SeldomPerched
Well-known member
In the last month I have made slow and small but sure strides in bird watching and identification but rapid ones in learning about and trying out binoculars, thanks to a very generous local binocular and camera shop! Once I am on holiday I hope to rectify the imbalance.
Some data I find hard to amass are the measured figures for brightness and sharpness differences between the following SIX Leica models:
7 x 42 Ultravid;
7 x 42 Ultravid HD;
7 x 42 Ultravid HD plus;
8 x 42 Ultravid;
8 x 42 Ultravid HD;
8 x 42 Ultravid HD plus.
Additionally I haven't got anywhere in trying to find out objectively what the optical differences are in the manufacture of the pre-HD, HD, and HD plus models. I.e.. what they did differently between these iterations.
The reason I'd like to see transmission and sharpness data for these models is that, compared to the Zeiss SF 8x42 (a more modern design) that I have been using on generous free 14 day loan from the local stockist, my Leica Ultravid HD (not Plus) 8x42 doesn't seem so sharp or penetrate nearly so well into the dark shadows of a wood when viewed from open countryside in strong overhead sunlight. In more evenly balanced conditions I also don't feel I'm getting the same sharpness. I have tried them out against the SF and now also against my just arrived 2nd hand Dialyt 7x42B T*P* on near and far views from my back window into the garden and beyond at different times of day and I also find more flare/glare/degradation as the sun gets lower compared with the SF and the Dialyt.
I have a long relationship with Leica, having shot with M-series 35mm cameras and lenses for over 25 years and I have always found in colour slide photography that their lenses produce a depth of colour and plasticity (I think that's the word) that just doesn't seem to feature in the other manufacturers' designs. They don't lack in sharpness either - the 28, 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons for instance. However, while my first two years with the Ultravid 8 x42 were a revelation after only using a pocket 8 x20 before, now I'm finding the UVs a bit disappointing sharpness and flare-wise compared with the clarity of the Zeiss offerings - SF 8x42 and Dialyt Classic 7x42 T*P*.
So, to get back to the questions: can anyone help locate/point to transmission and sharpness data for the models mentioned at the top? And would I be right - or is it just wishful thinking - to say the 7x Ultravids might be in a class above the 8x when used on a level playing field and leaving aside handholdability and extra light gathering power in low light? I.e. both 7 and 8 power bins mounted on a tripod for fair comparison.
Thanks for listening! Brevis esse conor; obscurus fio....
Tom
Some data I find hard to amass are the measured figures for brightness and sharpness differences between the following SIX Leica models:
7 x 42 Ultravid;
7 x 42 Ultravid HD;
7 x 42 Ultravid HD plus;
8 x 42 Ultravid;
8 x 42 Ultravid HD;
8 x 42 Ultravid HD plus.
Additionally I haven't got anywhere in trying to find out objectively what the optical differences are in the manufacture of the pre-HD, HD, and HD plus models. I.e.. what they did differently between these iterations.
The reason I'd like to see transmission and sharpness data for these models is that, compared to the Zeiss SF 8x42 (a more modern design) that I have been using on generous free 14 day loan from the local stockist, my Leica Ultravid HD (not Plus) 8x42 doesn't seem so sharp or penetrate nearly so well into the dark shadows of a wood when viewed from open countryside in strong overhead sunlight. In more evenly balanced conditions I also don't feel I'm getting the same sharpness. I have tried them out against the SF and now also against my just arrived 2nd hand Dialyt 7x42B T*P* on near and far views from my back window into the garden and beyond at different times of day and I also find more flare/glare/degradation as the sun gets lower compared with the SF and the Dialyt.
I have a long relationship with Leica, having shot with M-series 35mm cameras and lenses for over 25 years and I have always found in colour slide photography that their lenses produce a depth of colour and plasticity (I think that's the word) that just doesn't seem to feature in the other manufacturers' designs. They don't lack in sharpness either - the 28, 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons for instance. However, while my first two years with the Ultravid 8 x42 were a revelation after only using a pocket 8 x20 before, now I'm finding the UVs a bit disappointing sharpness and flare-wise compared with the clarity of the Zeiss offerings - SF 8x42 and Dialyt Classic 7x42 T*P*.
So, to get back to the questions: can anyone help locate/point to transmission and sharpness data for the models mentioned at the top? And would I be right - or is it just wishful thinking - to say the 7x Ultravids might be in a class above the 8x when used on a level playing field and leaving aside handholdability and extra light gathering power in low light? I.e. both 7 and 8 power bins mounted on a tripod for fair comparison.
Thanks for listening! Brevis esse conor; obscurus fio....
Tom
Last edited: