A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32 (2 Viewers)

[chill6x6]

So these two are what I've been using lately. Another case of I really like 'em both. Two completely different platforms and both executed very nicely. I was very surprised I'd like and enjoy the Trinovid 7X35 as much as I have. A 7X with 35mm objectives is really about perfect. Small in stature and plenty of light. Smoothest focus adjustment you'll ever find along with great ergonomics(for me) and great optics AND is the prettiest binocular you're ever likely to hold.

Cue the UVHD+ 8X32, a binocular I never thought I'd own. I tried one one year at the optics tent at Magee Marsh and the ER let me down. VERY close to enough but just not quite there. Lately I got new eyeglasses. The prescription is a little different and the frames are a little different and maybe my eyes have changed some as I've noticed I needed a little less ER lately. I saw a great deal on a new 8X32 so I bought it. As it turns out the ER is perfect with the eyecups all the way down/in.

Some comparisons:

Weight. I'm going to include a few other binocular weights as well

UVHD+ 8X32- 18.7oz
Retrovid 7X35- 20.3oz
Monarch HG 8X30- 16.2oz
CL 8X30 B- 16.8oz
SV 8X32- 20.6oz
NL 8X32- 23.2 oz

I really can't tell the 1.6oz difference between the UVHD+ and the Retrovid during use. The Retrovids weight is a little more spread out. At 16.2oz it's easy to see why I like/use the MHG so much.

Eye relief

The UVHD+ 8X32 IS the low man on the totem pole here. In fact it's so low I'm hesitant to recommend to fellow eyeglass wearers. I have zero extra room. I don't think there are very many eyeglasses wearers that require less ER than I do either. I use the Retrovid at the first stop up on the eyecups. Plenty and extra ER for me. The next picture shows the eyecup setting and the ER difference between the two for me. You can also easily see the difference in the style and size of the focus wheel.

Optics

FOV- Of course the Retrovid is slightly better here- 420ft vs. 408ft. Really this 12ft is not really that significant. You really have to look to see it.

Brightness- I did notice the Retrovid is maybe ever so slightly brighter. House of Outdoors verified this with a transmission of 92% for the Trinovid and 89.2% for the UVHD+. I didn't know the exact numbers until I looked them up tonight....BUT I did know UVs have stayed around 87-89% transmission for years. ALSO the 7X35 does have a slightly larger exit pupil. Regardless of whatever brightness difference there may be it is again of no consequence and barely noticeable.

Resolution- Here, the UVHD+ seemed to have a very slight advantage. No measuring of any type done just in the field use. Again both are excellent with no real benefit here. I'll also say the UVHD+ does seem to have a slightly flatter FOV.

Focus- No doubt the Retrovid has about the smoothest focus adjustment you'll ever find on a binocular. The wheel is a little thin and metal which I thought would be an issue until I actually bought it and used it. It IS a little slow. My sample of the UVHD+ 8X32 has the smoothest focus of any UV I've ever had. It's also huge and much faster than the Trinovid. Don't forget UVs have the easiest/best dioper setting adjustment on the market.

Which do you keep?

I love binoculars, especially really good ones. Both of these are really good ones. BEAUTIFUL binoculars even. I believe I like the 8X32 UVHD+ better as an overall birding better. It's smaller, lighter, larger focus wheel, better armored, very slightly better optics, and is waterproof. BUT...I've got nice 8X30s that are smaller/lighter still with more FOV. There are 8X32s that will sllghtly better the UVHD+ 8X32 in most areas. Still, I like this binocular more than I ever thought I would. Call it intangibles. The Retrovid 7X35 has even MORE intangibles! Why even buy a retro-deign in the first place? It's not waterproof. No real armoring. Thin focus wheel. Still, a quality 7X are as hard to find as frogs teeth. A quality 7X35 even harder.

I'm not getting rid of either!

 

[ragin-cajun]

very good review. ima keep bugging you until you compare the UVHD+ to the NL32.

 

[[email protected]]

I have a love hate relationship with Leica's. I love the build quality, the small compact size of the UVHD+ 8x32 and the aesthetics of them, but I HATE the CA. They are the only alpha level binoculars that have CA in the center AND on the edges. The NL, SF, SFL, and even the older FL may have a little CA on the edge, but they have practically no CA in the center.

What is strange is when Leica developed the Noctivid they had a chance to upgrade the glass and get rid of the CA, but they didn't. The Noctivids have more CA in the center than the UVHD+! What's up Leica? Leica's are beautifully made binoculars and have probably the best build quality of any binocular out there, but they desperately need to upgrade their glass with a better quality Schott HD glass to get rid of the CA. Leica's are not the binocular of choice if you are sensitive to CA.

 

[dries1]

For those who are not adversely affected by CA, enjoy those Leicas, I sure do.

 

[Paultricounty]

So these two are what I've been using lately. Another case of I really like 'em both. Two completely different platforms and both executed very nicely. I was very surprised I'd like and enjoy the Trinovid 7X35 as much as I have. A 7X with 35mm objectives is really about perfect. Small in stature and plenty of light. Smoothest focus adjustment you'll ever find along with great ergonomics(for me) and great optics AND is the prettiest binocular you're ever likely to hold.

Cue the UVHD+ 8X32, a binocular I never thought I'd own. I tried one one year at the optics tent at Magee Marsh and the ER let me down. VERY close to enough but just not quite there. Lately I got new eyeglasses. The prescription is a little different and the frames are a little different and maybe my eyes have changed some as I've noticed I needed a little less ER lately. I saw a great deal on a new 8X32 so I bought it. As it turns out the ER is perfect with the eyecups all the way down/in.

Some comparisons:

Weight. I'm going to include a few other binocular weights as well

UVHD+ 8X32- 18.7oz
Retrovid 7X35- 20.3oz
Monarch HG 8X30- 16.2oz
CL 8X30 B- 16.8oz
SV 8X32- 20.6oz
NL 8X32- 23.2 oz

I really can't tell the 1.6oz difference between the UVHD+ and the Retrovid during use. The Retrovids weight is a little more spread out. At 16.2oz it's easy to see why I like/use the MHG so much.

Eye relief

The UVHD+ 8X32 IS the low man on the totem pole here. In fact it's so low I'm hesitant to recommend to fellow eyeglass wearers. I have zero extra room. I don't think there are very many eyeglasses wearers that require less ER than I do either. I use the Retrovid at the first stop up on the eyecups. Plenty and extra ER for me. The next picture shows the eyecup setting and the ER difference between the two for me. You can also easily see the difference in the style and size of the focus wheel.

Optics

FOV- Of course the Retrovid is slightly better here- 420ft vs. 408ft. Really this 12ft is not really that significant. You really have to look to see it.

Brightness- I did notice the Retrovid is maybe ever so slightly brighter. House of Outdoors verified this with a transmission of 92% for the Trinovid and 89.2% for the UVHD+. I didn't know the exact numbers until I looked them up tonight....BUT I did know UVs have stayed around 87-89% transmission for years. ALSO the 7X35 does have a slightly larger exit pupil. Regardless of whatever brightness difference there may be it is again of no consequence and barely noticeable.

Resolution- Here, the UVHD+ seemed to have a very slight advantage. No measuring of any type done just in the field use. Again both are excellent with no real benefit here. I'll also say the UVHD+ does seem to have a slightly flatter FOV.

Focus- No doubt the Retrovid has about the smoothest focus adjustment you'll ever find on a binocular. The wheel is a little thin and metal which I thought would be an issue until I actually bought it and used it. It IS a little slow. My sample of the UVHD+ 8X32 has the smoothest focus of any UV I've ever had. It's also huge and much faster than the Trinovid. Don't forget UVs have the easiest/best dioper setting adjustment on the market.

Which do you keep?

I love binoculars, especially really good ones. Both of these are really good ones. BEAUTIFUL binoculars even. I believe I like the 8X32 UVHD+ better as an overall birding better. It's smaller, lighter, larger focus wheel, better armored, very slightly better optics, and is waterproof. BUT...I've got nice 8X30s that are smaller/lighter still with more FOV. There are 8X32s that will sllghtly better the UVHD+ 8X32 in most areas. Still, I like this binocular more than I ever thought I would. Call it intangibles. The Retrovid 7X35 has even MORE intangibles! Why even buy a retro-deign in the first place? It's not waterproof. No real armoring. Thin focus wheel. Still, a quality 7X are as hard to find as frogs teeth. A quality 7X35 even harder.

I'm not getting rid of either!

Great write up Chuck. You really nailed it with the character of these two Leica’s. I’d like to ad I think the UV 32’s are the top of the line in the compact 32 arena. There’s really nothing better in an all around package , as long as eye relief works for the users, that to me is it’s only flaw for some people. Leica build quality is second to none, a stunning, sharp color saturated image and CA is almost nonexistent in the center in the 8’s.

There are better (not by much) 32’s like SF, EL, NL’s , but to me those are in a different category due to their size. These little Leica 32’s are the smallest big binoculars I’ve ever used, if you know what I mean. 🙏🏼

Paul

 

[Patudo]

I'm struck by how modern the Retrovid looks beside the 8x32. Having experienced how well they point and handle, I can see why Leica took a punt on the opinion, oft stated here in the past, that if a modern version of the old Trinovid range was brought out, it'd sell. Alas, it looks as though (from the recent reports that this range will be discontinued) that belief has not quite been borne out by "the market". One can easily imagine the current Retrovids gaining collector appeal after they're no longer made, though...

I wonder if the decision to place the Retrovids (in terms of optical quality) a little below the Ultravid range had anything to do with market reception to them. When the original Trinovids were being made they were badged as the best binoculars in Leica's range. But that was in an era where Leica (and indeed Zeiss) produced only one range of roof prism binoculars.

 

[tenex]

What is strange is when Leica developed the Noctivid they had a chance to upgrade the glass and get rid of the CA, but they didn't. The Noctivids have more CA in the center than the UVHD+! What's up Leica? Leica's are beautifully made binoculars and have probably the best build quality of any binocular out there, but they desperately need to upgrade their glass with a better quality Schott HD glass to get rid of the CA.

Actually it's widely accepted that Leica has been using ED glass for the last 20 years or more, so we must be dealing here with a different choice of priorities in overall optical design rather than mere glass quality. It does seem a bit curious though given how Zeiss marketing in particular has used (fanciful) illustrations of CA in lesser bins.

 

[[email protected]]

Actually it's widely accepted that Leica has been using ED glass for the last 20 years or more, so we must be dealing here with a different choice of priorities in overall optical design rather than mere glass quality. It does seem a bit curious though given how Zeiss marketing in particular has used (fanciful) illustrations of CA in lesser bins.

What in optical design would create more CA? There are a lot of different grades of ED glass, and I think Leica uses low grade ED glass compared to Swarovski and Zeiss. it is too bad too because the Noctivid has an unusually good view if it wasn't for the CA. It has very little glare, great contrast, wonderful color saturation and it is ungodly sharp on-axis. If it had Schott HD glass, it could be the best binocular made.

Leica and chromatic aberration

A post in another thread [Link] reported 2 days ago: "...[The Leica Ultravid-Plus 7x42] did betray their own weakness the other day though. I was watching ravens circle above a building in a completely grey, but bright sky. Those poor ravens were encased in a green fog of chromatic...

www.birdforum.net

 

[John M Robinson]

I'm struck by how modern the Retrovid looks beside the 8x32. Having experienced how well they point and handle, I can see why Leica took a punt on the opinion, oft stated here in the past, that if a modern version of the old Trinovid range was brought out, it'd sell. Alas, it looks as though (from the recent reports that this range will be discontinued) that belief has not quite been borne out by "the market". One can easily imagine the current Retrovids gaining collector appeal after they're no longer made, though...

I wonder if the decision to place the Retrovids (in terms of optical quality) a little below the Ultravid range had anything to do with market reception to them. When the original Trinovids were being made they were badged as the best binoculars in Leica's range. But that was in an era where Leica (and indeed Zeiss) produced only one range of roof prism binoculars.

We used to get the Eddie Bauer catalog and drool all over the cool, rich man’s gear. Eddie Bauer catered to the wealthy outdoorsman and the catalog was full of all that high end gear. That’s where I first saw the old Leitz Trinovid roof prism binoculars. Wow! They looked so futuristic and Bauer’s write up made we want one so bad.

Twenty years later I finally got a pair of 7x35s and loved them. Back then I was rough on binoculars and beat them up pretty bad, they finally died in the late 90s. Since then I kinda went down the rabbit hole buying various high end binoculars and reading this forum learning more about binoculars than I ever thought possible. During those years we discussed the old Leitz Trinovid and how it would rate against modern ones if it was upgraded with modern coatings.

I was so excited when Leica did just that, except with SP prisms rather than the Uppendahl of the original. I am thrilled with my new 7x35s. I assume there was a functional reason why Leica didn’t make them waterproof, some design constraint that made it impossible or impractical to waterproof them. I think that lack of waterproofing is the main reason they failed in the market. That and a obvious lack of marketing on Leica’s part.

 

[tenex]

What in optical design would create more CA? There are a lot of different grades of ED glass, and I think Leica uses low grade ED glass compared to Swarovski and Zeiss. it is too bad too because the Noctivid has an unusually good view if it wasn't for the CA. It has very little glare, great contrast, wonderful color saturation and it is ungodly sharp on-axis. If it had Schott HD glass, it could be the best binocular made.

Your taste for simple "obvious" answers is well known, but it seems doubtful that Leica would simply have stinted on glass choices for Noctivid. An optical instrument with typically 9 or 10 elements (including an internal focuser which can aggravate CA) is quite complex, and CA is only one of many concerns in the overall design.

 

[[email protected]]

Your taste for simple "obvious" answers is well known, but it seems doubtful that Leica would simply have stinted on glass choices for Noctivid. An optical instrument with typically 9 or 10 elements (including an internal focuser which can aggravate CA) is quite complex, and CA is only one of many concerns in the overall design.

I guess they could reduce CA with a longer focal length, but it seems the Noctivid does have longer than normal focal length, but yet it has more CA than the UVHD+. Explain that.

 

[John M Robinson]

What in optical design would create more CA? There are a lot of different grades of ED glass, and I think Leica uses low grade ED glass compared to Swarovski and Zeiss. it is too bad too because the Noctivid has an unusually good view if it wasn't for the CA. It has very little glare, great contrast, wonderful color saturation and it is ungodly sharp on-axis. If it had Schott HD glass, it could be the best binocular made.

I’m certain without any inside information that Leica uses the highest quality glass available, Leica is famous for their camera lenses. I’ve always assumed the CA, what little there is, was a design trade off from fitting all those optics in that compact Leica package. It seems that Leica, from that 50s Trinovid design has always valued a small, compact design with excellent optics. That’s my theory anyway.

Fortunately for them, the percentage of people who are bothered by, or even notice CA is low. I can see it in super high contrast situations, like a black horse against snow, but I’m able to bull it out by centering the image and I don’t see it at all in normal conditions.

 

[Paultricounty]

Here we go, now we move from glare to CA. I know some people are more sensitive to CA than others. By no means am I oblivious to it , and do consider myself sensitive, but no overly sensitive, where ever that line is drawn. I don’t think the CA in Noctivids is worse than the Ultravid HD+ (Which are also excellent ). Under 90% (give or take) of observing conditions I don’t see CA in the center of either of these two examples, at least in the 7x and 8x. I do see more in the 10’s, but that’s another conversation.

If the CA was more prevalent under more conditions, it would be unacceptable to me as well. That being said the EL, SF and NL’s also have CA under certain conditions. So where do we draw the line? I draw the line when CA is in the center and I can notice consistently on objects. If we’re to say that the Leica’s are unacceptable at their price point for the tiny amount of CA that can be squeezed out of it under certain conditions, should we not pool the SF, NL and EL’s in the same group? Should we all stay away and just buy the Kowa Genesis for one third the price?

CA in the top end Leica’s is totally overblown in my opinion. That’s not to say some people may see enough to turn them off, but from my experience that’s the minority not the majority. I’ve been out with dozens of people (many very experienced observers) with the Nocs and UV’s over the last few years more times than I can count, and I can’t remember one person mentioning CA in these Leica’s. Id ad that these conversations about CA have come up with lesser quality binoculars.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

I guess they could reduce CA with a longer focal length, but it seems the Noctivid does have longer than normal focal length, but yet it has more CA than the UVHD+. Explain that.

But you’re wrong the Nocs don’t have more CA than the UV’s, so nothing to explain. I really do think that some of these used binoculars that you buy at bargain basement prices may not be performing up to specs. Ive had a few with some issues and could clearly see their deficiencies comparing them to well maintained in spec examples.

 

[[email protected]]

I’m certain without any inside information that Leica uses the highest quality glass available, Leica is famous for their camera lenses. I’ve always assumed the CA, what little there is, was a design trade off from fitting all those optics in that compact Leica package. It seems that Leica, from that 50s Trinovid design has always valued a small, compact design with excellent optics. That’s my theory anyway.

Fortunately for them, the percentage of people who are bothered by, or even notice CA is low. I can see it in super high contrast situations, like a black horse against snow, but I’m able to bull it out by centering the image and I don’t see it at all in normal conditions.

You're saying it is because Leicas have fast F ratios?

 

[John M Robinson]

You're saying it is because Leicas have fast F ratios?

I don’t even know what that is. Can you explain? I understand F stops from photography, so I assume it has something to do with the ratio of aperture size to focal length?

 

[[email protected]]

I don’t even know what that is. Can you explain? I understand F stops from photography, so I assume it has something to do with the ratio of aperture size to focal length?

You divide the focal length of the binocular by the aperture. If a binocular had a 120mm focal length and a 30mm aperture, the F ratio would be F4. Higher numerical F ratios mean the binocular or telescope is longer relative to its aperture size. Higher F ratios are beneficial in optical design because they reduce CA and other optical aberrations. That is why before ED glass, the old refractor telescopes were so long in relation to their aperture.

A faster F ratio can have advantages also, like less exposure time if photographing through the telescope. That is also why an 8x56 is binocular is optically so good even in the daytime because your eye can only take in about 2mm to 3mm of the binocular's EP, so it is essentially increasing the F ratio of the binocular to something like an F8 from an F5 which reduces CA and other optical aberrations.

Using an 8x56 in the daytime is like stopping down a binocular, which increases the F ratio. Leicas probably have lower or faster F ratios than Zeiss or Swarovski because they are shorter, which would be a disadvantage in controlling CA.

 

[LucaPCP]

I'm struck by how modern the Retrovid looks beside the 8x32. Having experienced how well they point and handle, I can see why Leica took a punt on the opinion, oft stated here in the past, that if a modern version of the old Trinovid range was brought out, it'd sell. Alas, it looks as though (from the recent reports that this range will be discontinued) that belief has not quite been borne out by "the market". One can easily imagine the current Retrovids gaining collector appeal after they're no longer made, though...

I wonder if the decision to place the Retrovids (in terms of optical quality) a little below the Ultravid range had anything to do with market reception to them. When the original Trinovids were being made they were badged as the best binoculars in Leica's range. But that was in an era where Leica (and indeed Zeiss) produced only one range of roof prism binoculars.

For me it was purely the fact that they are not waterproof.

 

[John M Robinson]

You divide the focal length of the binocular by the aperture. If a binocular had a 120mm focal length and a 30mm aperture, the F ratio would be F4. Higher numerical F ratios mean the binocular or telescope is longer relative to its aperture size. Higher F ratios are beneficial in optical design because they reduce CA and other optical aberrations. That is why before ED glass, the old refractor telescopes were so long in relation to their aperture.

A faster F ratio can have advantages also, like less exposure time if photographing through the telescope. That is also why an 8x56 is binocular is optically so good even in the daytime because your eye can only take in about 2mm to 3mm of the binocular's EP, so it is essentially increasing the F ratio of the binocular to something like an F8 from an F5 which reduces CA and other optical aberrations.

Using an 8x56 in the daytime is like stopping down a binocular, which increases the F ratio. Leicas probably have lower or faster F ratios than Zeiss or Swarovski because they are shorter, which would be a disadvantage in controlling CA.

Thank you, I learned something.

 

[John A Roberts]

Another way of thinking about this, is that magnification is the ratio of the focal length of the objective (including the prisms),
divided by the focal length of the eyepiece.

The use of a physically longer distance for a given focal length, often minimises various aberrations - including CA -
that are associated with physically more compact/ optically more complex designs.

By way of illustration, compare two very physically different, though both optically well regarded 7x42’s:
• the notably compact Leica Ultravid at 141 mm (5.6”) long, and;
• the optically relaxed Zeiss Dialyt at 190 mm (7.5”) long (the image being from Arek at Allbinos).




And in terms of optical construction, the 7x42 Ultravid compared to the 8x56 Dialyt (there’s no similar image for the 7x42 version) *




As can be seen, the Ultravid has a 4 lens objective (including the focusing lens), verses the simpler two lens Dialyt.
The Ultravid also uses the physically shorter 6 reflection Schmidt-Pechan prism, verses the 4 reflection Abbe-Koenig one of the Dialyt **

Looking at the images, the physical length of Dialyt objective/ prism assembly is essentially the same as the whole body of the Ultravid!
(Note on the Dialyt the location of the strap loop relative to the rear prism face; and the X behind the prism indicating the objective focal point.)

The Dialyt also differs in being an external focus design (focusing by moving the entire eyepiece as one unit). That helps to minimise complications
associated with having a seperate focusing lens, moving back and forth between the objective lenses and the prisms.


* The 7x42 Dialyt differs from the 8x56 version, in having a more complex eyepiece of 4 elements in 3 groups (in a 1, 2, 1 configuration).
See the discussion and images at: Zeiss Dialyt 6x42B - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
especially posts #17 and 20.

** As a trade-off for their physical compactness, S-P prisms have inherent optical complications not found with with A-K prisms.
See post #2 at: Roof Prisms Used in Binoculars


John