Do folks think the Ultravid HD+ 8x32 is on par with the Zeiss SF or Swaro EL 8x32s? (1 Viewer)

[b-lilja]

Hi all,

I am going to make a purchase, and want to be completist with option consideration, and realized I hadn't considered these. I love our Leica BNs, they are so nicely made...there's a lot to be said for that. Asking because seeing the Ultravids will be a bit of an effort.

 

[eitanaltman]

You'll get a lot of opinions I'm sure, and to be honest I have NOT looked through the Zeiss SF yet.

However I have plenty of experience with the Leica UVHD 8x32 and the Swaro EL 8x32. And I've looked through the SF 42mm, and used enough binoculars that I can make an educated extrapolation.

IMO, and I think this is a fairly objective assessment:

YES, the Leicas are "on par" when it comes to sharpness / resolution / clarity in the sweet spot area, glare control, and overall color saturation / contrast

NO, the Leicas are NOT "on par" when it comes to eye relief, field of view, or edge sharpness, and correction of pincushion (with AMD as a trade-off)

I suspect the SF, and perhaps the EL SV as well, are a bit brighter. But I'm one who doesn't think minute differences in "brightness" are that important in the field actually using them vs. comparing them side-by-side.

The Leica trades off eye relief and FOV to make them as compact as possible. They truly are TINY given how ridiculously good they are optically. And, leaving aside eye relief and edge sharpness, they compete with ANYTHING that I've ever looked through for contrast / resolution on axis (and I don't even have the "Plus" version). And personally I don't mind the "classic edge" style of distortion with some pincushion and some gradual softening towards the edge (and it's not like the Leicas don't have a very large sweet spot, they do!).

BUT if you don't mind carrying a longer binocular, what you get in return is a brighter, wider, better corrected field of view with easier eye position (not just eye relief, also a more forgiving "eye box").

So rather than "Better or Worse", think of it as a different set of compromises to meet different design goals.

 

[b-lilja]

I posted this on the main bino thread, but folks here might not see it, and would love the input.

I have been narrowing my decision on buying alpha 8x32s, trying to decide between the Zeiss and Swaros...and for some reason was just not paying attention to the Leicas. As I've stated elsewhere, I love our BNs, and looking at the specs on the UVHD+ I see their small weight and lightness - one of the great benefits of x32s that the Zeiss begin to leave behind (length)...field coat pocket stuffability is on the checklist. Awesome industrial design too.

Obviously all going to be in the view - so I will look through them.

The two things folks have highlighted as issues are a rough focus, and narrow FOV. However I've read the focus may/may not have been fixed. Re FOV, it's not that much narrower than the HDs, and the HDs FOV has never struck me as narrow.

Thoughts?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

b-lilja, post 1,
Try the Ultravid 8x32 HD+ and you will probably like it, since it is compact, beautifully shaped, good handling comfort and good optical properties. Nothing wrong with it. And if you are not sure go to a shop and compare it with a Swarovski and Zeiss 30 or 32 mm binocular, since you really must feel them in your hands and compare the optical properties. Do not listen to any of us and decide for yourself., since we are all different and have different tastes, different demands and different opinions. Test reports may also help in your decision process.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[eitanaltman]

I commented on your other post as well....

I've never heard anyone complain about "narrow FOV" other than in the context of the short eye relief (e.g. using glasses and not being able to see the full FOV). The FOV is close to 8° (7.7° spec, Allbinos measured 7.8°) so barely smaller than that of the Swaro SV EL, and very much in line with other top 8x32's like Meostar, Conquest HD, etc.

Also because they have pincushion the FOV feels a bit wider than a binocular with strong correction / AMD.

I also don't mind the focus, I think a lot of people are turned off by the greaseless focusing because it doesn't feel "silky" or "fluid" but I've never had an issue focusing accurately with multiple Ultravids I've owned and/or handled. Yeah, there's usually some rough spots or some "sticksion" and maybe a squeak or scrape now and then, but they work just fine in the field for me.

I also have an EDG 10x32 so I know what a perfect focuser is like, the UV focuser isn't at that level but again never a problem in "real world" field use IMO.

And honestly same goes for Swaro EL -- you can find plenty of complaints of roughness, coarseness, differing tension, scraping, etc. I've handled a lot of ELs and none have had a "silky" or "buttery" focuser, but they get the job done.

If FOV and focus smoothness are top priority, then the Zeiss SF had the edge. The tradeoff is they are as long as some 42mm binoculars (even though they are still quite light). The extra length wouldn't bother me at all, I'm not concerned about "pack size" but more about weight and ease of use carrying them in the field. My 10x32 EDG are long and heavy for a 32mm but they feel wonderful to hold and use, whereas I think my wife's 8x32 UVHD and my 8x32 Meostar are a bit too short (my pinkie finger wants to flop off the end in front of the objective) so I actually prefer a slightly longer 32mm.

 

[PhilR.]

I think the UVHD+ is easily on par with the 8x32 EL SV and the new 8x32 SF. In fact, I prefer the overall view of the Leica over the other two because I like its slightly warmer cast, and the small footprint. However, I use the EL more often as I can use it while wearing sunglasses, which is something I cannot do with the Leica. The only other thing I somewhat dislike about the Leica is that it’s focus wheel isn’t as smooth as the Swarovski, and doesn’t come close to the smoothness of the SF. But it’s not like it is bad (and I certainly wouldn’t call it rough), so I keep it anyway and very much enjoy using it.

 

[b-lilja]

I really appreciate all the helpful responses. I've been posting on and off in other places so didn't want to overshare here.

We have done the full circuit of subalpha 8x32 bins - owning good copies of Leica BNs, Conquest HDs, Nikon SEs. All three are great in their own particular way. We are ready to take it to the next level. I've been looking closely at the Swaros and Zeiss, and for some reason passed over the Leicas - perhaps assuming they were too long in tooth. They will definitely go on the list to look at.

Gijs, appreciate your comment about looking at them. I agree - have been at this long enough to know eyes, priorities, needs all highly vary based on person - like everything else in life!

Eitan, I shouldn't have said "narrow" - this is a thread elsewhere that implied this, but I agree it is close enough to others.

Phil and Eitan, Re focuser - it is funny, I have never given it a thought until deciding these. For example my Conquest HD focuser is superb, while the Triv BN focuser is rougher and weighted in one direction. But until I've been spending time on the topic, I never gave it a thought. That tells me something.

Pack size for me is a thing. I travel a lot and ideally, these are an easy stash in an overnight bag/day pack/etc. The SFs, my current favorite in most other regards, are just bigger.

 

[[email protected]]

No, I don't think the Ultravid HD+ is on par with the Zeiss SF or Swaro EL 8x32. You can look at the rankings on Allbinos for 10x42 binoculars and I think you can extrapolate to the three 8x32 you are considering for similar reasons. One thing to consider is the EL 8x32 for a lot of people shows glare but some people aren't bothered by it, whereas, the Ultravid is very glare resistant but overall the SF and the EL are better binoculars. A lot of people choose the EL because even with the glare it is very hard to beat.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

 

[SeldomPerched]

I posted this on the main bino thread, but folks here might not see it, and would love the input.

I have been narrowing my decision on buying alpha 8x32s, trying to decide between the Zeiss and Swaros...and for some reason was just not paying attention to the Leicas. As I've stated elsewhere, I love our BNs, and looking at the specs on the UVHD+ I see their small weight and lightness - one of the great benefits of x32s that the Zeiss begin to leave behind (length)...field coat pocket stuffability is on the checklist. Awesome industrial design too.

Obviously all going to be in the view - so I will look through them.

The two things folks have highlighted as issues are a rough focus, and narrow FOV. However I've read the focus may/may not have been fixed. Re FOV, it's not that much narrower than the HDs, and the HDs FOV has never struck me as narrow.

Thoughts?

No rough focus in the current iteration that is what I have - Ultravid HD Plus. And it is possible despite the tiny size to find a good and comfortable hold on them and even a comfortable viewing position if your hands and face are fashioned the Leica way (mine must be, it seems!)

The only trouble with mine is that they aren't quite in adjustment but I'm hoping to get that seen to. They are very dinky and not far behind S and Z for close focus either. Beautiful browns and reds and quite free from glare too. Definitely a worthy contender on paper but yes you'll need to see for yourself - as always!

They smell nicer than the S or Z too though they are also excellent

Good luck.

Tom

 

[eronald]

The 35mm Retrovids are the contenders in this category. The 7x is nice.

Edmund

 

[b-lilja]

Denco, I honestly find the Allbino ratings ridiculous and to have little bearing on reality. For example, I find the placement of the FLs at the top of the 8x32 list, with the Conquests at number 12, to be inaccurate. Having used both, I would take the Conquests every time. And honestly, the Nikon HGs at four and EIIs at number nine is just silly. But if you do numeric rankings, that's what you'll end up with, every time, and every individual needs to make their own chart anyway. Finally, they haven't even reviewed the HD+s.

Regarding the small size, for sure that really is a thing. I am proud to say I have small hands, and so this may be a non-issue. I do find that at a certain threshold, small size and low weight for me result in too much shake for image clarity - for example the Zeiss SF 8x25s just don't work for me for that reason. But I am guessing these won't drop into that category.

I should also add, I am often birding with a scope over my shoulder, and do often one hand with the bins for that reason. So the Uvids might be great in this scenario.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Denco, I honestly find the Allbino ratings ridiculous and to have little bearing on reality. For example, I find the placement of the FLs at the top of the 8x32 list, with the Conquests at number 12, to be inaccurate. Having used both, I would take the Conquests every time. And honestly, the Nikon HGs at four and EIIs at number nine is just silly. But if you do numeric rankings, that's what you'll end up with, every time, and every individual needs to make their own chart anyway. Finally, they haven't even reviewed the HD+s.

Regarding the small size, for sure that really is a thing. I am proud to say I have small hands, and so this may be a non-issue. I do find that at a certain threshold, small size and low weight for me result in too much shake for image clarity - for example the Zeiss SF 8x25s just don't work for me for that reason. But I am guessing these won't drop into that category.

I should also add, I am often birding with a scope over my shoulder, and do often one hand with the bins for that reason. So the Uvids might be great in this scenario.

Hi,

Sorry it's me again but thought you'd like a confirmation on the size/shake/wobbly hold aspect: we are all different but fwiw I have an 8x20 BCA Trinovid and that is too small and hard to hold still (it's altogether very fiddly what with two hinges, tiny diameter eyecups and a tiny focuser) but the 8x32 UVHD+ is easy to hold steady for long periods of time for me, even though I have great difficulty holding certain heavier glass still. At a guess you will be delighted with the UV if you have no issues with the eye end of the instrument. Small hands are good with this glass!

Have fun,

Tom

 

[b-lilja]

Thanks Edmund - I would definitely put these on the list, but since they're not sealed...off the table. I find sealed binocs with the hydrophobic coatings so helpful in terms of cleaning, and keeping the interiors clear -

 

[[email protected]]

Denco, I honestly find the Allbino ratings ridiculous and to have little bearing on reality. For example, I find the placement of the FLs at the top of the 8x32 list, with the Conquests at number 12, to be inaccurate. Having used both, I would take the Conquests every time. And honestly, the Nikon HGs at four and EIIs at number nine is just silly. But if you do numeric rankings, that's what you'll end up with, every time, and every individual needs to make their own chart anyway. Finally, they haven't even reviewed the HD+s.

Regarding the small size, for sure that really is a thing. I am proud to say I have small hands, and so this may be a non-issue. I do find that at a certain threshold, small size and low weight for me result in too much shake for image clarity - for example the Zeiss SF 8x25s just don't work for me for that reason. But I am guessing these won't drop into that category.

I should also add, I am often birding with a scope over my shoulder, and do often one hand with the bins for that reason. So the Uvids might be great in this scenario.

"Denco, I honestly find the Allbino ratings ridiculous and to have little bearing on reality. For example, I find the placement of the FLs at the top of the 8x32 list, with the Conquests at number 12, to be inaccurate. Having used both, I would take the Conquests every time. And honestly, the Nikon HGs at four and EIIs at number nine is just silly. But if you do numeric rankings, that's what you'll end up with, every time, and every individual needs to make their own chart anyway. Finally, they haven't even reviewed the HD+s.'

I actually find Allbinos reviews to be the most accurate, objective and best out there and I find them right about a 100% of the time. The people that disagree with Allbinos usually own a binocular that is not ranked very highly so they rationalize it by saying "Oh, Allbinos doesn't know what they are talking about because my Zenray is the best binocular I ever had." I see it all the time. I would trust Allbinos way more than I would trust somebodies subjective opinion. For example you're saying the Conquest is a better binocular than the FL is so way off base I know I would never trust your opinion. The FL KILLS the Conquest HD on transmission and CA. Allbinos has reviewed the Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD+ and they ranked them lower than the regular Ultravid HD in the 10x42 category.

https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-8x32.html
https://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

 

[b-lilja]

I have owned all the binoculars I listed for some period except the FLs. However, I have used the FLs many times. Not even close to the ranking I would put them at relative to each other.

 

[Hermann]

I have been narrowing my decision on buying alpha 8x32s, trying to decide between the Zeiss and Swaros...and for some reason was just not paying attention to the Leicas. As I've stated elsewhere, I love our BNs, and looking at the specs on the UVHD+ I see their small weight and lightness - one of the great benefits of x32s that the Zeiss begin to leave behind (length)...field coat pocket stuffability is on the checklist. Awesome industrial design too.

If I were you, I'd look at the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD+, the Swarovski SV 8x32, the Zeiss 8x32 FL (yes, the "old" FL!) and the 8x32 SF. I'd also look at the Nikon EDG 8x32. These are all quite different, and you will have to decide which one suits you best. And I certainly wouldn't listen to people telling you which is "the best 8x32". There's no such thing as "the best 8x32", only one that is right for you.

To give you an example: A lot of people here love the Swaro 8x32 SV. I don't, simply because I find the glare obnoxious. But many people don't care or don't experience any glare issues with the Swaro, so power to them. I also don't like the aesthetics of the Nikon EDG, even though it is a very good binocular indeed. Still, it's not for me.

BTW, I definitely wouldn't rely on any tests published on websites, not even ones some people here praise in every second post just because they agree with them.

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

Here is what I would do. I would take a look at the brand-new pair of Kowa Genesis Prominar 8x33 on sale for $749.95 in the classified which have 95% of the performance of the three binoculars you are looking at with less CA than any of them and save yourself some money.

 

[b-lilja]

If I were you, I'd look at the Leica Ultravid 8x32 HD+, the Swarovski SV 8x32, the Zeiss 8x32 FL (yes, the "old" FL!) and the 8x32 SF. I'd also look at the Nikon EDG 8x32. These are all quite different, and you will have to decide which one suits you best. And I certainly wouldn't listen to people telling you which is "the best 8x32". There's no such thing as "the best 8x32", only one that is right for you.

To give you an example: A lot of people here love the Swaro 8x32 SV. I don't, simply because I find the glare obnoxious. But many people don't care or don't experience any glare issues with the Swaro, so power to them. I also don't like the aesthetics of the Nikon EDG, even though it is a very good binocular indeed. Still, it's not for me.

BTW, I definitely wouldn't rely on any tests published on websites, not even ones some people here praise in every second post just because they agree with them.

Hermann

Hi Hermann,

I have used the FLs several times, and just don't find them at the quality level I'm looking for. I personally find my Conquest HDs better, which I know may be a minority view but it's my experience.

The SVs and ELs are clearly a step up. I'm realizing I have not really looked at the ELs from the standpoint of glare and am going to prioritize that.

The EDGs are only available from Japan on ebay at this point, and I just don't want to mess around with that. I also can't get to excited about their aesthetics either - the EDG badges are a turnoff, and I like the design and quality of the other three quite a bit (probably the Leicas the most, followed by the Zeiss).

 

[dries1]

I would think that if the UV had more eye relief they would be a choice of many more here on BF. I mean what are you going to miss in the field compared to the others, likely nothing.

Andy W.

 

[wdc]

..... And I certainly wouldn't listen to people telling you which is "the best 8x32". There's no such thing as "the best 8x32", only one that is right for you.

To give you an example: A lot of people here love the Swaro 8x32 SV. I don't, simply because I find the glare obnoxious. But many people don't care or don't experience any glare issues with the Swaro, so power to them. I also don't like the aesthetics of the Nikon EDG, even though it is a very good binocular indeed. Still, it's not for me.

BTW, I definitely wouldn't rely on any tests published on websites, not even ones some people here praise in every second post just because they agree with them.

Hermann

Amen to all that. Some folks are desperate to have their purchase validated by a third party, otherwise the prestige of ownership may be lacking, or in doubt.

When someone just looks at stats and claims that binocular 'x' "absolutely kills" binocular 'y', that is not Allbinos talking, its a blatantly subjective interpretation, with perhaps no basis in user experience. They may have never compared the 2 directly to examine for themselves that such a numerical difference is significant. Nobody knows what another individual's hierarchy of values or needs are when looking for optics.

Allbinos is a very helpful resource, but personal use is the only way to know what works, and what doesn't, or whether certain 'measurable' differences are even perceived in real world use. When it comes to optics, I don't think of Allbinos as a higher authority with regards to determining my needs, though it is an excellent compendium of information. I want to compare, weight, eye relief, ipd, fov, etc.
Of course I'm interested in published reviews of a binocular by them, but I've learned on several occasions already that their rankings do not correspond to my own personal experience.

With good binoculars, individual preferences are entirely subjective, and absolutely valid. They're all pretty damn good, each in their own, unique way. That's why I respect and rely on folks in this forum to weigh in with their opinions and experiences. Some of the most helpful commentators are the ones that take them out in the field, and may have other one's at hand to compare them to in a meaningful way. Interestingly, when some folks say that a certain binocular works great for them, depending on their preferences, it may be a clear sign that it probably won't work for me. ;-)

-Bill