• 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.

The big Leica 12x50 comparisons..... (1 Viewer)

salty

salty

geordie birder
Anyone tried the 12x50 trinovid, ultravid AND ultravid HD binocular?

I fancy the larger ones for sea watching, planes and basic astronomy and if course, raptor watching.

Is it worth buying a 2nd hand pair of trinovids or go and pay an extra £1,000 for the HD version?

My previous 10x42 ultravids were not far off my 10x42 trinovids....thanks in advance.
 
Hello Salty,

I think that the Leica BA and the BN did not have dielectric mirror coatings, but relied on silver. In the very long term, this might be a problem; in the short term the older binoculars will be a bit dimmer and with a different spectral response. With a 50 mm objective and more than 4 mm of exit pupil, this brightness is not a problem in daylight.

I have a 12x50 BA, and the view is marvelous for astronomy, when the binocular is mounted on monopod. I have taken it to the shore, at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, where it allowed me to distinguish a cattle egret among a flock of great egrets, 200 metres, away, without having to carry a 'scope. If you can find a Trinivid or an Ultravid, in excellent condition, the savings may be worth it. However, the HD probably has better colour than the older binoculars. Perhaps someone with experience of the current line might put in a word to clear things up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
Pinewood said:
Hello Salty,

I think that the Leica BA and the BN did not have dielectric mirror coatings, but relied on silver. In the very long term, this might be a problem; in the short term the older binoculars will be a bit dimmer and with a different spectral response. With a 50 mm objective and more than 4 mm of exit pupil, this brightness is not a problem in daylight.

I have a 12x50 BA, and the view is marvelous for astronomy, when the binocular is mounted on monopod. I have taken it to the shore, at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, where it allowed me to distinguish a cattle egret among a flock of great egrets, 200 metres, away, without having to carry a 'scope. If you can find a Trinivid or an Ultravid, in excellent condition, the savings may be worth it. However, the HD probably has better colour than the older binoculars. Perhaps someone with experience of the current line might put in a word to clear things up.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Click to expand...

Hi Arthur,

What is your concern about sliver coatings? Deterioration? Doesn't that only happen if the seal is broken?

Won't Leica (or Nikon or Meopta or whatever company roof has a "breach") be able to recoat the mirrors, maybe even update them with dielectrics? Or is is an air breach for a silver-coated mirror a fatal wound? That is, the coatings were applied at the factory, and it's a one shot deal? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Brock
 
Salty,
The brightness improvement from Trinovid to Ultravid is very noticeable to me. It's not just the dielectric prisms, every reflection out of the barrel is brighter in the Trinovid. Here our impressions differ, so take the rest of what I say with a grain of salt.

Most reviews I've seen find scarcely any difference from Ultravid BR to HD. I have not used an HD myself. It "ought" to have better color correction but few can see it. I have wondered if this refinement might be more apparent in the 12x50 than in smaller and lower powered models, but no review I've seen has addressed that.

The 12x50 Trinovid BN is my favorite for astronomy, reclined with elbows braced. The star images are so nice I am continually amazed. Some of that is just that my eyes find the small exit pupil agreeable, but the binocular sure does its part. By day, the image is a bit drab by today's standards and color error is noticeable due to the magnification, but the fine mechanics and ergonomics, and the detail that can be seen make the experience highly interesting.

A 10x50 Ultravid BR is my most used daytime binocular. Lighter than the Trinovid, brighter, easier to manage, very decent color correction, and excellent scattered light resistance. Not much to complain of there, if you like 10x50.

Of course comparing Trinovid 12x to Ultravid 10x is appley and orangey.
Ron
 
I have noticed many reviews mentioned little, if any difference in the HD models compared with ultravids......mainly the lenses don't get as wet.....but who stands in driving rain regular?

I guess the trinovid 12x50 versus ultravid 12x50 will have some difference in brightness that is noticeable.....but do you folk reckon that's mainly in the daytime?

I can handle the weight of the big leicas, I tried the 8x50 trinovid in a local shop last week, new ones were £999 and an identical 8x50 second hand version was £650....I almost bought it but I have my eyes set on the big x12 model.
 
Basically they'd be used every single day.....to replace the Nikon 10x50 actions that live on my bedroom window!

They'd be moved downstairs so my father can use a better pair than his compacts.

Now, do I go for second hand or new?

12x50 trinovid £500 pre-owned
12x50 ultravid HD £1,400 pre-owned
12x50 ultravid £1000 pre-owned

Or the wild cards...

New ultravid 10x42 HD £1500
Pre-owned trinovid 8x50 £650

My hearts on a set of x12 as I can handle them and I'm always using my current binoculars for distant views, never in woods etc, on trips hey are used for raptors and planes.
 
swarovision

I had some experience in the past with 12 X bins.
The zeiss FL was too bulky and always had had problems wth finetuning the diopter settings. In the end I sold this bulky monster (12X56)
Afterwards I got the leica 12X50 which I bought at good price from a friend of mine .
Marvellous bin , but in the end when the new swarovision 12X50 came on the market , I was eager to compare it with the ultravid HD.
The swaro was much sharper and overall gave more pleasant feeling.
I sold the ultravid HD.
Now I use the 12 X sarovison for sea migration and am happy.

Conclusion : If you have the money , defintely go for the swaro instead of the ultravid HD.

In the old days I had a 10X42 trinovid : very good bin at the time.
The leap towards the ultravid was big enough for me to buy the ultravid.
The step towards HD was minor imho.

Regards
salty said:
Anyone tried the 12x50 trinovid, ultravid AND ultravid HD binocular?

I fancy the larger ones for sea watching, planes and basic astronomy and if course, raptor watching.

Is it worth buying a 2nd hand pair of trinovids or go and pay an extra £1,000 for the HD version?

My previous 10x42 ultravids were not far off my 10x42 trinovids....thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Salty. In May I was using a pair of 8x42 Trinovids and 10x42 Ultravids HD. The weather conditions were great (In Scotland!!) and I can honestly say that the HD's were not worth a grand more. I struggled to see much difference at all except perhaps some greater brightness and the HD's were a sight lighter. Even then the only time I struggled (slightly) with the weight was when I had a 5 year old on my shoulders whilst watching a pair of RTD's out on Loch Buie.

Perhaps if you look at them as a long term investment then the price difference becomes less of an issue and then the HD's will also retain more value.

Rich
 
brocknroller said:
Hi Arthur,

What is your concern about sliver coatings? Deterioration? Doesn't that only happen if the seal is broken?

Won't Leica (or Nikon or Meopta or whatever company roof has a "breach") be able to recoat the mirrors, maybe even update them with dielectrics? Or is is an air breach for a silver-coated mirror a fatal wound? That is, the coatings were applied at the factory, and it's a one shot deal? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Brock
Click to expand...

Hello Brock,

Certainly, my concern was deterioration. As Salty is considering purchasing a second hand binocular, the guarantee may not be valid.

I do not lose any sleep about possible deterioration, but there are some, even a few on BirdForum, who do obsess over every detail and possibility.

Salty,

Were you writing of a "previously owned" Leica, purchased from a Leica UK agent, which has a warrantee or were you writing of buying second hand from a private party?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe:
 
My vote would be for the 12x50 ultravid £1000 pre-owned for these reasons:

- The Ultravids I have are noticeably brighter than the Trinovids I've had. It would be odd if the 12x50 were not brighter as well. In fact, I did a comparison between my 8x42 Ultravid and 8x50 Trinovid and I could not see any significant difference in the brightness of the images.

- Ergonomics. I tested a pair of 12x50 Ultravids and was amazed at how steadily they could be held, even better than the 10x42 Ultravids (but that may just be me). I prefer the smooth rubber armor of the Ultravids compared to the ridges of the Trinovid armor - it allows a greater contact area. My thumbs seem to rest under the tube more comfortably as well, but again everyone has different opinions when it comes to fit.
The rubber armor also feels a little more forgiving compared to the almost hard plastic feel of the Trinovid armor, but then again, my Trinovids are twenty years old, and rubber doesn't last forever no matter how expensive the binocular.

- The Ultravids are lighter.

- I have never been able to see a difference between the Ultravid and Ultravid HD's, but then again, I just started wearing prescription glasses, so what do I know?

- The price of a new pair of 12x50's can be hard to justify for what is essentially a specialty binocular. I've been looking for a decent sale to show up on eBay, but no luck yet.

I wish I had the choices you have. Any way you decide you're getting an outstanding binocular.
 
Last edited:
Also depends on if the Trinovid is a BA or a BN. I once compared the 8x32 format. The difference between BA and Ultravid BR was significant. Between BN and Ultravid BR was much less pronounced. Differences were in brightness and flare control.

I would go for the 12x50 Ultravid non-HD, unless you have money to spare and it is a once-in-a lifetime purchase that you'll use every day and even then I'm not sure. For 1400 pounds I might be tempted to spend some more and look at the Swaro SVs.....

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
The trinovids are the BA version and the ultravids have 8yrs warranty but are still £1,000.

Still can't find a HD version for under £1400 pre owned and that's only £300 off new ones!

Don't know if it's worth just buying a pre owned ultravid for £900-£1,000 instead......
 
Salty,
Having owned 10x42s in both Trinovid and Ultravid models, you are in a good position to make the decision. I would confidently assume that what goes for the 10x42 goes for the 12x50. This discussion supports the insignificance of the BR to HD improvement.

For daytime viewing, I sort of wish my 12x50 Trinovid was an Ultravid, but I'll give it two things. At 40 oz. it sure feels like a 12x. And if you put tracks on it, it would look like a tank.
Ron
 
I'll second CloseFocus above.

When the Ultravid HD series came out, I tested the 8x32 configuration against the non-HD 8x32 Ultravid. I had both binoculars for a few days, and tested them in all kinds of light, hand-held, on a tripod, with resolution charts, with and without a booster, and in all the light conditions I could find. Had the letters "HD" not been printed on one of the binoculars, I could not have told any other difference between them than the serial number on them. Except that on my scale, one of the pairs was, if I remember correctly, 5g heavier than the other, but against my expectations, the heavier one was the non-HD. Any minuscule difference between the two was of the level that is normal and to be expected from sample variation between different pairs of supposedly identical binoculars. From what I have seen of various Leicas since, I find it safe to say that the difference between the HD and non-HD amounts to the difference you can see in the Optozyne transmission charts, which is all but negligible. There is a bit of a tweak to the multicoatings, and very marginally brighter image in the HD, but that is all.

Kimmo
 
Last edited:
arran said:
I had some experience in the past with 12 X bins.
The zeiss FL was too bulky and always had had problems wth finetuning the diopter settings. In the end I sold this bulky monster (12X56)
Afterwards I got the leica 12X50 which I bought at good price from a friend of mine .
Marvellous bin , but in the end when the new swarovision 12X50 came on the market , I was eager to compare it with the ultravid HD.
The swaro was much sharper and overall gave more pleasant feeling.
I sold the ultravid HD.
Now I use the 12 X sarovison for sea migration and am happy.

Conclusion : If you have the money , defintely go for the swaro instead of the ultravid HD.

In the old days I had a 10X42 trinovid : very good bin at the time.
The leap towards the ultravid was big enough for me to buy the ultravid.
The step towards HD was minor imho.

Regards
Click to expand...

Arran,

Do you mount the 12x50 SV ELs or use them handheld? If the latter, do you find them easier to hold steady than other 12x bins you've owned or tried?

I keep hearing reports from users that the 12x50 SV EL is easier to hold steady than other 12x bins, and I'm wondering why that is? Ergonomics? Weight balance? The Wizards of Absam's Magic? ;)

Brock
 
It's a nightmare not having a shop stock these within a few hundred miles for a test view......all other brands are available bar leicas
 
arran said:
I had some experience in the past with 12 X bins.
The zeiss FL was too bulky and always had had problems wth finetuning the diopter settings. In the end I sold this bulky monster (12X56)
Afterwards I got the leica 12X50 which I bought at good price from a friend of mine .
Marvellous bin , but in the end when the new swarovision 12X50 came on the market , I was eager to compare it with the ultravid HD.
The swaro was much sharper and overall gave more pleasant feeling.
I sold the ultravid HD.
Now I use the 12 X sarovison for sea migration and am happy.

Conclusion : If you have the money , defintely go for the swaro instead of the ultravid HD.

In the old days I had a 10X42 trinovid : very good bin at the time.
The leap towards the ultravid was big enough for me to buy the ultravid.
The step towards HD was minor imho.

Regards
Click to expand...
I just recently came to the same conclusion with the 10x50's hd's swaro and leica. The swaro was indeed sharper! I'm still thinking it's the best view i have seen through a binocular in my yrs! Bryce...
 
I'm hoping to snag a low price 12x50 trinovid tomorrow, should be good for sky and stars, failing that I may take a hit on the ultravid, double the money but it's my birthday this month ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Similar threads

etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
dorubird
Trinovid 8x20 BCA vs Ultravid 8x20 BR
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
A
Are my Leicas defective?
Replies
12
Views
1K
jafritten
jafritten
Peter Leitzman
Leica 8x50 Ultravid HD Plus
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
kkylp
K
D
Is Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 the best choise for me?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top