some bowing as the beam approaches the edge. To my eyes it was a bit more extreme in the Ultravid, but the same effect could be replicated in the EL. I performed this test because I scan forests (vertical beams!) and if this is excessive it can be annoying and distracting. In practice, I don't see this aberration as anything to be concerned about. It's on the edges and it's pretty minor.

Diopter (my eyeglasses correct me to 20/20)
As expected, set to almost 0 on both bins.

Handling <Very slight edge to Ultravid>
Ultravid is lighter and handles very well. I ignored the EL's thumb things and just grabbed it and got comfortable. I could not use the EL the way it was designed but, as I said, I just got comfortable with it!

CA
I really could not measure this, nor is it usually a problem for me.

Focus <EL wins>
Why Leica puts a notch, ratchety, sticky, call-it-what-you-will focus on such a bin is beyond me. It was not silky smooth, it irritated me, at times I felt like I had to overcome a lot of inertia to get it going, etc. You've read the comments before. Maybe it smoothes out over time; I don't know.

The EL focus is something else. I don't know if this is a revised version or not because I have little experience with any older EL model. In any case, I found the focus to be exactly what I like...smoooooth and very precise like the Nikon SE. In contrast, I find the Nikon HG/LX much too fast and finicky. The stickiness of the Leica makes it feel like there are hundreds of preset positions and you're just clicking into them one after another as you adjust the focus.

As I write this, I realize that smooth and precise focus control is so important to me that it may be one of those characteristics that's a deal breaker, or maker for that matter!

Build Quality <EL wins>
There's something about the EL that says "I'm made to last a lifetime". I'll bet the Leica will last forever too, but it didn't speak to me the way the EL did. I'm not happy with the exposure of the focus knobs on either of these bins and I wonder what happens when you drop the bin and it lands directly on the knob? I suppose they are both well protected against the elements. Any thoughts on which model is more rugged?

Conclusions: EL 8.5/42 vs. Ultravid 8X42
Optical tie, EL wins on focus control, Ultravid has slight edge on weight and handling.

If I HAD to buy one of these today I'd go with the EL because I could not, in any way, fault its ergonomics. Optically the two were so close I don't think I would notice a difference.

Any and all comments will be appreciated. Soon, I hope to be able to do a side-by-side comparison with an FL.

John

First off, nice review. Just yesterday it was announced that Cabelas is building a store approximately 10 minutes from my home here in Utah. Needless to say, I'm very excited. Their prices aren't always the best, but their customer service is second to none. Anyway, I'm curious to know how much they were asking for the refurbished Venturer/LX's?

I have no experience with the Leica Ultravids or Zeiss FL's, and have only limited experience with the Swarovski EL's. I have owned Zeiss 10x40 ClassiC's, Leica 10x42 BN's and 8x42 BA's, and currently own two pairs of the Venturer/LX's, which IMHO, are the very best binoculars made. I'm sure you've probably seen my posts promoting the refurbished Nikons from Ewins.com at less than $450.00 shipped, which makes a great binocular even that much better.

I don't doubt for a minute that the Swarovski's, Leica Ultravids and the Zeiss FL's are great binos, but for me, it's an easy choice to make when they're almost three times as much money as the Nikon's. The only complaint I have with the Nikons is their weight, but it appears that is soon to be resolved with the release of the HGL's.

Buster--

Cabela's is a mixed blessing: With it will come jobs, development, traffic, etc.,etc. It's greatly transformed the Dundee, MI area, and not for the better.

By the way, I have Swaro EL's and have always liked the fine focus, although some reviewers--including the influencial site Better View Desired--have excoriated it.

Bill

Update

Yesterday I compared/contrasted
Leica: Ultravid 8X42, 8X42 BN, 7X42 BN
Swarovski EL 8.5/42, SLC 7X42, EL 8X32
Nikon: Two refurbished 8X42 HG/LX

Nikon 8X42 HG/LX (heavy model)

Let's start with the Nikon's. I finally found a way to pick this bin up and get a decent sight picture without a lot of hassle. The image is very sharp and clear across the field but I think the FOV is on the short side compared to what I see in other bins. I'll say more about FOV in a moment. The weight also produces handshake for me, so maybe the HGL's would impress me more.

I did notice that the focus on the two refurbished HG's I tried today were very different. One was seemingly slow and precise like the EL; the other was sloppy and fast. I looked at different bins the last time I was in the store, and my conclusion is that all the bins I tested varied considerably in the feel and response of the focus wheel. When I see things like this, in this day and age of precise engineering, I seriously wonder what's going on in the factories. My last question is why are there so many refurbished Nikons out there? I will try to get my hands on an HGL before I eliminate the Nikon from my short list.


Swarovski EL 8.5/42
With 18mm of eye relief (and I don't care how it's measured on the EL) I adjust the IPD, put them near/on my eyeglasses and just say WOW. I see as much of the FOV as I think there is, the picture is flat, sharp to the edges, and everything just looks subjectively superb. As I said before I can produce some bending of a vertical beam at the edges but I can also do that with the Ultravid. With my SE 8X32 it's REALLY hard to do so, again, I wonder why roofs have this and my porro doesn't. HOWEVER, I didn't notice it affecting my subjective use of the EL at all.

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me. I'm sure it's not the 8.5 magnification, but rather the extra weight and length of the EL. I hold my bins close to the eyepiece and I think there's just too much EL hanging out there. The 8X42 Ultravid (shorter, lighter) was sooooo much easier to hold steady. Has anyone else experienced this with the EL?

Swarovski EL 8X32
Not enough eye relief so we did not get along well together. Whoever gets this size/weight/eye relief/FOV combination perfected will make binocular history. This bin was absolutely a gem to hold in my hand!

Leica Ultravid 8X42
Optics virtually equal to the EL 8.5. One minute my wife and I preferred the EL, the next minute it was the Ultravid. This went back and forth until we concluded that ergonomics was the relevant issue, not optics. I tried, successfully, to ignore the focus wheel stickiness and just let my fingers do the talking. Guess what? It worked. Point, focus, and look. I saw what I wanted to see with minimal effort, so I'm eliminating the focus wheel issue as an area of concern.

I wish the 8X42 had just a bit more eye relief because I know I'm missing that level of viewing comfort I see in the 42mm EL. I could live with the 8X42 but I don't think I will.

Leica BN 8X42
Guess what. Side-by-side, looking into very dark areas at least a hundred feet distant, the BN view was so close to the Ultravid I could not believe my eyes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember the Ultravid having much better edge sharpness. I failed to carefully note this when I compared them, though I do know the BN isn't so hot on the edges! The BN is a tad heavy but it's built like a battleship so I think it will maintain a place in the market.

Leica BN 7X42, Swarovski SLC 7X42, and the Ultravid 7X42
First, let me say an Ultravid 7X42 was not available for testing. My wife and I looked at the BN 7X42 along with the 7X42 SLC.

Just for fun, I handed my wife the heavy SLC 7X42. I thought she'd laugh and immediately hand them back due to their 33-ounce weight. Instead, she adjusted the IPD and started looking through them! She remarked how wonderful the view was and how comfortable they were in her hands. I was completely stunned until I realized that my reaction to the 7X42 SLC had been exactly the same. Let's move on and see why a petite woman immediately liked a 33 ounce bin, though she did admit she probably wouldn't carry them very far.

After the SLC, I asked for the 7X42 BN. I loved the 7X42 view the first time I saw it and I loved it this time around. The sensation reminded me of looking through the picture window in the lodge at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The SLC 7X42 produced exactly the same sense of openness and grandeur as the BN. I finally realized that I don't want my bin to be a telescope; I want it to be a crystal clear window that I can stand at hour after hour in total amazement. I find the stability of 7x power coupled with a wide FOV very, very seductive. My wife also thought the view was better through the 7X bins.

I'm becoming a big fan of lower power bins. I think they ease the eye/brain workload and that, for me, adds up to a lot more enjoyment. I've also learned that my "opinion" about a particular bin is purely subjective and that everyone has to decide for themselves which bin will make them happy. We've heard this admonition countless times because it's true. I wish I could rent/borrow, etc. a few of the bins I'm considering so I could carry them in the field for a few days. Now that would be the way to evaluate a binocular!

I have yet to see the FL's, so my search continues. If anyone has compared 7X's recently, I'd love to hear from you.

John

John Traynor said:

Swarovski EL 8.5/42
... As I said before I can produce some bending of a vertical beam at the edges but I can also do that with the Ultravid. With my SE 8X32 it's REALLY hard to do so, again, I wonder why roofs have this and my porro doesn't. HOWEVER, I didn't notice it affecting my subjective use of the EL at all.

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me. I'm sure it's not the 8.5 magnification, but rather the extra weight and length of the EL. I hold my bins close to the eyepiece and I think there's just too much EL hanging out there.

Click to expand...

John,

Excellent reviews! Two things you will probably notice about the 8X42 FL's when you do see them are even more of the pin-cushion distortion you noticed on the edge of the EL, and an overall length which exactly matches the 8.5X42 EL, but with a little less weight. I think the pin-cushion distortion comes from the eyepieces rather than the prisms. I have many old porros which show either pin-cushion or barrel distortion. The only binocular I own which has lower edge distortion than the SE is a Fujinon 8X30 FMT-SX which has virtually none.

Henry

John Traynor said:

Brightness <Virtual tie>
For my eyes, in this cavernous store, looking at every obscure thing I could find the Ultravid seemed brighter by an amount that was so small it was almost impossible to discern. Has anyone compared EL/Ultravid brightness in a more scientific manner?

John

Click to expand...

Light transmission figures that I have seen are
Swarovski 8.5x EL
Daylight 84.0%
Night 82.7%

Leica 8x42 Ultravid
Daylight 89.0%
Night 86.8%

henry link said:

John,

Excellent reviews! Two things you will probably notice about the FL's when you do see them are even more of the pin-cushion distortion you noticed on the edge of the EL, and an overall length which exactly matches the EL. I think the pin-cushion distortion comes from the eyepieces rather than the prisms. I have many old porros which show either pin-cushion or barrel distortion. The only binocular I own which has lower edge distortion than the SE is a Fujinon 8X30 FMT-SX which has virtually none.

Henry

Click to expand...

BTW when I compared 10x42 of Zeiss FL, Swaro EL and Leica Ultravid pincushion distortion was least with the Zeiss FL. This distorsions were only visible in the very outer range of fov.


Steve

John Traynor said:

Swarovski EL 8.5/42

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me.

John

Click to expand...

John: As you know I own a Nikon 8x32 SE and a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. The latter is easier to hold IMO. However, the trick is to hold the binocular by placing the left hand such that the palm faces to the right, the thumb is beneath the left hand eye piece, and the two fingers furthest from the thumb support the left hand objective, with the other two fingers resting on top, and thus acting as a clamp. Sounds a bit odd but it works. I do the same with the right hand when I need to get extra stability and can do without the focus. There are several other methods of getting a more stable view but I prefer the above one.

John Traynor said:

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me. I'm sure it's not the 8.5 magnification, but rather the extra weight and length of the EL. I hold my bins close to the eyepiece and I think there's just too much EL hanging out there. The 8X42 Ultravid (shorter, lighter) was sooooo much easier to hold steady. Has anyone else experienced this with the EL?

Click to expand...

I realize that this is a matter of habit -- you grab your binoculars and start looking without analyzing where you put your hands -- but I hold my binoculars with my left hand forward, near the objectives, and the right hand further back to manage the focus. When I've tried the EL, I had no particular problem holding them steadily.

"My last question is why are there so many refurbished Nikons out there?"

John,

Before purchasing my "refurbished" Nikon Venturer/LX's from Ewins.com, I spoke to a Nikon rep on the phone. I asked about their origin and if the lifetime "no fault" warranty applied to refurbs. I was told they carry the same warranty after the initial 90 day period as any other Nikon binocular, and was told the refurbs are mostly salesman samples/demos, not binoculars that have been sent in for repair or replacement. Take it for what it's worth, but that's what I was told. I can attest that the pair I received did not have a mark on them anywhere that would allow you to distinguish them from a new pair.

Anyway, I don't believe there are any more "refurbished" Nikon's on the market than there are Leica "demos". Just about every online Leica dealer will offer demos at a reduced price and with slightly different warranty coverage than those purchased "new". I believe it's 30 years instead of "lifetime".

Not sure why, but I've never seen a "refurbished" or "demo" Swarovski for sale.

John Traynor said:

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me. I'm sure it's not the 8.5 magnification, but rather the extra weight and length of the EL. I hold my bins close to the eyepiece and I think there's just too much EL hanging out there. The 8X42 Ultravid (shorter, lighter) was sooooo much easier to hold steady. Has anyone else experienced this with the EL?

Click to expand...

This was my experience also. I believe it was the distance from the eyepiece to the focus wheel that bothered me most. I like to keep my hands braced against my face. Having small hands doesn't help. The old Zeiss 7x42s were long, but I didn't really notice it while using them. From the photos of the FLs I'm afraid I will have the same issue as with the ELs.

Bill Atwood said:

This was my experience also. I believe it was the distance from the eyepiece to the focus wheel that bothered me most. I like to keep my hands braced against my face. Having small hands doesn't help. The old Zeiss 7x42s were long, but I didn't really notice it while using them. From the photos of the FLs I'm afraid I will have the same issue as with the ELs.

Click to expand...

Size is one of the reasons I liked the Ultravid. I never press a bin tight against my eyeglasses because I don't want scratches AND I find it rather uncomfortable having my eyeglasses pressed against my face.

I'm sure I could get the EL stabilized one way or another. The instant WOW factor of the EL makes it very enticing.

John

Bill Atwood said:

This was my experience also. I believe it was the distance from the eyepiece to the focus wheel that bothered me most. I like to keep my hands braced against my face. Having small hands doesn't help. The old Zeiss 7x42s were long, but I didn't really notice it while using them. From the photos of the FLs I'm afraid I will have the same issue as with the ELs.

Click to expand...

I also have small hands, but I don't brace my hands against my face -- not sure how I would do it, in fact, especially since I wear glasses. I've been very comfortable with the FL. However, the Ultravid would have worked for me also, since their size and shape are very similar to my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class. I'm talking about the 8x42 models in all cases.

Where do demonstation models go?

Buster said:

"My last question is why are there so many refurbished Nikons out there?"


Anyway, I don't believe there are any more "refurbished" Nikon's on the market than there are Leica "demos". Just about every online Leica dealer will offer demos at a reduced price and with slightly different warranty coverage than those purchased "new". I believe it's 30 years instead of "lifetime".

Click to expand...

Buster,

I have bought three Leica demonstration models from three different vendors in New York City. One of the vendors informed me that his were used by Leica representatives at shows for hunters. They came with one year warrantees, not the three year "no fault" guarantee, and a 30 year warrantee of construction and material. These binoculars were provided with a special blue registration card.
A salesman at another large shop told me that Nikon collected the worn demonstation binoculars, but he had no idea what became of them. Now we know.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:

henry link said:

John,

The only binocular I own which has lower edge distortion than the SE is a Fujinon 8X30 FMT-SX which has virtually none.

Henry

Click to expand...

Henry
Out of curiousity what do you think of your fujinon 8x30? You don't really hear much about them, I know they are individual focus type eyepieces.

jad29 said:

Henry
Out of curiousity what do you think of your fujinon 8x30? You don't really hear much about them, I know they are individual focus type eyepieces.

Click to expand...

Try here for an excellent review:

http://de.geocities.com/holger_merlitz/

Leif

John Traynor said:

Here's my problem with the EL. I simply cannot, with my limited EL experience, hold the EL dead steady. There's a bit of shake and, for now, it bothers me. I'm sure it's not the 8.5 magnification, but rather the extra weight and length of the EL. I hold my bins close to the eyepiece and I think there's just too much EL hanging out there. The 8X42 Ultravid (shorter, lighter) was sooooo much easier to hold steady. Has anyone else experienced this with the EL?

Click to expand...

John,

I have the same troubles to hold EL binos steady. While holding them feels very good and ergonomic in the hands the image is always shaky especially with the 10x42 of course. I guess that the reason for that problem could be the different kind muscles of forearms are adjusted when holding an El: it´s a bit like doing a fist. I found that holding the El in a conventional way, laterally with prolated fingers reduces the shaking.

Steve

You wrote:
"I'm becoming a big fan of lower power bins. I think they ease the eye/brain workload and that, for me, adds up to a lot more enjoyment."

As I recall, you purchased a pair of Eagle Optics 6x32 binoculars. In light of your observation above, would you please discuss your experiences with these, too?

Thanks.

jad29 said:

Henry
Out of curiousity what do you think of your fujinon 8x30? You don't really hear much about them, I know they are individual focus type eyepieces.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything in Dr. Merlitz review, but would add that they have very poorly designed eyecups. For me the eyecups are too long and too narrow when extended for comfortable viewing without glasses, and they waste eye relief when rolled down because there is an 8mm recess between the rim and the glass. I use them rolled down without glasses. Even with the 17mm eye relief I doubt that most eyeglass wearers could see the whole field because of the deep recess.

kauai215 said:

You wrote:
"I'm becoming a big fan of lower power bins. I think they ease the eye/brain workload and that, for me, adds up to a lot more enjoyment."

As I recall, you purchased a pair of Eagle Optics 6x32 binoculars. In light of your observation above, would you please discuss your experiences with these, too?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Here's my first review of the EO 6X32 from rec.birds
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=1

Here's a comment I made later on and 2 links at the bottom with good insights on low-power bins.
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=5

Let me update my opinion on the EO 6X32.

The center resolution of the 6X32 is amazing and you will see a lot of detail you would not expect to see in a $350 binocular. Color, contrast, etc. are very good. It's not at the premium level, but neither is the price. Handling, build quality, weight, etc. are all excellent. Here are the problems I have with the EO.

My IPD is 57mm and the EO is 58mm. I can use the 6X32 effectively for average periods of time, but I wish the IPD would go lower. The close focus of 3' is meaningless for me because I can't close the bin up at all to compensate for parallax or variations in lens sharpness.

Lens sharpness across the field and pincushion are my main difficulties. For long distance viewing things look very, very good...down the center. When the target is closer, as it often is in my wooded surroundings, problems develop. I think they pushed the FOV (409') too far and that introduced excessive distortion. You have to look for it to see it but I know the eye sees everything and, during long-term use, it affects the view.

In general, based on a lot of testing, I find the 6X32 to be very useful in open areas. The other day it was partly sunny and I caught 3 Kestrels perched on three pines bordering an open field. Perfect situation! Through the SE's the views were, as expected, excellent. I pulled out the 6X32 and was surprised how good the view was. Plenty of detail, great color, just a little smaller. For general viewing (scenery, animals, houses, planes, from a boat, etc.) these are excellent bins and you would probably enjoy them a lot. Everyone I loan them to enjoys them.

Summary:
My wife tells me she will gladly use the 6X32 on rainy days, so it's not going anywhere. She understands what I'm talking about, she sees it, but she adds that it's not a big problem for her. They are used daily for quick views from the window (through glass and screening), and I like them when I use them. For detailed viewing in the areas I frequent, I want a more precise instrument.

John

PS
Let me add one comment on field sharpness in respect to the discussion on the FL thread. The EO 6X32 convinced me of the need for uniform sharpness across the field of view, and here's why. Sometimes a bird occupies a large portion of my FOV. A group of birds often exceed the FOV. So, when I hear someone say that a very high degree of sharpness ACROSS the field isn't that important because they put the bird in the "center" where it's sharp, I have to laugh. When the bird occupies a large percentage of the FOV, our definitions of "center" are dramatically different. Yesterday, I was viewing a lovely Wood Thrush perched on a branch when another suddenly arrived. Side-by-side the pair almost filled my FOV. With the sharp field of the SE, they were truly beautiful to watch.