• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Roger Vine's review of the Retrovid 8x40 (1 Viewer)

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Roger has just posted his review at: Leica Trinovid Classic 8x40 Review
See an image of it compared to the Zeiss SF x42.

And as many will be aware Roger previously reviewed the 7x35 version at: Leica Trinovid 7x35 ('Retrovid') Review


For more detail on the optical construction, and the specifications for all three Retrovids, see posts #138 and 139 (along with the link) at:
Retrovid 7X35 a viable birding binocular?

And Canip and others have previously reviewed/ commented in detail about the 8x40 at: Retrovid 8x40: A brief review

However, while there’s been a lot of interest and comment about the 7x35 - and a reasonable amount about the 8x40 -
there's been little about the 10x40.


John
 

Attachments

  • SF x42 vs Retrovid 8x40.jpg
    SF x42 vs Retrovid 8x40.jpg
    219.5 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
Thank you, John!! Very nice review by Roger.

The only thing I slightly wonder about is Roger’s comparison of the Retrovid with the Victory SF.

Roger mentions himself that these two „aren‘t natural competitors“, but then goes on anyway comparing them.

I find it hard to compare binos that have been built with a completely different design philosophy - size (just look at the two), mechanics (focus mechanism), color saturation, etc. I guess hardly anybody would evaluate the two binos in question as alternatives when looking for an instrument in a shop.
In my view, it would have been much more interesting to compare the Retrovid with the same size Ultravid and Noctivid. But maybe I see this too narrow?

Otherwise, I agree with most findings in Roger‘s review.

Canip
 
Roger mentions himself that these two „aren‘t natural competitors“, but then goes on anyway comparing them.
Well, that and the fact that he keeps saying they’re real leather, when they’re not (which is a good thing).

I think the main conclusion for all the retrovids is the same. On a practical level, they give a lovely image, and they’re more compact than the alternatives, albeit lacking a bit in FOV and CA control.

But, the real reason for buying them is that they’re what he misleadingly calls “ungeeky”. My 7x35 is my man-about-town binocular because they’re just cool and sexy. Of course, no one who’s seen me carrying them has thought (far less said), “wow, you look cool and sexy”. But that’s OK, because I know they’re cool and sexy, and by extension so am I.
 
In my view, it would have been much more interesting to compare the Retrovid with the same size Ultravid and Noctivid. But maybe I see this too narrow?
I supposed he meant to show how close it comes to the very best models today, and SF just happened to be the one he had at hand. Or perhaps he wouldn't consider UV/NV quite the "best" today, next to SF/NL -- an interesting question.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top