Different optical designs of the UVs (1 Viewer)

I’ve been wondering about the different Ultravids for quite a while. Not only about the differences between the HD and the HD+ versions but also about the differences of the optical design of models with different dimensions. My most recent buy (10x42 HD+) shed some light upon this. At the same time, though, it sowed some mild confusion.

The first Leicas I bought were the 8x20 BR. They’re fantastic albeit not without some limitations that are due to the very dimensions of it. That is why I went for the 10x32 HDs a couple of years ago expecting similar optics in terms of colour cast and distortion. Well, my expectations were confounded. Both colour cast and distortion differ greatly. That is not a problem for me as I think the 10x32 HDs are fantastic, too – just in a different way. In fact, they’re different (only talking about colour cast and distortion) to the point I can’t see why they’re both in the same range (Ultravid).

Anyway, I love the 10x32’s depth of colour and panning is a sheer pleasure due to its very pronounced distortion. Many binos make me literally sick when panning or tracking fast moving objects. That is the reason why Swarovision, for example, is not for me and when I felt I needed a pair with better low light abilities I bought a pair of 10x42 HD+. Again, my expectations were confounded. The 10x42s have a totally different optical design: the colour cast is much closer to the 8x20 BR (!) than to the 10x32 HD, which I put down to the “+”-innovation at first. Now I am not too sure about that...The 10x42 HD+ seems very similar to the 8x20 BR in terms of distortion, too. When it comes to panning, however, I find it rather unpleasant – quite unlike the 8x20s.

I am wondering now what the other dimensions, i.e. the 7x42s or 8x42s, are like. Are they all of a totally different optical design? I would love to compare all of them but I’ve never had the opportunity to do so. I’d really like to know what a pair of 10x32 HD+ would be like?

Can anybody comment on my findings? I suspect I am rather subjective as for the panning behaviour but I think a lot of people have noticed the different colour casts.

Cheers

I think that it is mainly the different eyepiece design in these various Ultravids that dictate distortion characteristics.

In my old Leica brochure it does list the number of lens elements in each binocular.
Maybe a current brochure also does.

For instance the 12x50 eyepiece has more elements than the lower magnification.

In the old catalogue the 10x25 Ultravid has 6 lens elements in total each side, the 10x32 Ultravid has 11 lens elements each side.
There are sometimes cutaway drawings also.

Normally with photographic lenses the colour balance with say Minolta is kept the same with different lenses. I think Leica did the same.
So I don't know why Leica binoculars vary.

B.

jafritten said:

I’ve been wondering about the different Ultravids for quite a while. Not only about the differences between the HD and the HD+ versions but also about the differences of the optical design of models with different dimensions. My most recent buy (10x42 HD+) shed some light upon this. At the same time, though, it sowed some mild confusion.

The first Leicas I bought were the 8x20 BR. They’re fantastic albeit not without some limitations that are due to the very dimensions of it. That is why I went for the 10x32 HDs a couple of years ago expecting similar optics in terms of colour cast and distortion. Well, my expectations were confounded. Both colour cast and distortion differ greatly. That is not a problem for me as I think the 10x32 HDs are fantastic, too – just in a different way. In fact, they’re different (only talking about colour cast and distortion) to the point I can’t see why they’re both in the same range (Ultravid).

Anyway, I love the 10x32’s depth of colour and panning is a sheer pleasure due to its very pronounced distortion. Many binos make me literally sick when panning or tracking fast moving objects. That is the reason why Swarovision, for example, is not for me and when I felt I needed a pair with better low light abilities I bought a pair of 10x42 HD+. Again, my expectations were confounded. The 10x42s have a totally different optical design: the colour cast is much closer to the 8x20 BR (!) than to the 10x32 HD, which I put down to the “+”-innovation at first. Now I am not too sure about that...The 10x42 HD+ seems very similar to the 8x20 BR in terms of distortion, too. When it comes to panning, however, I find it rather unpleasant – quite unlike the 8x20s.

I am wondering now what the other dimensions, i.e. the 7x42s or 8x42s, are like. Are they all of a totally different optical design? I would love to compare all of them but I’ve never had the opportunity to do so. I’d really like to know what a pair of 10x32 HD+ would be like?

Can anybody comment on my findings? I suspect I am rather subjective as for the panning behaviour but I think a lot of people have noticed the different colour casts.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Hello JaFritten,

Just as a starter for ten regarding the colour differences, as I know there will be others with knowledge and experience going back further than mine. I can comment on 8x32 Ultravid HD Plus and 7x42 Ultravid HD Plus as those are the two I have and after buying them felt in paradise for nature viewing, also enjoying initially seeing what differences I could detect - apart from the obvious ones resulting from different magnification and objective sizes.

I would agree with Tobias Mennle (head over to greatestbinoculars.com to see his reviews) who compared the same two. My finding - confirmed from more use in the last few weeks - is that the 7 comes over slightly brighter; not a surprise considering the specification, but the effect is of darker shadow tones and more saturated mid tones in the 8x32. This is a small but noticeable difference, but personally I am unable to detect any differences in colour balance. Also I would say both these models are extremely fine at all distances and I like the fact they are far from being flat field and are very compact and well made. To me both give beautiful saturated reds, vibrant, pleasantly warm colour in general, and a very appealing rendition of things like old stonework and tree bark. If I had to part with one it would be the 8x32 as I find 7x the perfect solution for me and the ease of view with the 7x42 UVHD Plus is exceptional. I'd be interested what differences and impressions you would take from that model compared with your existing line-up. I believe the 7x is one of the highest regarded out of the range available at present from Leica.

The only other non-compact Leica binoculars I have used were an ex-demo 8x42 Ultravid HD sold off as they preceded the just released Plus version, and for whatever reason I did not get the same pleasure from these as from the current pair mentioned already. I think it was because really I wanted a 7x all along but succumbed to the previous version 8x out of impatience, and then regretted it. I doubt that it was to do with the lack of Schott 'plus' glass and whatever new coatings they used as I sold the 8x42 to help fund the others and so never had a proper opportunity to look for a difference in image flavour.

Hope this helps a bit. I have no experience with earlier Leica or Leitz binoculars.

Tom

PS: if you look back over previous posts on the Leica sub-forum over recent times i.e. since the introduction of HD Plus (2014 or so?) till present times, you will see some discussion over real or imagined differences between Ultravid, Ultravid HD, and Ultravid HD Plus. Leica did themselves mention in advertising literature and/or a video (I have a feeling) that the HD Plus does contain revised glass by Schott and not just an update to coatings. I just registered this in passing; those who understand optics will have better memories from which to confirm, modify, or (hopefully not) deny.

There have been many comments here on the relatively minor differences of the Ultravid generations (especially HD to HD+) taken as a whole. I think Binastro is right to suspect oculars for variation in distortion in certain models, as the 10x32 and 12x50 have always had an additional element over other models due to their higher magnification. I'm not aware of any significant difference in color rendition but haven't studied all the various models. The most notable difference I see compared to the 10x32 BN (longer ago) is that subtler detail is somehow visible in the HD+, for example studying striations in rock faces. I'm not sure what that's a function of, perhaps better transmission although they're not strikingly brighter overall, but I'd imagine the HD has this also. Of course I wouldn't be surprised if the pocket models weren't quite the same in various ways.

The 10x32 HD+ is my own daily bino, though not because I'm sensitive to panning issues, so I can't comment there. I've tried and didn't especially like the 10x42, which gives me insufficient eyecup depth (no eyeglasses), has less FOV, and more field curvature, i.e. a relatively smaller "sweet spot". (I wish manufacturers didn't make so many sacrifices to minimize the size of 42mm models.) The 10x50 is said to be better again, possibly the best of the Ultravids optically.

Binastro said:

I think that it is mainly the different eyepiece design in these various Ultravids that dictate distortion characteristics.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Binastro. I am not an expert on bincoluars, I just like using them. I have never considered the technical requirements. I just thought (quite naively) the optical designers at Leica had sit together before they set about working on a new range of binoculars and decided on certain characteristics of the new Ultravid range, like degree of distortion, colour balance and so on that would be the same with all the different dimensions (7x, 8x 10x etc.). So that is what I expected.

I agree with Tenex (#4) when he says that the pocket versions may not be quite the same in various ways.

Thanks to your explanation I see why distortion characteristics may vary.

Binastro said:

Normally with photographic lenses the colour balance with say Minolta is kept the same with different lenses. I think Leica did the same.
So I don't know why Leica binoculars vary.
B.

Click to expand...

Neither do I. I am reluctant to put it down to the difference between HD and HD+ because even though some experienced users do see a difference between the HDs and the +s the differences must be rather slight. Most people seem to discuss if there is a difference...

The difference in colour balance between my copies of the 10x32 HDs and the 10x42 HD+s is striking - no side by side testing needed. It's like Lagavulin 16yo vs Macallan 12yo. Can't say which one is "better"; they're just so different.

SeldomPerched said:

...This is a small but noticeable difference, but personally I am unable to detect any differences in colour balance.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Tom. This is very interesting to hear. If they were different in the way my 10x32 HDs and 10x42HD+s are, you would have seen the difference.

SeldomPerched said:

I'd be interested what differences and impressions you would take from that model compared with your existing line-up. I believe the 7x is one of the highest regarded out of the range available at present from Leica.

Click to expand...

I'd love to try out the 7s. Unfortunately, there's no Leica dealer anywhere near where I live. But I might have the opportunity when I am away for a short holiday soon. I have a feeling the 7x42s would be great for me. I'll try them out whenever I have the chance to do so and I might sell the 10x42s to fund them. I owned a pair of 7x42 Habichts but sold them because of the eye relief and the narrow field of view. The Leicas will certainly be better in those respects, I suppose. I am, however, concerned with CA and panning behaviour. I guess CA is the bullet you will have to bite if you want a pair of Leicas...CA is definetely there in 10x magnifications, maybe it's better with a lower magnification.

Can you tell me anything about the 7x42s' panning behaviour?

Cheers

Thank you for your reply, Tenex.

tenex said:

Of course I wouldn't be surprised if the pocket models weren't quite the same in various ways.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, I see. That could explain the difference in colour balance between my 8x20 BRs and my 10x32 HDs. Strange, though, that my 10x42HD+s have a very similar colour balance like the 8x20BRs.

tenex said:

The 10x32 HD+ is my own daily bino, though not because I'm sensitive to panning issues, so I can't comment there. I've tried and didn't especially like the 10x42, which gives me insufficient eyecup depth (no eyeglasses), has less FOV, and more field curvature, i.e. a relatively smaller "sweet spot". (I wish manufacturers didn't make so many sacrifices to minimize the size of 42mm models.) The 10x50 is said to be better again, possibly the best of the Ultravids optically.

Click to expand...

Apart from the panning issue it is the narrower FOV of the 10x42s that makes me prefer the 10x32s over them. As I wrote earlier, there is a substantial difference in terms of colour rendition between the two but I couldn't say I like one better than the other.

Do your 10x32 HD+ have a strong pincushion distortion?

jafritten said:

It's like Lagavulin 16yo vs Macallan 12yo. Can't say which one is "better"; they're just so different.

Click to expand...

You're into Leica binoculars and good single malts? I like you already!

tenex said:

The 10x50 is said to be better again, possibly the best of the Ultravids optically.

Click to expand...

SeldomPerched said:

Hello JaFritten,
I believe the 7x is one of the highest regarded out of the range available at present from Leica.

Click to expand...

My understanding has long been that the 10X50 and 7X42 UV's were widely accepted as being the best bins offered by Leica, at least prior to the introduction of the Noctivid. (and by some, afterwards as well)

I used to own the Ultravid 8x32 BR, the 7x42 BR and the 8x20 BR and compared them side by side numerous times. To my eyes the 8x32 consistently showed whiter whites, the 7x42 was a little bit more creamy. The 8x20 BR was similar to the 8x32.

Allbinos.com also notices differences in colour rendition between different models of the same range.


George

jafritten said:

Do your 10x32 HD+ have a strong pincushion distortion?

Click to expand...

Yes, as even my old BN did. But for some reason I just don't have a strong preference about this. My other binos are Swaro SLC 56, which have much less.

I should also say that while I don't recall being struck by a color difference between the 32 and 42mm UVs, I wasn't really looking for it either, and didn't spend much time with the 42.

Mike F said:

You're into Leica binoculars and good single malts? I like you already!

Click to expand...

Haha Yes, that's me. Wandering about, watching wildlife (mostly through Leica glass) and sitting down to a nice dram afterwards.

Cheers!

14Goudvink said:

I used to own the Ultravid 8x32 BR, the 7x42 BR and the 8x20 BR and compared them side by side numerous times. To my eyes the 8x32 consistently showed whiter whites, the 7x42 was a little bit more creamy. The 8x20 BR was similar to the 8x32.

Allbinos.com also notices differences in colour rendition between different models of the same range.


George

Click to expand...

Interesting findings. Thank you, George.

tenex said:

I should also say that while I don't recall being struck by a color difference between the 32 and 42mm UVs, I wasn't really looking for it either, and didn't spend much time with the 42.

Click to expand...

Maybe your 10X32 HD+ are more similar to the 42s in colour rendition than the 10x32 non"+". I find the difference strikingly obvious. That's why I asked in the first place. I hope, I will be able to have a look through the 32 HD+ soon. Thanks for your reply, Tenex.

jafritten said:

Thank you, Tom. This is very interesting to hear. If they were different in the way my 10x32 HDs and 10x42HD+s are, you would have seen the difference...

...I am, however, concerned with CA and panning behaviour. I guess CA is the bullet you will have to bite if you want a pair of Leicas...CA is definetely there in 10x magnifications, maybe it's better with a lower magnification.

Can you tell me anything about the 7x42s' panning behaviour?

Cheers

Click to expand...

Hello, JAFritten.

When panning I'm more intent on just following and keeping in focus so other behaviour escapes my notice most of the time, I'm sorry to say. There is certainly no GE to report, and you wouldn't really expect it from a traditional non-flat field device, I suppose. CA is not something I've noticed from the 7x42 or 8x32 in normal use; in fact not at all though I have definitely heard it exists as you go further out but again I don't tend to notice it unless trying to bait it with a big stick i.e. look at black birds on top branches or telephone wires against the sky. My fussy areas are really just 'ease of view' - great in the 7x42 - also colour that I like, and good contrast and resolution with well-controlled glare, crescent-shaped or otherwise. I do notice some of the last mentioned but somehow it doesn't dilute the overall picture, so it's not a problem for me. As you probably know the Zeiss 7x42s - Dialyt and T*FL - have a bigger FOV but then again the Nikon EDG which is superb with the extra benefit of a very smooth focuser has a smaller FOV but still that easy view (with a flatter field).

Off topic but possibly of relevance and interest to you the 10x42 you might like to try would be the Swarovski SLC most recent HD version; about the same size or even shorter than the UV, lighter than its companion glass in 8x, and very well regarded by Roger Vine at Scope Views. Worth a read if you are thinking of changing your 10x42 but keeping the same mag+objective size: he is a demanding astronomer but also comments on daytime use for birding, nature and so on: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x42SLCHD.htm

Also as 10x50 UVHD Plus has been mentioned he has reviewed that too. He prefers flat field but still has good things to say about this particular Leica, along with others:
http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Leica10x50HDPlus.htm

Happy comparing and decision making!

Tom

Thank you for reply and your valuable advice, Tom. I didn't know Roger's site, very interesting. I actually toyed with the idea of going for one of those SLCs. However, I feel I have more binoculars than I could possibly justify to myself. One pair would have to go. It could never be the 8x20BR and not the 10x32 HD. I also use a 8x32 Victory FL a lot and despite my finding faults with the UV 10x42HD+ I think they're great.

I find it rather interesting that some people do see a difference in colour balance whereas those differences seem to escape other users' notice. A further concluding finding is how silly I am for now wanting another pair of Leicas, namely the 7x42s. I guess some of you will have every sympathy for me...

Cheers

jafritten said:

Can you tell me anything about the 7x42s' panning behaviour?

Cheers

Click to expand...

Sorry to be very late in replying - or if I already have it was a long time ago and I may have forgotten; please accept my apologies either way...

I am fortunate not to have too much trouble panning, even with flat field glass such as the Swarovski EL and Nikon EDG, so my answer may not match with your potential experience. I have not had any trouble with the 7x42; the only thing I do notice is a slightly smaller FOV compared with the Zeiss 7s (Dialyt BGAT*P* and T*FL). But the compactness and the view make up for that, in my observation anyway!

Now that some time has passed, did you go for the 7x42 UVHD(+/1) in the end? I'd love to know .

Best wishes,

Tom

jafritten said:

Thank you for reply and your valuable advice, Tom. I didn't know Roger's site, very interesting. I actually toyed with the idea of going for one of those SLCs. However, I feel I have more binoculars than I could possibly justify to myself. One pair would have to go. It could never be the 8x20BR and not the 10x32 HD. I also use a 8x32 Victory FL a lot and despite my finding faults with the UV 10x42HD+ I think they're great.

I find it rather interesting that some people do see a difference in colour balance whereas those differences seem to escape other users' notice. A further concluding finding is how silly I am for now wanting another pair of Leicas, namely the 7x42s. I guess some of you will have every sympathy for me...

Cheers

Click to expand...

Hi jafritten,

I have every sympathy with you as I think I am in the same boat!

You may have seen I recently splashed out on those 10x42 SLCs and am very very impressed. A sort of Leica roundness with very good contrast and definition; I haven't used other 10s to compare with apart from the 10x50 EL WB which is a slightly heavier and larger beast though still comparatively light and compact, if that makes sense. The binoculars feel as compact as Ultravids and give the same sort of pleasure in use. There is something very inviting about the ease of view. No problem for me in panning and there is little glare. Chromatic aberration I don't tend to notice. I do notice that though not a flat field design (hence the roundness I mention, presumably at least in part) the view seems more than acceptably sharp out to the edges. Not doing Zeiss down in the following statement, as I like their Victory FL and HT 42s, but the edge fall off is more noticeable than anything in the 10x42 SLC. Then again the Zs are a bit brighter with AK instead of SP prisms.

Hope this helps after such a long time!

Enjoy your choosing if you are still looking.

Tom

SeldomPerched said:

Now that some time has passed, did you go for the 7x42 UVHD(+/1) in the end? I'd love to know .

Best wishes,

Tom

Click to expand...

Hi Tom! Yes, I went for the 7x42 a couple of days ago and from what I can say now, they're absolutely gorgeous! Worth every penny and a sheer pleasure to look through and to hold in your hands. I doubt I will bring up another pair of binoculars any time soon...I can't wait to go outside again