Where is the Leica Ultravid 8x50 HD-Plus? (1 Viewer)

[CharleyBird]

Eyecups: initially I was surprised that there are only two detents other than fully in: the first is a short way out and then it's a way to go till the next detent at fully out. The first one was too close for comfortable viewing without glasses, but luckily I found that there was sufficient resistance despite the smooth twist action to keep the eyecups still between in the free area between detents.

Tom,
From your description it sounds like both 8 & 12x were made with the same 3 position eyecups. Last year one of my 12x50 eyecups stuck, I struggled over a week trying to free it, then emailed Leica UK for advice.
They sent me (gratis) new eyecups to fit myself, saying the newer version have 5 postions... if I remember rightly.

Thing is, day after arrival when I decided to fit them with pliers at the ready, the stuck side simply started working again ! and so the job remains on my 'to do' list.
Anyway, contact Leica UK for newer version eyecups with more detents.

 

[Mike F]

Thanks, Tom, for the very enjoyable report. Welcome to the x50 Leica club!

I totally understand what you mean by the 'very sharp yet rounded Leica feel'! Just wait until you actually get them outside - you'll be amazed , I'm sure!

Happy viewing,

Mike.

 

[Mike F]

Tom,
From your description it sounds like both 8 & 12x were made with the same 3 position eyecups. Last year one of my 12x50 eyecups stuck, I struggled over a week trying to free it, then emailed Leica UK for advice.
They sent me (gratis) new eyecups to fit myself, saying the newer version have 5 postions... if I remember rightly.

Thing is, day after arrival when I decided to fit them with pliers at the ready, the stuck side simply started working again ! and so the job remains on my 'to do' list.
Anyway, contact Leica UK for newer version eyecups with more detents.

I've just checked my 12x50's which are just a year old (and I remember another pair with which I compared them that were manufactured in March last year were the same) and the eyecups have three positions. I'd be interested if you would just check that the new ones that Leica sent you really have 5 positions. You should be able to tell by looking on the inside of the eyecup sleeve, but otherwise just pull one of them of your binocular and try one of the new ones. I somehow doubt that there has been a change. I'd like to be proved wrong!

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Chuck, Canip and Tom,

While most of this thread has been about the UV 8x50 verses the larger 8x54/ 56 choices, how does the UV 8x50 compare to the UV 7x42?

Both have effectively a 6 mm exit pupil, and while the 8x50 has the advantage of nominally 14% greater magnification,
other things would seem to swing the balance in favour the 7x42, including :
• significantly less weight and bulk (770 g/ 27.2 oz vs 1000 g/ 35.3 oz), and
• both wider FOV (140 m vs 112 m) and AFOV (56 deg vs 53.6 deg) *

Are there other non-quantifiable aspects to the viewing experience that favour the 8x50?


Regards
John


* the 8x50's FOV is actually 117 m not 112 m; thanks to Canip for spotting this, see post 30

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom,

EXCELLENT write up! I can't wait for you to get to really use it outside. I think you'll enjoy it even more!

Thanks, Chuck; that's certainly what I am hoping. I was thinking since yesterday that there is something appealing about the narrower view too especially as it is an easy view. Your response to Andreas's first post played a big part in what was quite an impulse purchase, and no regrets!

I was thinking now could be the time to part with the 8x56 but it's also very good and I might regret it further down the line, so nothing in haste...

Tom

 

[CharleyBird]

I've just checked my 12x50's which are just a year old (and I remember another pair with which I compared them that were manufactured in March last year were the same) and the eyecups have three positions. I'd be interested if you would just check that the new ones that Leica sent you really have 5 positions. You should be able to tell by looking on the inside of the eyecup sleeve, but otherwise just pull one of them of your binocular and try one of the new ones. I somehow doubt that there has been a change. I'd like to be proved wrong!

Just dug them out of a camera bag and

 

[SeldomPerched]

Hi Chuck, Canip and Tom,

While most of this thread has been about the UV 8x50 verses the larger 8x54/ 56 choices, how does the UV 8x50 compare to the UV 7x42?

Both have effectively a 6 mm exit pupil, and while the 8x50 has the advantage of nominally 14% greater magnification,
other things would seem to swing the balance in favour the 7x42, including :
• significantly less weight and bulk (770 g/ 27.2 oz vs 1000 g/ 35.3 oz), and
• both wider FOV (140 m vs 112 m) and AFOV (56 deg vs 53.6 deg)

Are there other non-quantifiable aspects to the viewing experience that favour the 8x50?


Regards
John

Hi John,

Canip and Chuck will have longer experience and more to draw on of course.

In comparison I've already established my own feeling about the point you raise regarding weight and bulk: the 7x42 UV feels more like a pocket bino being very compact for its own format and easy to handle. I feel the same about other 7x42s that are or were made in the 21st century with the exception of the SLC, which is lovely but heftier without being that being much of a problem. With attention to body posture and hold the 8x50 UV surprised me: once concentrating on the viewing I found the bin quite shake-free and that there was no need to prop my arms in any way. It helped to rest my body against something to counter any slight rocking motion but I was fine without that too. Speaking for myself I'd say 35.3 oz / 1,000g (as in this 8x50 UVHD Plus) is about the upper limit for my handholding confidence depending on ergonomics/balance and that 42oz as in the CZ V 8x56 T*FL gets shakier quite quickly. Obviously that's just me — your experience will in all likelihood be different.

Leading on from the above and for comparison, the weight effect between the Zeiss T*FLs 7x42 FL and 8x56 is much more noticeable.

Other non-quantifiable aspects to the viewing experience... let me try to decide over the next few days as I get the chance to take the 8x50 and 7x42 outside and then I'll post something. Meanwhile I'd be as interested as you to see what Canip and Chuck feel.

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

Just dug them out of a camera bag and

View attachment 1373020

I will take a look later today. I like the way that with Leica eyecups you can set them just either side of the clickstop to give you extra positions to play with. I tend only to pull them out to the first click but with the 8x50 I need to go a bit further out, into the middle of the next gap.

 

[Mike F]

Just dug them out of a camera bag and

View attachment 1373020

OK, then it seems that this is an already existing alternative, rather than what a new 8x50 would come with. Calling it the 5 click version would imply that there is another (3 click) version as well. I notice that they are also for the 10x42 UV which presumably also come with 3 position eyecups as standard.

I think possibly what is the case is that the 3 position eyecups which come standard on the 10X42, 8x50 and 12x50 have a higher profile (i.e. they are taller) than the 5 position eyecups which come standard on the 7x42 and 10x50 (for example), so the ‘taller’ eyecups are 3 position and the ‘shorter’ eyecups are the 5 positions versions. Check some pictures, or just get them out of the package, and you'll see what I mean!

Edit: See the attached picture in Canip's post below and you'll see the shorter 5 position eyecups on the 7x42 and thew taller 3 position ones on the 8x50.

 

[Canip]

Hi Chuck, Canip and Tom,

While most of this thread has been about the UV 8x50 verses the larger 8x54/ 56 choices, how does the UV 8x50 compare to the UV 7x42?

Both have effectively a 6 mm exit pupil, and while the 8x50 has the advantage of nominally 14% greater magnification,
other things would seem to swing the balance in favour the 7x42, including :
• significantly less weight and bulk (770 g/ 27.2 oz vs 1000 g/ 35.3 oz), and
• both wider FOV (140 m vs 112 m) and AFOV (56 deg vs 53.6 deg)

Are there other non-quantifiable aspects to the viewing experience that favour the 8x50?


Regards
John

Hi John,
thanks for your post and table.

Another quantifiable difference in addition to the ones you mention (the weight difference is indeed substantial) would of course be size - see pic.

Interestingly, the difference in FOV does not strike me as enormous when I compare side-by-side, although the numbers (it's actually 140m vs 117m, not vs. 112m) would seem to indicate a big gap.

The image characteristics - distortion, color tone, size of sweet spot, etc. etc. of the 8x50 and 7x42 are very, very similar for my eyes, in fact, I find them almost identical.

Moving your eyes away from the center of the eyepiece, you will realize that the 8x50 exhibits a bit more vignetting than the 7x42.

On the other hand, the exit pupils of the 8x50 appear slightly brighter than the ones of the 7x42 (they are virtually of the same size, as you rightfully point out). You can test this by mounting the two binos on top of each other on a tripod and putting them in front of a white wall or shiny surface (make sure the two binos face exactly the same direction and angle). Then looking at the two binos from exactly behind the eyepieces, the exit pupils of the 8x50 are a bit brighter.

These are two of my most liked binoculars, and I would not want to miss either of them. When I was younger, Leica for me always came behind the top models from Zeiss and Swaro which I found to exhibit more brilliance, but the older I get, the more I appreciate the balanced, color-saturated image and wonderfully "calm" panning experience of the UVs.

fwiw Canip

 

[SeldomPerched]

Thanks, Tom, for the very enjoyable report. Welcome to the x50 Leica club!

I totally understand what you mean by the 'very sharp yet rounded Leica feel'! Just wait until you actually get them outside - you'll be amazed , I'm sure!

Happy viewing,

Mike.

Thanks, Mike! Nice to hear. The physicists just don't understand how sharp can be rounded; they obviously don't have the eyesight to appreciate traditional binoculars... ;-)

I will let you know how the outdoor viewing goes. I bet your 12s are astounding: that resolution and colour at larger size!

Tom

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi CharleyBird and Mike,

I’ve never understood the assignment of the short and long eyecups on the UV line
As indicated in the attachment to CB's post #26, the long ones are only fitted as standard to the 10x42, 8x50 and 12x50
And an image from a 2013 catalogue confirms this (also note the eyecups unique to the two BL x42 models)

However, the listed eye relief figures from shortest to longest, as shown in the specifications attached to post #24, are as follows:
• 8x42 15.5 mm; 10x42 16 mm; 7x42 17 mm
• 12x50 13 mm; 10x50 15 mm; 8x50 17 mm

So clearly eye relief isn't the deciding factor


John

 

[Mike F]

Thanks for the input, John. Yes, it's curious, isn't it!
I noticed the fact that different models had different length eyecups years ago, but I had always assumed that it was for ER reasons. I only realised as a result of @CharleyBird's post that the long ones have 3 positions and the short ones 5, even though I've been using my 12x50, which has the long eyecups, happily for a year! Well, I just set them in the right place and forgot about it and was so excited and overawed by the binocular that I didn't even notice the different number of eyecup positions! I've learned something from this thread, so thanks @CharleyBird! I assume there must be a reason why Leica assign the long and short eyecups in the way they do, as it's clearly not random........?

 

[F88]

Thanks for the input, John. Yes, it's curious, isn't it!
I noticed the fact that different models had different length eyecups years ago, but I had always assumed that it was for ER reasons. I only realised as a result of @CharleyBird's post that the long ones have 3 positions and the short ones 5, even though I've been using my 12x50, which has the long eyecups, happily for a year! Well, I just set them in the right place and forgot about it and was so excited and overawed by the binocular that I didn't even notice the different number of eyecup positions! I've learned something from this thread, so thanks @CharleyBird! I assume there must be a reason why Leica assign the long and short eyecups in the way they do, as it's clearly not random........?

I've always thought my 7x42 could use longer eye cups. Would be nice to swap them over.

 

[Mike F]

I've always thought my 7x42 could use longer eye cups. Would be nice to swap them over.

I'm not sure what difference it will make because I suspect that they extend to the same overall length. One would think that the shorter ones might give more ER when closed, but they are both (the longer and the shorter ones) in the same position relative to the eyepiece when fully closed. I can only assume that they fit a slightly different construction used for the 10x42, 8x50 and 12x50. The shorter ones will surely work on those models but presumably leave a gap between the bottom of the eyecup and the rubber armouring of the body?

 

[F88]

I'm not sure what difference it will make because I suspect that they extend to the same overall length. One would think that the shorter ones might give more ER when closed, but they are both (the longer and the shorter ones) in the same position relative to the eyepiece when fully closed. I can only assume that they fit a slightly different construction used for the 10x42, 8x50 and 12x50. The shorter ones will surely work on those models but presumably leave a gap between the bottom of the eyecup and the rubber armouring of the body?

If they extend to the same length, then no difference.
I'd prefer if the 7x42 eye-cups extended a bit longer (perhaps one more click stop?) as I find the eye relief excessive in relation to the cup extension for my use. I have however been using them more than usual lately and have become accustomed in positioning them.

As far as 3 or 5 positions go, I'd say my 7x42 UV HD+ are 3 position as in there is a click stop at the closed, intermediate and fully extended position. Unless you count non clicking locations to make 5 positions?
Either way I use all my binoculars with the eye-cups fully extended.

 

[CharleyBird]

Original 3 click-stop eyecups on the left, updated 5 click-stops on the right, with the longer profile. They fitted easily



And of course look identical to the 3 click-stop when fitted.

 

[F88]

View attachment 1373238

Original 3 click-stop eyecups on the left, updated 5 click-stops on the right, with the longer profile. They fitted easily

View attachment 1373242

And of course look identical to the 3 click-stop when fitted.

I'm a bit confused here so here's some questions.
First of all, thanks for posting these pictures.

I'm assuming that the 5 click cups actually extend further?

Did the 7x42 UV HD+ originally come with 3 click and now have 5 clicks?

 

[F88]

Am I right to assume that I can swap my 3 clicks for 5 on my 7x42 and they will seat flush when retracted as the 3's do but offer extra length when fully extended?
Pretty keen to order some of that's the case.

 

[CharleyBird]

Here's the best photo I could get of the inside grooves. On the right the updated 5 track is inset into the profile slightly deeper, maybe by about 2mm, and as you can see from the photo has longer track.
On the binocular they look the same, and as I use them fully extended, make no apparent difference. But for those wearing glasses?
Hope this helps.