Which formats of Ultravid have eyecups which are too short...? (1 Viewer)

[Bentley03]

Per the thread title, I'm wondering which of the (non pocket) Ultravids are found by some to have eyecups which are too short? And, which Ultravids fitted with too short eyecups as standard can be replaced with longer eyecups supplied by Leica to solve the problem, if requested?

I've owned and/or used most formats of Ultravid with glasses, but having now abandoned my glasses for the foreseeable, I'm keen to revisit the range and see how they work for me without glasses.

Thank you! 🙂

 

[tenex]

I found the eyecups to work well on UV 32s (both 8 and 10x), but on every larger model I've tried they've been too short, including 10x42 (and its extinct Trinovid BR cousin) and 12x50. Very frustrating as it's only a matter of 2-3mm, so twisting the eycups fully out to their removal position can make them borderline usable; they won't just fall off, but may pull off with a tight rainguard. It's best to get another deeper eyecup if there is one among 42/50mm models, which I assume are all interchangeable. I've done this successfully with our 12x50, though I wasn't told what the donor model was (also with SLC 10x42 and 56, which got 8x eyecups). Success may be less likely starting with a higher-ER bin (often lower magnification), so ask Leica about this before purchase.

 

[Scott98]

The height seems right on my current 8x50 UVHD and the 10x50 I had. Maybe a tiny bit too short but nothing that causes a problem.....within normal operating tolerance

 

[recon493]

A formerly owned 7x42 model was too short for me. The furthest stage of the eyecup, twisted fully out and slid almost off, was just almost right. However, with no indent I was afraid to use them that way. Leica could fix it rather easily by adding a third step or indent at that stage.

I sourced eyecups from a 10x42 UV and swapped the rubber portion only with that of the 7x42's. The 10x42 eyecups I believe were shorter but their rubber trim is taller. In combo with the 7x42 eyecups, it resolved itself.

I marvel at how these top dollar binoculars dont just leave more room for adjusting outward. A spectacled observer's take on a model is at times going to be vastly different than those users not wearing eye glasses.

 

[Bentley03]

@tenex @scotty @recon

Thank you very much for your input, it's much appreciated!

The three formats I'm considering are 10x32 (which I've owned previously, but which were just too short on eye relief with glasses), 8x50 (which I do own, but which are on loan and on stargazing duty abroad) and 12x50, all three of which got mention in your posts. From what's been said, I don't need to rule any of them out, so I'll test in store then contact Leica to ask about taller eyecups if necessary.

I've also never tried 10x42 Noctivid without glasses. The 8X42s work much better for me without glasses than they ever did with glasses, so I may revisit those too.

Thanks chaps! 🍻

 

[Bentley03]

I tested the three formats I mentioned previously today...

I always intended to purchase the 10x32, if they fitted me, and thankfully they did. I owned a pair when I was wearing glasses full time, but eye relief was just too tight, and I very reluctantly traded them. Delighted I now own a pair once again!

Surprise of the day was the 12x50's. They fitted me the best of the three, and the view for a handheld 12x was simply outstanding, no problem at all holding them steady, very little tremor and shake corrupting the view. Stunning!

The 8x50's, on the other hand, were almost unusable, they needed the longer eyecups. Sad, because when using with glasses, they're my favourite UV's.

Thrilled to own a pair of 10x32's again, but those 12x50's are most definitely on my radar...

 

[Scott98]

The 8x50's, on the other hand, were almost unusable, they needed the longer eyecups. Sad, because when using with glasses, they're my favourite UV's.

strange - they seem fine to me, and no one complains more about too-short eyecups than me (Zeiss SF 8x42, Monarch HG's, etc). I did notice the eye placement was easier w/ my 10x56 SLC than with the 8x50 and 10x50 UVHD's, maybe if the eyecups turned out farther the eye placement would be easier. Much better than 8x42 SF's though.

The 10x56 SLC also feel as if the eyecup is tiny bit too short. I guess some of us like to jam the eyecups into our eye sockets more than others. They were too short on the Zeiss Dialyt 8x56 too.

 

[Bentley03]

Almost unusable was an exaggeration, for sure, but side by side with binoculars which had long enough eyecups for me, it was glaringly obvious that a couple more millimetres would have calmed the view. I'm convinced the 8x50's I already own, which have the five click stop cups, will be perfect.

I'm finding some interesting differences in quite a number of binoculars, using them without glasses, as I am now. As a glasses wearer, sufficient eye relief was always the primary factor to consider. For me, it ruled out most of the porros I wanted to experience, although being short sighted rather than long sighted did open up some of the borderline options, of which the 8x32 Ultravid was the most satisfying, the combination of optics and form factor being unsurpassed, for me, in terms of fit and accessing the view quickly. The best fitting Zeiss binocular was the 10x42 CHD, when I was wearing glasses, but without glasses (and with standard eyecups) they no longer work for me. The 8x32 Victory SF, on the other hand, is a revelation when I use them without glasses, I'm really enjoying them, but when wearing glasses I battled with eye relief/eye placement/IPD issues and found none of the formats just worked for me 'out of the box'. I'm very pleased I kept my 8x32 VSF and I'm now encouraged to give the 10x42 another try at some point. And then there are a number of binoculars which work best for me without glasses with the eyecups twisted down a stop, or two, or even three, to get a calm blackout free view. Honestly, I thought the world's my (binocular) oyster, now I'm not wearing glasses. Not so, fitting binoculars when you don't wear glasses has even more 'variables' which need to fall into place in order to find a really comfortable fitting binocular.

My current 'comfortable quartet', which I'm most likely to carry as daily walkers, now that I'm no longer wearing glasses, are 8x32 VSF, 8x32 EDG (I'm a little bit addicted to these at the moment), 10x32 EL and 10x32 UV. They all fit me perfectly, without glasses.

 

[PatR]

Just goes to show how different we all are from a comfort, acuity and facial construct perspective. I have found that the UV's just do not 'fit' me which is such a shame as they are truly superb bits of kit.

Tomorrow will be interesting as a pair of Kite 18x50 APC stabilised bino's (should) arrive, bought unseen/unheld and against all my built-in 'try before you buy' alarms.

No more 'Shakin' Stevens' for me....maybe.

 

[Bentley03]

Just goes to show how different we all are from a comfort, acuity and facial construct perspective. I have found that the UV's just do not 'fit' me which is such a shame as they are truly superb bits of kit.

Tomorrow will be interesting as a pair of Kite 18x50 APC stabilised bino's (should) arrive, bought unseen/unheld and against all my built-in 'try before you buy' alarms.

No more 'Shakin' Stevens' for me....maybe.

Goodness Pat, those are absolute monsters arriving tomorrow! I've made my first very tentative foray into IS binoculars with a pair of the new Nikon 12x25's. I usually carry my 8x20 or 10x25 UV's when I'm in London, primarily to study architecture and architectural detail (or anything else I might spot), but the little IS Nikons are stacking up very nicely indeed and are giving me even more reach and detail than the pocket Ultravids. The downside is that they're not so pocketable, but in use they're a very impressive tool for my purposes. I have attempted to use a pair of the new Kite IS bins in store (at Ace), smaller and lower powered than the ones you've purchased, but found them too clunky and awkward to get the hang of in the few minutes I spent with them. Hope they work well for you, enjoy!

Ultravids - it's a great pity they don't work for you. I'm not sure they quite eclipse the 'old school' 8x42 and 10x42 SLC's, for optical pow (technical term 😉), but the colours are far more to my taste and the amount of field curvature spot on. We often talk about binoculars disappearing when you use them, and Ultravids (for me) just disappear. Right now I've got a very serious 12x50 UV itch I think I'm going to need to scratch in the not too distant future...

 

[PatR]

Goodness Pat, those are absolute monsters arriving tomorrow! I've made my first very tentative foray into IS binoculars with a pair of the new Nikon 12x25's. I usually carry my 8x20 or 10x25 UV's when I'm in London, primarily to study architecture and architectural detail (or anything else I might spot), but the little IS Nikons are stacking up very nicely indeed and are giving me even more reach and detail than the pocket Ultravids. The downside is that they're not so pocketable, but in use they're a very impressive tool for my purposes. I have attempted to use a pair of the new Kite IS bins in store (at Ace), smaller and lower powered than the ones you've purchased, but found them too clunky and awkward to get the hang of in the few minutes I spent with them. Hope they work well for you, enjoy!

Ultravids - it's a great pity they don't work for you. I'm not sure they quite eclipse the 'old school' 8x42 and 10x42 SLC's, for optical pow (technical term 😉), but the colours are far more to my taste and the amount of field curvature spot on. We often talk about binoculars disappearing when you use them, and Ultravids (for me) just disappear. Right now I've got a very serious 12x50 UV itch I think I'm going to need to scratch in the not too distant future...

They are monsters indeed but its the waterproof bit, and the 5 year warranty on electrics, that appeal. My wife has the Canon IS 10x30's but like the Trinovid Retro's, they are a bit suspect in the downpours. We shall see.

The little Nikons are intriguing, my much battered but loved 10x25 HGL's are quite superb so I suspect I will have to try them out in due course. No one around here has them yet so I will keep an eye on trusted reviewers like you to see how they pan out.

I know what you mean regarding the Ultravids. They had the optical 'pow' and the delicious Leica colours but I am blowed if I could get them to fit despite severe facial contortions. The Retrovids, owned by my Superior Officer, fit perfectly so the 8x40's are likely to be the next in the que and even sooner if the Kite's prove a tad cumbersome.

Happy days!

 

[Thotmosis]

Surprise of the day was the 12x50's. They fitted me the best of the three, and the view for a handheld 12x was simply outstanding, no problem at all holding them steady, very little tremor and shake corrupting the view. Stunning!

I have a pair of UVHD 12x50 and really really i love this format but it was not love at first sight my friend. The eyecups where too short and i had to put the eyecups of my 7x42 on it to work. Also the IPD was a close call. Now i got used to the setup and they are really great. One of my top 5 binoculars!!

 

[tenex]

I see now that the 7x42 and 8x50 both have the largest ER (17mm), so probably use the same eyecup, which our 12x50 is surely now wearing as well. (Actually Leica USA sent only the sleeves, I had to transfer the rubber myself.) We like it very much; enjoy yours.

 

[Hillclocks]

Bentley, Just get rid of that "itch" and go for the Ultravid 12X50 binos. They are a joy to use, a little heavier , but well balanced. They really "shine" when used on a tripod. With a 4.17mm exit pupil you don't need to worry too much about black outs.
A helpful hint in the "black out" issue. Always keep your eyes back from the bino eye-piece far enough till the full FOV is on the edge of the view. This applies to all things optical. IMO

 

[Scott98]

Almost unusable was an exaggeration, for sure, but side by side with binoculars which had long enough eyecups for me, it was glaringly obvious that a couple more millimetres would have calmed the view. I'm convinced the 8x50's I already own, which have the five click stop cups, will be perfect.

I think you're right - I would benefit from another clickstop on the UVHD and the SF's. The Nikon 42mm EDG are perfect. Most of the time I use the outermost clickstop and it's just right. Viewing in bright daytime sun, I'll often turn them on clickstop inward (shorter) because I tend to push the eyecups closer to my eyes to block out the sun from the sides.

That last clickstop is the one that's missing from SF's and UVHD's and probably the 56mm SLC

 

[John M Robinson]

Everybody’s different, I have deep set eyes and get blackouts with the 32 size Ultravids. On the other hand 8x32 Nikon SEs are infamous for blackouts yet they work perfectly with my face-eyes.

 

[tenex]

Everybody’s different, I have deep set eyes and get blackouts with the 32 size Ultravids. On the other hand 8x32 Nikon SEs are infamous for blackouts yet they work perfectly with my face-eyes.

Indeed, I had no blackouts either with SEs, nor with the NLs I've tried. Multiple variables are involved, not only facial topography but also diameter of eyecups and thickness/shape of their rims. A mere 2mm can make all the difference. Individual experience will vary; you may be the first specless person I've heard complain about UV 32s, so it's good you spoke up.

 

[Bentley03]

Right now I've got a very serious 12x50 UV itch I think I'm going to need to scratch in the not too distant future...

Itch was thoroughly scratched this morning... 😇

Have emailed Leica for the longer (5 click-stop) eyecups and will compare with the two click-stop eyecups they're supplied with as standard.

 

[PatR]

Itch was thoroughly scratched this morning... 😇

Have emailed Leica for the longer (5 click-stop) eyecups and will compare with the two click-stop eyecups they're supplied with as standard.

May your eyeballs sparkle with your new itch relievers! Lovely.

 

[Bentley03]

May your eyeballs sparkle with your new itch relievers! Lovely.

I christened them yesterday afternoon and despite the cold and the fog/mist and dampness in the air, they truly, truly sparkled.

Walking my usual stamping ground, where I would normally use a smaller objective 10x, the 12x50's shone from the outset. I've never really studied 'twilight factor' in any depth, but I'd wager these beauties have twilight factor in shedloads. We've had plenty of dull, grey, misty days over the past few weeks, and the differences in performance between formats of binoculars used has been stark. Some have surprised me in a good or bad way, others have really shone, while the odd one or two have left me wondering why I picked them to carry in the first place. The 12x50 Ultravid, however, was in it's element, nonchalantly cutting through the gloom to reveal extraordinary detail, rendering plumage, fur, foliage, bark, brickwork, landscapes and waterscapes in that beautiful signature colour cast Leica bins are renowned for. In particular, I was struck by the views I was afforded of groups of local red kite perched high in trees, and buzzard in trees and on fence posts. Whilst the subjects were very familiar, the views of them were extraordinary.

Then, as darkess was falling and I was heading up the hill back to the car, I saw the familiar ghostly flight of a barn owl, probably 150m in front of me. Raising the bins to my eyes, I tracked the owl as it flew from right to left in front of me, turned, and flew down the hill directly towards me before altering it's direction slightly to fly diagonally across the path I was on, before looping around me at around 20m distance and flying back up the hill. Spooked by a couple of cyclists and a car coming towards it, the bird turned and flew back down the hill towards me, turning away from me again at around 20m distance, flying along the periphery of the buildings which make up the estate workshops and offices. It was as if time stood still while I was following the owl, but I'd guess it was on the wing and within my view at a height of between one and two metres for between three and four minutes. This, of course, is purely subjective, but if there's a binocular out there which might have afforded me a more enjoyable viewing experience than the 12x50 Ultravid, in those conditions, I really can't imagine which it might be, they were pure, sparkling, magicical perfection!

If anybody needs me, you'll find me on cloud nine...