Do folks think the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 is on par with the Zeiss SF or Swaro EL 8x32s? (1 Viewer)

Well, I just returned from the Leica store in Bellevue, and it was a pretty darn interesting visit. I will say comparing binoculars at the end of a day of staring at a computer screen is non-optimal. But this is a purchase I want to take my time with, and it's nice to see things several times.

The UVHD+ 8x32's are pretty darn special - if for nothing else, being able to stuff so much view into so small and light of a package. Great build and design quality. My feeling is that they are at the lower limit of of weight/size stability for me - any lighter or smaller would be counterproductive, resulting in too much shake/movement. I do like the Leica house view colorwise, nothing too much but on the warm/saturated side. I was especially impressed by minimal glare - in comparison to my Conquest HDs, clearly better. But I'm not sure their resolution was any better than the Conquests, but then again, non optimal eye conditions.

I tell you what did grab my attention - the 7x42s. Other folks have been talking about those here. It occurs to me that part of my love for my 7x26 B&Ls may be their 7xness. The Uvid 7x42 are just a lovely view, 3d, immersive, and just super steady. I have found my limit for view stability to be at 8x, but I wonder a bit - perhaps it is actually 7x. Could a 7.5x be the ideal? I'm sure that will hit the market soon...or not.

Anyway, very interesting process. I am not sure where it will end. Definitely the Uvid 8x32s are in the running...but now...that 7x42...

One thing I will add, is that my Conquests and the BNs did pretty well...Conquests especially...we are definitely talking about edge improvements...

And on it goes.

Yes, and the idea that anything in this category kills something else is silly. It's down to differences and preferences...and I feel like we're into a zone where I'd prefer whatever is in my hand...at least to a certain extent.

"Of course I'm interested in published reviews of a binocular by them, but I've learned on several occasions already that their rankings do not correspond to my own personal experience."

I have found my own personal experience corresponds exactly with Allbinos and I havd had a LOT of the binoculars on their site. That is why I like the review site and I think it is the best around and that is why I don't take any credence in people who think a binocular that is ranked 12th place is as good as one that is ranked 1st. I know my eyes would tell me different. We have all have priorities when choosing binoculars. Some people like a big FOV and some people can not tolerate CA or you might like the focus speed of one binocular more than the other or you might like the ergonomics better so that would be a reason to like a lower ranked binocular over a higher one but in general if a binocular is ranked 1st on Allbinos there are reasons for it and I personally agree with them. When people say that Allbinos is ridiculous I don't trust their judgement.

b-lilja said:

Yes, and the idea that anything in this category kills something else is silly. It's down to differences and preferences...and I feel like we're into a zone where I'd prefer whatever is in my hand...at least to a certain extent.

Click to expand...

Interesting comments, and I largely agree! Especially agree that once you get to the ~$1K+ price point, it's all really good glass and your subjective preferences will be more important than any tiny objective differences in optics.

Like you say, it's not "resolution"; using 7-10x magnification optics it's very hard to see any meaningful differences in handheld field use. I've got the 8x32 UVHD, 8x32 Meostar, 8x42 MHG, and 10x32 EDG in house, and have bought/sold the 10x32 Conquest HD, 10x33 Genesis, Swaro 8x30 CL-B, etc. Lots of good glass, all of them more than good enough to identify birds in the field.

That said, one thing I'll observe -- I don't think you can fully appreciate the incremental difference between the "sub alpha" and the "alpha" in the quick side-by-side views. With glass this good, they ALL look good with quick comparisons.

But it's illuminating to just take one pair out in the field, and then next time take the other pair, and see if you find yourself missing the other one.

And, like you, the UVHD 7x42 has sort of knocked my socks off. The 8x42 Monarch HG is a really, really good binocular, but every time I have it out in the field I find myself wishing I had the 7x42 Leica instead. It's just SO good, so clean and transparent and deep.... just wow.

The biggest thing I notice is the "good view percentage". Any binocular can look good standing still looking at a clear target in good light. But does it still look good in garbage light when you're off balance craning your body trying to view that warbler through a tiny gap in the tree with the light fading?

And one thing I noticed with the "real alphas" -- they almost never look bad, and they nearly always look great. Sometimes that Monarch HG looks a little "flat" or "dull" (I'm talking the worst, most challenging viewing conditions), but that Ultravid almost NEVER looks bad. I noticed the same thing with the 10x42 Trinovid that I just sold.... sometimes I would look at things and just sort of marvel, slack jawed, that it looked so beautiful in such mediocre viewing conditions. Because I know how those conditions just gobble up lesser optics.

The other binocular I miss when I don't have it is that 10x32 EDG. The EDG have that same "wow" luster where they basically NEVER look bad, even in situations where a 10x32 has no business looking good. And while the 7x42 Leica is so good that I don't care about 7x vs 8x, I definitely DO notice the difference with 10x trying to ID some frustrating female teal 100 yards away on a lake. And they are light and compact enough for me to tote around on longer walks and hikes.

It's gotten to the point where I've been chewing a lot on the idea of reducing my collection to the 7x42 Ultravid + 10x32 EDG. This may be the perfect combo for me. One smaller, lighter, high mag option for general walk-around birding, and a lower mag, super wide field, larger exit pupil option that's still quite compact and relatively light weight (only 750g vs 650g for the EDG 32). Both "alpha" quality optics with world class contrast and color saturation. What else do I need?

So, anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying I think you should pull the ripcord, change course, and get the 7x42 instead. You already have a really good 8x32, that you really like. So rather than try to incrementally upgrade it, give yourself a completely different option for different situations and just enjoy the Conquest HD for what it is (and it's really good).

Thanks, Eitan - liked your well written post and agree with most of what you say.
Canip

I deeply regret selling my 7x42UVHD+, I got seduced by my 8.5x42SVFP and did`nt use my UV for several months so sold it, big mistake, a truly special and now unique Alpha.

Torview said:

I deeply regret selling my 7x42UVHD+

Click to expand...

I have one as well as a Zeiss SF 8x32. I slightly prefer the Leica colors & contrast but the Zeiss as less CA, less distorsion, a wider field...
So I'm having a hard time finding a reason to keep the Ultravid.

BTW, before buying the Zeiss SF, I tried the 8x32 UVHD+ and the Swaro. The Leica is quite good and very small but I prefer the handling and view of the 2 competitors. And I'm wearing glasses and the Leica has less eye-relief too.

Canip said:

Thanks, Eitan - liked your well written post and agree with most of what you say.
Canip

Click to expand...

Me too!

pm42 said:

I'm having a hard time finding a reason to keep the Ultravid.

Click to expand...

Hi pm, sounds like you`re where I was, I have a 42mm SF and agree its "better" optically, but a 7x42 especially the UVHD+ is worth keeping and I wish I`d kept mine.

b-lilja said:

Hi all,

I am going to make a purchase, and want to be completist with option consideration, and realized I hadn't considered these. I love our Leica BNs, they are so nicely made...there's a lot to be said for that. Asking because seeing the Ultravids will be a bit of an effort.

Click to expand...

ALL Binoculars are a compromise.

Factors include eye relief, colour reproduction, close focusing, distortion, resistance to Chromatic aberration just to name a few.

The very latest Swarovski models from what I've been told eliminate almost all the issues found to a greater or lesser extent elsewhere.

I own a pair of fully serviced Leica 8x42 Ultravids (which appear to have been upgraded to HD +. standard) For me they're near perfection. Yes they distort a little and there's a little fall off from centre to edge. But my biggest bug bearer in days gone by Chromatic aberration is virtually eradicated.

Could they be even better?

YES.


The Swarovskis apparently go further towards 'perfection' and I have no doubt they're phenomenal performers. But the compromise here is the price. £3K is an awful lot of money for binoculars in anyone's book.

If you feel the need to go that far then I'm sure you'll have a staggering instrument which will give you years of near perfection in observation not to mention admiration from fellow birdwatchers.

But for me, the Ultravids are good enough.

Thanks for the long thoughtful responses. I appreciate the comment about using all day. That is one reason actually I like my Nikon SE's - they are a very comfortable view, best for all day hard birding. I realize that's not exactly what you are saying, but that too is a factor. The Uvid 7x42's seem to be that, only possibly more so.

This whole process has really helped me also think in a lot more detail about how I actually use binoculars and aligning bins with that usage:

• Birding with no scope, using harness
• Birding with scope, scope over shoulder and walking, sometimes single handing bins
  • Birding from a boat or ferry (pretty frequent)
• On the road travelling with minimal gear - business and vacations
• Hiking/mountaineering
• Biking with handlebar bag
• Out for a walk with a coat

These split pretty clearly into something smaller and then something larger, about 50/50.

Realizing both the Leica BNs and Conquest HDs are a little chunkier than I like for the smaller function. I had a pair of Vortex HD 8x32s, that weren't as good as the Conquests, but they were so great on a two week bike tour of the Scottish west coast - the Uvid 8x32s are like an uber version of those. I also use a pair of Nikon Mountaineer II's 8x25s for rough stuff in the mountains - they are great, but not the Uvids, and nearly as heavy as the Uvids.

Finally - it is often my wife and I birding together. Her current go to are the BNs. I suspect she will not like the Uvids as much, based on handling ease, but we will see...

To be continued...

[email protected] said:

I have found my own personal experience corresponds exactly with Allbinos and I havd had a LOT of the binoculars on their site. That is why I like the review site and I think it is the best around and that is why I don't take any credence in people who think a binocular that is ranked 12th place is as good as one that is ranked 1st. I know my eyes would tell me different.

Click to expand...

Apparently that is your current opinion. Like, as of this week. I think if you honestly went back and studied your own posts on various binoculars you've owned that are ranked 'highly' by Allbinos, you'll find yourself all over the map. There is no consistency in your emphatic proclamations.

My experience doesn't correspond to yours with regards to the Allbinos rankings. Others on the forum have said the same. Allbino's rankings are subjective, not objective. There is no binocular god. A very useful guide perhaps, but nothing more. Its entirely valid to trust one's own judgement and experience with regards to optics.

-Bill

b-lilja said:

Finally - it is often my wife and I birding together. Her current go to are the BNs. I suspect she will not like the Uvids as much, based on handling ease, but we will see...

To be continued...

Click to expand...

When you were at the Leica store the other day, did they have the Retrovid 7x35's in stock? It may be a useful contender to consider. You'll get the 7x, but lighter weight, and less cost than the 7x42.

Its fun to be in the hunt..

-Bill

Hi Bill,

I did look at them, as well as the 8x40s. I thought they were very cool, though I didn't love the handling - a little more bulk is nice. I also really want waterproof. Definitely part of the fun though!

b-lilja said:

…………... I also really want waterproof. Definitely part of the fun though!

Click to expand...

I agree with you, you need waterproof for sure. And evaluations can definitely be a lot of fun if you have time.

What "bites me" still is your downright dismission of the Zeiss FL x32. I must say I need to wear glasses which is why the Leicas were eliminated from my list some years ago. I used to have Leica BN 8x32s for way over a decade, and I always loved their contrasty picture and the color rendition. But it was them that prevented my only possible antpitta ID due to not providing enough light. And there was that constant fight with the eye relief. It got more pronounced when I needed prismatic glasses to compensate for my hidden cross-eyed condition (not sure that is the correct term, in German it is verdecktes Schielen). At some point my optician (but not the eye-doctor) discovered this condition that led to tired eyes in the evening, and my reading with one eye only then. So this resulted in thicker glasses and thus needing more ER. So I had to replace those 8x32 Leica BNs, but not with Leicas of the similar construction.
Swaros were out due to the globe/rolling ball effect that I can't stand. Plus, I hate the glare that comes with them. The immediate replacement was a 8x42 FL that I'm still very happy with. But over the years, I felt I wanted a more compact alpha as well, and I kept comparing at places where various models were available. I always decided the 8x32 FL was the one. So when I finally did get a x32 model, it was an FL. The only downside is the fact that I feel the red coating Zeiss now has is at times irritating me. During the evaluations I always had versions with the older coatings. I have discussed this problem in other threads here. One of the consequences for me has been that I have since got both a 7x42 and a 10x42 FL as well as they are the last ones without the red coating. I had to look for "like new" versions as they are no longer produced. But I'm very happy with both of these acquisitions.

So there remains looking for a similar 8x32 FL pre-red coating version. It's less pressing though. My priorities are definitely with the x42 versions.

It is very possible the sample I have used of the FL x32 is not the best. My bottom line is just that I prefer my Conquest HDs to them. It is not to say I don't think they are very good, because they are.

Canip said:

Thanks, Eitan - liked your well written post and agree with most of what you say.
Canip

Click to expand...

Interestingly, though I had previously thought the 7x42 UVHD Plus was at its best in good bright conditions (I suppose in a way everything would be) I tried it out yesterday first thing in the morning while the light was just good enough to see colours but otherwise very low.

the UVHD Plus was the first I tried, then I had a look through a Nikon EDG and a Zeiss Dialyt (so, all 7x42s).

The Leica in my own subjective opinion had tremendous viewing effectiveness (notice the vague language, deliberately as I'm not thinking more scientifically than 'nice view' with a 3D impression) and the Nikon,which normally I feel is similar to the Leica, was much less pleasing. The BGAT is always good, but only the Leica view sang to me.

This was interesting as you might think that the AK view wd trounce the two SPs at very low light levels. The Leica view appeared clearer and the increased saturation also helped significantly. Now this is so generalized you might think it's worthless comment, but it means more to me than any numerical review. And it's halted my wavering dead in its tracks over keeping the UV.

Does this make sense to both of you, Canip and Eitan?


Tom

b-lilja said:

It is very possible the sample I have used of the FL x32 is not the best. My bottom line is just that I prefer my Conquest HDs to them. It is not to say I don't think they are very good, because they are.

Click to expand...

Do you find the hair trigger focus of the FL 32 doesn't help? I feel a bit underwhelmed though I am mega-impressed by the 7x42 FL. Not saying they are bad but perhaps I'm spoilt by having some different 42s.

The FL 32s seem a bit glare-prone all over too, and I do keep the front end clean.

Tom

SeldomPerched said:

Do you find the hair trigger focus of the FL 32 doesn't help? I feel a bit underwhelmed though I am mega-impressed by the 7x42 FL. Not saying they are bad but perhaps I'm spoilt by having some different 42s.

The FL 32s seem a bit glare-prone all over too, and I do keep the front end clean.

Tom

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the 7x42 FLs, and now I really want to. They seem a bit tough to find.

b-lilja said:

Well, I just returned from the Leica store in Bellevue, and it was a pretty darn interesting visit. I will say comparing binoculars at the end of a day of staring at a computer screen is non-optimal. But this is a purchase I want to take my time with, and it's nice to see things several times.

The UVHD+ 8x32's are pretty darn special - if for nothing else, being able to stuff so much view into so small and light of a package. Great build and design quality. My feeling is that they are at the lower limit of of weight/size stability for me - any lighter or smaller would be counterproductive, resulting in too much shake/movement. I do like the Leica house view colorwise, nothing too much but on the warm/saturated side. I was especially impressed by minimal glare - in comparison to my Conquest HDs, clearly better. But I'm not sure their resolution was any better than the Conquests, but then again, non optimal eye conditions.

I tell you what did grab my attention - the 7x42s. Other folks have been talking about those here. It occurs to me that part of my love for my 7x26 B&Ls may be their 7xness. The Uvid 7x42 are just a lovely view, 3d, immersive, and just super steady. I have found my limit for view stability to be at 8x, but I wonder a bit - perhaps it is actually 7x. Could a 7.5x be the ideal? I'm sure that will hit the market soon...or not.

Anyway, very interesting process. I am not sure where it will end. Definitely the Uvid 8x32s are in the running...but now...that 7x42...

One thing I will add, is that my Conquests and the BNs did pretty well...Conquests especially...we are definitely talking about edge improvements...

And on it goes.

Click to expand...

I don't want to gatecrash this conversation, but I hava a pair of 7.5 x 36 binoculars. Not Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski not "alpha" or premium, not even beta! The design dates back to at least 2009, a Kunming Unoted Optics design, MIC. But as a package? They are quite small, although reasonably heavy, field of view is quoted as 7.7degrees, which seems accurate enough. Optics are nothing special, although they are phase coated. They cost me £75 as an end of line special and I love using them on walks for birding and general hiking. The combination of reasonable FOV, decently large EP and eyecups which make for easy eye positioning without taking my specs off, heavy enough to help dampen vibration, decent FOV, it just works. So when I upgrade to better glass, I would love the choice of a "Premium" bino wich would give me a sharper view, less/no CA well controlled aberrations and a wide sweet spot, but with something like a 7 or 7.5 magnification and around 36mm objectives!