For a few years now, I've been intrigued by Leica's Trinovid HD series. In particular, Optica Exotica (no longer on youtube sadly) had a few great video reviews and comparisons of the Trinovid HD 8x42 that got me excited about this model. There are some great reviews on the 8x32 here on the forum by A2GG, Troubador (R.I.P.!), Ronh, and others that are also very helpful. Neil English also has a great review on his website. The only reason I hadn't tried them until now was their minimum IPD setting of 58mm, which for me works when viewing distant objects but really I need 56-57mm minimum IPD to get the brightest and most comfortable image at closer ranges. I've had reports of some people's Trinovid HD samples closing to 57 or 57.5mm so I thought I'd take a chance despite my reservations. Because I already own the Leica Ultravid HD+ 7x42 and the Ultravid BR 8x20 I thought I'd try the a format right between them, the Trinovid HD 8x32.
Things I like:
* Ergonomically fantastic for me. It instantly felt better in-hand than any other binocular I've held, including the NL Pure 10x42 and the 7x42 UVHD+. Those feel great too but the Trinnie is the perfect size for my hands, the weight is well balanced, the rubber armor feels good in hand, focuser is in the right spot, everything feels robust.
* The focuser is really incredible. It is so velvety smooth and precise and quite sensitive. It took a bit of getting used to compared to a typical UV focuser (zero play, stiffer, also very precise). When combined with the overall shape, size, and weight of the bino, the focuser is one I can hold and focus with one hand very easily and steadily.
* The image is standard Leica. Sharp in the center, a bit of fall-off toward the edges, great colors.
* I don't mind the narrower overall true field of view which is narrower than most 8x32 models, it's plenty usable.
* Glare resistance is really good in this model. In fact, it's better than the UVHD 7x42 in some situations. The 8x20 UV BR suffers in bright overhead light and I was hoping an 8x32 would be better and it is.
* Diopter setting is simple and functions well, it moves fluidly and evenly in both directions without play but stays reassuringly in place. I enjoy it more than I thought I would actually.
* Build quality is outstanding and standard Leica. Fit and finish isn't quite as precise and refined as an Ultravid, but it's pretty darn close and better than anything else I've tried in the sub-$2000 price range.
* The objective and eye piece covers and bino strap are well-executed and perfectly functional. The case is fine for folks that don't use a strap but the fit is tight, the material not as hard-wearing, and a more traditional and robust case would be better.
* The price. You're getting an awful lot for the $850 I paid for it brand-new.
Things I don't like as much:
* Ease of view is more fiddly than I'd like but this is probably mostly a personal issue. I have deep eye sockets and I find I have to lightly touch the eyecups to my brow to get the right eye relief. It would be nice to be able to more comfortably settle them deeper in my eye sockets for stability. Wearing sun glasses this bino works well though - one click out from fully down works great for me. If the eye cups were a bit longer so they more closely matched the eye relief at full extension this would be better for me.
* Another personal issue but this sample's minimum IPD is right at 58mm rather then the slightly narrower IPD some folks report in their samples. When I close the hinge all the way, the image is bright and there are not shadows present when focusing on objects further away, but even a fraction of a mm wider, 58.5mm or 59mm and the image gets noticeably darker and not as comfortable. When focusing on closer objects, the image starts to get uncomfortable and I want to close the hinge down to 56 or 57mm. So, if the hinge closed down to 55 or 56mm like the UVs or even 54mm like the the Zeiss Conquest HD models, that would be perfect for me. This would be especially useful for taking full advantage of this model's close focus capability. I'm not sure what design limitation Leica had here that warranted a less-accommodating minimum IPD spec compared to other manufacturers. Actually, maybe it was a choice to accomodate folks at the other end of the IPD spectrum with particularly wide IPD settings, which is understandable.
* I wish the hinge was a bit stiffer. It's not loose, per se, and is mechanically sound and doesn't move on its own but it's not as confidence-inspiring as the Ultravid (either the 7x42 or double-hinged 8x20), which have stiffer hinges and feel very locked-in when using them.
* CA is more easily provoked in this model than in either of the Ultravids, which is expected given the lower price point. I think this may be more to do with my face structure again, as when I float the eye cups further out from my face to get that perfect eye relief, CA isn't noticeable center-field. Because of the fiddly nature of positioning them for my facial structure, I find I encounter it more than in other models.
* More noticeable vignetting of the image than in either Ultravid model.
* I notice the edge fall-off/smaller sweet spot on these Trinovids which give it an overall less immersive impression than the UV 7x42 or even the 8x20, each have a larger sweet spot and better-corrected outer fields where edge fall off isn't noticeable to me in field use.
In Summary:
* For my tastes, the ergonomics and focuser are the best I've encountered in any binocular at any price. To hold and use them is a joy. They feel better in hand than either of my Ultravids. Leica is really onto something with the focus mechanism here - and I think they know it because the Noctivid has a buttery smooth focuser as well.
* The minimum IPD setting means they just barely don't work for me at closer ranges, which is a bummer.
* Overall image quality lags behind the Ultravids but everything I listed is very subtle and if a user were using this binocular as a tool and not focusing on the minutiae of its optical performance compared to models costing over twice as much, they would just enjoy the view and wouldn't be missing much.
* If Leica dropped the minimum IPD to 55-56mm, I would buy this model. Icing on the cake would be to make the hinge ever so slightly tighter, and the eye cups ever so slightly longer.
* Building on that and dreaming a little, fingers crossed that a Leica representative reads this, if Leica put Ultravid glass in the tubes and made it a 7x, it would be the only binocular I would ever use. Keep the right-tube diopter, keep the overall design and shape and size and weight. Maybe it would even be rather affordable specced as such.
* Folks might chime in recommending I try the 8x32 UVHD+ or the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 or even the 7x35 "Retrovid", all of which resolve some or all of the things I would change about this model. For me, the Ultravid looks spectacular, but I'd rather it was a bit larger for my hands and thus perhaps had room for larger eyepieces to support more eye relief since I do use sunglasses with my binos sometimes. I know folks love the compact design and I support that, but I think in this case the compact design is too much of a good thing and what it sacrifices to achieve that design are things that I would rather have over the compactness. I briefly owned the Conquest and it ticks a lot of boxes but in my opinion lacks the beautiful design and mechanical refinement of the Leica, and the warmer part of the color spectrum looked noticeably more washed out to me - perhaps not a deal breaker but my eyes prefer the Leica colors. Neither have the Trinovid's incredible focusing mechanism. The Retrovid isn't waterproof and lacks shock absorbing armor, I would worry about it too much. The eyecups are also narrower in diameter and don't rest as easily on my face. In my perhaps unpopular opinion, I think the Trinovid HD actually looks cooler too. Zeiss' 8x30 SFL might be another to try, but again it doesn't have a design that intrigues me, which Leica does better than anyone else for my tastes I suppose. The closest thing to try might be the Trinovid HD 8x42 for the more forgiving exit pupil diameter, which might allow me to view comfortably at closer ranges... it's a bit bigger/heavier though and its use cases overlap with my 7x42, so I'd be getting it just for the amazing focuser
Thanks for reading!
Things I like:
* Ergonomically fantastic for me. It instantly felt better in-hand than any other binocular I've held, including the NL Pure 10x42 and the 7x42 UVHD+. Those feel great too but the Trinnie is the perfect size for my hands, the weight is well balanced, the rubber armor feels good in hand, focuser is in the right spot, everything feels robust.
* The focuser is really incredible. It is so velvety smooth and precise and quite sensitive. It took a bit of getting used to compared to a typical UV focuser (zero play, stiffer, also very precise). When combined with the overall shape, size, and weight of the bino, the focuser is one I can hold and focus with one hand very easily and steadily.
* The image is standard Leica. Sharp in the center, a bit of fall-off toward the edges, great colors.
* I don't mind the narrower overall true field of view which is narrower than most 8x32 models, it's plenty usable.
* Glare resistance is really good in this model. In fact, it's better than the UVHD 7x42 in some situations. The 8x20 UV BR suffers in bright overhead light and I was hoping an 8x32 would be better and it is.
* Diopter setting is simple and functions well, it moves fluidly and evenly in both directions without play but stays reassuringly in place. I enjoy it more than I thought I would actually.
* Build quality is outstanding and standard Leica. Fit and finish isn't quite as precise and refined as an Ultravid, but it's pretty darn close and better than anything else I've tried in the sub-$2000 price range.
* The objective and eye piece covers and bino strap are well-executed and perfectly functional. The case is fine for folks that don't use a strap but the fit is tight, the material not as hard-wearing, and a more traditional and robust case would be better.
* The price. You're getting an awful lot for the $850 I paid for it brand-new.
Things I don't like as much:
* Ease of view is more fiddly than I'd like but this is probably mostly a personal issue. I have deep eye sockets and I find I have to lightly touch the eyecups to my brow to get the right eye relief. It would be nice to be able to more comfortably settle them deeper in my eye sockets for stability. Wearing sun glasses this bino works well though - one click out from fully down works great for me. If the eye cups were a bit longer so they more closely matched the eye relief at full extension this would be better for me.
* Another personal issue but this sample's minimum IPD is right at 58mm rather then the slightly narrower IPD some folks report in their samples. When I close the hinge all the way, the image is bright and there are not shadows present when focusing on objects further away, but even a fraction of a mm wider, 58.5mm or 59mm and the image gets noticeably darker and not as comfortable. When focusing on closer objects, the image starts to get uncomfortable and I want to close the hinge down to 56 or 57mm. So, if the hinge closed down to 55 or 56mm like the UVs or even 54mm like the the Zeiss Conquest HD models, that would be perfect for me. This would be especially useful for taking full advantage of this model's close focus capability. I'm not sure what design limitation Leica had here that warranted a less-accommodating minimum IPD spec compared to other manufacturers. Actually, maybe it was a choice to accomodate folks at the other end of the IPD spectrum with particularly wide IPD settings, which is understandable.
* I wish the hinge was a bit stiffer. It's not loose, per se, and is mechanically sound and doesn't move on its own but it's not as confidence-inspiring as the Ultravid (either the 7x42 or double-hinged 8x20), which have stiffer hinges and feel very locked-in when using them.
* CA is more easily provoked in this model than in either of the Ultravids, which is expected given the lower price point. I think this may be more to do with my face structure again, as when I float the eye cups further out from my face to get that perfect eye relief, CA isn't noticeable center-field. Because of the fiddly nature of positioning them for my facial structure, I find I encounter it more than in other models.
* More noticeable vignetting of the image than in either Ultravid model.
* I notice the edge fall-off/smaller sweet spot on these Trinovids which give it an overall less immersive impression than the UV 7x42 or even the 8x20, each have a larger sweet spot and better-corrected outer fields where edge fall off isn't noticeable to me in field use.
In Summary:
* For my tastes, the ergonomics and focuser are the best I've encountered in any binocular at any price. To hold and use them is a joy. They feel better in hand than either of my Ultravids. Leica is really onto something with the focus mechanism here - and I think they know it because the Noctivid has a buttery smooth focuser as well.
* The minimum IPD setting means they just barely don't work for me at closer ranges, which is a bummer.
* Overall image quality lags behind the Ultravids but everything I listed is very subtle and if a user were using this binocular as a tool and not focusing on the minutiae of its optical performance compared to models costing over twice as much, they would just enjoy the view and wouldn't be missing much.
* If Leica dropped the minimum IPD to 55-56mm, I would buy this model. Icing on the cake would be to make the hinge ever so slightly tighter, and the eye cups ever so slightly longer.
* Building on that and dreaming a little, fingers crossed that a Leica representative reads this, if Leica put Ultravid glass in the tubes and made it a 7x, it would be the only binocular I would ever use. Keep the right-tube diopter, keep the overall design and shape and size and weight. Maybe it would even be rather affordable specced as such.
* Folks might chime in recommending I try the 8x32 UVHD+ or the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 or even the 7x35 "Retrovid", all of which resolve some or all of the things I would change about this model. For me, the Ultravid looks spectacular, but I'd rather it was a bit larger for my hands and thus perhaps had room for larger eyepieces to support more eye relief since I do use sunglasses with my binos sometimes. I know folks love the compact design and I support that, but I think in this case the compact design is too much of a good thing and what it sacrifices to achieve that design are things that I would rather have over the compactness. I briefly owned the Conquest and it ticks a lot of boxes but in my opinion lacks the beautiful design and mechanical refinement of the Leica, and the warmer part of the color spectrum looked noticeably more washed out to me - perhaps not a deal breaker but my eyes prefer the Leica colors. Neither have the Trinovid's incredible focusing mechanism. The Retrovid isn't waterproof and lacks shock absorbing armor, I would worry about it too much. The eyecups are also narrower in diameter and don't rest as easily on my face. In my perhaps unpopular opinion, I think the Trinovid HD actually looks cooler too. Zeiss' 8x30 SFL might be another to try, but again it doesn't have a design that intrigues me, which Leica does better than anyone else for my tastes I suppose. The closest thing to try might be the Trinovid HD 8x42 for the more forgiving exit pupil diameter, which might allow me to view comfortably at closer ranges... it's a bit bigger/heavier though and its use cases overlap with my 7x42, so I'd be getting it just for the amazing focuser
Thanks for reading!
Last edited:
