Leica Ultra HD Plus 8x32 vs 10x32...eye relief? (1 Viewer)

[laurencejackson]

I'm just wondering about any perceived differences in eye relief between the 8x32 and 10x32? I wear glasses and have recently acquired the 8x32 HD Plus. Nevertheless, I find them perfect and have no problems seeing the whole field, even though I was dubious about this when I decided to purchase. The specs have a virtually identical 13.1mm for the 8x and 13.2mm for the 10x. I am thinking about adding the 10x as the whole form factor of these little ultravids is perfect for me, particularly with travel etc. and I think they are great looking bins too. Any thoughts from those that have used both in the field would be welcome!

 

[LucaPCP]

I have the 8x32 UV HD+, but for 10x, I decided to go for the 10x42 UV HD+, to maintain the 4mm exit pupil and ease of view. I am very very happy with the choice, and the extra weight of the x42 helps with holding them steady.

 

[Trinovid]

Leica Ultra HD Plus 8x32 vs 10x32

I have both and much as I like the 8x32, actually found myself liking the 10x32 even more. Very easy to carry and use and almost indistinguishable from each other when sitting on the window sill.

 

[Alaska4me]

I have the 8x32 UV HD+, but for 10x, I decided to go for the 10x42 UV HD+, to maintain the 4mm exit pupil and ease of view. I am very very happy with the choice, and the extra weight of the x42 helps with holding them steady.

You are talking my language

---

@laurencejackson, sorry I can't provide any field based comparison between the 8x32 and the 10x32 UV HD+, I only have the 8x. Hopefully someone will chime in.

 

[laurencejackson]

As an add on to my original post, I also acquired the 8x42 HD Plus recently. However comparing it with the 8x32 HD+, the view appears more tunnel like and I prefer the x32, everything just has a smidge more crispness to it and all in a smaller, perfect little package. I think it also has a fraction more FOV than the x42 and it feels that way when using also.

I used to have a 10x32 EL SV (2016) which I sold a few years ago. That was lovely and I really enjoyed the 10x on that, very balanced and a perfect birding travel bin Yes another regretful sale...

 

[laurencejackson]

I have both and much as I like the 8x32, actually found myself liking the 10x32 even more. Very easy to carry and use and almost indistinguishable from each other when sitting on the window sill.

Thanks ...could you perhaps elaborate on why you found the 10x more preferable? especially as they have the exact same form/dimensions? I have read elsewhere that the 10x are extremely sharp, but I wonder if they are, even in comparison with the (extremely sharp) 8x32s...

 

[Trinovid]

...could you perhaps elaborate on why you found the 10x more preferable?

I guess it really boils down to what I'm looking at and the 8x definitely wins in general viewing applications while the 10x excelled at zeroing in and isolating the subject of interest.
For looking at nature in general, mountains and so on = 8; perched eagles, otters playing, focusing on mosses and such = 10 on top.

 

[Nigel Grantham]

I found the eyecups too short on the UV 8x32 I tried (I don't wear glasses and I had significant blackouts), which was disappointing as it would be an excellent travel bin for me. But recently I looked online at images of both bins and the 10x32 seemingly has longer eyecups (although I'm not interested in 10x). Anyone ever tried the 10x32 eyecups on the 8x32, presumably they fit?! Could be the solution!

 

[laurencejackson]

I guess it really boils down to what I'm looking at and the 8x definitely wins in general viewing applications while the 10x excelled at zeroing in and isolating the subject of interest.
For looking at nature in general, mountains and so on = 8; perched eagles, otters playing, focusing on mosses and such = 10 on top.

Yes thanks, I meant any differences in sharpness/contrast - wow factor (!) and eye relief or placement issues etc between the two models.

 

[tenex]

the extra weight of the x42 helps with holding them steady

Actually I wonder whether the issue here is weight, or size. My complaint with UV 32 is that it got too small to get a solid grip on, especially at 10x. I prefer FL 32 or even the old BN 32, which are just the right bit fatter. UV 32 is cute and many get along fine with it, but I felt more ambivalent.

the view appears more tunnel like

My experience is with the 10x models; I've tried UV 8x32 only once briefly and found the smaller AFOV a bit "tunnel like" in comparison, so if this tends to be an issue for you, you may well prefer 10x32. (This is true of FL as well.)

the 10x32 seemingly has longer eyecups

I suspect you'll find that it actually has longer oculars, concealed by an eyecup that's also longer in its resting position, but still extends to the same depth.

 

[mwhogue]

@tenex,

Actually I wonder whether the issue here is weight, or size. My complaint with UV 32 is that it got too small to get a solid grip on, especially at 10x. I prefer FL 32 or even the old BN 32, which are just the right bit fatter. UV 32 is cute and many get along fine with it, but I felt more ambivalent.

This is my experience as well, but for me it's more about the combination or ratio between size, shape and weight rather than any one of those factors alone. Not a complaint but the HD+ 10x32 is smaller but heavier than the Zeiss FL and I can hold the Zeiss slightly steadier than the UV as a result.

In terms of @laurencejackson original question, I have not tried the 8x32 UV but have never noticed any difference in sharpness between various other UVs in 7, 8 and 10x.

Mike