New Retrovid 7x35 (1 Viewer)

[takitam]

I have looked through these bins extensively and I like them quite a lot. I know it's an old design and one shouldn't expect 'alpha' like performance but IMO they should be pretty close. After all, they are not much cheaper than Ultravid HD and one would assume that the lower cost is due to lack of waterproofing and simpler eyepiece, not poorer optical quality.

I have read a lot of reviews and some people say that they are as sharp (or even slightly sharper) in the middle than Ultravid HD+ 7x42. My impression of them is that the sharpness is very slightly lacking. I don't know if it's sample variance of if it's simply how these bins are. I have compared them with Canon IS 10x42 which are a bit sharper and satisfactory to me. Is it possible that this sample is on the lower end of factory standards or is it just the norm?

These are very good bins and offer a great relaxing view, it's only the central sharpness that bothers me a bit. CA is there but it's tolerable, even for me. I also found it surprising that I don't notice any improvement in stability of a 7x mag compared to 8x.

Btw. does anyone know whether they have silver or dielectric prism coatings? It's strange that Leica only mentions modern multicoating but there is nothing about 'ED' glass or prism coatings so you would assume they wanted to save money there...

Last but not least. The sample I tested exhibited a little rattle inside when shaken close to your ear. Is that a normal thing? Another issue (which doesn't seem to affect the view) is that in the right barrel, when you look into it from the objective, there is some protruding piece that very slightly cuts into the oval of the view. It gets more prominent when you look at it from a slight angle. It is not visible in the left barrel.

 

[gweller]

......Last but not least. The sample I tested exhibited a little rattle inside when shaken close to your ear. Is that a normal thing? Another issue (which doesn't seem to affect the view) is that in the right barrel, when you look into it from the objective, there is some protruding piece that very slightly cuts into the oval of the view. It gets more prominent when you look at it from a slight angle. It is not visible in the left barrel.

Mine certainly do not rattle at all when you shake them! From what you say about the protruding piece in the right barrel makes me wonder if a light baffle has come loose or something internally?? I would take them back and get them looked at under the guarantee if I was you!

 

[takitam]

Mine certainly do not rattle at all when you shake them! From what you say about the protruding piece in the right barrel makes me wonder if a light baffle has come loose or something internally?? I would take them back and get them looked at under the guarantee if I was you!

Thanks for the input. It looks like the protruding part is actually behind the baffle. I tried to see if it shows in the exit pupil but I couldn't notice. But these two things are a bit worrying. The bino seems properly collimated and offers a relaxing view. It's only the sharpness that could be a bit better imo. And these two issues I mentioned. I'm really interested in what others can say about the sharpness.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Thanks for the input. It looks like the protruding part is actually behind the baffle. I tried to see if it shows in the exit pupil but I couldn't notice. But these two things are a bit worrying. The bino seems properly collimated and offers a relaxing view. It's only the sharpness that could be a bit better imo. And these two issues I mentioned. I'm really interested in what others can say about the sharpness.

I own and use 7x35’s a lot. I also have late 2021 UV 8x42’s as well as new 8x40’s. I find the retros equal to the UVs and all three (purchased new) are mechanically flawless.
The 8x40s are for sale but unless they move soon ill keep them. I actually prefer the retro ergos… the 7x35 are easily my
Favorite bins.

 

[Paultricounty]

I have to agree with middleriver. I have 735 retro , 832 UVHD+, 742 UVHD+ and all three are almost indistinguishable on sharpness on axis. There is no rattle whatsoever with my retros and they are built like jewelry. If your finding your Canon IS 10x42 are sharper than a Leica Trinovid/retro, you have an issue there.

Paul

 

[Swedpat]

I like the clean look, size and weight of this model. But according to the following review it's claimed to be dimmer as well day and night than Swarovski Habicht 10x40. It's not strange that it's dimmer at day than the Habicht due to Habicht's wellknown high light transmission. But in order to be dimmer even at night it requires that the light transmission is very low. And it requires A LOT for the Habicht to weigh up for 25% wider exit pupil which theoretically provides 56,25% higher brightness.

Does the Retrovid really has THAT bad light transmission, or does the reviewer's max dilated eye pupil not reach 5mm? Or a combination?

Leica Trinovid 7x35 ('Retrovid') Review

scopeviews.co.uk

 

[Swedpat]

By the way: I found Yarrellii's review here on Birdforum where he says about Retrovid 7x35 compared to Swarovski 8x32 EL SV:

"Brightness is very similar, maybe the ELSV give a sensation of being brighter because of the colour balance (as I explained earlier), but at night, looking for objects in the shadows the Leicas have a clear edge...".

So here we have two contradictory statements.
I draw the conclusion that Scopeviews reviewer could not make use of the 5mm exit pupil of Retrovid...

Leica Retrovid 7x35 vs Swarovski 8x32 EL SV

Leica Trinovid 7x35 2019 (Retrovid) First impressions. My initial idea was to post this as an answer to another two threads about the 7x35 Retrovid being a viable everyday birding binocular and also about the possibility of the Retrovid replacing a top 8x32, which in my case is the Swarovski EL...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Swedpat, post 206 and 207,
I can add another contradictory observation to the sources you quote, see also our test of th Retrovid 7x35 on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor: we measured light transmission values for the 7x35 Retrovid of 90% at 500nm and 92% at 550 nm. That is, at 550 nm, 4% lower than the Swarovski Habicht 8x30. That diffference can be observed but is so small that the conclusion that the Retrovid is much darker than the Habicht is not supported by our data..
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

In addition to my post 208: the Habicht 10x40 binocular has an exit pupil of 4 mm, whereas the 7x35 Retrovid has 5mm exit pupil. However, the Habichts have high transmission values in the blue spectral region of 94-95% and that could cancel out the somewhat lower light transmission of the 7x35 Retrovid in that spectral region. Alltogether theoretically there should not or hardly be any brightness difference between both binoculars.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[takitam]

I have to agree with middleriver. I have 735 retro , 832 UVHD+, 742 UVHD+ and all three are almost indistinguishable on sharpness on axis. There is no rattle whatsoever with my retros and they are built like jewelry. If your finding your Canon IS 10x42 are sharper than a Leica Trinovid/retro, you have an issue there.

Paul

The Canons are a very sharp bin so no shame for Leica to lose here. This lower perceived sharpness is more of a feeling than something I can measure but it is there. I also cant tell if this is because of Canon's superior edge sharpness that influences the view. Not to mention the difference in magnification. I'm talking about very slight differences in how my eyes perceive things when looking through bins. The Leicas are still very good and I enjoy them. I simply expected a little bit more.

 

[Swedpat]

In addition to my post 208: the Habicht 10x40 binocular has an exit pupil of 4 mm, whereas the 7x35 Retrovid has 5mm exit pupil. However, the Habichts have high transmission values in the blue spectral region of 94-95% and that could cancel out the somewhat lower light transmission of the 7x35 Retrovid in that spectral region. Alltogether theoretically there should not or hardly be any brightness difference between both binoculars.
Gijs van Ginkel

I understand this can be a bit complicated when the transmission varies between different wavelengths and our eyes sensibility differs depending to the wavelengths. There are examples when 1-2% difference of stated light transmission is detectable for the eye while it hardly should be. Therefore one think that a difference between 4 and 5mm exit pupil should always be noticeable in the favor to the 5mm, even if comparing optics with 80 vs 95% transmission. Theoretically 5mm exit pupil with 60,8% light transmission is as bright as 4mm with 95% light transmission. It will be a large loss of contrast, though.
Here I draw the conclusion that the stated light transmission should be taken with a pinch of salt, because it not always tell the truth about the real viewing experience.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Swedpat, post 211,
I think you should inform the binocular makers that their measured transmission spectra (their basis for determining the color cast as well as brightness) can be thrown in the dustbin, you will become immensely popular because it saves them a lot of work and study and we can finally retire.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Swedpat]

Gijs,
Did I say anything wrong there? I just mean that it can appear strange that in some cases a 1-2% difference of light transmission can be perceived as clearly noticeable with same exit pupil size, while in other cases more than 50% larger exit pupil area cannot weigh over a few percent lower light transmission.

So, this means obviously the stated values of light transmission between different models are not always comparable in practise. Which you also confirmed.
That is what I mean.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Swedpat, post 213,
You did nothing wrong I understand what you mean and I agree with your post.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Swedpat]

Swedpat, post 213,
You did nothing wrong I understand what you mean and I agree with your post.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thank you. I like the size and weight of this 7x35.
It's slim and significantly more compact than typical 42mm models. Something like a larger version of a 25mm pocket modell.
Only thing which needs to be tried out is the useful eye relief with eyeglasses.

 

[lmans66]

The retro's are my 'go to' binocular...my everyday...my everything at the moment. The others just sit on the shelf. I really enjoy the compactness of these. For the past few years I have been on a search for the perfect 8x32 or 8x30.... Well, I think I found them in the 7x35's. No rattle what-so-ever, ultra-vid like sharpness, less expensive, compact, I don't wear glasses so can't speak to eye relief in that respect.

The only thing I have found negative is that when I put them in the case with the eye-cups extended, they don't stay extended. But when in the field, I have never had the eye-cups fold collapse on me. At first I thought the focus wheel might be slow given the retro-ness of the binocular and while not super fast focus, they are just fine. Let's put it this way, they are faster than the Swaro CL and surely the 'oldie but goodie' Zeiss Dialyt. In terms of sharpness, while I don't have with me to compare them to the Ultravid, I know they 'pop'...and remind me in that sense of the Zeiss Dialyt. Light wise, I feel they are better than average although not nearly like my 10x42 HT's but heck, what is.... .

 

[Brummie]

For me, the 7x35 Retrovid is simply the most compact binocular that is really a joy to use.

Yes, many x32 models are shorter, but they're also chunkier, and often have eye placement issues (as well as not being as good in low light).

The slimness and stylishness (at least to me and a couple of other optics weirdos) of the 7x35 means I'll carry them places I wouldn't carry other mid-sized bins.

 

[Swedpat]

What I understand is that this model has not the water resistens as the most other roofs today.
You should not put it under water or clean it under running water, right?

 

[dorubird]

For me it matters less that I can't immerse the bino in water or clean it under running water. I didn't do that anyway and I don't use binoculars often in the rain. But what matters more is that it has no fogging resistance because it is not filled with nitrogen...Over time, dust can enter inside much faster than in a sealed models. That's why I take out my porro binoculars without water resistens, from time to time in a sun so that no moisture or fungus accumulates inside.

 

[gweller]

For me it matters less that I can't immerse the bino in water or clean it under running water. I didn't do that anyway and I don't use binoculars often in the rain. But what matters more is that it has no fogging resistance because it is not filled with nitrogen...Over time, dust can enter inside much faster than in a sealed models. That's why I take out my porro binoculars without water resistens, from time to time in a sun so that no moisture or fungus accumulates inside.

That's true, but the 7x35 is very well built and unlike Porros has no external moving lens elements that will suck dust into the body.