Leica 10x42 Trinovid vs. Steiner Peregrine 10x42 (1 Viewer)

I had the chance to try these two binoculars in the field, for a few hours. We watched some songbirds in a dark forest on a dark day, and the same dark day conditions were during a scan of sandpipers on a mudflat. At the end of the afternoon, there was sunshine and i could test binoculars for stray light and reflexions and Color Aberrations
Here are soem comments. I am not a professional binoculars critic.
I looked through both binoculars in a standing position (elbows tucked into the body, hips forwad, as steady as posible) and in seated position, elbows resting on knees.

Leica 10x42 Trinovid vs. Steiner Peregrine 10x42
x > y means x was better than y.

Resolution of Detail Steiner > Leica
Color Contrast Steiner > Leica
Stray light, ghost images, reflexions: none
Color Aberration. I could not see any.
Brightness Steiner = Leica, or slightly Steiner > Leica
Ergonomics, ease of use, ability to hold steady Steiner way > than Leica.
Note Steiner has winged eyecups, and i don't wear glasses in the field
Weight Steiner > Leica
Field of view Steiner = Leica (there may be a small difference)
Depth of field Steiner < Leica. The only thing that i found wrong with Steiner was that it required constant focusing and it had very little depth of field.
Price Steiner < Leica
So, had it not been for the depth of field issue, i would have considered Steiner the winner. I missed birds in the forest with the Steiners because of the poor depth of field. But out on the mudflats, where i did not have to focus so much, i always preferred the Steiner, in both standing and seated positions. The Steiners have such a well designed body, that i found them much easier to hold steady than the Trinovids, especially while walking/standing. Because i could hold them steadier, they were much more pleasant to look through.
So, hopefully Steiner people read this:
Shallow depth of field combined with fast focus is a disaster. Improve the depth of field and slow down the focusing by 10-15%. And make those eyecups friendly to eyeglass wearers, but design them so that the winged eyecups could still be used. How about click stop retractable eyecups, plus the option to have wings on them?
If you do that, you will have a winner, even against Leica Trinovid.
Final comment: i am biased in favor of Leica. To me, they represent some kind of status symbol and are equal to quality and performance.
My daughter is 7 and she has no clue about binocular brands. She preferred the Steiners.I asked her which of the two gives her a better image, she said Steiner.

Steiner vs Leica

I own a pair of Peregrines 8-42 and To me anyway they are by far the coolest looking binocs around. And I totally agree with the depth of field issue . Beautiful images but you do seem to keep adjusting the focus.They are advertised as fast focusing binocs but like you I think a little to fast.Hav`nt had the plessure of trying a pair of Leica trovids maybe someday. If they slowed the focusing down a tad and had a little more depth of field they`d be almost perfect. :t:Oh by the way how do you add more depth of field to binoculers anyway?

robert s said:

I own a pair of Peregrines 8-42 and To me anyway they are by far the coolest looking binocs around. And I totally agree with the depth of field issue . Beautiful images but you do seem to keep adjusting the focus.They are advertised as fast focusing binocs but like you I think a little to fast.Hav`nt had the plessure of trying a pair of Leica trovids maybe someday. If they slowed the focusing down a tad and had a little more depth of field they`d be almost perfect. :t:Oh by the way how do you add more depth of field to binoculers anyway?

Click to expand...

Build lenses in a different way, different focal lenghts. Probaby someone else knows better.

The eyecups are what kept me from purchasing the Peregrines. I fully agree with the click stop retractable or twist-up eyecups with the option of winged eyecups.

Steiner would really have something to compete with Swaro and Leica if these changes were made.

Great review Otto.

Stud Duck said:

The eyecups are what kept me from purchasing the Peregrines. I fully agree with the click stop retractable or twist-up eyecups with the option of winged eyecups.

Steiner would really have something to compete with Swaro and Leica if these changes were made.

Click to expand...

You are kidding yourself if you think that is true.

I was basing my opinions upon his review, you obviously don't agree.

Otto McDiesel said:

Final comment: i am biased in favor of Leica. To me, they represent some kind of status symbol and are equal to quality and performance.
My daughter is 7 and she has no clue about binocular brands. She preferred the Steiners.I asked her which of the two gives her a better image, she said Steiner.

Click to expand...

Sadly many years ago I used to own a Steiner 10x40 Rocky S which looks the same as the Peregrine. It was pricey and the optics were of mediocre quality: a narrow field of view, a soft image even on axis, and an incredible amount of CA. I suspect the Peregrine is the same with some changes e.g. phase coating. The build quality seemed okay, though I hated the Steiner method of attaching the strap, which prevented the use of a third party item, and the binocular did not come with a rain guard. They seem to have been using the same basic design for years, with small changes, and different model names.

Leif

Leif said:

Sadly many years ago I used to own a Steiner 10x40 Rocky S which looks the same as the Peregrine. It was pricey and the optics were of mediocre quality: a narrow field of view, a soft image even on axis, and an incredible amount of CA. I suspect the Peregrine is the same with some changes e.g. phase coating. The build quality seemed okay, though I hated the Steiner method of attaching the strap, which prevented the use of a third party item, and the binocular did not come with a rain guard. They seem to have been using the same basic design for years, with small changes, and different model names.

Leif

Click to expand...

My point was that, with the Peregrines, Steiner are close to having a good pair of binoculars. Not quite there, but it looks like they can do it.

Otto McDiesel said:

My point was that, with the Peregrines, Steiner are close to having a good pair of binoculars. Not quite there, but it looks like they can do it.

Click to expand...

According to the Steiner web site, 8x42 The Wildlife Pro, which looks to be the same thing, got a good write up in Birdwatch magazine.

Leif

Otto McDiesel said:

Build lenses in a different way, different focal lenghts. Probaby someone else knows better.

Click to expand...

Actually, as long as the exit pupil of the bin is greater than the eye's entry pupil (which is virtually ALWAYS the case with 10x42 except during late twilight or night), all 10x binoculars have EXACTLY THE SAME depth of field.

There can be other factors that make one THINK that depth of field is greater or lesser in one pair or another--such as speed of focus, contrast, spherical aberration, etc.--but technically the depth of field is the same for all 10x bins.

- Jared

Otto McDiesel said:

My point was that, with the Peregrines, Steiner are close to having a good pair of binoculars. Not quite there, but it looks like they can do it.

Click to expand...

I was told by someone who should know that it is the close focus distance that screws up depth of field. Based on my experience, it seems to hold true. The closer you can focus, the less the depth of field.

My oldest son has a pair of Steiner Peregrines and to my eye, they seem to be close to most top of the line brands if not exceeding some.

Jaeger near Chicago

Jaeger01 said:

I was told by someone who should know that it is the close focus distance that screws up depth of field. Based on my experience, it seems to hold true. The closer you can focus, the less the depth of field.

My oldest son has a pair of Steiner Peregrines and to my eye, they seem to be close to most top of the line brands if not exceeding some.

Jaeger near Chicago

Click to expand...

Yes, DOF is a function of aperture and image magnification. As you get closer, the image magnification increases, and DOF reduces. That's why close up photos are usually taken with a small aperture. A microscope has very shallow DOF especially at 1000x.

Leif

Regarding Depth of Field:

After looking through several Binos (10X42), El's, SLC's, Pentax, B&L, Zeiss Victory & FL, I do not agree with the statement by Jared that the depth of field is the same, it definately is not.

jwillson said:

Actually, as long as the exit pupil of the bin is greater than the eye's entry pupil (which is virtually ALWAYS the case with 10x42 except during late twilight or night), all 10x binoculars have EXACTLY THE SAME depth of field.

There can be other factors that make one THINK that depth of field is greater or lesser in one pair or another--such as speed of focus, contrast, spherical aberration, etc.--but technically the depth of field is the same for all 10x bins.

- Jared

Click to expand...

Technically the depth of field is the same for all 10x42 bins, but if the exit pupil of the bin is greater than the eye's entry pupil, the eye stops down the bin and DOF is no longer defined by the instrument. :t:

If the exit pupil (4,2mm) is equal or smaller than the eye's entry pupil the bin defines DOF. :eek!:

Walter

To Jaeger I'd add that a close focusing bin does not always have lesser DOF through the range, those the others above me have pointed out that the depth narrows at close focus.

We all know that misalignment can also lead to shortnening of DOF, so aperture and magnification equal, there can and are differences.

Walter, excellent point, and some binoculars work better with any given persons pupils than others I'd suppose.

Hogjaws said:

Regarding Depth of Field:

After looking through several Binos (10X42), El's, SLC's, Pentax, B&L, Zeiss Victory & FL, I do not agree with the statement by Jared that the depth of field is the same, it definately is not.

Click to expand...

It definitely is. :hippy:Theoretically!
But in real world 10x42 bins there are (not so small) deviations in the 10 and in the 42. And with this also deviations in DOF.

Walter

Hello all. So many people keep singing the praises of either Leica or Swarovski optics as if they were the only one's worthwhile having these day's. While i would agree that they are good, i personally think that there are many other makes that are equally as good....and a heck of a lot cheaper to boot! Last year my wife and i went to focus optics and were given 2 dozen pairs to try-out,ranging in price from £100 to £1000 we spent nearly two hours looking over their wildlife area with them. I found myself drawn to a pair of Nikon Monarch 8x42's @ £330 and my wife liked the Opticron Virano 8x42's at just under £300.While we both agreed that Leica and Swarovski's were good we could'nt justify spending another £600 each on binoculars that gave, in our opinions no significantly better images. We also have an Opicron ES80 ED scope and have been studying Peregrine falcons for the past 18 months from a viewpoint a third of a mile away, and have occasion to look through friends top of the range scopes there also, and still find that our scope competes very favourably, as do the many visitors that we invite to share the views on offer. I will await the bombardment from all of the L and S owners out there!! Regards, Phil.

Those extra hundreds buy you better control of chromatic abberations and a potential lifetime of use, whether by extremely high build quality and durability or the excellent warranties provided. It is up to the buyer to determine if that is worth the price of admission. Still, if one can spend that much knowing it was the last pair of binoculars they need buy, except for those of us addicted to many, it is worth the price. That said, any binocular is far better than none at all.

Robert Ellis said:

Those extra hundreds buy you better control of chromatic abberations and a potential lifetime of use, whether by extremely high build quality and durability or the excellent warranties provided. It is up to the buyer to determine if that is worth the price of admission. Still, if one can spend that much knowing it was the last pair of binoculars they need buy, except for those of us addicted to many, it is worth the price. That said, any binocular is far better than none at all.

Click to expand...

Well put Robert, I couldn't agree with you more.

Robert Ellis said:

That said, any binocular is far better than none at all.

Click to expand...

For 15 years i was so poor that i had to decide whether to buy food or a train ticket to go birding (guess which one i got), or whether i realy needed boots the following winter or a field guide; i birded with a pair of Zeiss 7x50 (1943 vintage) whose left prism housing was shot by a bullet.
I will be the last one to tell people that only $1800 binoculars are good.