Transmission Ultravid HD plus (1 Viewer)

[ReinierB]

I wonder, why is Leica not really clear about the transmission rates of all the Ultravid's? Or am I overlooking them? I have read on the internet 88%, but I have read 92% as well.
What is true? Do Ultravid's shine in dim light? Or are Zeiss and Swarovski winners on this area?

What makes an Ultravid a keeper? It's compactness? (32 and 42) The so called Leica colours I have not experienced yet?
They look very beautiful. I think the ergonomics are really nice.

 

[chill6x6]

I wonder, why is Leica not really clear about the transmission rates of all the Ultravid's? Or am I overlooking them? I have read on the internet 88%, but I have read 92% as well.
What is true? Do Ultravid's shine in dim light? Or are Zeiss and Swarovski winners on this area?

What makes an Ultravid a keeper? It's compactness? (32 and 42) The so called Leica colours I have not experienced yet?
They look very beautiful. I think the ergonomics are really nice.

Over and over I've seen transmission test and they end up around 87-89%. I wouldn't get caught up in a few percent of transmission either way. I never notice the difference in "transmission" ever between say an UVHD+ and current new models such as an NL or SF. I do notice the difference in color representation here and there.

I'd say balance makes the UVHD+ a keeper. Really it has no real shortcomings and does everything well even though not current state of the art. Compact and traditional styling. I still love the diopter adjustment as the best ever. Still to this day I think most that try the 7X42 end up keeping it.

 

[MiddleRiver]

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Test-van-nieuwe-8x42-kijkers-van-Leica-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-MAART-2016-1.pdf

 

[ReinierB]

I consider myself a Swarovski man, since I have the SLC 8x42 and the NL 10x32. However, I never gave Leica a chance. I like the compactness of the 32 and the 42. The NL 10x32 is stated as 640 grams (but is 670 grams weighted without strap, covers and rainguard) and still quite large. The UHVD 32 is really lightweight and compact. So sometimes I wonder why I didn't consider the UHVD 10x32.

I really like 10 power and nearly always have the feeling I prefer 10 power when using the SLC 8x42. I might swap them for a 10 power which is usable in dimlight as well. So the UHVD 10x42 or UHVD 10x50 are both contenders. However, the 50's lack the compactness of the 32's and 42's. So the appeal of UHVD 50 is less.

Diopter adjustment is not important to me. Actually, I do not understand why it is important for some. You just use it once to set it correctly and then you never touch it. Or don't I get it? The focuser is why more important. I like the position of the focuser of the NL's. So the Zeiss FL's and SFL's would be nice as well.
The Zeiss FL 10x42 with his high transmission would be a contender is well. Or HT 10x42, but hard to find nowadays.

The Noctovid just doesn't really appeal me. Maybe if I wear glasses, it would be a contender. Eyerelief isn't important for me. Habicht 10x40 would be a nice addition as well because of that.

However, Leica UHVD, it does't really shine in a specific area, but it's got it's appeal for me. Maybe it's the way they look, it's elegance.

 

[ReinierB]

Will the Ultravid 8x20 or 10x25 give the same Leica view/feeling as the bigger brothers and sisters? Maybe the 8x20 would be a nice addition to my "collection" someday...

 

[tenex]

So sometimes I wonder...

...what you're missing? Ultravids are really quite similar to your SLC HD, lovely classic glass (like the previous Trinovid BA/BN) but with a slightly different color cast, a bit more toward red than yellow, and they're available in some formats SLC isn't. They do show more CA, and only the 32s focus as close. To do significantly better in low light you'd need 50/56mm, which of course are not compact (or possibly HT 42). So you could address two issues at once by trying UVHD+ 10x50... or if you're serious about low light, get HT 10x54 or SLC 10x56. (I have no experience with HTs myself but can recommend SLC.)

Edit: What's too easy to forget to mention is that (like SLCs) Leicas offer great ease and comfort of viewing: no finicky eyebox, no annoying distortions or oddities, no noticeable glare etc. This is what Chuck meant by "has no real shortcomings and does everything well".

 

[w.travis]

Over and over I've seen transmission test and they end up around 87-89%. I wouldn't get caught up in a few percent of transmission either way. I never notice the difference in "transmission" ever between say an UVHD+ and current new models such as an NL or SF. I do notice the difference in color representation here and there.

I'd say balance makes the UVHD+ a keeper. Really it has no real shortcomings and does everything well even though not current state of the art. Compact and traditional styling. I still love the diopter adjustment as the best ever. Still to this day I think most that try the 7X42 end up keeping it.

Yep, like me. Just got the UVHD+ 7x42. It's a keeper no doubt. I'll have it the rest of my life.

 

[jafritten]

What makes an Ultravid a keeper?

I'm not sure this is helpful but there is a certain je ne sais quoi about those Ultravids. It is a very personal thing and certainly beyond numerical superlatives.

They are unmistakably top tier binoculars but there will always be a brighter one, one with a wider field of view and one with better edge sharpness. Colours, ergonomics, build, apparent depth, stray light control or overall appeal, part of which is to me also the industrial design cannot be measured. They are playing a different game.

To be fair, CA control is not so great in some configurations.

As for your question about the 8x20s, they are true Ultravids. They are small, though. And thus a bit finicky. Their brightness (and whiteness) is superb.

I don't know the x50s. Everything I understand about them seems even better than the smaller ones. For me, though, they're too big. I never cease to be impressed with the ratio of performance to size of the Ultravids.

As you said you were a Swarovski man, I'd say the Ultravids are closest to the SLC x42s optically. In the SLCs there are more yellows in the greens (the Leicas are more true to life here) and reddish or brownish tones are more pronounced in the Ultravids.There is less CA in the SLCs.

I suggest, you give the Ultravids a go and see for yourself.

 

[chill6x6]

Diopter...Leica Trinovid BA/BN and Ultravids are the easiest to set perfectly, period. A couple of others are close but not as good. I may verify my setting a time or two during the day if I have a binocular with an easy to set diopter with me. Especially if I see a sign(letters) the appropriate distance. I wear glasses and my sunglass rx is a little different than my normal glasses. Easy to reset or verify. ALSO...I appreciate when things are done correctly....when a shortcut wasn't taken. The Ultravid diopter adjustment IS the best. Also since the diopter and focus adjustment are on the same axis, this serves as a HUGE focus wheel. Nice.

I'm thinking(correct me if I'm wrong) that the Ultravid(BR) was introduced in 2003. 2003! Even though It has been updated with the HD and HD+ its basic design has not changed in twenty years. If all the bugs were EVER worked out of any binocular, it's this one.

If 10X42 is your thing the UVHD+ has a FOV of 336ft which is the same as the EL and the SLC WB(330ft). Ive never owned the 10X42 UVHD+ because of the ER concern which wouldn't be any concern for you.

Ultravid 8X20- CUTE little binocular. Made to perfection. With the 20mm objective brightness goes downhill with cloudy conditions. Really too small to be a functional birding binocular but I do think everyone should own one!

Here's a few pics that I took along the way...

SLC WB, UVHD+, and EV 8x32

Ultravid HD+, SLC New, and FL

Ultravid BR 8X42 and 8X20...Silverline model

 

[John M Robinson]

15 Years ago I was finally able to afford some high end binoculars. There is a very well stocked sporting goods store near me that carries Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon, Vortex and Leupold. I went into the store intent on buying a pair of 8.5x42 ELs, at the time, three of my hunting buddies owned Swarovski, two ELs and a 10x42 SLC. I had borrowed all three to look through and I was sold.

The owner of the store educated me a bit and explained how everybody’s eyes and face are different, and I ought to try some different bins, so I did a lot of comparing. I ended up liking both the 8.5x42 ELs and the 8x42 Ultravid, so he let me take them both home for the weekend. I spent hours comparing them and I always came back to preferring the Leica’s. I kind of wanted to like the Swaros more, but that Leica image just grabbed me. I understand they’re not for everybody, and I’m being very unscientific about this, but I just love that Leica image.

 

[has530]

Will the Ultravid 8x20 or 10x25 give the same Leica view/feeling as the bigger brothers and sisters? Maybe the 8x20 would be a nice addition to my "collection" someday...

As a former owner of both and a current owner of an 8x42 UV (currently listed in the classifieds) I would say they give the same contrast punchy view with the wonderful color and build quality. Where they don't give the same view is the small FOV (typical of compacts but they are narrower than the other top offerings) and I personally found the view too finicky with the 2.5 mm exit pupils and compact dimensions.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I owned 8x42BL not too long ago and then replaced them with most recent UVHD+. In truth I miss the BL's just because I love them in the same way I love the Retros. For a brief period I owned them simultaneously, and to be honest I think there was a difference, but if I was blindfolded I may have failed the test. To others with younger/better eyesight it might have been a no-brainer. So issues of a point or three transmittance are probably academic. Both binos had contrasty, crisp, lovely Leica view.

The question of UV's being a sweet-spot in Leica line is also true. I've listed the UV's for sale, only because I also got suckered into 8x and 10x Nocs. Are they 'better'? Specs are a little better and the 'eye box' is huuuuuuge which I appreciate since I wear specs (tho it also makes it a little more finicky), but I'm constantly second-guessing my decision. THe UV's haven't sold and rather than 'give them away' (I'll take a considerable loss on them...) I may try to hustle the 8x Noctivids instead if theUV's don't sell after a while. The UV's are that nice.

I don't own 8x20UV's but I do own the Trinovid 8x20's and while they are lovely and absolutely tiny EDC bins, it's definately a little aperture and nothing like looking through 'normal' binos. Where they shine is travel where you literally just want something 'in case' you suddenly need something.

 

[John M Robinson]

I owned 8x42BL not too long ago and then replaced them with most recent UVHD+. In truth I miss the BL's just because I love them in the same way I love the Retros. For a brief period I owned them simultaneously, and to be honest I think there was a difference, but if I was blindfolded I may have failed the test. To others with younger/better eyesight it might have been a no-brainer. So issues of a point or three transmittance are probably academic. Both binos had contrasty, crisp, lovely Leica view.

The question of UV's being a sweet-spot in Leica line is also true. I've listed the UV's for sale, only because I also got suckered into 8x and 10x Nocs. Are they 'better'? Specs are a little better and the 'eye box' is huuuuuuge which I appreciate since I wear specs (tho it also makes it a little more finicky), but I'm constantly second-guessing my decision. THe UV's haven't sold and rather than 'give them away' (I'll take a considerable loss on them...) I may try to hustle the 8x Noctivids instead if theUV's don't sell after a while. The UV's are that nice.

I don't own 8x20UV's but I do own the Trinovid 8x20's and while they are lovely and absolutely tiny EDC bins, it's definately a little aperture and nothing like looking through 'normal' binos. Where they shine is travel where you literally just want something 'in case' you suddenly need something.

I wish you were selling you old BLs. I’ve owned 8x42 BRs since 2009 and every time there’s an upgrade, I bring my trust old BRs in to compare. I honestly can’t see any difference, that is till the Noctovids. So my BRs are up for sale to fund the purchase of a pair of Noctovids.

 

[ReinierB]

The Ultravids just look very beautifull! I like the look through the SLC and the ergonomics as well. Easy to hold and compact. I like the eyecups as well.
The SLC's aren't really goodlooking in my opinion though. Like Optica Exotica says: it looks like two pickles that are in love.
The UHVD's look more classy. However, if it was a SLC 10x42 I would have been more happy with them. So maybe I have to try to swap my 8x42 to a 10x42 on Birdforum... (Anybody with a SLC 10x42 seeing this?)
Or swap it for a UHVD 10x42 or SF 10x42, but I can't really justify the price difference, because I already have a NL 10x32 I use during daylight. I might add a Conquest 10x42 or Habicht 10x40 and keep the SLC 8x42 for the same amount of money... But then, will I ever grap the SLC 8x42 again since I prefer 10 power?

Thanks for all your comments! No impulsive actions needed... I think I have to go to a physical shop and try all the options: UHVD 10x42, 10x50, 12x50, SF 10x42, HT 10x54, Conquest 10x42, Habicht 10x40 (leather and rubber), EL 10x50, 12x50, SLC 10x56. All contenders .

 

[ReinierB]

As a former owner of both and a current owner of an 8x42 UV (currently listed in the classifieds) I would say they give the same contrast punchy view with the wonderful color and build quality. Where they don't give the same view is the small FOV (typical of compacts but they are narrower than the other top offerings) and I personally found the view too finicky with the 2.5 mm exit pupils and compact dimensions.

So you are selling all your UV's? That is a bad sign. Why are you selling the 8x42?
2.5 mm exit pupil is quite small, I get that. That is a reason I might go for the Curio 7x21 one day, although I do like higher magnification.

 

[Paultricounty]

15 Years ago I was finally able to afford some high end binoculars. There is a very well stocked sporting goods store near me that carries Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon, Vortex and Leupold. I went into the store intent on buying a pair of 8.5x42 ELs, at the time, three of my hunting buddies owned Swarovski, two ELs and a 10x42 SLC. I had borrowed all three to look through and I was sold.

The owner of the store educated me a bit and explained how everybody’s eyes and face are different, and I ought to try some different bins, so I did a lot of comparing. I ended up liking both the 8.5x42 ELs and the 8x42 Ultravid, so he let me take them both home for the weekend. I spent hours comparing them and I always came back to preferring the Leica’s. I kind of wanted to like the Swaros more, but that Leica image just grabbed me. I understand they’re not for everybody, and I’m being very unscientific about this, but I just love that Leica image.

I know exactly what you mean, if choosing between one or the other you kind of want to choose the Swaro, but the Leica image is just so pleasing it pulls you in. I have both, and I’ll tell you this, when I have the Swaro EL’s (42) out for the day, in the back of my mind I wish I brought the Leica, but when out with the Leica , the Swaro doesn’t come to mind. 😀

 

[John M Robinson]

So you are selling all your UV's? That is a bad sign. Why are you selling the 8x42?
2.5 mm exit pupil is quite small, I get that. That is a reason I might go for the Curio 7x21 one day, although I do like higher magnification.

He said he had “upgraded “ to new Leica Noctovids, so didn’t need the Ultravids anymore.

 

[MiddleRiver]

He said he had “upgraded “ to new Leica Noctovids, so didn’t need the Ultravids anymore.

Ditto for me as well... I also have 8x40SFL for longer hikes where the NV starts to drag me down (I also carry camera with white-whale tele, spotter often,...). But I have nothing but praise for the UV's - and not just because I'm trying to sell one!...

 

[Scott98]

Thanks for all your comments! No impulsive actions needed... I think I have to go to a physical shop and try all the options: UHVD 10x42, 10x50, 12x50, SF 10x42, HT 10x54, Conquest 10x42, Habicht 10x40 (leather and rubber), EL 10x50, 12x50, SLC 10x56. All contenders .

That's going to be a great day - cheers!

 

[has530]

He said he had “upgraded “ to new Leica Noctovids, so didn’t need the Ultravids anymore.

That actually wasn't me. I have kind of downgraded. I have my eyes set on the new Nikon Z 180-600 mm and something has to go to fund it and I have decided I am happy enough with my Bushnell Legend M 8x42's that the UV's are on the chopping block. I don't use them enough since I generally use my 8x32 Meostars.

So you are selling all your UV's? That is a bad sign. Why are you selling the 8x42?
2.5 mm exit pupil is quite small, I get that. That is a reason I might go for the Curio 7x21 one day, although I do like higher magnification.

I am selling it for the reasons I said right above this. They are a phenomenal glass and a joy to use and for that reason I held on longer than the pockets but they don't get enough use so they have to go. I actually found the pockets too small for my hands so I ended up with a 8x25 Zeiss VP which I find more comfortable to hold and thus steadier as well as easier to use with the larger EP.