Leica ultravid vs Zeiss FL, including cost (1 Viewer)

I want the Leica's but I am concerned they will come out with a new FL or ED model soon.
Since I am not a "birder", I am unsure how much CA will effect me. The Ultravids cost alot more than the FL's.
Why?

Also transmission and Flare how do the 8x42's stack up against each other? i have seen the annoying "halo" sometimes at the worst of times in my 8x42Fl's... DO the ultravids have this issue?

I like the compactness of the ultravids do to their use os SP prisms instead of abbe-konig

I really am looking for input here on both of these and why either is "better" to any of you than the other... I have searched a zillion posts on here and read steve's info on the truth about optics. Obviously, there is a zeiss slant there.....
Please gimme some idea
I like the Leica warranty---no fault but it is not transferrable the zeiss is?

Thank u for all the help! :clap:

308CAL said:

I want the Leica's but I am concerned they will come out with a new FL or ED model soon.
Since I am not a "birder", I am unsure how much CA will effect me. The Ultravids cost alot more than the FL's.
Why?

Also transmission and Flare how do the 8x42's stack up against each other? i have seen the annoying "halo" sometimes at the worst of times in my 8x42Fl's... DO the ultravids have this issue?

I like the compactness of the ultravids do to their use os SP prisms instead of abbe-konig

I really am looking for input here on both of these and why either is "better" to any of you than the other... I have searched a zillion posts on here and read steve's info on the truth about optics. Obviously, there is a zeiss slant there.....
Please gimme some idea
I like the Leica warranty---no fault but it is not transferrable the zeiss is?

Click to expand...

I think there have been a number of comparative posts here on BF. You might have to enter FL instead if Fl when you search? Or space the 8x42 and the FL instead of writing it in one word.

But I wonder about that halo that you mention. It is a well known phenomenon on the earlier Victory models. But The Zeiss FLs are no worse than the Ultravids! I certainly would not hold my breath for new Leica models to come out. It's Swarovski that is likely to come up with something new. The announcement can ce expected in early January.

As you really WANT the Leica, as you say, I suspect that you try to ignore the posts that are in favor of the Zeiss?

308CAL said:

I want the Leica's but I am concerned they will come out with a new FL or ED model soon.
Since I am not a "birder", I am unsure how much CA will effect me. The Ultravids cost alot more than the FL's.
Why?

Click to expand...

308 (good choice-grin) there are many here who can give you very detailed technical analysis of both the Leica vs FL... I can't so won't try.

I could purchase, at cost, 8x32 FL's through a friend who is a Zeiss dealer. They would have been around $150 less than I paid for my 8x32 Ultravids. The image and resolution of each, to my eyes, was essentially identical. It's the Leica construction that won me over as well as the initial QC horror stories surrounding the FL's.

The FL's are essentially an all-composite binocular (main tubes) whereas the Leica's are metal. Leica's reputation for durability is legendary and since I'd already had positive field experience with the 8x32 BN it was a no brainer. I'm just not quite ready to fully trust the FL's composite construction. I liked the eye relief of the FL's slightly better than the Leica but other features of the Leica better... honestly, the ergonomic's of either could please me as could the image and resolution of either.

In the end Leica's construction won me over.

See Alula's review of both at:

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

Brad_A said:

308 (good choice-grin) there are many here who can give you very detailed technical analysis of both the Leica vs FL... I can't so won't try.

I could purchase, at cost, 8x32 FL's through a friend who is a Zeiss dealer. They would have been around $150 less than I paid for my 8x32 Ultravids. The image and resolution of each, to my eyes, was essentially identical. It's the Leica construction that won me over as well as the initial QC horror stories surrounding the FL's.

The FL's are essentially an all-composite binocular (main tubes) whereas the Leica's are metal. Leica's reputation for durability is legendary and since I'd already had positive field experience with the 8x32 BN it was a no brainer. I'm just not quite ready to fully trust the FL's composite construction. I liked the eye relief of the FL's slightly better than the Leica but other features of the Leica better... honestly, the ergonomic's of either could please me as could the image and resolution of either.

In the end Leica's construction won me over.

See Alula's review of both at:

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

Click to expand...

THX brad, i have seen you over on 24hour

308CAL said:

THX brad, i have seen you over on 24hour

Click to expand...

308, what's your forum name over there?

Merry Christmas!

update
after looking and comparing at the 8x42's the last 2 days I have some observations:
*)The ultravid had a better image to the edges, the zeiss has something going on around the edges.
1) I much prefer the Leica eyecups, they fit my eyes better, "fit like a glove" comes to mind. The zeiss has larger cups that dont fit as "snug" for me...
2) The lower ring or halo effect I sometimes see in the zeiss annoys me to no end. As a hunter, I need lowlight performance, I am not looking at song birds at noon.. The zeiss is brighter slighlty but this annoying trait surpasses the brightness influence
3) The Leica is much more compact and feels "better" built. Maybe its because it is magnesium and the zeiss is some tupe of fancy fiber reinforced plastic? In reality, they are both very well built, but the Leica has the feel!
4)The Zeiss has a better case. The Leica has better occular covers, they fit snug and are flexible. Both binocs have useful objective covers.
5) The zeiss close focuses noticeable closer and sharper, but I dont need that.
6) both handled flare really well when tested at night with street lights and front porch lights. The zeiss may have been better but it wasnt across the board and neither produced an image that wasnt usuable
7) When comparing each binocular in each eye, the leica looked like it had a browner picture and the zeiss looked bluer. It reminded me of when you turn the brightness up on a TV and it sort of washed out the colors. I wouldnt say the colors were "washed out" though but were less "vivid" to me evber so slightly than the leica
8)The Leica offers a better warranty to the original purchaser but thats where it ends, the zeiss has a transferrable one, the leica doesn't

In the end, the Leica costs more and the eyes tell the story. Mine told me Leica, despite wanting to spend less for the zeiss. I totally was planning on ending up with the Zeiss when I decided to look at these 2, I was just planning on using the ultravid as brand to comare it with but it has the "look" and "feel" that fits "me"...BEST

For a hunter, you made a perfect choice. The Ultravid seems to bring shapes and color out of shade better than Zeiss. It also handles stray light better.

308CAL said:

update
after looking and comparing at the 8x42's the last 2 days I have some observations:
*)The ultravid had a better image to the edges, the zeiss has something .......

....the end, the Leica costs more and the eyes tell the story. Mine told me Leica, despite wanting to spend less for the zeiss. I totally was planning on ending up with the Zeiss when I decided to look at these 2, I was just planning on using the ultravid as brand to comare it with but it has the "look" and "feel" that fits "me"...BEST

Click to expand...

The same identical post 3 times does not help keeping this forum attractive.