-
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.
New Ultravids coming (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hinnark
- Start date
chartwell99
Well-known member
If this trend continues, the only reading material of any value to an aspiring birder will be the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. I have to wonder whether Leica/Swaro and Zeiss haven't put themselves on a path to price themselves out of the birding market altogether.
matt green
Norfolkman gone walkabout
Paul Godolphin
Member
Anyone Else Feeling Brave Enough?
Ok, I'll be the first to admit the unthinkable...........
I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOURITE AND 'NORMAL' LENSES!
Phew, there. I said it. That was the birding equivalent of a gay 'coming out'! But seriously, is there anyone else out there brave enough to admit the same thing? Because I'm well known for my ultra critical reviews of the highest-end equipment, and I'm the most fastidious obsessive-compulsive where it comes to optics. So I'd LOVE to spout about the miniscule differences of perceived image quality between the two types of glass. But I just honestly can't find any difference at all, in any light.
I rather agree with all the previous writers, that maybe this is an exercise in rendering the saturated binocular market more 'dynamic' and generating millions of dollars for the manufacturers as we all go crazy selling-off our latest $3000 optics to buy the identical items for $5000 because they are supposedly 'better' glass. Very sorry to hear that this is happening.
Perhaps Leica might consider a permanent repair to their ongoing 'JERKY FOCUS WHEELS FAULT' before they start adding new glass? My new Ultravids are abandoned in disgust in a closet at my house in the UK because they're unusable. I'm now birding in the Pacific Islands with the cheap pair of Zeiss that I had to buy instead. The Ultravids stick and jam, and the juddering from the focus wheel makes them impossible to use because the vibration blurs the image so I can't find the focus point. Leica have known about this fault for several years (see many Birdforum postings), but are happy to continue selling the latest models with the fault still built in. Hooray, now we can pay even more and have an FL Ultravid that we can't see through either!!
'Juddering Flourite'...... I can't wait!
Paul
Ok, I'll be the first to admit the unthinkable...........
I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOURITE AND 'NORMAL' LENSES!
Phew, there. I said it. That was the birding equivalent of a gay 'coming out'! But seriously, is there anyone else out there brave enough to admit the same thing? Because I'm well known for my ultra critical reviews of the highest-end equipment, and I'm the most fastidious obsessive-compulsive where it comes to optics. So I'd LOVE to spout about the miniscule differences of perceived image quality between the two types of glass. But I just honestly can't find any difference at all, in any light.
I rather agree with all the previous writers, that maybe this is an exercise in rendering the saturated binocular market more 'dynamic' and generating millions of dollars for the manufacturers as we all go crazy selling-off our latest $3000 optics to buy the identical items for $5000 because they are supposedly 'better' glass. Very sorry to hear that this is happening.
Perhaps Leica might consider a permanent repair to their ongoing 'JERKY FOCUS WHEELS FAULT' before they start adding new glass? My new Ultravids are abandoned in disgust in a closet at my house in the UK because they're unusable. I'm now birding in the Pacific Islands with the cheap pair of Zeiss that I had to buy instead. The Ultravids stick and jam, and the juddering from the focus wheel makes them impossible to use because the vibration blurs the image so I can't find the focus point. Leica have known about this fault for several years (see many Birdforum postings), but are happy to continue selling the latest models with the fault still built in. Hooray, now we can pay even more and have an FL Ultravid that we can't see through either!!
'Juddering Flourite'...... I can't wait!
Paul
Last edited:
KorHaan
Well-known member
I'll stick to my 7x Fl's for a while.
I would be far happier if Leica ( or Zeiss, or Swaro ) would come up with a stabilized bin for allround use. The optics are already that good that a fluorite Ultravid won't be a major seller IMHO. Handshake will spoil the very best optics, I even must work hard to hold my 7x steady at higher windspeeds.
Paying a lot of money for slightly better lenses makes no sense. Oh, and for hydrofobic coatings: useless if you wear eyeglasses. I can only keep the rain off my specs by wearing a cap or hat, and then I can't reach the focus wheel.
I'd prefer to see the ergonomics bettered first ( double focus wheel ) than a new generation of optics.
Greetings, Ronald
I would be far happier if Leica ( or Zeiss, or Swaro ) would come up with a stabilized bin for allround use. The optics are already that good that a fluorite Ultravid won't be a major seller IMHO. Handshake will spoil the very best optics, I even must work hard to hold my 7x steady at higher windspeeds.
Paying a lot of money for slightly better lenses makes no sense. Oh, and for hydrofobic coatings: useless if you wear eyeglasses. I can only keep the rain off my specs by wearing a cap or hat, and then I can't reach the focus wheel.
I'd prefer to see the ergonomics bettered first ( double focus wheel ) than a new generation of optics.
Greetings, Ronald
FrankD
Well-known member
Maybe it was just me but I could have sworn that I saw it mentioned where Leica had been using ED style glass in their bins for many years now. If that was the case then this new "addition" would seem like nothing more than advertising what the binoculars always had.
As always though I look forward to taking a look through them to see how much the FL glass improves the image.
A similar situation comes to mind.... Leupold added "FL glass" to their Golden Ring bins but I have yet to hear of one person who has commented on the improvement. In their case I am guessing that without reworking the weight and eyecup size the FL glass just isn't enough of an improvement over the older model to comment on. In the case of the Ultravid I would be willing to wager though that they will be just as impressive as the non-FL Ultravids. If they can keep the vivid "Leica colors" while adding the sharpness of the Zeiss FLs then they should really be something.
I wonder if they are going to just keep the same basic optical package and just use the different glass (aka Trinovid to Ultravid) or if they are actually going to redesign the optical design parameters (eye relief, field of view, etc...) as well.
As always though I look forward to taking a look through them to see how much the FL glass improves the image.
A similar situation comes to mind.... Leupold added "FL glass" to their Golden Ring bins but I have yet to hear of one person who has commented on the improvement. In their case I am guessing that without reworking the weight and eyecup size the FL glass just isn't enough of an improvement over the older model to comment on. In the case of the Ultravid I would be willing to wager though that they will be just as impressive as the non-FL Ultravids. If they can keep the vivid "Leica colors" while adding the sharpness of the Zeiss FLs then they should really be something.
I wonder if they are going to just keep the same basic optical package and just use the different glass (aka Trinovid to Ultravid) or if they are actually going to redesign the optical design parameters (eye relief, field of view, etc...) as well.
Grandad Too
Member
GrandadToo
Is it HD glass, which does not say anything about the glass type or is it Fluorite, which is CaF2 (which would be too expensive), Is it ED glass, which has similar properties to FL glass, but does not contain fluorine ions.
What is it or just marketing talk.
Is it HD glass, which does not say anything about the glass type or is it Fluorite, which is CaF2 (which would be too expensive), Is it ED glass, which has similar properties to FL glass, but does not contain fluorine ions.
What is it or just marketing talk.
Ronald,
I very much agree and hope the European makers realize the need of IS before too many birdwatchers realize it. Still they benifit by the prejudices of those who never tried IS binoculars.
If we take a closer look at the Ultravids I would say there are some models that show very small colour fringes and some virtually not. The 50 mm and the 7x42 models have so little CA that in these cases FL is really more of a marketing thing. But the 32 mm and the 8x42 and 10x42 could benefit by ED optics.
Steve
Paul, I don't always agree with your harsh criticism, but this one is so very much to the point! Congratulations.
It's so terrible that I had a good laugh about your fitting wording! But only because I managed to avoid those unsatisfactory models.
That IS should, on the other hand, not add much to the weight! That this is possible can be checked in the amazing Panasonic FZ8 camera. Even if binoculars need that stabilizer for two barrels, it should keep them in their original weight range.
medinabrit
Well-known member
Paul i,ll be the second to admit it . I also cannot tell the difference.
I had both the 60 nikon ED scope & the non ED version of the same scope
& i couldn,t tell the difference .Of course it could be my eyes .
But i doupt it.
Wow will i get some flack on this admittance.
Brian.
I had both the 60 nikon ED scope & the non ED version of the same scope
& i couldn,t tell the difference .Of course it could be my eyes .
But i doupt it.
Wow will i get some flack on this admittance.
Brian.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
I think it's easy to miss the point. Low dispersion glass can, but does not necessarily, improve the view. I can only say from experience that the standard Swift 804ED differs for the better from the standard 804. There are verifiable technical reasons to explain the difference, and they include more than just the presence of ED glass. The whole design was re-optimized to take advantage of it. Based on anecdotal evidence and some physical data, however, it appears that the 820ED is not much of an improvement over the standard 820. This may be because ED glass was simply substituted without other necessary refinements, such as air-spacing, or the differences masked by manufacturing variations.
I can't speak to the Zeiss FL series, since I don't own any, but from what I've heard they have similar properties to the 804ED. You need to know what to look for, but once seen it's hard to forget. The series was designed with the glass as an integral part. Given this way of thinking, the question in my mind is the extent to which Leica redesigned the system to get the most out of the low dispersion glass. Fortunately, it should be possible to compare the old and new models (for the fortunate subset of the population rich enough to own both). I'd be very surprised if it were only introduced for marketing purposes — but then again it wasn't applied to the entire series, which makes me suspicious.
As for the much-maligned, so-called "ratchety," focusing of the Ultravids, it's only a deficiency if you don't like how it feels. Personally, I like it — a lot. Besides, my cousin is a tribologist — and he likes it.
Blue skies,
Ed
I can't speak to the Zeiss FL series, since I don't own any, but from what I've heard they have similar properties to the 804ED. You need to know what to look for, but once seen it's hard to forget. The series was designed with the glass as an integral part. Given this way of thinking, the question in my mind is the extent to which Leica redesigned the system to get the most out of the low dispersion glass. Fortunately, it should be possible to compare the old and new models (for the fortunate subset of the population rich enough to own both). I'd be very surprised if it were only introduced for marketing purposes — but then again it wasn't applied to the entire series, which makes me suspicious.
As for the much-maligned, so-called "ratchety," focusing of the Ultravids, it's only a deficiency if you don't like how it feels. Personally, I like it — a lot. Besides, my cousin is a tribologist — and he likes it.
Blue skies,
Ed
Last edited:
What puzzles me about this discussion is the fact that Leica say they have been using ED glass types in all their models, even in the discontinued Trinovid models.
It's explicitly stated in their catalogue, and it was confirmed by their headquarters when I phoned them up to learn more.
If this has been the case all along, why bang the big drum about a new type of ED glass (flouride-doped glass) now???
Honi soit qui mal y pense ...
Tom
Tom,
Zeiss has demonstrated the benefits of "fluoride glass" in controlling CA and I believe all major competitors will soon incorporate the glass in their designs. All other things remaining equal, I'd love to see the CA in my Ultravid reduced to FL levels.
John
Last edited:
Which means that it wasn't very clever of Zeiss to let everybody know the composition of their magic glass.
Or maybe it was an act of charity .... :t:
Tom
Paul Godolphin
Member
Thanks Brian. At least there's two brave men in the world! Wish I could tell the difference, I feel so inadequate! ha ha! Nice to hear from Medina- used to stay with a pal in Lodi and we used to drop into town from time to time. All the best from a fellow 'blind man'. (I'm now in New Caledonia, maybe the light's better here?)
cheers Paul
Similar threads
