"Zeiss Victory 7x42 T* FL" vs "Leica Ultravid 7x42 HD" (1 Viewer)

My experience with both is :

Zeiss : brightest , sharpest and highest contrast BUT more pronounced internal reflection!
Leica : perfect balance though , but focus drive is still not fluent as is seen with Nikon EDG and HG.Les interal reflection.

RJM said:

. I agree CA is the LEAST IMPORTANT of the aberrations in low-powered handheld binoculars. In order of importance, spherical aberration, astigmatism, coma, distortion, and field curvature, with CA pulling up the rear affect image quality the most. CA just happens to be the easiest for most to identify while the other aberrations require special testing to pinpoint. Even when reporting CA, most even confuse the two different types, seeing the less important lateral color error instead of the more IQ destructive longitudinal.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this.
CA can totally spoil the view and make identification difficult or even impossible when the conditions worsen, it is to me the most annoying flaw for any optical instrument and always gives a "cheap" view (the other aberrations always come with it anyway because an instrument with a lot of CA is a poorly designed one).
A good instrument should have minimal visible CA and a very good one should have none.
CA is a detail and color rendition destructor as things get drowned in a "rainbow mush".
I've been using binoculars and telescope for over 25 years and to me, CA is THE revealing factor of poor optics.

Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski understood this a very, very long time ago...

By the way the trend for "ED, FL" makes me smile as we've been using this types of glass in astronomy since the mid-eighties (Vixen apo reflectors for one), and it had already been used in microcopy before that.Absolutely nothing new there.

Stargazer73 said:

Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski understood this a very, very long time ago...

By the way the trend for "ED, FL" makes me smile as we've been using this types of glass in astronomy since the mid-eighties (Vixen apo reflectors for one), and it had already been used in microcopy before that.Absolutely nothing new there.

Click to expand...

The Zeiss West 10x50 porro introduced from 1957 to 1969 was described by Zeiss as a "Semi-Apochromat" at the time, and it is almost free of CA. Better than many modern binoculars.

Hermann

Hermann said:

The Zeiss West 10x50 porro introduced from 1957 to 1969 was described by Zeiss as a "Semi-Apochromat" at the time, and it is almost free of CA. Better than many modern binoculars.

Hermann

Click to expand...

For some reason we have seen in the past 15 years the comeback of CA, perhaps the result of the "democratisation" of binoculars which used to be more of luxury items (remember the nice leather cases that came with them) when spot-on optics used to be the norm.
Sad.

FrankD said:

Cameron,

I have been following this thread since my original post. I read your original comments and the subsequent response to the private message (me thinks I know who it was from though I did not know he purchased the Swarovisions...it has been some time since the two of us got together. )

I understand your stance on the issue of CA and the general public. You are right actually. Most folks pick up a binocular and notice handling first, then image quality followed by focusing speed and tension. They notice how bright the image and how sharp the image is...how wide the field of view is and how easy it is to follow a bird in flight. Not many individuals in the general public even know what CA is or how to identify it. If you placed two identical binoculars side by side (one with ED glass and one without) then joe consumer may notice that one is slightly sharper with more vibrant colors but he probably would not be able to tell you why.

I have often read on various forums that the benefit of ED/FL glass in binoculars is overstated, especially in "low power" instruments in the 7x-10x range. I could not disagree more. For anyone that has spent a great deal of time behind optics the benefits are obvious. Images look so much more lifelike...crisper, brighter and more colorful. Being able to see the finest details seems much easier in an ED glass binocular. One must assume that it is the result of the decreased level of CA in the image.

Sure, manufacturers have taken advantage of the momentum that ED glass has created. You can see ED glass models in just about every price range (from $150 all the way up to the $2500 models). Is it just marketing hype? Certainly not and I know you would agree with me on that point. The benefits are real and I do applaud the manufacturers for addressing one area of optical deficiency that has existed in one form or another since binoculars were invented.

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Frank,

I'll see your two cents and raise you two more, but with one qualification, which I will address at the end of this post.

I've had this debate with none other than Professor EDz. You think someone with "ED" in his name would appreciate the benefits of "ED" glass. He said what you quoted above, that the benefits of ED glass in "low power" instruments is "overstated".

Of course, he mostly uses bins for stargazing, so the benefit for that use is not as obvious unless you're looking at the moon or one of the brighter planets or brightest stars. "Faint fuzzies" have too little contrast against the background sky, particularly under bright suburban skies for ED glass to make a stark difference.

But for birding, the difference is quite stark, at least for those who are sensitive to CA. Not only the lower CA in high contrast situations but also the richer, more vibrant colors and sharper and higher contrast images. Of course, the top bananas, which already have excellent color saturation and contrast, those benefits may not be as noticeable as the better CA control.

For example, in comparing the 8x32 HG to the 10x42 EDG, colors looked as saturated and the contrast was as good in the HG as the EDG despite the greater CA in the HG.

I'm opening a can o' worms here, but I also thought the ED glass in the EDG I wasn't as good (or the end result of the entire optical train wasn't as good) as the Celestron 10x50 ED porros I had, which showed no CA on axis and very little half way out. The EDG showed CA just off axis against a high contrast background, and CA was more obvious than the Celestron at half way out.

One reviewer even noted some CA in the 7x42 EDG. I saw no CA in the 7x36 ED on axis and only minimally half way out, not even much near the edge. I don't see any on axis in old Nikon 7x35 porros either.

So I'm a bit puzzled by this less than optimal CA control in the EDG and wondering if the 10x sample I tried and the 7x42 reviewed were anomalies.

I have noted repeatedly that before the addition of ED glass, I saw more CA in the roofs I tried than I did the same configuration porros. Henry suggested that the internal focusing element may play a part in this, but I don't think that's ever been confirmed. Presumably the 7x ED2 has internal focus like the 7x EDG, but there are differences in some bins with positive and negative lenses used as the focuser lens, which may be a factor. Someone mentioned this a while back so I thought it was worth repeating here, but elkcub, please don't ask me to dig out that reference!

The reports of greater CA in bins around the mid to late 1990s can't be ignored, and I don't believe the spike in CA reports were due to greater awareness of the issue from the reviews of Stephen Ingraham and others, as someone suggested. By the time the Leica Ultravid BR and the Swaro EL was introduced, the lead free glass should have been as good as lead glass even if the earliest attempts at lead free glass were less than optimal, and nobody knows if any of that glass was ever used in binoculars so no point going there again.

Whatever the cause, ED glass, which was used in porros nearly 20 years ago, has now become the new standard in roofs.

Something tangible was going on with pre-ED roofs in terms of an increase in CA, and I believe that ED glass was introduced to address this problem, but now it's become a "fashion trend" to the point where ED glass is becoming ubiquitous in roofs today, now even in a compact (8x and 10x25 Alpen Wings EDs).

Being sensitive to CA and enjoying vivid colors and high contrast, I think that's a good trend. However, I'd like to see the optics companies post the type of ED glass use, so we know whether or not we're comparing apples to apples since not all ED glasses are created equal (they are not covered under the US Constitution .

Here's my caveat, hinted at in the start of this post. Even with that (20-years-in-the-making) "innovation," the overall optical quality of the bin still trumps whether or not it has ED glass.

For example, while I really liked the sharp and "clean" images in the center of the 7x36 ED2, the lower distortions off axis in my EII and SE made me chose them over the ED2 roofs.

So while ED glass can be an important upgrade to a binocular design, in and of itself, it is only one component that produces the "better view desired".

Brock

..

Ca

I read as far as the Leica guy talking about CA being some kind of viewer problem.

That really worries me as I just bought a pair of Leica on ebay and the one thing that bugs me about any bin is CA.

Sorry but when you are looking at a bird in the sky and its got bleeding purple edges I think to myself. That bird probaly isn't really purple round its edges?

Guess its all in my mind? but I remember thinking my Zeiss 8x32fl bins strange as this did not happen. It happens with Swaro el 32 but they are just to beautiful otherwise so I let it go but if their new SV 32 has a flat field and deals better with CA then everyone who wants the best can throw their old bins in the bin.

Clive,
My 8x42 Trinovid BA had quite a bit less fringing than my wife's 8.5x42 EL. And my 12x50 Trinovid BN, which theoretically (that would be, like, my theory) ought to be horrible, is even better. It is nice to grab my FL and see exactly what CA is not, but the Trinovid's impressive field performance does rather encourage one to lighten up about it.

I don't know what Leica you have bought, but I presume first thing, you will run out and scrutinize backlit telephone poles. I've been there myself, but am sort of over it. If you can forgive the CA in your EL, I have faith that you will see the value of your Leica. I wouldn't kick it out of bed for a little fringing, myself. Good luck with it, let us know how it turns out.
Ron

10x32 HD

ronh said:

Clive,
My 8x42 Trinovid BA had quite a bit less fringing than my wife's 8.5x42 EL. And my 12x50 Trinovid BN, which theoretically (that would be, like, my theory) ought to be horrible, is even better. It is nice to grab my FL and see exactly what CA is not, but the Trinovid's impressive field performance does rather encourage one to lighten up about it.

I don't know what Leica you have bought, but I presume first thing, you will run out and scrutinize backlit telephone poles. I've been there myself, but am sort of over it. If you can forgive the CA in your EL, I have faith that you will see the value of your Leica. I wouldn't kick it out of bed for a little fringing, myself. Good luck with it, let us know how it turns out.
Ron

Click to expand...

Hi Ron

Yes I had a few beers after I won on ebay so I could hardly read the comments here. I'm not actually really bothered at all.

I bought a supposed new unused (pre-owned) 10x32 HD. I wanted a 10x to go with my 8x el and was looking at getting a Swaro 10x30 CL but I got these Leica for about the same price so I thought they were a better option although to be honest I have never been a Leica fan and have never owned one. I hope this pair will change my opinion. I know very little about them since there is practically nothing online about them but I don't wear glasses so the small eye relief should not bother me. I am sure there will be compromises which had to be made for this compact design.

If my el had more CA than they do then they would have to go. No ifs/buts.
The el is the only binocular I have and I find that I become a bit accustomed to it so I am hoping with having something different I will then notice the highpoints of both as I swap between usage. Maybe the weakness will also be highlighted but lets not be negative.


I hope I get the Leica tomorrow. Should be a next day delivery and I think it will take me a couple of seconds to get a good first impression. Obviously I will look at the sky and any bird like objects. Hoping they are good. Will post an initial impression soon.

Cameron Cox said:

On a personal note, as a longtime professional birder/birdbum let me make my position on CA clear (pardon the pun!). If you can see CA that’s a You problem. 85%+ of optics users can’t see it and don’t care about it. The ones that do care about it populate forums such as this one. If you care about optics for optics sake you care about CA, if you view optics as a tool to facilitate bird (or bug or other critter) identification then don’t worry about CA. Just making my personal view known as I likely will be posting somewhat regularly from now on.

Click to expand...

Thought i was in the refractor forum on CloudyNights there for awhile.

CA does seem to be a matter of personal opinion, probably based on individual experience. So here is mine. I am not a professioner birder or astronomer, but i have been using binos and scopes since pre-school, and am now in my mid-50's.

I lived in a rural area as a child. I did quickly notice CA in my inexpensive bino's and scope (60mm refractor), and had never talked to anyone about optics/abberations, and the Web was a few decades away :smoke:

I did go to the library eventually and finally learned about the CA thing, why it exists, how to avoid it etc. But yes, i am one of those folks that do notice it and that it does "bother".

I have noticed that the discussion amongst birders seems to look at it as a fringing problem. In the amateur astronomy community it is generally understood to be a bit beyond that.
CA reduces detail across any objects, in the FOV. Because it normally has to do with the primary colors not focusing at the exact same distance, it does "blur" detail period, not just causing a fringe.
If you turn an excellent achromatic refractor on a planet or the moon, and do the same at the same magnification, with an excellent apochromatic refractor, the view of the surface (separate from the fringing part) will be a tad sharper in the apochromat.

Now, with low power binos, hand held with moving targets, it probably does not matter much. But, technically, just saying....|=\|

CA in binos is important for me. My primary hobby with binos is learning about/ observing behavior of American Crows. The ED feature of my Audubon ED's (or a plan old Nikon 8x32 SE or Ziess 7x42 BGAT-P) helps with seeing the color of the inside of the mouth or feather hue, that are age clues...

BTW: I am not a Leica basher. I will never give up my 10x42 BA's when i need higher mag/built lika tank :t:

Went to the 'Birdfair ' yesterday, just by chance I took a look at and through the 7x42 Leica Ultravid HD. Got to say I was mighty impressed.
I came on here to seek the thoughts of others and came up two threads about this very thing .
Looks like I'll have to find a dealer with one in to spend a bit of time with , I'm liking the idea though.

I too have been very impressed with the 7x42 Ultravid HD. The brightness and sharpness are exceptional. The focus and diopter wheels are extremely well engineered. IMO 7x is the best all-around magnification. I am a happy owner. :t:

Martin

I'm afraid that with a 'close' focus of 3.3 metres/11 feet the Leica will never be a contender for me. I'm not very fond of walking backwards when birding or butterflying, it's rather dangerous. I'm sure it's fine for distance work, though I'm very happy with my Zeiss 7x FLs

Sean

dogfish said:

I'm afraid that with a 'close' focus of 3.3 metres/11 feet the Leica will never be a contender for me. I'm not very fond of walking backwards when birding or butterflying, it's rather dangerous. I'm sure it's fine for distance work, though I'm very happy with my Zeiss 7x FLs

Sean

Click to expand...

11 feet is distance work? I have never had to walk backwards using the Leicas. You must get awfully close to those birds. But I have no interest in hummingbirds or insects, so that specification was not critical for me. For those that do, the Zeiss FL or perhaps a compact 8x Minox might be a better choice. I'm sure anyone would be very happy with Leica or Zeiss (or Swarvoski, for that matter, if they made a 7x EL).

Martin

Insects aside, in Britain it's not uncommon to get closer than 11 ft to an autumn warbler that's in thick cover and feels pretty safe there. Not sure why Leica didn't do better in this department; it's way behind the competition.

S

dogfish said:

Not sure why Leica didn't do better in this department; it's way behind the competition.

S

Click to expand...

I detect a little brand loyalty (Me too--See logo at left). Well, we are both satisfied with our respective choices and each is a top-notch binocular :t:.

It just happens that I compared the Zeiss & Leica 7x42's at a bird show last weekend. Both very very nice, although I have to say I'm not a big fan of 7 or 8 magnification binoculars ( that's just a personal preference thing )

The Leica people were adamant the 7x 42HD was the best binocular in their entire range. So I tried them all - and I had to agree - until I tried the 10 x 50's ! Awesome.

My current bins are the almost equally brilliant Zeiss 10 x 42's FL's , but the extra power, light, clarity and field of view of the Leica 10 x 50 Ultravid HD's took my breath away. They may weigh 250 grams more than the Zeiss 10 x 42's but I think I could live with that ( probably ! )


Question is: How do I convince the wife I need expensive new binoculars ?

John Barber said:

Question is: How do I convince the wife I need expensive new binoculars ?

Click to expand...

If you have children, try telling her that you want to have something very nice, special and personal of yours (that you used a lot) to pass down to them for them to remember you by. So far this has worked for Rolex and Omega watches and Leica binoculars. But I doubt it will work for me again.

Martin

Purple Martin said:

If you have children, try telling her that you want to have something very nice, special and personal of yours (that you used a lot) to pass down to them for them to remember you by. So far this has worked for Rolex and Omega watches and Leica binoculars. But I doubt it will work for me again.

Martin

Click to expand...

I like your thinking , I'll give it a go :t:

number6 said:

I like your thinking , I'll give it a go :t:

Click to expand...

All right then, number 6, here's their heirloom, a LNIB 7x42 Ultravid (pre-HD) that Kilpy's selling on Astromart for a thousand bucks on the nose.

http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatID=60&SubCatID=1&sm=sm2_601

number 9.... number 9.... number 9.... number 9.... number 9....