• 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.

Leitz 7x35b (1 Viewer)

G

Geo. G.

Well-known member
Not too long ago I tried the Atlas Intrepid 7x36 ED and was won over by the steadiness and depth of field offered by 7 power. Unfortunately, the excessive pincushion of that binocular prevented me from keeping it, and I sent it back. So I've been looking around for alternatives and have discovered, alas, there aren't many...

The porros (Nikon AE, Celestron landscout 7x35) are awfully heavy for their aperture class. The alpha roofs (Nikon EDG, Leica 7x42 UV) are awfully dear, but more to the point, have a limited field: my 8x32 Conquest HDs already give me 420 feet at 1000 yd (8 degrees) and I'm very happy with them. There are also some 6x30s out there (traveller, maven), but their afov seems pretty small.

So a spec of 150m/1000m, or about 8.6 degrees, seems promising in a 7x. There are a number of old Russian porros (berkut, tento, sotem) with that spec, but again, eye relief and weight are not encouraging. Enter the Leitz 7x35b. It ticks a lot of boxes: very light weight (20 ounces/550 grams), compact, stylish, made in Germany (or maybe Portugal), etc. (I sure love my Leica 10x42 UVHDs.) But no phase coating, and older coatings in general. Quite a few pop up on ebay...

Any thoughts, experiences with these? Given my current stable (of two), do you think I might like them? Or should I just save up and wait for a 7x42 FL to show up used?

geo.
 
Geo. G. said:
Not too long ago I tried the Atlas Intrepid 7x36 ED and was won over by the steadiness and depth of field offered by 7 power. Unfortunately, the excessive pincushion of that binocular prevented me from keeping it, and I sent it back. So I've been looking around for alternatives and have discovered, alas, there aren't many...

The porros (Nikon AE, Celestron landscout 7x35) are awfully heavy for their aperture class. The alpha roofs (Nikon EDG, Leica 7x42 UV) are awfully dear, but more to the point, have a limited field: my 8x32 Conquest HDs already give me 420 feet at 1000 yd (8 degrees) and I'm very happy with them. There are also some 6x30s out there (traveller, maven), but their afov seems pretty small.

So a spec of 150m/1000m, or about 8.6 degrees, seems promising in a 7x. There are a number of old Russian porros (berkut, tento, sotem) with that spec, but again, eye relief and weight are not encouraging. Enter the Leitz 7x35b. It ticks a lot of boxes: very light weight (20 ounces/550 grams), compact, stylish, made in Germany (or maybe Portugal), etc. (I sure love my Leica 10x42 UVHDs.) But no phase coating, and older coatings in general. Quite a few pop up on ebay...

Any thoughts, experiences with these? Given my current stable (of two), do you think I might like them? Or should I just save up and wait for a 7x42 FL to show up used?

geo.
Click to expand...

How about the Opticron 7x36 BGA Classic,the current version. I have a pair, very nice indeed.
 
Older, non-phase coated roofs will always disappoint, compared to any porro or newer roof, IMO. This Leitz is best bought as an heirloom or collector.
 
Hi Geo,
The Leitz is really a collectable now, as James said. I have the 7x35B, a Munich Olympics model, and optically my old Zeiss 8x30B Dialyt is better, and there is no comparison with the Zeiss 8x32 FL, that is a class above both. If you can wait and afford it, the FL is a very good binocular. The old Zeiss Classic 7x42B Dialyt, T*P is also still a good performer but in good condition they seem to go for almost as much money as the FL used for some reason.
 
There is quite a difference between the early 7x35 B's and later ones as I found out when I prepared a lecture for the Binocular History Society some years ago about quality deveopment of Leitz/Leica binoculars. It turned out that the newer ones of the later production runs performed better than the earlier ones. I wrote to Leica and asked if they could explain that and received a letter from mr. Hengst, at that time the already retired leading managers of Leica, that the 7x35 was in such a high demand that the plans to stop production were abandoned and new runs were produced with better optical performance. I have the data somewhere, but due to reconstruction measures of our files I have not immediately access to the data, so I can not reproduce them now.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Thank you, all, for your replies.

James and Bencw--thanks for the reality check! That's what I needed to hear. I think I'll take another route.

Gcole, the Opticron 7x36 looks like a very nice binocular, but its field is already narrower than what I have in the 8x32 Conquest; the gains in depth of field and steadiness would probably not be sufficient to make me happy about the loss of field.

Gijs, you raise an intriguing possibility, but not being able to determine which was which, I'd be nervous about bidding on the 7x35b, given what the others have said.

Other possibilities....1) the Vortex Fury 6.5x32 (occasionally shows up for resale) and 2) the Maven 6x30. As for the latter, SteveC remarked that the field is closer to 460 ft per 1000 yd. Still a bit restricted in afov, but a significant fov nonetheless.
 
optically the 7x35b may fall a little short by todays standards....but still give a good view in my opinion....and mechanically they are a marvel....compared to the way they throw stuff together today....plus the nostalgia factor....
 
The older Leitz bino's like the 7x35b are not water or fog proof, I know this from experience, having seen several fog up, including my own.
Most of the 7x35b's I have seen have a bit of a dark view and do not do well looking into shadow and have some CA problems.
As an elegant antique trinket they are great but for using in the field they don't work so well, also the eyecups tend to dry up and fall apart.
If Leica came out with a new pair with modern optics very few would buy them because they are only 7x.
Art
 
Geo.G, post 6,
If it helps you any further:
The öld"Leitz Trinovid 7x35B was made between 1965-1983, numbers around 670700
The renewed Leitz Trinovid 7x35B was numbered something as 931900.
That is all I can find from my now accessible files.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Gijs, thank you for looking that up.

hmmm....Most of what I see for auction is in the 700s, but I have seen one as late as 94----.

Now you've got me wondering again.

-geo
 
Geo.G, post 10,
If I would find a last production 7x35B I would personally not hesitate to buy one for two reasons:
- fantastic collectors item
- very nice compact binocular with large FOV and acceptable optical performance (brighter than the first production runs).
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Hallo everyone!
While waiting for the "reborn" Leica Trinovid 7x35B, I've compared my two models of the vintage series. First one is an early item with serial # 670xxx (black rectangle LEITZ Wetzlar" logo and "pins"-mounts for the strap, the second one has a serial# 902xxx, with red circular LEITZ label. Both marked with red dot. Here my observations:
- better coatings on the latter one, the difference is clearly visible on both objective and eyepiece sides.
- "red label" is much brighter
- "red label" has a visible greenish tint, whereas the "black lebel" is more natural / neutral
- if you observe prisms units through binoculars's objectives, the roof edge is noticebly visible on the old model and hardly visible on "red label"
- image sharpness (both on axis and at the edge) is very similar.
 
goornik said:
Leica Trinovid 7x35B, I've compared my two models...
- better coatings on the latter one, the difference is clearly visible on both objective and eyepiece sides.
Click to expand...
Hi goornik. By "better coatings" do you mean the external color that you see by looking at the lenses or the difference in the anti-glare function that you can see using the two binoculars?
 
Bencw said:
Hi Geo,
The Leitz is really a collectable now, as James said. I have the 7x35B, a Munich Olympics model, and optically my old Zeiss 8x30B Dialyt is better, and there is no comparison with the Zeiss 8x32 FL, that is a class above both. If you can wait and afford it, the FL is a very good binocular. The old Zeiss Classic 7x42B Dialyt, T*P is also still a good performer but in good condition they seem to go for almost as much money as the FL used for some reason.
Click to expand...
I agree on the 8x32 FL. I also have the 8x42 FL and it is even a little better than the 32mm. I think the old Zeiss Classic 7x42B Dialyt T*P commands a lot of money because of the collector value and the fact that they are so cool looking and well made. They are a little less bright and have less contrast than the newer stuff like the FL though IMO because I had one.
 
Last edited:
Dennis, post 14,
The FL 7x42 has a light transmission of around 93% and the Dialyt 7x42 of almost 91%, so it is quite a challenge to see brightness differences between both binoculars. I do not consider the Dialyt 7x42 a collectors item but a very usefull tool still.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Rico 70, post 13,
Leica has considerably improved the quality of its coatings over the years and this can be observed by comparing the old Trinovids from different years. For example a Trinovid 7x35B from 1966 showed a light transmission of around 55-60% and one from 1982 of around 85%.
I have mentioned it before in this forum: when we observed this we asked Leica what the reason could be and the Leica director of that time wrote to me, that the company had improved the whole optical system as much as possible including the quality of the coatings. That can include the composition of the coating materials as well as the number of coating layers on the different glass surfaces.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
Dennis, post 14,
The FL 7x42 has a light transmission of around 93% and the Dialyt 7x42 of almost 91%, so it is quite a challenge to see brightness differences between both binoculars. I do not consider the Dialyt 7x42 a collectors item but a very usefull tool still.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...
I tried a Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 because I had heard how great they were. I was never really impressed with it compared to the more modern binoculars like an FL 7x42. It was lacking something. It may have been contrast. IMO the view just felt dead and had an almost yellow cast to it. It was almost like looking at an old picture. I sold it for as much I paid for it. If my memory was right my 7x42 Dialyt didn't have the P so they probably didn't have phase coatings. That could have been the difference. John, I feel you are correct. Mine could have been an older model with older coatings. Just like the 7x35 B Zeiss often times continually updates coatings.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dennis,

Perhaps it’s not so surprising that you were disappointed by your 7x42 Dialyt - it could have depended on it’s vintage
They were in production for over 20 years, from 1981 to 2004 (when the Victory FL line was introduced)

The time was one of considerable innovation in coating technology
e.g. multi coating (T*) was progressively introduced by Zeiss from 1979 on, and phase coating was introduced in 1988
And one would expect that there was also continual incremental improvement in the coatings from then on


John
 
Last edited:
John A Roberts said:
Hi Dennis,

Perhaps it’s not so surprising that you were disappointed by your 7x42 Dialyt - it could have depended on it’s vintage
They were in production for over 20 years, from 1981 to 2004 (when the Victory FL line was introduced)

The time was one of considerable innovation in coating technology
e.g. multi coating (T*) was progressively introduced by Zeiss from 1979 on, and phase coating was introduced in 1988
And one would expect that there was also continual incremental improvement in the coatings from then on


John
Click to expand...
Your right. I don't think my Dialyt 7x42's didn't have the P so they probably weren't phase coated.
 
Last edited:
Gijs van Ginkel said:
a Trinovid 7x35B from 1966 showed a light transmission of around 55-60% and one from 1982 of around 85%
Click to expand...
Hi Gijs, I was already aware of this. And you did well to repeat it here too, because it is always useful. I always read your posts willingly. Thank you.

But it doesn't answer my question.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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

dwatsonbirder
Compact comparisons: Low end vs high end
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Rg548
R
R
Analysing Binoculars
Replies
6
Views
682
beacon hill
beacon hill
Hermann
Armour: Advantages and disadvantages
Replies
9
Views
1K
Thotmosis
Thotmosis
R
New Bins day
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
dries1
dries1
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

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