• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Trinovid BAs still a 'sweet spot' among Leica binoculars? (1 Viewer)

LarryO

Member
United States
The Trinovid BA series, early designated Trinovid 'Ultras,' now over 20 years old, still attracts attention and praise in threads on birdforum.net. Some experienced users appear to prefer BAs to subsequent Leica models and to high-end 'alpha' binoculars of other brands, despite recognized advances in brightness and reduced chromatic aberration in the newer versions.

Following are some speculations about technical features of the BAs that might account in part for their continuing popularity. I have suggested some of these in another thread; they are collected and expanded here. The speculations are based mostly on notes in various birdforum.net threads, not on any real expertise or knowledge on my part. Where possible, links to the sources are included.

Known or suggested properties of Trinovid BA binoculars:

-- modern mechanics: internal focusing, elegant combined diopter/focus adjustment, etc.

-- well documented very rugged (if somewhat heavy) construction

-- phase-coated prisms: Although apparently not advertised for the BAs, all the Trinovid 'Ultras,' BAs as well as BNs, had phase-coated prisms.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-ba-bn-phase-coating.22413/>
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/trinovid-8x32-ba-how-does-it-compare.312587/>

-- leaded glass: This is uncertain. It has been suggested that Leica's transition to unleaded glass was undertaken during the production run of BAs, prior to the introduction of the BN design.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-trinovid-10x50-lead-free-or-not.117677/>
However, this seems unlikely. A change of glass type generally calls for re-computation of optical elements -- thicknesses and surface curves, spacings, mating glasses, etc. -- and corresponding, often expensive, re-tooling of production equipment. It would seem unusual for a company to assume the expenses involved within a particular model run, but not unlikely for it to be part of a change of models, such as from BAs to BNs. A change of focus range in the BNs (see next point) could be consistent with an optical formula recomputed for a change away from leaded glass.
Thus, if the transition to unleaded glass in Leica binoculars was, indeed, made during the BA/BN era, BAs might have been the last to enjoy the optical benefits of leaded glass, benefits maybe not fully realized in alternative, unleaded glasses for some time afterwards.

-- focus range extending beyond infinity, of some help in particular to myopic users: There was a general change of focus range between BA and BN models. The BNs had a well-advertised closer near focus point, highlighted by the 'N' (for 'near') in their designation. A loss of most or all of the focus range beyond infinity, characteristic of BAs, went largely unadvertised.
(Interestingly, if the Trinovid mechanics were left unchanged between BA and BN models, as seemed mostly the case with respect to appearance and operation, and a choice likely attractive for reasons of production economy, both changes of focus range could have been accounted for by a reduction of focal length in the BN optics re-computed for the change away from leaded glass, rather than by a physical resetting of the focusing mechanism as widely supposed.)

-- improved lens coatings: This is another uncertain issue. Changes of lens coatings should not involve expensive retooling of the sort required for optical or mechanical changes, so might well be employed during model runs.

The 'HDC' (high durability coating) was a heralded feature of the BNs, but there have been reports that it was employed on other models before those.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/difference-between-leica-bas-and-bns.32242/>
<http://www.company7.com/leica/news.html#1September2000>
It has been suggested that late-production BAs were among those provided with the HDC coatings, but that has not been established.

The BA line was also produced during a period of rapid advances in anti-reflection coatings. Changes in such coatings within the BA lineage have been suggested. Variations of reflected colors among coatings have been reported within model lines of Leica (and other brand) binoculars, ranging from yellowish-green, through blue, to dark or nearly none.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/evolution-of-trinovid-coatings.68039/>
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-trinovid-10x32bn-lense-coatings.144632/>
It is uncertain whether these color differences indicate coating differences significant, e.g., for transmission, color rendition, or flare control. The possibility that late-run BAs enjoyed improved anti-reflection coatings remains open, but undetermined. It would be instructive to have comparisons by experienced users between early and late versions of the BAs with respect to aspects of performance related to coatings.

The Trinovid BAs were Leica's premier binoculars during their production and represented an acknowledged landmark advance in binocular design, setting the bar for models introduced later by many manufacturers, as well as by Leica itself. But they were also produced during a singular period of change in Leica binoculars when they could have benefitted from the advantages of both older and newer technology -- a period not matched in that regard before or after. Thus, in addition to their well publicized innovative features, they might have quietly retained advantageous older technologies (leaded glass?) and also, later during production, incorporated improvements (newer lens coatings?) not explicitly announced until introduction of subsequent models. The BAs thus could have been a 'sweet spot' in the development of Leica binoculars, explaining in part their enduring popularity among those owning and using them, as well as their impressive maintenance of value on the used market.

Comments and corrections from more informed and experienced users in the forum community would be very welcome.

Larry
 

Binastro

Well-known member
Hi Larry and welcome.

I cannot remember whether it was Zeiss or Leica, but with professional lenses each batch of glass was measured as regards optical properties.

Then the curves were altered slightly to match different batches of glass.

I don't think that changes in surface curves is much of a problem for the makers.
It is routine.

Further, it was found that new 48 inch focal length aerial photo lenses were so expensive, some were 1 million dollars in today's money, that old units sold to clearers were bought back for £75 each.
Each lens was dismantled and each element carefully measured after cleaning.
By altering the spacing alone I am told that an 8 times increase was sometimes achieved in central resolution.

I can confirm that I visually tested numerous Dallmeyer 36 inch f/6.3 lenses made in haste around 1940 and very heavily used.
The difference in performance between the best and worst was staggering.
Yet even the worst gave reasonable 7 inch x 8.5 inch negatives when used at f/11 with a yellow or red filter. With a Williamson F52 camera.

I use an 8x32 BA.

Regards,
B
 

Pinewood

New York correspondent
United States
Hello Larry,

I own a Leica 12x50 BA. I find it still useful for astronomical use and for bird watching at the shore, especially at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, which has a variety of habitats including large ponds. I do use it on a monopod. I cannot compare it to the BN version, but it meets my needs. The models after the BN had dielectric mirrors which should be a noticeable improvement.

Stay safe,
Arthur
 

jring

Well-known member
Hi,

don't have a brick but an optically quite similar Leitz 7x42 BA (albeit neither multi- nor phase coated - on the other hand fabulously light and elegant as compared to the brick).

Joachim
 
Last edited:

garymh

Binocular Engineer
Hi,

The optics in the BA and BN were the same.

The difference in focus range was a result of the BN having different components in the focussing mechanism.


Gary
 

tenex

reality-based
The superiority of leaded over ordinary unleaded glass is highly touted among Zeiss collectors (Night Owl etc), although with the advent of ED/FL I can't get excited about the issue myself ("the advantages of both older and newer technology"). Now that you mention it, Larry, Leica enthusiasts don't seem to be equally concerned, but surely enough time has gone by now that someone at Leica would state for the record when the transition was made? (Unfortunately I don't think they have a representative here.) There's apparent consensus that they also started using ED glass years before it was advertised as a feature, i.e. with or sometime during the BA/BN run, and this would explain a need for it.

As to when exactly, I've always assumed the BN was simply a response to growing demand for closer focus, so a change in glass types isn't necessary to explain it. Much as Binastro said above regarding curvature, it's not so difficult or expensive to retool a model for closer focus -- or less close, as Swarovski has now developed the habit -- just a matter of optical compromises.

I agree that while the optics were excellent, there's also something very attractive about the housing and ergonomics of the BA/BN that explains their classic status, despite the weight of the larger models. We still use and love our 10x32 BN, it hardly shows its age, and carries so many good memories.
 
Last edited:

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
To pick up on Joachim’s observation in post #4 . . .
While the Leica BA series may have introduced several advances over the preceding Leitz models, size, weight and handling were not among them

See the stark difference in size and shape between:
• a 10x40 B Leitz (590 g/ 20.8 oz), and
• an 8x42 BA Leica (890g/ 31.4 oz; the 10x42 version was the same size and weight)

The image is from Ken Rockwell’s somewhat idiosyncratic review of the Leitz at: https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/trinovid/10x40.htm


John
 

Attachments

  • Leitz v Leica!.jpg
    Leitz v Leica!.jpg
    385.1 KB · Views: 38

etc

Well-known member
Trinovid BA (or BN) was my first optic and I didn't realize how good it was until I compared it to other devices. Nothing can beat it resolution-wise, it resolves so fine and has an awesome picture quality. I upgraded to a Swaro EL primarily because EL has a greater diopter correction at infinity than Trinovid and because it's a bit brighter. But the Trinovid remains competetive well into the 21 century. It's very well made. There is nothing wrong at all with it whatsoever.

I think out of the big 3, it's the best made optic. The armor is the most durable out of alpha brands. On the ISS, in orbit they have a Trinovid BA floating around. Because they needed the best they could get.
 

LarryO

Member
United States
First, as a new member, I am impressed by the thoughtfulness and informative nature of the early responses to speculations in my original post. My thanks to all of you.

I was also pleased and a bit entertained by the confirmation of a major point in my post -- that the BA series remains very popular among users. Many (a majority) of the replies included an often casual note that the writers were still using various members of the BA line, with a common theme of pleasure in their use.

The status of some issues rasised in the original post:

-- It seems still unsettled whether the BA line did employ leaded glass and was possibly the last to do so.

'Binastro's comments suggest that, if leaded glass were used in the BA line, a change away from it during the line's production (rather than in the BA-to-BN model change) would not necessarily have been inhibited by significant expense of a necessary re-computation of optical formula and accompanying retooling for it. The comments note that lens curves are routinely altered to compensate for changes of properties between batches of glass in production runs of a binocular design. It is, however, unclear to me whether more extensive re-computations of optical design might be required to accommodate a change of glass type (e.g., leaded to unleaded) than are needed to handle more subtle changes of properties between batches of the same type.

(Binastro includes some interesting history regarding lenses used for aerial photography. I personally know that Kodak Aero Ektars, readily available in the surplus market for many years after World War II, employed amounts of Thorium-containing glass that were regarded as dangerously radioactive. I had one used as an office paper weight that was confiscated by a university radiation-control group.)

-- Also still undermined is whether improved lens coatings, HDC and/or anti-reflection, might have been introduced during the BA run.

-- There is no question that the BAs still used silver, rather than dielectric, prism coatings, thus lacking some brightness compared to later designs, but also little question that they did benefit from phase coatings without advertised emphasis of that fact.

-- Nor is there any dispute about the relatively high weight of the BA/BN Trinovids, perhaps a concession to their rugged, 'brick'-like construction. I have not seen a discussion of whether weight might actually have an advantage in use, with corresponding higher inertia contributing some resistance to instability in the hand vs. that of lighter-weight binoculars.

I have consciously refrained from asking about preferences of models within Leica lines, e.g., whether 8x32's might offer most of the advantages of higher-magnification, higher-aperture versions in a notably more compact, lighter-weight package, the BA 8x32's thus being something of a 'sweet spot model within a sweet spot line.' That is a quite different question, which, although interesting, involves personal preferences rather than details of design relevant to performance.

Larry
 

Binastro

Well-known member
Dear Larry,

Binoculars are rather simple devices compared to professional very expensive lenses and I don't think curves were necessarily changed in binoculars for different glass batches.
Possibly separations were slightly changed.
But I am not sure that a repairer woud stick to these separations.
Every binocular will be slightly different anyway.

The Aero Ektars are not dangerously radioactive.
The glass in from memory elements 5 and 6 of the 7 element 12 inch f/2.5 and 7 inch f/2.5 were up to about 27% thorium by weight.

I had about a dozen 7 inch versions under my bed, which led to my interest in these.
I also had 3 or 4 12 inch versions.
A single enormously heavy 8 inch f/1.5 that I left in the boot of my Jaguar when they finally both went to heaven or wherever.

The only one I considered a bit dangerous was the 24 inch f/6 as the exposed rear element could be monitored at 6ft still giving a significant reading. It was used on 9 inch by 18 inch film.

I never had the enormous 48 inch f/6.3 or the 6 inch f/2.5 that must be rare in the U.K.

The only thorium lens I really didn't like was the Wray 50mm f/1.0. When used as an eyepiece there was no eye relief from the thorium rear element.

The enormous Williamson Ross 6 inch survey lens has a great deal of thorium in it.

The 7 inch f/2.5 Aero Ektar was standard on the K24, a lighter version of te Williamson F24 camera.

I think it likely that a non leaded glass was made that was very similar to the leaded glass, so I doubt that much change was needed.
Leica had patents on very many different glass types.

Regards,
B
 

Bill Atwood

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Dear Larry,

Binoculars are rather simple devices compared to professional very expensive lenses and I don't think curves were necessarily changed in binoculars for different glass batches.
Possibly separations were slightly changed.
But I am not sure that a repairer woud stick to these separations.
Every binocular will be slightly different anyway.

The Aero Ektars are not dangerously radioactive.
The glass in from memory elements 5 and 6 of the 7 element 12 inch f/2.5 and 7 inch f/2.5 were up to about 27% thorium by weight.

I had about a dozen 7 inch versions under my bed, which led to my interest in these.
I also had 3 or 4 12 inch versions.
A single enormously heavy 8 inch f/1.5 that I left in the boot of my Jaguar when they finally both went to heaven or wherever.

The only one I considered a bit dangerous was the 24 inch f/6 as the exposed rear element could be monitored at 6ft still giving a significant reading. It was used on 9 inch by 18 inch film.

I never had the enormous 48 inch f/6.3 or the 6 inch f/2.5 that must be rare in the U.K.

The only thorium lens I really didn't like was the Wray 50mm f/1.0. When used as an eyepiece there was no eye relief from the thorium rear element.

The enormous Williamson Ross 6 inch survey lens has a great deal of thorium in it.

The 7 inch f/2.5 Aero Ektar was standard on the K24, a lighter version of te Williamson F24 camera.

I think it likely that a non leaded glass was made that was very similar to the leaded glass, so I doubt that much change was needed.
Leica had patents on very many different glass types.

Regards,
B
The Trinovid BA series, early designated Trinovid 'Ultras,' now over 20 years old, still attracts attention and praise in threads on birdforum.net. Some experienced users appear to prefer BAs to subsequent Leica models and to high-end 'alpha' binoculars of other brands, despite recognized advances in brightness and reduced chromatic aberration in the newer versions.

Following are some speculations about technical features of the BAs that might account in part for their continuing popularity. I have suggested some of these in another thread; they are collected and expanded here. The speculations are based mostly on notes in various birdforum.net threads, not on any real expertise or knowledge on my part. Where possible, links to the sources are included.

Known or suggested properties of Trinovid BA binoculars:

-- modern mechanics: internal focusing, elegant combined diopter/focus adjustment, etc.

-- well documented very rugged (if somewhat heavy) construction

-- phase-coated prisms: Although apparently not advertised for the BAs, all the Trinovid 'Ultras,' BAs as well as BNs, had phase-coated prisms.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-ba-bn-phase-coating.22413/>
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/trinovid-8x32-ba-how-does-it-compare.312587/>

-- leaded glass: This is uncertain. It has been suggested that Leica's transition to unleaded glass was undertaken during the production run of BAs, prior to the introduction of the BN design.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-trinovid-10x50-lead-free-or-not.117677/>
However, this seems unlikely. A change of glass type generally calls for re-computation of optical elements -- thicknesses and surface curves, spacings, mating glasses, etc. -- and corresponding, often expensive, re-tooling of production equipment. It would seem unusual for a company to assume the expenses involved within a particular model run, but not unlikely for it to be part of a change of models, such as from BAs to BNs. A change of focus range in the BNs (see next point) could be consistent with an optical formula recomputed for a change away from leaded glass.
Thus, if the transition to unleaded glass in Leica binoculars was, indeed, made during the BA/BN era, BAs might have been the last to enjoy the optical benefits of leaded glass, benefits maybe not fully realized in alternative, unleaded glasses for some time afterwards.

-- focus range extending beyond infinity, of some help in particular to myopic users: There was a general change of focus range between BA and BN models. The BNs had a well-advertised closer near focus point, highlighted by the 'N' (for 'near') in their designation. A loss of most or all of the focus range beyond infinity, characteristic of BAs, went largely unadvertised.
(Interestingly, if the Trinovid mechanics were left unchanged between BA and BN models, as seemed mostly the case with respect to appearance and operation, and a choice likely attractive for reasons of production economy, both changes of focus range could have been accounted for by a reduction of focal length in the BN optics re-computed for the change away from leaded glass, rather than by a physical resetting of the focusing mechanism as widely supposed.)

-- improved lens coatings: This is another uncertain issue. Changes of lens coatings should not involve expensive retooling of the sort required for optical or mechanical changes, so might well be employed during model runs.

The 'HDC' (high durability coating) was a heralded feature of the BNs, but there have been reports that it was employed on other models before those.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/difference-between-leica-bas-and-bns.32242/>
<http://www.company7.com/leica/news.html#1September2000>
It has been suggested that late-production BAs were among those provided with the HDC coatings, but that has not been established.

The BA line was also produced during a period of rapid advances in anti-reflection coatings. Changes in such coatings within the BA lineage have been suggested. Variations of reflected colors among coatings have been reported within model lines of Leica (and other brand) binoculars, ranging from yellowish-green, through blue, to dark or nearly none.
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/evolution-of-trinovid-coatings.68039/>
<https://www.birdforum.net/threads/leica-trinovid-10x32bn-lense-coatings.144632/>
It is uncertain whether these color differences indicate coating differences significant, e.g., for transmission, color rendition, or flare control. The possibility that late-run BAs enjoyed improved anti-reflection coatings remains open, but undetermined. It would be instructive to have comparisons by experienced users between early and late versions of the BAs with respect to aspects of performance related to coatings.

The Trinovid BAs were Leica's premier binoculars during their production and represented an acknowledged landmark advance in binocular design, setting the bar for models introduced later by many manufacturers, as well as by Leica itself. But they were also produced during a singular period of change in Leica binoculars when they could have benefitted from the advantages of both older and newer technology -- a period not matched in that regard before or after. Thus, in addition to their well publicized innovative features, they might have quietly retained advantageous older technologies (leaded glass?) and also, later during production, incorporated improvements (newer lens coatings?) not explicitly announced until introduction of subsequent models. The BAs thus could have been a 'sweet spot' in the development of Leica binoculars, explaining in part their enduring popularity among those owning and using them, as well as their impressive maintenance of value on the used market.

Comments and corrections from more informed and experienced users in the forum community would be very welcome.

Larry
Leica 8x32 BAs were my first alpha pair. Purchased them in the mid 90's. With an eye relief of only 13mm, I had to ditch them when I could no longer wear contacts. I still have them and I'm been amazed how well they stand up to more modern 8x32s when I've had the opportunity to compare them.
 

LarryO

Member
United States
Binastro -

Thank you for the comments in your most recent post -- all interesting and much appreciated.

My impression of the close correspondence between glass types and optical design has been influenced (and informed) by the nearly obsessive interest amateur astronomers take in those issues as they relate to refractors. Perhaps, as you suggest, the relationship is more casual in binocular design. It would be useful to have comments from those in the industry responsible for binocular designs, but it seems likely that proprietary concerns make it unlikely we'll get those.

The Aero Ektar on my bookshelf was small measured against the comparisons you mention, maybe around 4-5" diameter. However, for whatever reason (trapped Thorium-decay products?), its addition to the radiation level in my office was detected by the radiation-control officer and traced to it. He strongly recommended its removal. Since he was responsible for certifying my lab as safe for use of radio-tracers needed in my research at the time, I wan't about to argue the point. Maybe he just wanted it for display in his office :).

Also, thanks to Bill Long for yet another endorsement of the BAs by a long-time user!

Larry
 

Binastro

Well-known member
Hi Larry,

The Aero Ektar introduced in 1940 by Kodak was for military use, and a definite improvement on say the uncoated Dallmeyer Pentac 8 inch f/2.9 used by Britain.
The Aero Ektar was hard coated and the thorium glass resulted in a high quality lens.

However, eventually thorium glass became an embarrassment for the optical industry.
Some firms like Zeiss West, Minolta and Leica tried to avoid thorium as did the Russians.
However, some Leica camera lenses have contained thorium glass.

Kodak came up with the idea in the 1930s, and thorium lenses were made from 1940 to 1978 or a bit later.
Schott glass catalogues listed several thorium glasses in 1975.

Now there are regulations regarding it. Old lenses cannot be worked on and new lenses cannot contain it.
There is a limit on storage also.
Several companies had to clean up their premises.

It is now basically of historic interest.
Indeed a lab should not contain a thorium lens.

I have a large Dallmeyer lens from about 1880 that has radioactive glass.
This is before such glass was understood.
I suspect that the sand used came from India, where natural deposits are found.

There are ex gov. large filters that contain uranium.

As to amateur astronomers and high quality refractors.
It is mainly because astronomers now are mainly photographers and not visual observers.
For photography highly corrected refractors are very capable.

Yet the best planetary and other work is done with Celestron C14 SCTs.

The really dedicated astronomers who do visual work use reflectors generally, which are much better value and are generally larger.

I have used both refractors and reflectors.

Regards,
B.
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Larry:
Welcome to Birdforum, this is an good discussion of Leica models you have started. Gary could enlighten us on the leaded glass thing,
he is an expert.
My experience is with the 8x32 BN and the 10x50 BA models, I find them both very good.

Jerry
 

LarryO

Member
United States
Binastro -

Thank you for another informative reply about both Thorium-containing lenses and astronomical reflectors vs refractors.

" ... the best planetary and other work is done with Celestron C14 SCTs."

The relative advantages of refractors and reflectors appear to be topics of active (often very active!) discussion among amateur astronomers. Many seem not to like the diffraction spikes and contrast limits imposed by their central obstructions (secondary mirrors and their supporting vanes) of Newtonian and SCT reflectors. Some lean toward Maksutov designs, without the spikes of vanes supporting the secondary mirror but the color advantages of mirror optics.

In any case, I think readers here are mostly interested in binoculars and the issues related to their design, particularly characteristics and possible special 'sweet-spot' advantages of the Leica BAs.

Thanks again -

Larry
 

b-lilja

Well-known member
There is a very long thread from not long ago that asks the same question, but with an array of other responses.

We have a late model 8x32BN that we love - it is my wife's go to. We have been on a recent process to improve our optics - in the process I have looked through nearly every alpha glass out there - including all Swaros, both SFs, FLs, Noctovids, etc. Through that process we ended up buying the 7x42 UVHD+ as well as the 8x32 and 8x42 FL. The BN simply holds up in comparison to all these bins. I prefer it to the UVHD+ 8x32, which for some reason I have a harder time getting a crisp image from (and having looked through three different copies). The BN image is simply clear and easy, no second guessing if the image is right, natural and true colors trending slightly warm, and beautiful build quality and design - truly heirloom level. The fact good quality copies can be bought for $600-700 is incredible to me - I think they are the best deal in binoculars going, along with the Conquest HD line. The fact that our 15 year old BNs show less wear than our 2 month old UVHD+s says something too.

The two areas where they are not as strong is in current alpha HD snap and pop, and also compared at least to the UVHD+s, they do not have the wonderful saturated contrasty view - but the UVHD+ is uniquely special in that category.

This is turning into a longer comparative thread and I intend to do a much longer post at some point - but suffice to say our 8x32 BNs are in the "core keeper" category - I just don't see them going anywhere - unless if/when a 8x32 Noctovid comes out that simply changes the playing field. But even then -
 

amears

Well-known member
Held off posting on here cos it appeared to be a thread for astronomers. But here goes...

Am completely guilty of loving my BA 8’32s, but I’ll say straight off, the 42s are just too big and heavy for me.

Here are a few reasons why I love them, although they are not my main pair now because I prefer a 10 for UK birding, and modern lenses and coatings are amazing:

# they sit perfectly in my hand, my fingers naturally falling straight on the focus wheel no matter how quickly I grab them. The 2 alphas I’ve had since do not do this.
# the eye cups sit perfectly under my eyebrows, better than my Swaros.
# the weight is fine and arguably better than lighter bins, which start to show pulse vibrations.
# 32 lenses hardly ever get dirty (42s get dirty very much easier). No point in having big lenses if they aren’t clean...
# never had a mechanical problem of any sort, which I have with both my subsequent alphas.
# brilliant depth of field. So important in rain forest. I was shocked when I switched to 42 Swaros, because when looking through a bit of foreground foliage, it all went into a massive blur and the bird at the back was completely obscured. I sold those Swaros after 1 month.
# brilliant field of view, so important when trying to get on rain forest skulkers.
# lovely Leica colours, the most natural of any manufacturer to my eyes.
# a perfect rain guard, simple, unfussy, goes on and off effortlessly in an instant and, er, keeps off the rain...

I might have missed a couple,
Andy
 
Last edited:

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Andy:
I agree with you, the Leica Ba or Bn, does the job nicely. The 8x32 models are very good.
For those watching, your binocular search could be one and done with this binocular.

Jerry
 

b-lilja

Well-known member
I don't know if it's kosher to post this here, but there is a bounty of nice late serial # 8x32 BNs on the large internet auction site right now...for those looking.
 

Pinewood

New York correspondent
United States
Hello,

Before the pandemic, my binocular of choice was a 2006 8x32 Zeiss FL, which had replaced my 8x32BN. The Zeiss had better eye relief and was in a smaller, more ergonomic package. I had forgotten that I have an 8x50BA. Today, as I was only going to the garden, I took it with me. It is a handful but the views were quite nice. As the focussing was tweaked between the BA and the BN, I am the beneficiary in that I can now focus to infinity without my specs. It may not be the ideal glass for hunters or stargazers, but many could use it without a tripod for those purposes.

Stay safe,
Arthur
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top