Leica UV 8x20 versus Zeiss Victory 8x25 (1 Viewer)

[binomaniac]

Wow, Alexis, very consistent useful flow of information. I must admit that in recent days I have been leaning more and more towards Zeiss, but if I happen to find an 8x20 UV first at an undeniable price, I will not hesitate to buy it.

 

[binomaniac]

Thank you Mike for all the kindness, any comparison between the two binoculars is welcome for me, the more useful information the better. And maybe not just for me. I see that this topic is read with a lot of interest.

 

[binomaniac]

pm42, thanks for the photos, it's amazing how small Leica is next to Zeiss. Leica seems to be able to fit in a much smaller pocket than Zeiss needs .

 

[Alexis Powell]

I carry them both in the smallest possible neoprene Op/Tech bag and I find the difference significant as shown in pictures...

That's a nice little case or wrap for the Leica! Which Op/Tech product is that? I might need one.

On the other hand, the case for your Zeiss seems more bulky than necessary. Here's a past post with pictures of my Leica 8x20 Ultravid, Zeiss 8x25 Victory, and Zeiss 8x32 FL along with the cases that I use.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3722136&#post3722136

--AP

 

[Alexis Powell]

...but if I happen to find an 8x20 UV first at an undeniable price, I will not hesitate to buy it.

It's certainly a great binocular and if you find one for a good price you won't regret it. I ended up with a second unit because a dealer was selling off inventory--got it new with USA warranty for $400 and free shipping! Couldn't resist. The Zeiss was available for ~$650 when first released in the USA but the price has gone up a lot since.

--AP

 

[pm42]

it's amazing how small Leica is next to Zeiss. Leica seems to be able to fit in a much smaller pocket than Zeiss needs .

This is my experience and the reason why I have them.

That's a nice little case or wrap for the Leica! Which Op/Tech product is that? I might need one.

Op/Tech Digital D-Series, D-Micro, the smallest one.

On the other hand, the case for your Zeiss seems more bulky than necessary.

Not with the rainguard. I could remove it and use a smaller case the as the Op/Tech D-Mini but I find it less convenient. The Leica double-hinge allows me to carry them in a more compact case. When I close the Zeiss, I find it harder to fit them into most of the cases, in a pocket or in a bag so I them open.

Here's a past post with pictures of my Leica 8x20 Ultravid, Zeiss 8x25 Victory, and Zeiss 8x32 FL along with the cases that I use.

Yes, I saw this pictures when I was looking to upgrade my old Trinovid binoculars. It helped. Thanks.

 

[eitanaltman]

The big thing is whether the priority is maximizing compactness for travel, or maximizing ease of use in the field at the expense of something a bit larger.

I don't care how good it is optically -- there is no such thing as an 8x20 double-hinged roof that is comfortable enough to use for extended birding, period. It's just too clunky ergonomically and the exit pupil is too small and the FOV too constricted.

As a little carry-along for when you're hiking or climbing and want a quick peek at something distant, sure. But if you're BIRDING, as in spending lots of time looking through the binoculars and raising them up and down, up and down, up and down.... an 8x20 is going to be miserable after a while.

Frankly I used to say the same thing about 8x25, but I tried the Zeiss a few months ago at our local bird fair and I was blown away at how much easier the ergonomics are with the single hinge and offset focus knob. It makes a massive difference ergonomically being able to wrap your right hand around the body and have the index finger fall on the knob, versus the awkward fingertips hold you have to do with a tiny little 8x20 double-hinge. I wish I had spent more time with it, but I remember being wowed by the easy, wide FOV which I was NOT expecting.

The sacrifice of course is the Zeiss is considerably larger than the Leica, as the photos above show. But if you're going to use these extensively for birding or other activities where you are handling and looking through them a lot, I think you'll be much happier with the Zeiss. Even if the optics were 100% equal, the Zeiss is objectively a better "birding tool".

 

[binomaniac]

Thank you Eitan, it is becoming clearer to me that UV 8x20 or any other 8x20, cannot offer you a visual experience at the level offered by Zeiss 8x25. I'm waiting for one at a good price on Ebay. But as I said above, if in the meantime an 8x20 UV appears at a price like $ 400-450 as Alexis found, then I will not hesitate to buy it.

 

[binomaniac]

By the way, I found in Romania a Leica Trinovid 8x20 the latest model. The price is very attractive 250 euros. It's like new. Maybe I should buy it. I had one and when I compared it to the latest SLC WB 8x42 model, I was extremely pleasantly surprised at how close the two binoculars were in resolution and the amount of detail seen.

 

[fazalmajid]

It's certainly a great binocular and if you find one for a good price you won't regret it. I ended up with a second unit because a dealer was selling off inventory--got it new with USA warranty for $400 and free shipping! Couldn't resist. The Zeiss was available for ~$650 when first released in the USA but the price has gone up a lot since.

I’d gotten a Product RED edition as a wedding present for a cousin who’s fond of hiking, for $400 from MidwayUSA courtesy of the binocular bargains thread...

I don’t know if Leica still includes the hard leather clamshell case with the BL, but it is awesome and makes the total package even more compact compared to the competition. You can just wear it unobtrusively on your belt and no one will be the wiser.

 

[Alexis Powell]

By the way, I found in Romania a Leica Trinovid 8x20 the latest model. The price is very attractive 250 euros. It's like new. Maybe I should buy it. I had one and when I compared it to the latest SLC WB 8x42 model, I was extremely pleasantly surprised at how close the two binoculars were in resolution and the amount of detail seen.

The Trinovid 8x20 is a fine binocular, but in my experience is not in the same league as the Ultravid, which has better optics, better handling (focus knob design, positive stops to simplify unfolding), better eye relief, and better close focus.

--AP

 

[John A Roberts]

In terms of the optical differences between the x20 (and x25) Ultravids and Trinovids, see the screen grabs from a 2007 catalogue
(it's from shortly after the small Ultravids were introduced):
- both have the same general optical pattern of 6 lenses per side (and the same field of view)

- the UV's have slightly increased eye relief (implying modification to the eyepiece), and

- the UV's have one aspheric lens in each barrel

- - - -

In relation to the optical construction, the only 2 images that I’ve seen are drawn cutaways of:
a) an Ultravid 10x25, and
b) a Monovid 8x20 (it has a removable close focus lens)

Although it’s not clear from the diagrams, it would be reasonable to assume that the basic construction is:
- Objective of 3 lenses in 2 groups (a 2 lens achromat plus a single focusing lens), and
- Eyepiece of 3 lenses in 2 groups (2 plus 1)

The details of the lenses may very well differ between the UV and TV lines i.e. curves (other than that of the aspheric lens), thickness, composition and spacing
And in both lines the increase in magnification of the x25's is by using a longer objective housing to increase the objective focal length

- - - -

In terms of transmission, recent catalogues indicate that the UV’s transmission is 90% while that of the TV’s is 87%

And I’ve previously posted transmission information from Gijs that shows both:
- the progression of Trinovid coatings over time, and
- Ultravid performance, both in relation to the Trinovid and other brands
see at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=388711


John

 

[eronald]

For occasional use, the Zeiss will eat the lunch of any other pocket instrument. It is supersharp and glare-free.

Overuse will not make you happy. For spending time get something larger.

Edmund

 

[[email protected]]

For occasional use, the Zeiss will eat the lunch of any other pocket instrument. It is supersharp and glare-free.

Overuse will not make you happy. For spending time get something larger.

Edmund

"The Zeiss will eat the lunch of any other pocket instrument."

Not all of them. There is a new kid in town, and he is packing IS. The new Nikon 10x25 IS will eat the lunch and supper of the Zeiss when it comes to seeing detail and it is smaller. Overuse will make you happy because of the IS. Way less eye strain and way more comfort with easier eye placement.

 

[pm42]

Not all of them. There is a new kid in town, and he is packing IS. The new Nikon 10x25 IS will eat the lunch and supper of the Zeiss when it comes to seeing detail and it is smaller. Overuse will make you happy because of the IS. Way less eye strain and way more comfort with easier eye placement.

This is not true. I have the Nikon as well. IS is great and they are compact. But:

- FOV is very small
- Eye placement is not easier, quite the contrary which is to be expected from a 10x25 compared to a 8x25
- Eye relief is smaller, a lot. The Zeiss is perfectly comfortable with glasses, the Nikon is not
- Zeiss image is better. The Nikon has a lot more CA and is not as transparent, not even as good as my 20 years old Trinovid.
- Focusing is easier on the Zeiss: more DOF, a better designed focuser
- the Nikon is heavier: more than 400g when the Zeiss is around 300g
- the Nikon rainguard fits only when they are closed. Adding caps would not be as easy as with the Zeiss
- the Nikon as no rubber cover, metal contact with, well anything, is no joy
- the Nikon IS switch can activate when stored especially when using their lightweight pouch, eating battery. And the binocular cannot be used without battery
- The Nikon is not really smaller: see picture

I bought the Nikon for a very specific usage: archery. They can have a lof of other uses.
But as a "always with you small binocular", they are clearly not in the same league as the compact Alphas.
Unless you need IS, they are not a good choice.

 

[PeterPS]

Hi pm42,

Thanks for your lucid comments on the Nikon. I have two questions about the Zeiss:
*the location of the focuser seems to favor people who focus with their right hand, how is it if you try to focus using your left hand?
*the dioptric compensation range is -/+3d, but my experience with other Zeiss binos (FLs ans SFs) is that the range extends quite a bit beyond the limit given in the specs -- is this true for the Pocket 8x25 too?

Thank you, Peter

 

[pppppvvvv]

I focus with my left hand.
Don't think my hands are particularly big.
I'm in a routine where I know where I'm focussed by the part of my finger touching the focus wheel.
Fingertip is close birds ~5m, mid finger is longer distance.
My right hand does most of the steadying I guess.

 

[pm42]

*the location of the focuser seems to favor people who focus with their right hand, how is it if you try to focus using your left hand?

It's ok for me. It is a matter of habit: with my right hand, I use only the last phalanx. With the left hand, I use 2 phalanxes. It works fine because the focuser is very smooth and large enough: you can just roll your finger on it to make it move, you do not need to apply any force.

*the dioptric compensation range is -/+3d, but my experience with other Zeiss binos (FLs ans SFs) is that the range extends quite a bit beyond the limit given in the specs -- is this true for the Pocket 8x25 too?

I think so but I cannot be sure because there is no scale. My correction is -1.5 and I can turn the ring further than twice that.

 

[pm42]

BTW, here is why I prefer the Zeiss to the Nikon. First picture is on-axis, Zeiss on the right, 2nd picture is off-axis, Zeiss on the left. So sure, the IS is great. But a stable image with less details because of lower-grade optics cannot recreate them.

 

[PeterPS]

BTW, here is why I prefer the Zeiss to the Nikon. First picture is on-axis, Zeiss on the right, 2nd picture is off-axis, Zeiss on the left. So sure, the IS is great. But a stable image with less details because of lower-grade optics cannot recreate them.

Your pics clearly illustrate that the Zeiss is sharper and has much less CA, but I believe what you call the 1st pic is in fact the 2nd pic and vice-versa.