• 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.

First impression - Ultravid 7x42 (1 Viewer)

Jaeger70

Active member
First off, I’d like to thank every Bird Forum member for the wealth of fascinating and insightful commentary. It is an honor to be a part of such a wonderful group…Bravo!

I’d like to share my initial thoughts regarding a Leica 7x42 Ultravid that I received not more than two hours ago. Bear in mind that the following is merely subjective, not at all scientific, and that I do not represent any optics company. I have been fortunate to own optics from a number of manufacturers, including “the Big Four” - Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss.

I compared the 7x42 Ultravid with a new Zeiss 7x42 BGAT Classic and a one year-old Nikon 8x32 Venturer (HG). I realize that some might consider a comparison between 7x42s and 8x32s a bit unfair, but the little Nikon's image, in my opinion, is certainly good enough for inclusion within the realm of upper echelon glass. Thirty minutes of viewing birds at my feeding station under overcast skies with the Ultravid, Zeiss and Nikon confirmed what I already had suspected (hoped?): the Ultravid is the brightest and sharpest of the three. Not overwhelmingly so, but brighter and sharper nonetheless. The Ultravid is noticeably brighter than the Nikon 8x32 Venturer - no real surprise - with slightly more contrast. Chromatic aberration wasn’t detected, but I suspect that my eyes have trouble detecting this phenomenon in low-power optics. The Leica doesn’t hold sharpness to the edge of the field quite as well as the 8x32 Nikon Venturer, but the “sweet spot” of the Ultravid 7x42 is so amazing that I’m willing to compromise any apparent decrease in edge sharpness.

Comparing the Ultravid with the Zeiss 7x42 Classic was a bit more of a challenge. The Zeiss 7x42 Classic has a reputation of being one of the best birding binoculars ever designed and rightly so. It is one fine instrument, and despite its size and somewhat outdated design, it is light and easy to hold. The Leica is only very slightly brighter than the venerable Zeiss - again, no real surprise. However, the Ultravid is noticeably sharper and snappier. I understand what is noticeable to one isn’t to another, therefore, I want to emphasize the subjectivity of this “review.” The Ultravid does not blow the Zeiss Classic away, but alas, the Ultravid is sharper, a smidge brighter and shows more contrast.

The Ultravid is a sheer pleasure to hold and a testament to fine engineering and design – a marked improvement over the Trinovid line. They are light, very well balanced and relatively compact. In fact, they aren’t much larger than the diminutive Nikon 8x32 Venturer and certainly much more compact than the Zeiss Classic. The armor and eyecups are softer than what we’ve been used to from the Trinovids and as such, the Ultravids are much more user friendly. Additionally, the Ultravid appears to have the same legendary durability as its predecessors, but time will tell.

Some have held concern that focus control in the Ultravid line is somewhat sub-par, but the binocular I received focuses beautifully. Smooth, effortless, fast…~1.25 turns from close focus to infinity.

I’m sure a better comparison would be with a 7x42 Zeiss FL, and although I haven't had an opportunity to view an FL, based upon what folks are writing about them, they are a glass to be reckoned with. On paper, the Ultravid and Zeiss FL seem evenly matched, with the nod going to the Ultravid in compactness (the Ultravid 7x42 is 5.6 in. x 4.8 in.; FL 7x42 is 6.45 in. x 5.4 in.) while the FL appears to win the close focus award (Ultravid is advertised as 10.8 ft.; FL as 7 ft.). As with all optics in this price range, the decision tends to be based more on issues of handling and ergonomics than of any apparent optical superiority.

In summary, the Ultravid 7x42 is one fine effort from Leica. Simply put, the Ultravid 7x42 is the brightest, sharpest, most comfortable binocular I've had the pleasure of holding to my eyes – the view is celestial and highly addictive, indeed. Are they $350 better than the Zeiss Classics? Only you can decide, but I would say yes, especially when one considers that the Ultravids are nitrogen purged, focus internally and are more compact. A more exhaustive review will be forthcoming.

Your pocketbooks have been duly warned…
 
Very interesting review, especially so because the Ultravid in question is a 7 power glass. Until recently, it seemed as if there was virtually no interest whatsoever in 7 power binoculars: Nikon omitted the configuration from the Venturer LX/HG and SE lines, Zeiss followed suit with their Victory bins (probably still smarting since their 7 x 45 of the really disasterous Night Owl line), and Swarovski elected similarly not to offer an EL version of a 7 power glass. It's too bad, since 7's were, for years, the "all round" choice in the U.S., with the Bausch & Lomb 7 x 35 porros (and their legion of imitators) vastly more popular than higher powered glasses. Perhaps the availability of close focussing 7's like the Ultravid and Zeiss FL will revive some interest.

The one surprise in the review related to apparent brightness. I would have suspected that the Zeiss 7 x 42 Classic, an abbe koenig prism glass with T* coatings would still edge out the Leica. I am not surprised, however, by the Ultravid's comparative sharpness, especially given Zeiss's problems with the Victory bins. My brief experience looking through a Ultravid (regrettably, an 8 x 42 rather than the 7 power version) was extremely positive.
 
"Until recently, it seemed as if there was virtually no interest whatsoever in 7 power binoculars: Nikon omitted the configuration from the Venturer LX/HG and SE lines, Zeiss followed suit with their Victory bins (probably still smarting since their 7 x 45 of the really disasterous Night Owl line), and Swarovski elected similarly not to offer an EL version of a 7 power glass. It's too bad, since 7's were, for years, the "all round" choice in the U.S., with the Bausch & Lomb 7 x 35 porros (and their legion of imitators) vastly more popular than higher powered glasses. Perhaps the availability of close focussing 7's like the Ultravid and Zeiss FL will revive some interest."


Thanks for the comments, Chartwell.

Interestingly enough, I used to use 10x binoculars almost exclusively. However, after looking through a pair of Zeiss 7x42 Classics, I was hooked! The brightness and field of view were a revelation of sorts. I have not missed the extra power of 10x one bit. I'll echo what others have said in this forum: I'd rather have a smaller, steadier image than a larger, shakier one.
 
chartwell99 said:
Until recently, it seemed as if there was virtually no interest whatsoever in 7 power binoculars: Nikon omitted the configuration from the Venturer LX/HG and SE lines, Zeiss followed suit with their Victory bins (probably still smarting since their 7 x 45 of the really disasterous Night Owl line), and Swarovski elected similarly not to offer an EL version of a 7 power glass.

When I began birding in earnest some 25 years ago the great majority of birders I met over here used 10 power binoculars. Then, in the mid-1980's, 7 power binoculars became fashionable, and quite a few birders switched to 7 power. Then the Leica 8x32BA arrived, and 8 power became popular. And today quite a few people seem to be switching back to 10 power, presumably because 10 power binoculars may be somewhat more difficult to use, but nearly always show you more detail than lower powered binoculars, even when you don't have any form of support. When you're in a hide or when you use a Finnstick the difference is quite obvious. So I'm not really sure there's a big market for the 7 power binoculars, although they'll always have their supporters.

By the way, the Nightowl 7x45 was quite an interesting binocular - it was in my opinion optically better than the 7x42BGAT, and it was built like a tank. Unfortunately it was also almost as heavy as a tank.

Hermann
 
Hermann said:
When I began birding in earnest some 25 years ago the great majority of birders I met over here used 10 power binoculars. Then, in the mid-1980's, 7 power binoculars became fashionable, and quite a few birders switched to 7 power. Then the Leica 8x32BA arrived, and 8 power became popular. And today quite a few people seem to be switching back to 10 power, presumably because 10 power binoculars may be somewhat more difficult to use, but nearly always show you more detail than lower powered binoculars, even when you don't have any form of support.

Hermann

Similar trends have occurred here in North America as well. When I began birding in the early to mid-1980s, Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts and Bausch & Lomb Custom 10x40s were THE binoculars to own. By the mid to late-1990s, more and more birders were using 8x binoculars. Today, 8x continues to be very popular, at least with birders in my neck of the woods (upstate New York).

I have noticed that as my birding companions age, they prefer lower power bins. I must be getting old too, as evidenced by my preference for 7x and 8x!
 
Hermann said:
By the way, the Nightowl 7x45 was quite an interesting binocular - it was in my opinion optically better than the 7x42BGAT, and it was built like a tank. Unfortunately it was also almost as heavy as a tank.

You're right about the optics and the weight, but the darn thing was nose-heavy and nearly impossible to balance. To make matters worse, the rubber eyecups were incredibly difficult to fold back for use with glasses, the huge IPD ruled out use by anyone with moderately close set eyes, and the focus knob (if that's what you would call it) was too flush with the bridge and therefore very difficult to use with gloves. Not a very useful glass for biding, I'm afraid, which is why I sold mine.
 
Jaeger70 said:
after looking through a pair of Zeiss 7x42 Classics, I was hooked! The brightness and field of view were a revelation of sorts. I have not missed the extra power of 10x one bit. I'll echo what others have said in this forum: I'd rather have a smaller, steadier image than a larger, shakier one.

The Zeiss 7x42 Classic has a reputation of being one of the best birding binoculars ever designed and rightly so. It is one fine instrument, and despite its size and somewhat outdated design, it is light and easy to hold.

Still my faves Jaeger, despite owning 8 x 32 HGs too
 
Jaeger70 said:
First off, I’d like to thank every Bird Forum member for the wealth of fascinating and insightful commentary. It is an honor to be a part of such a wonderful group…Bravo!

I’d like to share my initial thoughts regarding a Leica 7x42 Ultravid that I received not more than two hours ago. Bear in mind that the following is merely subjective, not at all scientific, and that I do not represent any optics company. I have been fortunate to own optics from a number of manufacturers, including “the Big Four” - Leica, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss.

I compared the 7x42 Ultravid with a new Zeiss 7x42 BGAT Classic and a one year-old Nikon 8x32 Venturer (HG). I realize that some might consider a comparison between 7x42s and 8x32s a bit unfair, but the little Nikon's image, in my opinion, is certainly good enough for inclusion within the realm of upper echelon glass. Thirty minutes of viewing birds at my feeding station under overcast skies with the Ultravid, Zeiss and Nikon confirmed what I already had suspected (hoped?): the Ultravid is the brightest and sharpest of the three. Not overwhelmingly so, but brighter and sharper nonetheless. The Ultravid is noticeably brighter than the Nikon 8x32 Venturer - no real surprise - with slightly more contrast. Chromatic aberration wasn’t detected, but I suspect that my eyes have trouble detecting this phenomenon in low-power optics. The Leica doesn’t hold sharpness to the edge of the field quite as well as the 8x32 Nikon Venturer, but the “sweet spot” of the Ultravid 7x42 is so amazing that I’m willing to compromise any apparent decrease in edge sharpness.

Comparing the Ultravid with the Zeiss 7x42 Classic was a bit more of a challenge. The Zeiss 7x42 Classic has a reputation of being one of the best birding binoculars ever designed and rightly so. It is one fine instrument, and despite its size and somewhat outdated design, it is light and easy to hold. The Leica is only very slightly brighter than the venerable Zeiss - again, no real surprise. However, the Ultravid is noticeably sharper and snappier. I understand what is noticeable to one isn’t to another, therefore, I want to emphasize the subjectivity of this “review.” The Ultravid does not blow the Zeiss Classic away, but alas, the Ultravid is sharper, a smidge brighter and shows more contrast.

The Ultravid is a sheer pleasure to hold and a testament to fine engineering and design – a marked improvement over the Trinovid line. They are light, very well balanced and relatively compact. In fact, they aren’t much larger than the diminutive Nikon 8x32 Venturer and certainly much more compact than the Zeiss Classic. The armor and eyecups are softer than what we’ve been used to from the Trinovids and as such, the Ultravids are much more user friendly. Additionally, the Ultravid appears to have the same legendary durability as its predecessors, but time will tell.

Some have held concern that focus control in the Ultravid line is somewhat sub-par, but the binocular I received focuses beautifully. Smooth, effortless, fast…~1.25 turns from close focus to infinity.

I’m sure a better comparison would be with a 7x42 Zeiss FL, and although I haven't had an opportunity to view an FL, based upon what folks are writing about them, they are a glass to be reckoned with. On paper, the Ultravid and Zeiss FL seem evenly matched, with the nod going to the Ultravid in compactness (the Ultravid 7x42 is 5.6 in. x 4.8 in.; FL 7x42 is 6.45 in. x 5.4 in.) while the FL appears to win the close focus award (Ultravid is advertised as 10.8 ft.; FL as 7 ft.). As with all optics in this price range, the decision tends to be based more on issues of handling and ergonomics than of any apparent optical superiority.

In summary, the Ultravid 7x42 is one fine effort from Leica. Simply put, the Ultravid 7x42 is the brightest, sharpest, most comfortable binocular I've had the pleasure of holding to my eyes – the view is celestial and highly addictive, indeed. Are they $350 better than the Zeiss Classics? Only you can decide, but I would say yes, especially when one considers that the Ultravids are nitrogen purged, focus internally and are more compact. A more exhaustive review will be forthcoming.

Your pocketbooks have been duly warned…

Excellent review.

Jonathan B. encouraged me to look closely at a 7X42 Ultravid as a foul-weather backup to my 8X32 SE and in a side-by-side comparison with the SE, I concluded that the Ultravid 7X would be an outstanding choice. In fact, my selection has narrowed to the 7X Ultravid and the 8.5 EL, and it is a very difficult choice to make.

After long viewing sessions in the field, I find myself thinking I'd be nuts to buy a 10X. I'd love to be looking through a 100X bin, but hand shake tells me that's never going to happen! My limit is 8X, I know it, and I accept it with all its limitations. I live in Pennsylvania and more and more hunters are finding that 8X bins are a good choice in our dense forests. Traditionally, hunters sought out 10X bins, but many are finding that "bigger is not necessarily better".

As I see it, the real advantages in a 7X42 are: better DOF, a beautifully wide FOV, reduced hand shake, and greater ease of use due to the 6mm exit pupil.

John
 
John Traynor said:
...
As I see it, the real advantages in a 7X42 are: better DOF, a beautifully wide FOV, reduced hand shake, and greater ease of use due to the 6mm exit pupil.

Fully agree, John. From my use of 8x20, I know that 7x will serve me better, especially with hand shake. I've decided to get a scope to handle those high-power situations, with the added option of digiscoping with my DSLR.

Also, thanks to Jaeger70 for the review!
 
Jaeger70 said:
I compared the 7x42 Ultravid with a new Zeiss 7x42 BGAT Classic and a one year-old Nikon 8x32 Venturer (HG). I realize that some might consider a comparison between 7x42s and 8x32s a bit unfair, but the little Nikon's image, in my opinion, is certainly good enough for inclusion within the realm of upper echelon glass.

Hi Jaeger,

Thanks for a useful and informative report.

It was of particular interest to me because my main binos are a pair of 8x32 HGs (still the best, IMHO, for normal daylight use), and my poor light/deep forest are a pair of Swarovski 7x42 SLCs (Swarobright version). The Swaros are optically very good, but their weight (950g) is causing aching neck problems, despite a harness. I am seriously considering changing them for the Leica Ultravid. But...

I haven't been able to make a direct comparison between the Ultravid and the SLCs (my local dealers only stock the 8x42 version), so my question of anyone out there in BirdForum world is:

Has anyone made a direct comparison between the Ultravid and SLC 7x42 binos and come to a firm optical conclusion? I tried a pair of 8x42 Ultravids and like their ergonomics, but chose the 8x32 HG for their smoooth focusing, brilliant optics and $$$ saving.

Thanks folks

Chris
 
zurtfox said:
Hi Jaeger,

Thanks for a useful and informative report.

It was of particular interest to me because my main binos are a pair of 8x32 HGs (still the best, IMHO, for normal daylight use), and my poor light/deep forest are a pair of Swarovski 7x42 SLCs (Swarobright version). The Swaros are optically very good, but their weight (950g) is causing aching neck problems, despite a harness. I am seriously considering changing them for the Leica Ultravid. But...

I haven't been able to make a direct comparison between the Ultravid and the SLCs (my local dealers only stock the 8x42 version), so my question of anyone out there in BirdForum world is:

Has anyone made a direct comparison between the Ultravid and SLC 7x42 binos and come to a firm optical conclusion? I tried a pair of 8x42 Ultravids and like their ergonomics, but chose the 8x32 HG for their smoooth focusing, brilliant optics and $$$ saving.

Thanks folks

Chris

Chris,

Maybe I can help.

I looked very carefully at the SLC 7X42 and found that it was not as bright as the Ultravid 7X42. Give the SLC a 9 and the Ultravid a 10 for brightness.

The SLC is beautifully SHARP and its sharpness is maintained very well across the field of view. I found the Ultravid equally as sharp, but it's not as sharp across the FOV as the SLC.

Weight? No contest. The Ultravid wins. I love the handling of the SLC 7X42 but it was too heavy for me.

Optically, I enjoyed both bins very much and they both have that focus "snap" I love so much. The Ultravid IS brighter has excellent contrast and handles extremely well. It also focuses closer. IMHO, the Ultravid 7X42 is the better choice for all day birding.

If Swarovski would reduce the weight, improve the close focus, and brighten the optics, I'd own the 7X42 SLC.

John
 
Decision Made

John Traynor said:
I looked very carefully at the SLC 7X42 and found that it was not as bright as the Ultravid 7X42. Give the SLC a 9 and the Ultravid a 10 for brightness.

The SLC is beautifully SHARP and its sharpness is maintained very well across the field of view. I found the Ultravid equally as sharp, but it's not as sharp across the FOV as the SLC.

Weight? No contest. The Ultravid wins. I love the handling of the SLC 7X42 but it was too heavy for me.

Optically, I enjoyed both bins very much and they both have that focus "snap" I love so much. The Ultravid IS brighter has excellent contrast and handles extremely well. It also focuses closer. IMHO, the Ultravid 7X42 is the better choice for all day birding.

Thanks John et al,

So, yesterday I spent some considerable time comparing my SLCs with (new) 8.5x EL (ruled out on brightness and fov considerations); Zeiss 7x42 BGATs (close call, but the fall-off sharpness towards the edges very pronounced), and Ultravid 7x42s.

Earlier this year I owned a pair of Ultravid 8x42s and was never happy with them, preferring instead the Nikon 8x32 HG/LX; but the Ultravid 7x42s are amazing! I have now compared them with my beloved 8x32HGs and they are clearly better in the brightness/sharpness/contrast departments and only let down by the 3.3m close focus and one full (smooth) turn from that to infinity. In fact, they are sharper across more of the field than the HGs!

I have to confess that in the past year I have owned/tried/tested a wide range of top-of-the-line binoculars (8 & 8.5x/10x/7x) and it has taken all this time to reach a conclusion, going almost full circle; starting with Ultravid 8x42s and ending up with the Ultravid 7x42 (I should point out that they are not only for birding, but also for all other wildlife, often late twilight or moonlight).

Please don't ask how much I have spent in this pursuit - I don't want to think about it and if my partner ever finds out, I will probably have much more time to spend using my new binoculars!

Incidentally, all this has me wondering if I should start a new thread because for some time now I have had a concern about the various binocular reviews I have read, which are often superb in detail but refer to degrees of acuity/contrast/resolution I find hard to perceive.

I am 57, wear glasses with the best lenses/anti-reflective hard coating I can buy and have, according to my optician, very good corrected vision. But, recently, my partner (who is 10 years younger than me) pointed out 'something furry' at the end of the garden (50m away) and asked what it was. I could see nothing! I Picked up HGs and lo-and-behold, a field vole, just as she described it (without glasses).

So, I wonder if it would be useful for contributors, when submitting a review, to drop themselves into an age bracket (10-20/20-30 etc) and say if they wear glasses, just to help the likes of me.

Chris.
 
Bill Atwood said:
I'm curious, what was it that you didn't like about the 8x Ultravids?

Hi Bill,

I have to say that for the first month of ownership I was very happy with the 8x U'vids, having nothing else of equal quality with which to make a direct comparison. Then my partner bought a pair of 8x32 HGs (LX) and over the (soberish) Christmas period we spent a lot of time making direct comparisons. We both came to the same conclusion that the HGs were equally sharp in the centre but held that sharpness almost to the edge whereas the U'vids sharpness deteriorated after that central (50%ish) 'sweet spot'.

The other thing I could not get on with was the focus wheel, particularly at the close focus end where it would almost resist single-fingered attempts to fine focus; compare that with the quick and oh-so-smooth focusing of the HGs. So in the end, being unable to convince my partner we should swap, I cut my losses and bought a pair of 8x32 HGs. They have remained, for normal daylight viewing, my bino of choice. However...

The 7x42 U'vid is completely different to the 8x: the sharpness across the field is equal to the HGs, but the central 'sweet spot' blows the HGs out of the water. The focusing is much, much smoother, and I am will be interested to see if it improves with use (unlike the HGs which have gained a slight 'clunk' when reversing direction).

BTW, has anyone else spotted the change in the Kikkertests for Ultravid 7x:

Dec 2003: 10+/10+/10-/10+/11+/10+ (best 7x42 we have tested)
Sep 2004: 11-/10+/10-/11+/11 /10+ (second place 7x42 v Zeiss FL)

My opinion agrees with the latter test, which makes me wonder if there have been some subtle changes made by Leica since their introduction last year.

Chris



Chris
 
zurtfox said:
BTW, has anyone else spotted the change in the Kikkertests for Ultravid 7x:

Dec 2003: 10+/10+/10-/10+/11+/10+ (best 7x42 we have tested)
Sep 2004: 11-/10+/10-/11+/11 /10+ (second place 7x42 v Zeiss FL)

My opinion agrees with the latter test, which makes me wonder if there have been some subtle changes made by Leica since their introduction last year.

Chris

The original test did not include the Zeiss FL as they were introduced this Summer.
 
Leif said:
The original test did not include the Zeiss FL as they were introduced this Summer.

could be..or some error...at kikkertspesialisten..

I also noticed that the Zeiss FL 7x just get 9+ for robustness while the FL 10x and FL 8x get 10...
 
gorank said:
could be..or some error...at kikkertspesialisten..

I also noticed that the Zeiss FL 7x just get 9+ for robustness while the FL 10x and FL 8x get 10...

There are sometimes things I don´t understand at kikkertspesialisten. An example: If my Norwegian is right they say about the 12x50 Leica Trinovid that its optics are not at the same level than the other binoculars of Leica. That´s wrong in my eyes. About the 12x50 Ultravid they don´t repeat this comment.

Steve
 
hinnark said:
There are sometimes things I don´t understand at kikkertspesialisten. An example: If my Norwegian is right they say about the 12x50 Leica Trinovid that its optics are not at the same level than the other binoculars of Leica. That´s wrong in my eyes. About the 12x50 Ultravid they don´t repeat this comment.

Steve

Sample variation?
 
hinnark said:
There are sometimes things I don´t understand at kikkertspesialisten. An example: If my Norwegian is right they say about the 12x50 Leica Trinovid that its optics are not at the same level than the other binoculars of Leica. That´s wrong in my eyes. About the 12x50 Ultravid they don´t repeat this comment.

Steve
I think you have got it quite right..
I translate:
"...very good optically, but not quite on the level of the rest of the other BN-binoculars."

They also mention high levels of CA, when the eye is not perfectly centered to the eye piece...seems not too unlikely due to the 12x magnification..
 
There is an interesting difference in true field. The Zeiss 7x42 Classic and Zeiss 7x42 FL have a 450 ft true field at 1000 yds.

The Leica 7x42 Ultravid has a 420 ft true field at 1000 yds.

Rich
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top