I've used the Trinovid BN 8x32s for three weeks now, they fit like a glove! Better than the Swarovski EL 8.5x42s and CL Companions.
-
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.
Trinovid bn 8x32, are they still worthy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wrenie
- Start date
I've used the Trinovid BN 8x32s for three weeks now, they fit like a glove! Better than the Swarovski EL 8.5x42s and CL Companions.
I have read a convincing argument on here a couple of years ago that fundamentally the optics of a current Ultravid (apart from the addition of HT glass) are the same as previous Leicas all the way back to the BA and BN. In this sense at least the BNs are up to date or at least by no means as out of date as one might suppose.
There has been another thread on here recently where one member concluded that the best way to get your hands on an alpha bino was to wait and get it secondhand because quality binos don't lose their quality. A new in box BA would easily qualify for this approach.
And although there are some great newer binos around, will they really make separating a Coopers from a Sharpie any easier than the BA?
Lee
There has been another thread on here recently where one member concluded that the best way to get your hands on an alpha bino was to wait and get it secondhand because quality binos don't lose their quality. A new in box BA would easily qualify for this approach.
And although there are some great newer binos around, will they really make separating a Coopers from a Sharpie any easier than the BA?
Lee
Dear Yuk,
I have an early Nikon Monarch 8x42 HG.
The flare nearing the Sun or near a streetlight at night is awful for the price.
Partly it is I think that the interior blackening is shiny not matt, and I presume that the binocular was delayed into the U.S. because it just was not good enough. Improvements were probably made but not admitted.
There is also a lot of false colour, again too much for me at the price.
Looking into shadows the Nikon Monarch 8x42 HG is very good, much better than early pre BA Leicas.
The 8x32 Conquest HD shows flare again, but not as bad as the early Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG. This flare can be eliminated by shading off the bottom 4.5mm of the objectives with a mask. Otherwise the 8x32 Conquest HD is very good.
However, the 8x32 Conquest HD that I have is nowhere near as good as my 10x42 Conquest HD.
The Leica 8x32 BA that I have is brilliantly designed to almost eliminate flare. It has baffles part of the way round both interiors of the tubes.
Leica really seem to have known how to design binoculars.
However, the later ones with smaller barrels may not be so good.
One of the problems with the Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG is that the barrels are just too small.
Regarding flare the Leica Ultravid 12x50 of 10 years ago and the Canon 10x42 IS and the 15 plus year old Canon 18x50 IS are very good.
I would probably buy a new, or as new, Leica 8x32 BN at £575, but I don't really need it. In fact I don't really need any new binoculars.
I have an early Nikon Monarch 8x42 HG.
The flare nearing the Sun or near a streetlight at night is awful for the price.
Partly it is I think that the interior blackening is shiny not matt, and I presume that the binocular was delayed into the U.S. because it just was not good enough. Improvements were probably made but not admitted.
There is also a lot of false colour, again too much for me at the price.
Looking into shadows the Nikon Monarch 8x42 HG is very good, much better than early pre BA Leicas.
The 8x32 Conquest HD shows flare again, but not as bad as the early Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG. This flare can be eliminated by shading off the bottom 4.5mm of the objectives with a mask. Otherwise the 8x32 Conquest HD is very good.
However, the 8x32 Conquest HD that I have is nowhere near as good as my 10x42 Conquest HD.
The Leica 8x32 BA that I have is brilliantly designed to almost eliminate flare. It has baffles part of the way round both interiors of the tubes.
Leica really seem to have known how to design binoculars.
However, the later ones with smaller barrels may not be so good.
One of the problems with the Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG is that the barrels are just too small.
Regarding flare the Leica Ultravid 12x50 of 10 years ago and the Canon 10x42 IS and the 15 plus year old Canon 18x50 IS are very good.
I would probably buy a new, or as new, Leica 8x32 BN at £575, but I don't really need it. In fact I don't really need any new binoculars.
Last edited:
John Frink
Well-known member
Good for you for standing your ground in the face of such an avalanche of advice from the (presumably) well-intentioned bino-nuts that haunt this forum!
Over the years I've owned or used just about everything out there, and at times I found myself chasing the latest and greatest technical development, but what I've learned, for myself at least, is that what really matters are the answers to these three questions: 1) does the binocular give an easy, relaxed, view that feels good to me? 2) does it feel really comfortable in my hands? 3) do the focus speed, action, and direction work well for me?
Even though I still own a few other binos, my own answers to The Three Great Binocular Questions have led me to settle on three - an 8x42, an 8x32, and an 8x25. Only one of these is the "latest and greatest" in its lineage; the other two are at least one generation back in time. I still enjoy using other binos, but when it's time to go birding or sightseeing or traveling, one of these three will come with me.
John
"One of the problems with the Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG is that the barrels are just too small."
Not enough room for baffling? Maybe the SV 8x32 has the same problem?
Not enough room for baffling? Maybe the SV 8x32 has the same problem?
Good baffling is an art as well as a science.
Few binocular makers seem to do this well.
The completely uncoated 1940s? Leitz 7x50 seems well baffled by careful design.
Some completely open telescopes can have good baffling by design.
Horace Dall's open pocket telescopes of 2.5 inch to 6 inch aperture were well baffled by very accurate ray tubes holding the correctors and eyepieces.
The whole scope fitted in a pocket, although a large pocket for the 6 inch scopes.
There is very black material for the inside of telescope tubes. I think some Televue scopes had this. It is O.K. so long as no white flecks get onto it.
I think that some people added this to their camera lenses also.
As to quality, I think some older optics were just made better, as more time and care were taken to get a good product.
The c.1955 16x56 Hensoldt that I have is very well made, probably better than modern binoculars, although it lacks modern coating and modern glass.
In my experience, new is not always, or even often, better. But new is what people want and advertisers force us to believe is better, even when it isn't.
Few binocular makers seem to do this well.
The completely uncoated 1940s? Leitz 7x50 seems well baffled by careful design.
Some completely open telescopes can have good baffling by design.
Horace Dall's open pocket telescopes of 2.5 inch to 6 inch aperture were well baffled by very accurate ray tubes holding the correctors and eyepieces.
The whole scope fitted in a pocket, although a large pocket for the 6 inch scopes.
There is very black material for the inside of telescope tubes. I think some Televue scopes had this. It is O.K. so long as no white flecks get onto it.
I think that some people added this to their camera lenses also.
As to quality, I think some older optics were just made better, as more time and care were taken to get a good product.
The c.1955 16x56 Hensoldt that I have is very well made, probably better than modern binoculars, although it lacks modern coating and modern glass.
In my experience, new is not always, or even often, better. But new is what people want and advertisers force us to believe is better, even when it isn't.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello John,
You have outlined the Zen of acquiring binoculars.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
I'm fairly new here and by no means a bino expert. I've read a lot of reviews and have some Zeiss HT (10x42, bought used) and Swaro FP (8.5x42, bought used) and Leica 8x20 (UVBR) and Nikon 10x42 (M5s). Reviews and other users' comments might help you eliminate something, but they cannot make that final choice of what is right for you and what differences you, specifically, see.
What I would do is pick, say, 2 current binos (e.g. conquest hd, meopta, etc.) that have been recommended, buy them from Amazon or OpticsPlanet or someplace with no-questions asked return. Bring them to the store w/ Leicas and do a side-by-side comparison. That's the only way you'll really know you made the ride decision, if that is the sort of thing that will keep you up at night. There's a lot of wiggle room in comfort based on eye cups, eye relief, IPD, feel in hand, weight balance, etc.
Marc
What I would do is pick, say, 2 current binos (e.g. conquest hd, meopta, etc.) that have been recommended, buy them from Amazon or OpticsPlanet or someplace with no-questions asked return. Bring them to the store w/ Leicas and do a side-by-side comparison. That's the only way you'll really know you made the ride decision, if that is the sort of thing that will keep you up at night. There's a lot of wiggle room in comfort based on eye cups, eye relief, IPD, feel in hand, weight balance, etc.
Marc
Marc. Good recommendation. That is what I have done with older binoculars like the Leica BN and compared them to the newer binoculars and most of the time it shocked me how much better the new ones were especially in brightness and contract. The BN would appear almost dull in comparison to the new binocular and when I switched to the newer binocular it was almost like somebody switched the lights on with the increased contrast and brightness. That is why I was suggesting Yuk get the latest and greatest over the BN. But obviously Yuk isn't as critical as me but I have had a lot of binoculars over many years and did a lot of viewing.
Binastro,
Re your comment below in Post #83:
After writing that your Leica 8x32 BA was "brilliantly designed to eliminate flair" because of its baffling around the interior of the tubes, you commented that "One of the problems with the Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG is that the barrels are just too small."
I have owned and used the same Monarch HG 8x42 for a little over a year now. The only other 8x42 I own is a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline. They are remarkably similar in size, weight and appearance and their metal barrels are virtually the same size. There is a thin leather like cover partially surrounding the barrels on the HG which is not on the Blackline.
As far as I could see in my use of both of them, they both handled glare without any problems. Since their barrels are the same size I am skeptical that was what was causing the glare you saw while using your own Monarch HG 8x42. Perhaps it was a bad sample?
Meanwhile I might as well comment further on my impression of the brightness of the Monarch HG 8x42 and the Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline.
I can't see much difference in their brightness in cloudy, rainy conditions and understandably so, because Allbinos states that the maximum transmission of the 10x42 HG is 90% (Allbinos has not reviewed the 8x42) while Leica states that the Blacklines have 89% transmission; a 1% difference.
For the record, Leica also states in its PDF literature on the Ultravids that the Blacklines (like the Silverlines) have just the basic HDC Multi- Coatings and 89% Transmission. The PDF also says that the other Ultravids have HDC+ coatings and 92% Transmission.
To summarize: My one year old Monarch HG 8x42 is no brighter to my eyes than a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline which still uses 10 or 12 year old HDC coatings is.
Bob
Re your comment below in Post #83:
After writing that your Leica 8x32 BA was "brilliantly designed to eliminate flair" because of its baffling around the interior of the tubes, you commented that "One of the problems with the Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG is that the barrels are just too small."
I have owned and used the same Monarch HG 8x42 for a little over a year now. The only other 8x42 I own is a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline. They are remarkably similar in size, weight and appearance and their metal barrels are virtually the same size. There is a thin leather like cover partially surrounding the barrels on the HG which is not on the Blackline.
As far as I could see in my use of both of them, they both handled glare without any problems. Since their barrels are the same size I am skeptical that was what was causing the glare you saw while using your own Monarch HG 8x42. Perhaps it was a bad sample?
Meanwhile I might as well comment further on my impression of the brightness of the Monarch HG 8x42 and the Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline.
I can't see much difference in their brightness in cloudy, rainy conditions and understandably so, because Allbinos states that the maximum transmission of the 10x42 HG is 90% (Allbinos has not reviewed the 8x42) while Leica states that the Blacklines have 89% transmission; a 1% difference.
For the record, Leica also states in its PDF literature on the Ultravids that the Blacklines (like the Silverlines) have just the basic HDC Multi- Coatings and 89% Transmission. The PDF also says that the other Ultravids have HDC+ coatings and 92% Transmission.
To summarize: My one year old Monarch HG 8x42 is no brighter to my eyes than a Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline which still uses 10 or 12 year old HDC coatings is.
Bob
Last edited:
I agree with you. How much better was the new Tract Toric HT 8x42 with the Schott Glass than the older one? FOV about the same?
Thank you Bob for your comments in post 93.
The 8x32 BA is quite different to the Leica 8x42 Ultravid.
I haven't seen or tried the Leica 8x42 Ultravid, but the Ultravid binoculars so far as I can see do not have room in the barrels for the old type BA baffling.
That is why I haven't gone for a smaller body Ultravid without first testing.
By careful design an Ultravid may be good but small barrels suggest this is difficult.
My 12x50 Ultravid about 10 or 11 years old is very good regarding flare.
The 8x42 Nikon Monarch HG that I have, clearly is a bad example.
But there are large arcs of glare from a streetlight at night in addition to other ghost images. Nearing the Sun it is terrible.
I suspect that Nikon told the Japanese maker to get this binocular right before introducing it in the U.S. market.
The 10x42 Conquest HD that I have is superb in the freedom from ghosts and flare.
However, the 8x32 Conquest HD has a problem unless the bottom 4.5mm of the objectives is cut off by masks.
In birdwatchers normal conditions these glare, ghosting and flare problems clearly don't matter.
But I am using these binoculars for scientific studies of faint noctilucent cloud. It is unacceptable to use binoculars where ghost images of streetlights, car headlights etc give false results.
Some of the binoculars that I use are worse than the 8x32 Conquest HD or even my poor example Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG regarding flare. But I don't use these for critical detection of faint extended sources like noctilucent clouds.
For instance the Swift 8.5x44 HR/5 is poor regarding flare and ghosts and some other binoculars are terrible.
The point about the Leica 8x32 BA is that it is good for any type of observation despite not being as bright as more modern lower priced binoculars.
I would much rather drive an excellent condition 20 year old Rolls Royce than a modern Ford.
The Ford may be faster, corner better, have better fuel economy etc. But the Rolls Royce will get you to your destination refreshed and effortlessly.
In fact I'd rather drive an excellent 50 year old Rolls Royce Silver Cloud than a modern Ford.
I have as new Leica and Swarovski 10x25s, but don't use them as they flop about hopelessly because of the mechanical design.
The old much used Docter 10x25 is a joy to use as it stays exactly where it is opened to after thousands of uses. The Docter is not as bright, but it is the Docter that I use whereas the Leica and Swarovski stay in their boxes.
The 8x32 BA is quite different to the Leica 8x42 Ultravid.
I haven't seen or tried the Leica 8x42 Ultravid, but the Ultravid binoculars so far as I can see do not have room in the barrels for the old type BA baffling.
That is why I haven't gone for a smaller body Ultravid without first testing.
By careful design an Ultravid may be good but small barrels suggest this is difficult.
My 12x50 Ultravid about 10 or 11 years old is very good regarding flare.
The 8x42 Nikon Monarch HG that I have, clearly is a bad example.
But there are large arcs of glare from a streetlight at night in addition to other ghost images. Nearing the Sun it is terrible.
I suspect that Nikon told the Japanese maker to get this binocular right before introducing it in the U.S. market.
The 10x42 Conquest HD that I have is superb in the freedom from ghosts and flare.
However, the 8x32 Conquest HD has a problem unless the bottom 4.5mm of the objectives is cut off by masks.
In birdwatchers normal conditions these glare, ghosting and flare problems clearly don't matter.
But I am using these binoculars for scientific studies of faint noctilucent cloud. It is unacceptable to use binoculars where ghost images of streetlights, car headlights etc give false results.
Some of the binoculars that I use are worse than the 8x32 Conquest HD or even my poor example Nikon 8x42 Monarch HG regarding flare. But I don't use these for critical detection of faint extended sources like noctilucent clouds.
For instance the Swift 8.5x44 HR/5 is poor regarding flare and ghosts and some other binoculars are terrible.
The point about the Leica 8x32 BA is that it is good for any type of observation despite not being as bright as more modern lower priced binoculars.
I would much rather drive an excellent condition 20 year old Rolls Royce than a modern Ford.
The Ford may be faster, corner better, have better fuel economy etc. But the Rolls Royce will get you to your destination refreshed and effortlessly.
In fact I'd rather drive an excellent 50 year old Rolls Royce Silver Cloud than a modern Ford.
I have as new Leica and Swarovski 10x25s, but don't use them as they flop about hopelessly because of the mechanical design.
The old much used Docter 10x25 is a joy to use as it stays exactly where it is opened to after thousands of uses. The Docter is not as bright, but it is the Docter that I use whereas the Leica and Swarovski stay in their boxes.
Last edited:
"In birdwatchers normal conditions these glare, ghosting and flare problems clearly don't matter."
Exactly my point. For birdwatching you will get more performance for the dollar from a modern binocular than you will an old classic like the BN. The things that matter in birding like contrast and brightness are clearly superior in modern binoculars.
Exactly my point. For birdwatching you will get more performance for the dollar from a modern binocular than you will an old classic like the BN. The things that matter in birding like contrast and brightness are clearly superior in modern binoculars.
Hmmm.
In my experience I found out that my one year old Nikon HG 8x42 (which I like using!) was no brighter to my eyes than my 4 year old Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline was with the 12 year old HDC coatings it has (and is still being sold with). The other Ultravids all have the newer HDC+ coatings.
Over all the Monarch HG is hardly a "clearly superior" binocular and it would not have been even if the Blackline was 10 years older for the following reasons:
1. I had to have my first Monarch HG 8x42 replaced because of a wandering diopter.
2. I see intermittent blackouts in my current one if I roll my eyes while looking towards the edge of its very wide FOV. I have learned to move my head instead while looking to the edge of the view and I can now use it without any blackout problems but I am sure the blackout problem is caused by cutting corners in the design of the Monarch HGs wide field eyepieces or in the size of its prisms to save money.
3. I don't get any kind of blackouts when I roll my eyes looking at the edge of the view in my Blackline which has a smaller FOV.
4. If you are interested Allbinos transmission number in its rating of the Monarch 10x42 is 90. Leica's transmission number for the Blackline is 89. That also is hardly "clearly superior."
Last edited:
The Leica Blacklines are an Ultravid HD in sheep's clothing without the water repellent coating on the lenses. I bet Leica has updated the Blackline's coatings over the years also because they still will do a production run of them. Also, the Blackline's have Dielectric Prism's which the BN's do not. I have not tried Blackline's but I would guess they are almost identical to Ultravid's HD. I wouldn't be surprised if they were brighter than the Nikon HG.
To each his own. I wouldn't be caught dead in a RR.
