-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Is Leica Ultravid 8x42 BR still a decent bino? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Szmako81
- Start date
tenex
reality-based
Yes, it is. So what improvement are you looking for? Briefly, I find SLC HD sharper, while colors/contrast are different in ways (e.g. a bit less red) that would be purely a matter of taste. The UV focuser is a bit better, but SLC HD focuses closer. Most people looking to improve significantly on UV would probably consider NL.
dries1
Member
The UV 8X42 is still a very good glass, so to me the SLC is a side step. I have the UV HD and SLC in 8X42.
John M Robinson
Well-known member
I’ve owned my 8x42 BR since the HD first came out. At the time I bought it I took it and a 8.5x42 EL home for the weekend and after lots of comparing I opted for the Ultravid. All these years I continue to compare it to every new model that comes out and the good old BR continues to hold its own.
Szmako81
Well-known member
Dear Tenex,
Tried the NL 8x42, however it's got the rolling ball effect while panning.
I was told that the SLC HD has a yellowish cast..
Last edited:
No yellowish cast to my eyes, I'd say it's pretty neutral - pre HDs aren't quite as neutral.
I prefer the SLC's over the Ultravids but it's very much how you weigh personal preferences, the Ultravids are still good performers. I'd try and find a pair you can try before jumping.
If rolling ball bothers you in the NLs you're probably best avoiding flat field altogether which narrows your options. I'd argue the SLC 56s are a bigger jump up than the SLC HDs, but you'd have to be happy with what are undeniably a big and heavy pair of binoculars.
jafritten
Well-known member
I used to have the SLC HD in 10x42. To my eyes (brain) the panning behaviour is excellent, even better than UV 7x42 and UV 10x42. Yellow cast is said too much, I think. There is, however, a very notable portion of yellow in the greens. When looking at foliage or grassland, I found it very apparent.
tenex
reality-based
It's hard to find the right language here without exaggerating small differences. UV and SLC HD are both on the "warm" side in color but it's more reddish-orange for UV, vs amber/yellow for SLC HD. Various colors are affected in subtle ways; amber is also said to improve overall contrast in overcast conditions. Some people love Leica color, and find more neutral glass (SLC 56, NL) too "cool"; it's a matter of personal taste. Overall I find the general view more similar than different in these two bins; what I prefer is SLC HD's sharpness and close focus. If these don't matter as much to you, the advantage of swapping isn't obvious. If you want to try something different in a traditional optical design, options are increasingly limited... so it would be nice to know just how you'd like to improve on your UV. (SLC 56 might indeed be a more interesting alternative, but it's bulky and has slower focus, and not as close as 42 HD.)
Last edited:
Szmako81
Well-known member
Edit: It'd be sharpness and color as well. In addition to these, magnification-10x42.-I am not sure whether I need higher magnification./?
P.S.: when I said the HD modell, I was referring to those ones that had been produced app. btw 2010-2012/13.
Last edited:
They're not easy to find - optically the newer version performs at least as well (and still available as Kahles), but does have a longer close focus distance if that is a big issue.
Szmako81
Well-known member
Found the 8x and the 10x42 binos in mint condition in Germany.
At a decent price I'd be tempted
Szmako81
Well-known member
1500 euros.🤔At a decent price I'd be tempted
That's more than a new currrent model... I suppose it reflects demand...
Yes, because the new current model doesn't say Swarovski...
I've always thought the green and black armored version was much nicer to look at than its successor with the green "dinosaur skin".
tenex
reality-based
I have and like both versions of armor; there's nothing wrong with the "dinosaur skin". (But brown/orange would take some getting used to...)
Sz, since you're not indicating that close focus matters to you, there's no obvious reason to pay a premium for HD 42 over its successors. Regarding color, once again I can't tell how you want to improve on UV which many people adore. If you're merely curious to try something different, that's understandable but you just have to do it; advice won't really help. As for 10x vs 8x, you can try out any readily available 10x with decent FOV (110+m) to get a sense for the higher magnification and reduced DOF. Or just scratch the itch, and get that mint HD 42. The 10x is my daily bin now, and would be worth that price to me.
Sz, since you're not indicating that close focus matters to you, there's no obvious reason to pay a premium for HD 42 over its successors. Regarding color, once again I can't tell how you want to improve on UV which many people adore. If you're merely curious to try something different, that's understandable but you just have to do it; advice won't really help. As for 10x vs 8x, you can try out any readily available 10x with decent FOV (110+m) to get a sense for the higher magnification and reduced DOF. Or just scratch the itch, and get that mint HD 42. The 10x is my daily bin now, and would be worth that price to me.
Last edited:
Yes owning the 7x50 SLC neu in green/black and the 15x56 SLCs in dinosaur skin the visual difference isn't great, to the point that with the bridge to the back I've picked up the wrong ones. I'm sure if the Kahles were solid brown they'd sell better - the brown itself is inoffensive, but that orange stripe...
jafritten
Well-known member
Sorry, I must correct myself. I had the 2019 version.
Well, I've got an even older old Leica BN, which has become my primary Bino.
I love that thing, and always pick it up.
So i'm sure yours is just fine, and I wouldn't bother if you like it.
But if curiosity gets the better of you, then go for it.
In fact i've been surprised at the small step up in optical 'quality' over the years.
Sure there's flat field, sharp to the edges modern stuff, but the quality of the image hasn't moved on as much as some may suspect.
My BN's are better than modern Trinovids, I tested them, and not a million miles from UVHD+.
Some folk on here say they cannot see the difference between UVHD and UVHD+, and i think they are right!
And we are talking a long span of optics manufacturing here, 20 odd years.
Quality glass is quality glass.... there is a lot of hair splitting here.
I love that thing, and always pick it up.
So i'm sure yours is just fine, and I wouldn't bother if you like it.
But if curiosity gets the better of you, then go for it.
In fact i've been surprised at the small step up in optical 'quality' over the years.
Sure there's flat field, sharp to the edges modern stuff, but the quality of the image hasn't moved on as much as some may suspect.
My BN's are better than modern Trinovids, I tested them, and not a million miles from UVHD+.
Some folk on here say they cannot see the difference between UVHD and UVHD+, and i think they are right!
And we are talking a long span of optics manufacturing here, 20 odd years.
Quality glass is quality glass.... there is a lot of hair splitting here.
Last edited:
Szmako81
Well-known member
Dear Tenex,
What about the pincushion distortion level of the SW SLC 10x42 HD ('10-'12), is it a little bit high?
Sz.
