Best current 7x42 roof option? (2 Viewers)

[hopster]

Slightly related to my recent Noctivid post but hopefully different enough to be worthwhile...

If I decided to go 7x42 instead of 8x42 - which is starting to feel like a nice idea for my shorter-range/'in the woods' glass as a partner for the 12x raptor/seashore/lake/astro glass - I wonder what the best options currently are from companies that offer top build and optical quality, as well as long warranties with credible servicing. Available new are:

• Nikon EDG
• Leica UVHD+
• Meopta Meostar (A Czech shop apparently still has a stash of NOS)

and an occasionally available second-hand possibility:

• Zeiss T* FL

Any others that I should consider?

I prefer a colour balance which doesn't filter out the red/warmth which means for me the first 3 are better than the Zeiss. They all have decent focusers and deal well with glare, with perhaps the EDG best on both of these counts. I'm not fan of CA which suggests EDG and Zeiss above the others (I assume). I want the eye positioning to be easy and the ability to look around the FOV without blackouts. I usually use with glasses but I expect all modern 7x42s should have plenty of ER.

I am leaning towards the EDG but it's the one I have least experience with, just a few fleeting looks through the 8x42 and not enough time to really get to know it.

M

 

[sea otter]

How was the Nikon EDG named? It sounds worrying, hopefully no problems after use. I have a 7x42 Leica I plan to pair with 10x32s due tomorrow. It shows plenty of glare, but CA is negligible opposed the low power Noctivid.

EDG is missing an E? Or EDucation G? I ask because I returned an amazing 12x50mm Ultravid fov 5.7* for fear of injury after use. It was that relaxing.

 

[Conndomat]

Hi,

I don't know the Meopta but I know all three other options.
The Zeiss fell out for me, in addition to the numerous aberrations, it also had too little eye relief for me with eyeglasses. I had the glass for about a year and never really got warm and swapped it for a Nikon.
If you like warmer tones, the Zeiss should be out anyway.

The Nikon is very nice, optically closer to the Ultravid, but there are also problems with the stop level for glasses wearers, the next stop level is too high, so you have to work with intermediate rings.

The Nikon has phenomenal stray light suppression, I don't know of any better glass in this discipline, it is almost edge-sharp and the color reproduction is very rich, here it is similar to the Ultravid, although the UV is brighter and reproduces the colors a little more brilliantly.
The center drive is also great on the EDG, what was suboptimal is the diopter compensation, IMO a faulty design, it rotated with my 7x42 as well as my 8x32, which was also the reason why I swapped the 7x42 for the Ultravid.

Taken together, the UV is the most harmonious glass, the workmanship, feel, ergonomics and the overall optical performance have no real weaknesses and although I own around a dozen other high-quality binoculars, it is my most used glass, it just fits.

I think the EDG is really nice binocular, but ultimately the UV is a bit better overall.

Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

I have a 7x42 Leica I plan to pair with 10x32s due tomorrow. It shows plenty of glare,

Sorry, I can't confirm that the UV 7x42 shows a lot of glare, it's also better than many other glasses in this discipline.

Andreas

 

[LucaPCP]

I have the Leica UV 7x42 HD+.

I cannot see any CA in the center. I perhaps can see a tiny bit of it if I just angle my eyes right to squint at the edges, but it really does not bother me.
They are quite resistant to flare, and they have superb contrast; in this respect they are far better than my Zeiss 8x32 FL (and so I wonder about the 7x42 FL...).
The UV 7x42 also have a great 3-D feeling and depth of field; they are really nice.

If you do a search on this forum, you will see that they are beloved by very many. My advice to you would be to get a pair.

 

[sea otter]

I'll describe my UV in detail. Clear almost transparent view, blows Noctivid out of the water with how natural it appears. Signed packed by a triangle and < angle. 2022/05/13 1651161. Meticulously examined at many stages, Renda. It's from Portugal. Looking into the front, it's baffled 1/5 around the upper inner sides, held by a flat silver screw. 180* around is also a flat silver screw on silver rectangle. I can confirm lots of pleasant smooth glassy glare in the under view. Looking around the exit pupils there's an obvious small, small, ellipse on the lower inner outside, I guess it gets in the eyepiece.

I hope this helps. Daniel

 

[w.travis]

Only have hands on experience with the 7x42 UVHD+. Have owned one since July this year as I was on similar quest as you. It's a beautiful bin with a beautiful view.

I'm CA sensitive. Only in very extreme lighting while looking for it, I can see very little in center of view. I don't notice it under regular birding use.

I don't think CA concern should be a reason you don't choose the UVHD+.

 

[Canip]

My personal order of preference (I know all 4 and own 3):

-FL
-UVHD+
-EDG
-Meostar

fwiw Canip

 

[CharleyBird]

Slightly related to my recent Noctivid post but hopefully different enough to be worthwhile...

If I decided to go 7x42 instead of 8x42 - which is starting to feel like a nice idea for my shorter-range/'in the woods' glass as a partner for the 12x raptor/seashore/lake/astro glass - I wonder what the best options currently are from companies that offer top build and optical quality, as well as long warranties with credible servicing. Available new are:

• Nikon EDG
• Leica UVHD+
• Meopta Meostar (A Czech shop apparently still has a stash of NOS)

and an occasionally available second-hand possibility:

• Zeiss T* FL

Any others that I should consider?

I prefer a colour balance which doesn't filter out the red/warmth which means for me the first 3 are better than the Zeiss. They all have decent focusers and deal well with glare, with perhaps the EDG best on both of these counts. I'm not fan of CA which suggests EDG and Zeiss above the others (I assume). I want the eye positioning to be easy and the ability to look around the FOV without blackouts. I usually use with glasses but I expect all modern 7x42s should have plenty of ER.

I am leaning towards the EDG but it's the one I have least experience with, just a few fleeting looks through the 8x42 and not enough time to really get to know it.

M

A 12x seashore/lake binocular paired with 7x for woods is the combination I chose after a couple of decades.

I used Leica 12x50 and 7x42 uv+ with no grumbles, no glare; away from the centres there is some but pretty negligible CA in real use.

I now mostly use Swarovski 12x42 NL and Zeiss 7x42 FL which have more natural colour. The NL x42 is obviously much lighter while yet being full size, both are a bit brighter than the uv+ pair, they display effectively no CA & no glare under everyday use, and they have wider FOViews.
So I feel the latter pair are 'better' optically than the Leica uv+.

But if you prefer the saturated views of the ultravids, then maybe also their haptics i.e. the lovely feel of the understated plain grey armour, will be a winning factor when choosing.
The 12x50 uv is a seductive chunky binocular, just it's really too heavy for walking & birding, while the 7x42 uv melds with my hands & eyes. So I keep them.


Mr Minnie reviewed the 7x42 options some years ago:

shootout premier 7x42s Leica Zeiss Nikon - greatestbinoculars.com

 

[hopster]

Thanks to all for interesting replies so far!

M

 

[hopster]

How was the Nikon EDG named? It sounds worrying, hopefully no problems after use. I have a 7x42 Leica I plan to pair with 10x32s due tomorrow. It shows plenty of glare, but CA is negligible opposed the low power Noctivid.

EDG is missing an E? Or EDucation G? I ask because I returned an amazing 12x50mm Ultravid fov 5.7* for fear of injury after use. It was that relaxing.

I'm not sure I understand all of this reply!

 

[hopster]

Hi,

I don't know the Meopta but I know all three other options.
The Zeiss fell out for me, in addition to the numerous aberrations, it also had too little eye relief for me with eyeglasses. I had the glass for about a year and never really got warm and swapped it for a Nikon.
If you like warmer tones, the Zeiss should be out anyway.

Yes I suspected that.

The Nikon is very nice, optically closer to the Ultravid, but there are also problems with the stop level for glasses wearers, the next stop level is too high, so you have to work with intermediate rings.

I have a lot of experience with O-rings now as I have been fine tuning the Noctivid ER for a few months. So I wouldn't worry if one of the defined stops wasn't in the right place.

The Nikon has phenomenal stray light suppression, I don't know of any better glass in this discipline, it is almost edge-sharp and the color reproduction is very rich, here it is similar to the Ultravid, although the UV is brighter and reproduces the colors a little more brilliantly.

OK.

The center drive is also great on the EDG, what was suboptimal is the diopter compensation, IMO a faulty design, it rotated with my 7x42 as well as my 8x32, which was also the reason why I swapped the 7x42 for the Ultravid.

Yes I heard about this. Some say later models have this problem corrected but I don't know if this is true.

Taken together, the UV is the most harmonious glass, the workmanship, feel, ergonomics and the overall optical performance have no real weaknesses and although I own around a dozen other high-quality binoculars, it is my most used glass, it just fits.

I think the EDG is really nice binocular, but ultimately the UV is a bit better overall.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

My personal order of preference (I know all 4 and own 3):

-FL
-UVHD+
-EDG
-Meostar

fwiw Canip

Thanks. Any reasons for this ranking?

 

[hopster]

Lots of love for the UVHD+ and FL here so far, less for the EDG than I expected. Few opinions on the Meostar which is not a surprise I suppose.

 

[temmie]

Hi,
The Zeiss fell out for me, in addition to the numerous aberrations, it also had too little eye relief for me with eyeglasses.

Strange, as I always experienced the 7x42 T*FL having generous eye-relief, even with my (curved) sunglasses with corrected glass for my myopia...?

 

[Bentley03]

Hi,

I don't know the Meopta but I know all three other options.
The Zeiss fell out for me, in addition to the numerous aberrations, it also had too little eye relief for me with eyeglasses. I had the glass for about a year and never really got warm and swapped it for a Nikon.
If you like warmer tones, the Zeiss should be out anyway.

The Nikon is very nice, optically closer to the Ultravid, but there are also problems with the stop level for glasses wearers, the next stop level is too high, so you have to work with intermediate rings.

The Nikon has phenomenal stray light suppression, I don't know of any better glass in this discipline, it is almost edge-sharp and the color reproduction is very rich, here it is similar to the Ultravid, although the UV is brighter and reproduces the colors a little more brilliantly.
The center drive is also great on the EDG, what was suboptimal is the diopter compensation, IMO a faulty design, it rotated with my 7x42 as well as my 8x32, which was also the reason why I swapped the 7x42 for the Ultravid.

Taken together, the UV is the most harmonious glass, the workmanship, feel, ergonomics and the overall optical performance have no real weaknesses and although I own around a dozen other high-quality binoculars, it is my most used glass, it just fits.

I think the EDG is really nice binocular, but ultimately the UV is a bit better overall.

Andreas

I've never tried the Zeiss, briefly owned a 7x50 Meostar, but have owned a 7x42 UVHD+ five times. I no longer own one for no better reason than I appear to prefer the characteristics of higher magnification binoculars, overall. It is, for me, the most enjoyable 7x binocular I've ever experienced, the EDG the least enjoyable.

I share Andreas' observations regarding the Ultravid, likewise most of his observations regarding the EDG, but I sense he enjoyed it a little bit more than me.

The EDG is without doubt the master of difficult bright and reflective light, it controls light like no other binocular I've personally experienced. The downside of that ability is it's inability to brighten dull, grey, heavily overcast conditions. This may sound overly harsh, but I find the EDG to be a bit of a dullard. To give that a little more perspective, I own and hugely enjoy both 8x42 and 10x42 EDG. On bright sunny days, especially if there is a likelihood of viewing across water, they are my first choice of binocular. On dull, grey, overcast days, I prefer an 8x or 10x Noctivid, because for me they excel in these conditions.

I'd love to try a 7x42 Meostar, but they're a rare beast on the secondhand market.

 

[hopster]

I've never tried the Zeiss, briefly owned a 7x50 Meostar, but have owned a 7x42 UVHD+ five times. I no longer own one for no better reason than I appear to prefer the characteristics of higher magnification binoculars, overall. It is, for me, the most enjoyable 7x binocular I've ever experienced, the EDG the least enjoyable.

I share Andreas' observations regarding the Ultravid, likewise most of his observations regarding the EDG, but I sense he enjoyed it a little bit more than me.

The EDG is without doubt the master of difficult bright and reflective light, it controls light like no other binocular I've personally experienced. The downside of that ability is it's inability to brighten dull, grey, heavily overcast conditions. This may sound overly harsh, but I find the EDG to be a bit of a dullard. To give that a little more perspective, I own and hugely enjoy both 8x42 and 10x42 EDG. On bright sunny days, especially if there is a likelihood of viewing across water, they are my first choice of binocular. On dull, grey, overcast days, I prefer an 8x or 10x Noctivid, because for me they excel in these conditions.

I'd love to try a 7x42 Meostar, but they're a rare beast on the secondhand market.

Thanks. So it seems I need to be careful with choice of EDG then, and perhaps factor in my use conditions. I agree that the NV seems to be more in its element in duller conditions.

I have found a Czech shop that claims to have quite a few Meostar B1 7x42s in stock, though they have not yet replied to my email.

I am tempted to ask (1) what you thought of the Meostar 7x50 and (2) how come you bought and sold the same binocular so many times!

 

[William Lewis]

I'll give a shout out for the SLC 7x42 neu - it's my current favourite binocular.

You asked in the last thread about a binocular that has decent fov but you can still see the field stop on, for my this is one of those.

It wouldn't tick all your boxes unfortunately though as most will be out of warranty by now and the image has a slight yellow tint (yes even in my 2006 model) it's not very yellow and I quite like it , it's just enough to brighten the image a touch.

Will

 

[Bentley03]

Thanks. So it seems I need to be careful with choice of EDG then, and perhaps factor in my use conditions. I agree that the NV seems to be more in its element in duller conditions.

I have found a Czech shop that claims to have quite a few Meostar B1 7x42s in stock, though they have not yet replied to my email.

I am tempted to ask (1) what you thought of the Meostar 7x50 and (2) how come you bought and sold the same binocular so many times!

Overall, I think I've concluded that I'm not a 7x person. The only low/lower mag optic I now own is a 6.5x32 Kowa BD II XD, which gets occasional outings on afternoon walks in the woods with family or friends.

1) I liked the Meostars very much, they did everything very well, nice natural colours, good contrast and resolution, good stray light suppression and control of CA. I never fell in love with them though, they didn't sing to me. Mine had to go because of play in the focus movement, which irritated me more and more over time. I don't miss them, however.

2) I can't give you a rational explanation. Each time I purchased a pair, I convinced myself I didn't need them. Then I missed them, and convinced myself I needed them...and so on. Truth is I simply adore Ultravid optics, and my 'special' super relaxed binocular is now my treasured 8x50 UVHD+. It's like putting on an old pair of comfy slippers and putting your feet up in front of the fire in mid winter with a cup of hot chocolate. The definition of 'relaxed' in a binocular, for me. Since owning my 8x50 Ultravid, I haven't looked back at the 7x42, I have found my Ultravid nirvana.

 

[Conndomat]

Strange, as I always experienced the 7x42 T*FL having generous eye-relief, even with my (curved) sunglasses with corrected glass for my myopia...?

Hi,

...and this is exactly the problem, the Zeiss could still work for short-sighted people, but I'm far-sighted.

I had strong kidney beans on the lowest setting, when I turned it up higher I couldn't see the AFOV anymore, it was unsatisfactory.

The EDG is without doubt the master of difficult bright and reflective light, it controls light like no other binocular I've personally experienced. The downside of that ability is it's inability to brighten dull, grey, heavily overcast conditions. This may sound overly harsh, but I find the EDG to be a bit of a dullard. To give that a little more perspective, I own and hugely enjoy both 8x42 and 10x42 EDG. On bright sunny days, especially if there is a likelihood of viewing across water, they are my first choice of binocular. On dull, grey, overcast days, I prefer an 8x or 10x Noctivid, because for me they excel in these conditions.

Hi,

yes, very well observed!

The picture in the EDG always reminded me of the old Dutch landscape painters, the colors were very saturated and in some situations the freshness was missing, but I still liked the glass, I often used it for difficult lighting conditions due to the excellent glare suppression.

Overall, I find the image in Ultravid to be fresher and not quite as antiquated.

Andreas