Veiling glare: More than in the pocket Leica Ultravids, where it is very slight.
I don't know about veiling glare, but I can definitely see more lens flare in the Ultravids.
Yes, to about 60% of the edge. This is mostly due to field curvature.
- Vs Ultravid pockets. No direct comparison with the Uv. 8x20 was done, but on comparing with the Uv. 10x25 I feel that the Zeiss will be seen by me to be not quite equal in making out detail when that is done, due to Leica's contrast.
I tried reading book spines from about 4m away, close to minimum focus, at night, and find them easier to read with the Zeiss even though I am finding the Leicas easier to hand-hold. This may be due to the brighter aperture. I also suspect the Zeiss has slightly higher magnification that the nominal 8x.
Sweet spot: Image is sharp nearly to the edge.
Not really, there is significant field curvature and limited DOF at close focus.
Color rendering: A little "cool".
I am not seeing any significant difference.
Chromatic aberration. I am sensitive to color fringing in that it can be "provoked" easily and here that occurs less than 1/2 way from the center of view. In actual use it was never obtrusive or even noticeable.
I'm not noticing any on either binoculars
Ease of view (quick relaxed observation on putting up to the eyes): Very good. better than the Uv. 10x25 (with smaller exit pupil).
Definitely advantage to the Zeiss, much less finicky about eye placement than the Ultravids. I am not that fond of the single asymmetric hinge, it is quite bulky. however.
Field of view: The FOV of the Hawke, stated to be 6.8 deg., feels only a little less wide than of the Zeiss, stated to be 7.4 deg., so this to me is not striking.
I tried binoscoping with my Sony RX100IV at the widest focal length, pressed directly against the collapsed eye cups. There is a significant difference between the Zeiss (first) and the Leica (second).
Ergonomics: For my medium/small hands and the way I hold the body, with left index finger on focus knob, grip and balance of body, and focusing action, are very good.
I actually found the Leica easier to hand-hold, and the focusing knob is better, if a little stiffer. I have relatively small hands, though, some with larger hands may find the Leica too small to hold comfortably.
Barrels are thicker than of the 25mm pocket Uv. The strap lugs are located such that when the body is folded for ~60mm inter-pupil distance and placed flat on a plane surface it rests on these. This Zeiss can go into a front pocket of regular pants (mine anyway, fairly standard I think!) with that IPD held but the outline is more visible than of the Uv. 10x25, due to the bulkier barrels and the hinges lying less flat.
The Zeiss won't fit comfortably in my dress slacks, whereas the Leica will. The hinge is quite bulky and because it is not parallel to the barrels' plane it's harder to find cases that fit it properly. The Leica hard leather case for the Ultravid is outstanding, the Zeiss cordura one not so.
I don't really consider the Zeiss to be pocket binoculars, jacket pocket at best.
Finish: Not traditional Zeiss! On inspection, flawed, and armor seems flimsy. But in use the instrument feels robust enough.
I didn't find any flaws. My Ultravids are leather-armored, so they are not directly comparable. The leather definitely feels nicer to the touch than rubber. The Zeiss strap is comfortable but too bulky, I replaced it with the hollow-shoelace-style strap with quick-detach from my old Trinovid 8x20 BC, which is superior to either the Zeiss or Ultravid's. The strap eyelets on the Zeiss are very tight, tighter than on the Ultravids, which limits the aftermarket options (I had to use a paper clip to thread the Trinovid strap cords into the eyelets).
Continuation of post #58.
In summary: Excellent 8x25 for bird and nature watching.
Image in low light: Very good, as expected in a better model line of Zeiss.
Eye relief: This was not mentioned as what it means in use is seen under "Ease of view", and I do not quite know how to analyze it further.
Not sure how I can separate the exit pupil's effect from eye relief, but as an eyeglasses wearer, the Zeiss is definitely easier to use.
Personally: This is to be carried in a front pocket of regular pants, as I do with pocket binoculars. It is just a little bit too heavy for this but I compromise for its optical quality. But the way its sits there and its outline are a bit awkward. This is solved by opening it out, when the outline is of a flat box. But then it has to be folded back in at every use. I will be trying this, but am not too hopeful. I may have to go for the little Leica Ultravid 8x20, which I was about to when this model appeared. For a wider and/or brighter view I will then use a 42.
Once again I don't think they are in the same class. The Ultravids are pocketable, the Zeiss are not. I carry mine in a backpack (my EDC is a Monovid in my jacket pocket, or a Nikon 5x15 HG monocular). The Zeiss compares well with my Ultravid 8x32 HD. Not as bright, certainly, but much smaller for the same image in any but very dim light. The new Swarovski 8x30 CL is a contender as well, but I haven't tried it.