• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Leica Ultravids (thread contains a variety of topics, optic reviews & other binos) (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have just purchased the ultravid 10x42 after testing quite a few at the BBF at rutland. They seem great for those who wear glasses and the balance, as already noted, is superb. The 10x42,as the EL 10x42s are lighter than the 8x42 (can anyone explain this?)

I have not managed to get a true feel of them yet due to time limiting factors but so far so damn good.

What was really surprising was the fact that it came with a decent strap!!!! Will wonders ever cease.
 
Beware bird magazine binocular reviews, Birdwatching is very Leica biased, while Birdwatch are in love with Swarovski. Birdwatching is anti-Nikon. Last year they recommended a compact binocular which when I tried it, I found it suffered badly from flare. Try them all yourself and buy what suits you.
 
William

I could not agree more about trying your own and finding what suits you best. In the past I have made the mistake of not trying Binoculars for myself and they have not suited me personally.

I do find it beneficial to take on board peoples opinions and comment but you do need to suck it and see for yourself.

Regards the magazine bias I am not sure the mags have gone out of there way to like/dislike a particular brand. I only say this as at the end of the day they are tested by real people who have opinions just like the rest of us. I seem to get on better with Leica optics more than with Swarovski (bins and scopes).
 
Everybody seems to be ignoring the Zeiss Victory II's. IMO they're as good, if not better, than any other glass on the market. Make sure you include them in your trials.
 
I thoroughly agree with William Clive regarding the importance of trying out binoculars for yourself. I had a good shifty at the new Leica 8x42s and compared them with the Swarovski 8.5x42s and the Swarovski & Leica 8x32s. The Leica Ultravids were undeniably more contrasty, perhaps a shade sharper, a little brighter and had a more yellow bias (presumably an advantage in low light) than the Swarovskis 42mm. On the other hand in some ways the bluish bias of the Swarovskis was more restful on the eye and the very ergonomic design, allowing a grippy, steady one handed use balanced these ‘disadvantages’ out. All these differences, though, could only really be told in a direct comparison so it’s a very close call between the two. It was similarly very close between the two 32mm instruments – I thought the Leicas just shaded out the Swarovskis, but it was very close. It was closer still between Swarovoski’s 8.5x42 and 8X32s; marginally better brightness and magnification against smaller, more handy size and the walk in 8º view of the 32mm glasses. Personally, I could see very little difference, other than a little more brightness, between the Leica Trinovids 8x32s and the Ultravids 8x42s. However, despite the greater weight, the Ultravids were far more comfortable in the hand than even the 8x32 Trinovids (let alone those awful 42mm glasses!). So a final choice rests on the balance you put on these various considerations in the context of your birding style.

However, I think William Clive is being a tad unfair to ‘Birdwatching and ‘Birdwatch’ in his proposition that they are unduly biased towards or against certain makes. As far as binoculars are concerned I think the charge of bias against Nikons is unfounded. The last round up in ‘Birdwatching’ (2002) gave the following scores for 8x42s:
Leica - Design & Build 9, Optical performance 9.5, Ease of Use 9.5 and Value for money 9.5
Nikon – Design & Build 9.5, Optical performance 9.5, Ease of Use 9 and Value for Money 9
Given that at the time the Nikons were nearly £300 more expensive than the Leicas on can hardly cavil the extra .5 given to the Leicas. OK, the extra .5 for the Leica’s ‘Ease of Use’ is questionable, but arguably justifiable by the greater weight of the Nikons and hardly evidence of any great bias. Nor can I detect any real bias with regard Nikon/Leica ‘scopes. If there is a bias in top roof prism bins, then I think it is against the Zeiss Victory 42mm which are given a somewhat niggardly score. On the other hand I think ‘Birdwatching’ does a very good job in bringing to the fore the excellence of various other makes outside the ‘elite’. It certainly does a good job in highlighting the superb value for money of the RSPB’s range of porro and roof prism binoculars. (At which point I should declare an interest in that I work part time for the society, but was of the same opinion before being so employed).

I do think ‘Birdwatch’ could do better is in being more up front with regard to the close link between one of their reviewers and Leica, but I don’t think the charge of bias really sticks. I haven’t got such easy access to details vis a vis ‘Birdwatch’s attitude towards Swaroski and the rest, but I don’t recall any exaggerated bias. Neither do I think we can read too much into a one off disappointment – individual bins/scopes are notoriously variable and it’s always wise, where possible, to compare a range of the same instruments to get the absolute best.

If there is bias in these magazines it is more a matter of downgrading the excellence of some very good porro instruments. This is indicated by the unfortunate absence of either Nikon SEs or Audubon 8.5x44s in the ‘Birdwatching’ review. All things considered, however, I think magazine reviews help us distinguish between sheep and goats even if the final choice has to be our own.

John Cantelo
 
gorank said:
No, I haven't seen any reviews on the 50mm models yet. But check out this page regularly: http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/kikkerttest.htm
There are loads of reviews of binoculars to check out there..and I guess all the new Leicas will be reviewed as soon as they are common in the stores here in Scandinavia..at this time, they are very difficult to get hold of...
I was really about to send you a message saying what Chas Zoss. Is that kikkertspesialisten.no site in ENGLISH anywhere? I really love to spend a lot of time looking through it.
 
John.
I believe that a yellow bias does not give an advantage in low light, this surely would be if it had a blue bias, as the human eye is sensitive to blue light in low light conditions.

I agree with you about the Zeiss especially optically (not sure about the feel), but I was shown (by the people on the Zeiss stand) at this years BBWF the light path through their prism system. The Zeiss roof prism does not contain a mirror which means less light is lost when passing through the prism (perhaps someone from Zeiss could confirm). I think they also said that you do not notice the difference in day, only when the light begins to fade.
 
A bit off topic, but I'm willing to concede to CDK that the human eye may well be more sensitive to blue light. However, my undertsanding is that since the extra thickness of air light passes through at low angles filters out blue light - hence it looks yellowish evening & morning - a bias towards that end of the spextrum is advantageous at these times. Certainly it's my recollection when looking through various optics at this time that a greenish/yellowish bias aids brightness.

Incidentally although I too would love to see that Norwegian site in English, it isn't too hard to work out the meanings of the various column headings & get the gist of them! John
John
 
For and Against

Bins; Nikon 10X. Optically excellent. Chiropractors dream. Great bins for those with a very strong neck. Try wearing them in the tropics for days on end with just a t-shirt for padding!

Zeiss Victory10X. Optically excellent. Again great bins if you like focussing every milli second!

Rave reviews for the new Leica's everywhere. ;)

ME. I'll just stick with my faithful 21 year old friend the Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 bt* still brilliant even though showing the signs of old age.......yeah I know they are pretty heavy too. Just can't bear to part from them.

John B.
 
Last edited:
This is my first posting to this forum. Let me preface my comments on the Ultravid by saying that I favor 7x or 8x binoculars over 10x. For whatever reason--be it improved steadiness of the image or not--I get more information out of good 7x or 8x binoculars than comparable 10x binos. More than three years ago, after trying all of the high-end binoculars, I purchased my first “serious” birding binoculars--Nikon Superior E 8x32. I have used them heavily since then. I also often use Leica 8x20, especially when my purpose is hiking/walking rather than birding, and these are truly little miracles. And I own Swarovski Classic (porro-prism) 10x40 WM, which I enjoy but do not favor over the others. Since buying the SE I have been looking for a world-class, waterproof and fogproof, roof-prism bino with pop-up or twist-up eyecups that weighs less than 30 ounces and has great ergonomics. This was obviously a difficult assignment.

While traveling on business, I have visited retailers all over the US to handle binoculars and have also had opportunities to try them in the field while birding with other folks. When I finally purchased the SE, I had the opportunity in the store to compare it side-by-side with almost all of the other leading binoculars, and after two hours my last two choices were the SE and the Nikon Venturer LX (known to many of you as the HG). I have since had other opportunities to use the Venturer LX. In the end I did not consider Zeiss ClassiC 7x42, for reasons stated below. More recently I dismissed the Zeiss Victory, because the original model was disappointing on a number of fronts. I admit that I have not handled the improved Zeiss Victory II.

The Venturer LX has superb ergonomics, but I find them heavy and their field of view a bit narrow. Although few people believe it from their appearance, the Nikon SE also has great ergonomics. Importantly though, the Venturer 8x42 is obviously brighter than the SE 8x32. Imagine my surprise when I compared the SE side-by-side for an extended period to the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL, only to conclude that the Swarovski was barely brighter than the little Nikon, if at all. I thought it was my imagination until Stephen Ingraham (Better View Desired) drew the same conclusion. The SE also seemed to be sharper than the EL, though they were very close. Lastly, I could not stand the focusing mechanism in the EL.

I recently had the opportunity to handle the Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, 8x42 BR, and 7x42 BR, and to compare them to my 8x32 Nikon Superior E. In comparing brightness I held one barrel of my SE to my right eye and one barrel of another glass to my left eye, with both binoculars focused on the same object. I was able to view objects from ten feet to infinity in open sunlight, and objects from ten feet to about forty feet in open shadow under a tent. This is not a scientific method, but it approximates use in the field and I have used it many times over the years.

I handled the 8x42 BL only briefly. The leather covering is attractive, but I found the ergonomics disappointing. I would not buy it, though I am sure it will have its fans. The 8x42 and 7x42 BR models represent serious advances over the older Trinovid line. I hate the feel of the Trinovids, but the Ultravids fit my hands perfectly--the ergonomics are vastly improved. The lighter weight and the balance are wonderful, and the focusing mechanism is silky smooth and precise. I like the focusing mechanism as much as that on the Venturer LX, which is superb, and which until now has had no equal. Even the SE has an excellent focusing mechanism, though it is stiffer than the Ultravid or Venturer.

The color fidelity of the Ultravids is exceptional. Chromatic aberration is minimal to nearly undetectable. I focused repeatedly on extremely high-contrast subjects, including highly reflective metal in open sunlight, and only got a hint of CA. This is not my experience with the Venturer LX, which on several occasions has exhibited significant magenta fringing on contrasty subjects, whereas the SE shows little or none. For those who are interested, the Swarovski porro-prism has outstanding color fidelity, but shows strong reddish fringing on contrasty subjects.

The Ultravid has excellent baffling and barely flares at all when pointed near the sun. This is also the case with the SE, though the Leica 8x20 flares terribly when viewing toward the sun. The field of view in the Ultravids is very flat. Although Leica says the Ultravids are sharp “to the edge of the field,” they have drop-off of sharpness toward the edges that is similar to that in the older Trinovid line. This is also present in the Nikon SE, though the Nikon drops off closer to the edge of the field than the Ultravid does. This does not bother me in the Ultravids or in other glasses that exhibit this trait, because in use, I move the binoculars rather than look toward the margin of the image.

The Ultravid 8x42 did not outperform the Nikon SE 8x32, though this may be attributable to the fact that the example I handled was pre-production. The SE was just as bright and was obviously sharper than the 8x42 Ultravid I handled.

The 7x42 was an entirely different matter. I have formerly used both the Zeiss and Swarovski 7x42s in the field and like them both. As many optics reviewers have pointed out, Zeiss by now should have done something to make their 7x42 ClassiC fogproof, given it pop-up or twist-up eyecups, and improved the armor. The ClassiC is optically great, but for me its eyecups are uncomfortable, and on top of other issues the focusing mechanism exhibits backlash, making a slight tactile “clunk” every time the direction of the focusing wheel is reversed. The Swarovski 7x42 is optically very fine, but it is heavy, the close focus is more than thirteen feet, and the focusing mechanism feels rough.

The Ultravid 7x42 is superb. It is as sharp as the Nikon SE and is obviously brighter. The handling, at least for me, is outstanding. The only feature which I consider outclassed by another bino is the eyecups. They are excellent, but not quite as comfortable as those on the Swarovski EL, which fit my face perfectly.

A 7x42 binocular is not for everybody, but I think the 7x42 Ultravid is clearly one of the ultimate binoculars. I purchased a pair and received them today. They are even better than their first impression. These are truly a great achievement for Leica.
 
Last edited:
Hello Jonathan and welcome to this forum. I have just recieved my 10x42 Ultavids, I must concur on your observation of the eyecups and add that they do not turn out as smoothly as the swaros, also I might add that eyepiece covers could be constructed of a stiffer material so that they remove a little quicker, I do not use the objective covers as I find them to be more bother than they are worth, other than that they are truly are superb optics and I am enjoying using them at our www.eaglewatch.ca, Raptor.
 
Welcome Jonathan & thanks for what I thought was a really excellent summary. I use 8x32 SE binoculars and they are very good. However, I thought the new 8x42 Leicas were just a little sharper, but it's a close call, John
 
John Cantelo said:
Welcome Jonathan & thanks for what I thought was a really excellent summary. I use 8x32 SE binoculars and they are very good. However, I thought the new 8x42 Leicas were just a little sharper, but it's a close call, John

John:

First to you and Raptor, thanks for the warm welcome. I have been following several different forums for the past few months, but this seems to be the one that actually has birders who are sharing practical information, rather than theoretical or other things.

I am pleased to hear that the production 8x42 performs like the 7x42, and not like the pre-production 8x42 that I was able to handle (this was at a Leica booth at a birding fair here in New Mexico last weekend). A relative wants me to recommend an "ultimate" all-around binocular, and I will tell her to buy the 8x42. Because the performance of the one I handled was close to my Nikon SE, I didn't think the 8x42 would fill a niche for me, and I do a lot of woodland birding, thus the choice of 7x42.

I used the 7x42 for awhile today and I'm simply amazed by the sharpness, contrast, and brilliance of the image.
 
Magazine bias

John raises some good points there. He is also a very helpful birder who showed me a Black Brant in Kent a few years ago. I base my opinion of Birdwatching's anti Nikon bias on a telescope review a couple of years ago, when they rated a Nikon 78 ED's optical quality worthy of a laughable 6 out of 10. Having used this scope for a few years, I know better. Taking into account that no two scopes from the same maker are identical in performance, the big Nikon is worthy of a higher rating. OK, the design is dated, it's not waterproof and has no hood. But optically it is a fine bit of kit and compares very well with other top end scopes. Optically. IMHO. In fact, I had an in depth e-mail debate with the Editor about that result, and basically it came down to the fact that they were right, because they knew best! They would never have said otherwise anyway.

Top manufacturers fly magazine testers to exotic birding locations to test their latest products, how could a critical review possibly follow that kind of generosity. Possibly because today's top products are so good that they do not warrant criticism? I wonder if they get to keep the 'used' optics.

I have Swarovski 8.5x42 EL that need two and half turns of twirling from close focus to infinity. You cannot possibly follow a close, perched bird if it takes off and flies away, and maintain the bird in focus. I discussed this in several e-mails with Swarovski. It seems they were designed by a committee, which explains everything really. The new 8x32 EL has focus modified to one and a half turns from close to infinity, a huge improvement. Maybe someone else compained. They have also said I may at some time in the future be able to have the focus modified on my pair. They are excellent optically, but they sure aint perfect.

Anyway, thats the end of my rant.

And thank you, John, for that Black Brant
 
Never had a Nikon scope William but I can't believe that review.
Nikon optics have always been sharpest to my eyes. Only reason I didn't get one of their scopes was the 'flask' reputation

On the subject of bins and focussing - has anyone ever beat he old Ziess dialyt 7 x 42? Almost didn't need focussing - their depth of field is so good - I could basically do it all with my eyes.
 
December Issue Birdwatching.
8x Binocular survey.
#1 Leica Ultravid 8x42
#2 Swarovski EL 8x32
#3 Swarovski EL 8.5x42
 
Last edited:
First, thank you William for your kind (and probably entirely undeserved) comments. You must have met me on a good day :)! The 6/10 the Nikon is a bit harsh, but I wouldn't have given it much more on my sole experience looking through one - I thought it less good than the 60mm Nikon! Good to see. though, the latest 'Birdwatching' survey at long last includes the Nikon porro 8x32 SE bins. I can't agree with the 7.5 for handling though esp as the 8x42 BNs - the world's most unergonomic 40/42mm bins on the planet - get 8.5 (as I recall anyway - I don't have the article to hand), John
 
John Cantelo said:
First, thank you William for your kind (and probably entirely undeserved) comments. You must have met me on a good day :)! The 6/10 the Nikon is a bit harsh, but I wouldn't have given it much more on my sole experience looking through one - I thought it less good than the 60mm Nikon! Good to see. though, the latest 'Birdwatching' survey at long last includes the Nikon porro 8x32 SE bins. I can't agree with the 7.5 for handling though esp as the 8x42 BNs - the world's most unergonomic 40/42mm bins on the planet - get 8.5 (as I recall anyway - I don't have the article to hand), John

Yes it does seem perverse to give the Leica 8x42 BN better marks for handling than the Nikon 8x32 SE. Maybe Arnold Schwarzeneggar was the tester? I tend to disagree strongly with Bird Watching magazine reviews esp. regarding Leica binoculars. I have always found the Leica 8x32 BN to have too much chromatic aberration to be useable and as you indicate the 8x42 BN is an awful shape. I wonder how the Nikon 8x32 HG were rated in comparison to the Leica 8x32 BN given that the former seemed noticeably brighter to my eyes?

Some years ago Bird Watching magazine reviewed the Steiner 10x40 Rocky S binocular and gave it top marks. They were roughly the same price as a Leica 8x42 BA. I tried them and they were very bright but thought they looked soft. They also had excessive chromatic aberration. I compared them with my cheap Nikon 8x40 Egret and could see no more detail. (A Nikon 8x42 HG walked over the Nikon Egrets as expected!) Reviews on the web indicated that the Steiner bins were not even phase coated which would explain the decidedly soft images. I suspect the reviewer was comparing them against his own 10 year old pre-phase coating roof prism binoculars. A year or two later the price halved, reflecting IMO their true worth.

Of course a comparative side by side review performed by multiple testers might be expected to be more reliable and average out the personal foibles of each person.

I think the more significant bias of BW magazine - as mentioned in an earlier post - is the one against porro prism binoculars. Many people buy an expensive pair of waterproof roof prism binoculars for Sunday afternoon wanders around the local nature reserve and a quality porro prism binocular would give better views at half the price. I've been told by several well known UK specialist optics dealers that a porro prism binocular will not give as good images as a roof prism. I think the truth might be that they will not make as much profit, or - to take a more generous attitude - perhaps they have not tried them out themselves. I should add that other UK dealers seemed to be a bit more informed.
 
Williamjclive

pduxon said:
Leif and anyone else

why don't the likes of Zeiss, Swaro, Leica make porro prism bins?


Swarovski do. They have two models, an 8x30 and a 10x40. Of course, being Swarovski's, they aint what you would call cheap. The 8x30 looks very dated, and when I recently compared them with a more modern looking Nikon 8x30 E2, I preferred the E2. The Nikon is a couple of hundred pounds cheaper if bought from Ace Optics.

John and I will have to agree to disagree about the Nikon 78ED, I used to sea watch with 60 and 78 Nikons mounted side by side on the same tripod, the 60 with a 20x and the 78 with a zoom set to about 40x. The set up worked very well. The wide angle of the 20x for finding, then a switch to 40x to follow the bird. I actually preferred the 60 for its portability, but to my eye the 78 was far brighter. I now use fixed eyepieces only, 25, 38 and 75x. I recently compared the 78 with a friend's new Swaro 65 zoom and found them comparable in good light, the 78 was marginally better in poor light. IMHO, of course.


Clive Jones ( The william j clive is my e-mail address, being a Jones I had to be creative! )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top