• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

7/8x42 ultravid hd+ vs swarovski el42? (1 Viewer)

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Still wondering about this, I'm curious whether some cases of ("veiling"?) glare may result from light around the oculars or reflections off the eye, and therefore depend on facial anatomy or eyeglasses, leading to different experiences with the same binocular. All the more reason to try to specify what the effect is and where it's coming from.
This is where it gets into the murky area of imprecise terminology, but I don't think a reflection off the oculars would cause what people think of as "veiling glare". In my experience they show up more as defined spots of glare, whereas "veiling glare" is more of a broad, milky crescent covering a wide portion of the FOV.

That said, terminology aside, yes absolutely there can be troublesome reflections off the ocular lenses. In the "8x32 with least glare" thread in the main forum I mentioned this specifically with regard to the Nikon EDG, while the barrels are wonderfully blackened and baffled, for whatever reason the oculars suffer from glare such that it is more problematic than any flare/glare coming from the actual optical path. It's easy to verify, just shade the gap between the eyecup and face and the glare spot disappears.

Unfortunately I do NOT like the stock horned eyecups, they do not fit the shape of my face at all. Perhaps an aftermarket winged eyecup is the ticket? But it's one of the only flaws I see in the EDG and a strange oversight. I also found a little ocular glare with the MHG 8x42, so perhaps it's the specific coatings Nikon is using?
 

mwhogue

Well Known Member
Supporter
This is where it gets into the murky area of imprecise terminology, but I don't think a reflection off the oculars would cause what people think of as "veiling glare". In my experience they show up more as defined spots of glare, whereas "veiling glare" is more of a broad, milky crescent covering a wide portion of the FOV.

That said, terminology aside, yes absolutely there can be troublesome reflections off the ocular lenses. In the "8x32 with least glare" thread in the main forum I mentioned this specifically with regard to the Nikon EDG, while the barrels are wonderfully blackened and baffled, for whatever reason the oculars suffer from glare such that it is more problematic than any flare/glare coming from the actual optical path. It's easy to verify, just shade the gap between the eyecup and face and the glare spot disappears.

Unfortunately I do NOT like the stock horned eyecups, they do not fit the shape of my face at all. Perhaps an aftermarket winged eyecup is the ticket? But it's one of the only flaws I see in the EDG and a strange oversight. I also found a little ocular glare with the MHG 8x42, so perhaps it's the specific coatings Nikon is using?


I don't like the Nikon EDG OEM horned eyecups either. They fit my face OK but reduce the FoV on the 7X42. In terms of aftermarket, the otherwise useful Field Optics winged eyecups are a bit small/tight on the EDG but could probably be carefully stretched to fit. I prefer the Binobandit- easy on off, doubles as a rainguard, and can be more easily be folded up and down. Best of all, I can use it without folding down with 52 mm rectangular aviator style sunglasses for 100% FoV all the way down to bins with 15 mm ER. The Binobandit takes a little practice to get used to and may look odd but is a real force multiplier on the EDG 7x42 and 10x32.

Mike
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
It seems the winged eyecups are certainly a personal matter. I also found the EDG ones not fitting me very well, but the Swarovski
ones do well for me. For some of the them the winged rainguard is a good thing, fits better than the hinged standard one that is
too tight.
The Field Optics models do work well, and nice quality made universal fit. They are soft enough to fold down for a generous sized
rain guard.

Jerry
 

scatcat

Joe boy
Hi Matt, I sold my 7x42UVHD+ some time after I bought my 8.5x42SVFP as I stopped using the Leica, I now regret this as it was a very special offering in 7x42.

Even though for me the 7x42UVHD+ was the best Leica I`ve tried at controlling C/A there was visibly more than the SV or what I now have my SF.

I`d certainly look at the SLC, in fact I do fancy getting an SLC anyway.
I went completely in the opposite direction from Torview.
I had an early Swarovision 8.5 x 42 which I purchased brand new and used them extensively for about 18 months. They were bought to replace a Zeiss 8x42FL with Lotutec coatings.
I fancied a 7x binocular and spotted a good deal on an Ultravid 7 x 42 HD and very soon realised I was only ever going to use one set of binoculars.
Their colours, contrast and their ability to control glare when viewing into the direction of the sun are beautiful. View is very relaxed , depth of field is great and focus wheel is smooth. They feel great in the hand and are very compact for a 42.
I have compared them to a 7 x 42 HD+ and the plus are marginally brighter.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I had an early Swarovision 8.5 x 42 which I purchased brand new and used them extensively for about 18 months. They were bought to replace a Zeiss 8x42FL with Lotutec coatings.
I'm curious as to why you dumped the SF for the EL SV.

Not debating, inquiring
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top