The Swarovski 8x25 CL-P absolutely kills the Leica Ultravid 8x20 optically and for that matter any 8x20 compact. It is the best compact you can buy and the only one I would even consider owning and the ONLY reason to get an 8x20 is if you absolutely need the smaller size but you are giving up a LOT optically.
-
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.
Pocket bino choice, Leica Ultravid 8x20 vs Swarovski CL Pocket 8x25 etc. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter nestara
- Start date
Yes it does! As Binastro pointed out above. It is basic simple math skills.
50 % of 10 is 5. So 15 would be a 50% increase from 10.
And in revearse- 1/3 of 15 is 5. So 10 is a 33% decrease going from 15.
Have had both and still have the Leica 8x20 Ultravid. The Swaro 8x25 CL is a mighty fine small binocular; really excellent. But... it does not "absolutely kill" the 8x20 Ultravid.
Good that we all have choices to make with a number of fine optics out there. And Dennis- just because you have something, it does not mean yours is the absolute best, and the other choices are rubbish. Think you need to rethink and tone down your school yard rhetoric.
oldfortyfive
Well-known member
I also have both along with a few other compacts and agree the Swaro is good, but the margin between it and the little Leica isn't that great.
The huge difference to me between the Leica 8x20 Ultravid and the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P is simple. Exit pupil! It is amazing how much difference that bigger 25mm aperture makes in easier eye placement. I found the Leica or for that matter any 8x20 way to finicky in eye placement compared to the Swarovski. Also, I found the Leica to get quite dim quickly when the sun started setting ,whereas, the Swarovski would perform satisfactorily a lot longer. Also, I don't own any compacts although I have tried many. I just personally can't tolerate the small exit pupil. Give me an 8x32 or bigger and I am happy.
Last edited:
I'm the original poster who solicited recommendations on various pocket binoculars. Since then I ended up testing 10+ different models side by side for about a week, and feel that your assessment is hyperbolic at best and misleading to potential future interested parties who may use this thread as a data point in their shopping research.
*Optically* the Ultravids are on par or slightly better than the Swaro 8x25 at least in the aspect of on and near axis CA control. Resolution appeared quite comparable without use of a magnifier. Color rendering wise, and this is highly subjective, I prefered the Ultravid due to what appeared to be a very faint greenish shift imparted by the Swaros (I cannot vouch for this, as I have not performed any form of controlled testing).
Where I felt the Swaros beat the Ultravids handily was in ergonomics, ease of viewing and eyecup design - both the 8x25 and the 10x25 models. The Ultravids are certainly finicky to use, which is a tradeoff one must be ready to make when counting ounces.
If anyone is curious, I ended up with the Ultravids. The combination of weight, form factor and performance fit the mission parameters, if you will, better than the other binoculars.
Both the 8x25 and 10x25 Swaros are excellent instruments. Had the weight and size not been a critical constraint, I would have likely ended up with one of them.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bob:
You are a regular, and so you should know the difference between a small
pocket binocular and some other larger types.
It does not matter how large you find your shirt pockets.
Jerry
Interesting that the Swaros 8x25 CL-P had a greenish shift. Swaro's are known for being neutral in color rendition and I don't remember any greenish shift in the Swaro 8x25's but we all see things a little differently. Did you try the Ultravids 8x20 at dusk compared to the Swaro's 8x25 CL-P? When I compared them this was where the Swaro's really had an advantage. An 8x20 works well in sunshine but their performance falls off rapidly when the sun starts going down. But it sounds like size and weight was a major criteria for you and the Ultravids definitely have the advantage there.
I have two 8x20 now. the RSPB HD and Pentax DCF ED and both have the finicky bug and yet I do like both bins for colour, clarity, contrast, low distortion, low CA, decent size view, and good resolution but I honestly view the finickiness as a sort of fault and I say this as I also have a 6.5x21 Pentax Papilio which isn't in the least bit finicky so why do they make these 8x20's so awkward to use?
I really really don't get it. WHY, WHY WHY ????????????????????????????
Probably pushing some limit to increase eyerelief but as a non-spectacle user I would be happy if they would knock it off in exchange for some ease of eyeplacement.
I had the Hawke 8x25 Sapphire ED and it was no better either with eye placement (despite the larger exit pupil) and barely if at all any better in low light although my Hawke 10x25 Endurance is better. Oh and my Viking Vistron 8x25 is super easy to use and slightly better in lower light than the others (except the Papilio which is the best in that regard) but it is the most bulky.
I still find the cheap Carson 8x22 Scout reverse porro something of a champion in real world use over the above and it's my light choice take along.
I keep imagining all these people who know nothing about bins and bought one of those and don't realise that they have a cheap Chinese thrown together bin that actually can be more effective than these fancy lens multiple times more expensive bins or in the case of the Leica and Swaro, about 18x more expensive. £500 divided by £27. Actually 18.5x. Having said that the alphas may well outlast 18.5 of the Carsons but my 8x22 is still going strong, actually my Carson 7x18 MiniScout also. I probably will have to get the 10x25 Scout to complete the set although that is getting a little out of the really light and compact range.
I really really don't get it. WHY, WHY WHY ????????????????????????????
Probably pushing some limit to increase eyerelief but as a non-spectacle user I would be happy if they would knock it off in exchange for some ease of eyeplacement.
I had the Hawke 8x25 Sapphire ED and it was no better either with eye placement (despite the larger exit pupil) and barely if at all any better in low light although my Hawke 10x25 Endurance is better. Oh and my Viking Vistron 8x25 is super easy to use and slightly better in lower light than the others (except the Papilio which is the best in that regard) but it is the most bulky.
I still find the cheap Carson 8x22 Scout reverse porro something of a champion in real world use over the above and it's my light choice take along.
I keep imagining all these people who know nothing about bins and bought one of those and don't realise that they have a cheap Chinese thrown together bin that actually can be more effective than these fancy lens multiple times more expensive bins or in the case of the Leica and Swaro, about 18x more expensive. £500 divided by £27. Actually 18.5x. Having said that the alphas may well outlast 18.5 of the Carsons but my 8x22 is still going strong, actually my Carson 7x18 MiniScout also. I probably will have to get the 10x25 Scout to complete the set although that is getting a little out of the really light and compact range.
Last edited:
PIER PAOLO
Well-known member
Nikon lxl 10x25 vs Swaro cl-p 10x25
opened a new thread
opened a new thread
Last edited:
Similar threads
