Wondering about Ultravids, esp. 12x50... (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

In some idle browsing yesterday I was struck by how many shops, even Leica's own, have very few Ultravids in stock. Maybe just 8x32 or 7x42... and that's online, forget brick and mortar. (The local birding shop dropped Leica years ago.) Since I was curious about the 12x50, I noticed there are absolutely no YouTube videos about it, not even comparing to the Swaro, while the 10x50 and even MeoStar have a couple. Of course the whole UV line is just tweaking an optical design that was class-leading 35 years ago, and last tweaked a decade ago... but there isn't even anything from back then.

And yet UV 12x50 is one of only two high-end models left, Zeiss having not made one since the pre-FL Victory. ER is marginal for eyeglass wearers, but FOV is good, and it's a more affordable alternative to EL, especially for those who don't care about flat field or open bridge design. Is there some further pitfall, like a small sweet spot or terrible CA? The only way to even try one is to purchase, and not having a real need at all, that seems an abuse of the return privilege.

 

[NDhunter]

The Meopta Meostar 12x50 is also very good, I would include that in your choices.
Jerry

 

[tenex]

Perhaps, but 5.25° FOV vs 5.7° in UV/EL...

It seems silly to get interested in a bin that's attracted so little notice. Is Leica content to keep making a few UVs forever? Or will they just stop, and who will care? Even here, only the 7x42 attracts much notice. I think some (including me) remain so attached to BNs because they were the best bin around when we bought them, which is pure nostalgia for what Leica used to be. If even their own stores don't stock their bins anymore, one has to wonder what's going on.

 

[Thotmosis]

In some idle browsing yesterday I was struck by how many shops, even Leica's own, have very few Ultravids in stock. Maybe just 8x32 or 7x42... and that's online, forget brick and mortar. (The local birding shop dropped Leica years ago.) Since I was curious about the 12x50, I noticed there are absolutely no YouTube videos about it, not even comparing to the Swaro, while the 10x50 and even MeoStar have a couple. Of course the whole UV line is just tweaking an optical design that was class-leading 35 years ago, and last tweaked a decade ago... but there isn't even anything from back then.

And yet UV 12x50 is one of only two high-end models left, Zeiss having not made one since the pre-FL Victory. ER is marginal for eyeglass wearers, but FOV is good, and it's a more affordable alternative to EL, especially for those who don't care about flat field or open bridge design. Is there some further pitfall, like a small sweet spot or terrible CA? The only way to even try one is to purchase, and not having a real need at all, that seems an abuse of the return privilege.

Just the only thing that could be better on the 12x50 -for me- is the IPD, i can’t leave the objective covers on because i need the extra mm. Excellent glass! Didn’t compare it with Meopta or Swarovski though, just bought it used but mint for a good price and no regrets at all.

 

[Bentley03]

In some idle browsing yesterday I was struck by how many shops, even Leica's own, have very few Ultravids in stock. Maybe just 8x32 or 7x42... and that's online, forget brick and mortar. (The local birding shop dropped Leica years ago.) Since I was curious about the 12x50, I noticed there are absolutely no YouTube videos about it, not even comparing to the Swaro, while the 10x50 and even MeoStar have a couple. Of course the whole UV line is just tweaking an optical design that was class-leading 35 years ago, and last tweaked a decade ago... but there isn't even anything from back then.

And yet UV 12x50 is one of only two high-end models left, Zeiss having not made one since the pre-FL Victory. ER is marginal for eyeglass wearers, but FOV is good, and it's a more affordable alternative to EL, especially for those who don't care about flat field or open bridge design. Is there some further pitfall, like a small sweet spot or terrible CA? The only way to even try one is to purchase, and not having a real need at all, that seems an abuse of the return privilege.

I would say stock levels at multiple retailers here in the UK are good, but I'm not convinced turnover is particularly fast. As you point out, the Ultravid has it's roots set firmly in the past, and I think Leica’s binocular marketing push is behind the Noctivid rather than the Ultravid, unless they release one of their 'special edition' Ultravid.

I find the x32's and x42's incredibly comfortable in the hand, and in formats where eye relief is sufficient for me to use with glasses, incredibly adept at becoming invisible, in terms of forgetting you're using a pair of binoculars.

BUT, the spec sheets don't excite, the incentives for retailers to promote other brands is likely greater, the focus movement feels from a different age, and with prices not far removed from flagship models from Swarovski and Zeiss, they're a tough sell. Even the newer Noctivid struggles against those other brands.

The x50's, I find not to be well balanced in the hand. I own a pair of 8x50's and whilst the view is incredibly easy and relaxed, they are a physically tiring binocular to use for extended periods. The 10x50, for me (in conjunction with my glasses), did not have sufficient eye relief for me to use them comfortably, and (along with the 8x30 CL Companion) generated the most extraordinary levels of CA I have ever seen in an 'alpha' binocular. The issue was undoubtedly the combination of me, my glasses and the binoculars, but I was unable reduce/control it to acceptable levels with adjustments. The 12x50 I've never handled, eye relief insufficient.

I don't know if your idle browsing yesterday was prompted in any way by the apparent demise of Tobias Mennle's website, or coincidence, but for me, his enthusiasm for the Ultravid line played an important role in prompting me to go and thoroughly explore the Ultravid line. As you say, there's not a great deal else regarding the Ultravid line online.

Just a few idle musings in response.

 

[HenRun]

I am very fond of the Ultravids. The exception being the 12x50.
I find the balance a bit off and the shape does not help with that. Add the short eye relief on top of that and it is simply not working for me. First time I tried one out was before I had glasses and I was used to "long handheld optics".

It has been a while since I looked through one though, but memory is that it was the most awkward of the Leica UV:s.

I found the EL to be so much more generous in the eye box and the handling better but I have no recollection of difference in focuser etc since it has literally been years between the experiences.

There is a store some fifteen minutes from my workshop that has the EL and the UVHD+ in stock so I have been thinking of stopping by one day and just compare 12X binos, again.

Just for the fun of it, my Meopta 12x50HD is going nowhere.

Leica RANT - feel free to skip this part:

There has always been that something with Ultravids that I have had a hard time to shake. My dream bino back in the days was always the 7x42 UV. I went for the Zeiss FL8x32 for many years with no complaints. That was life before glasses. Also I was not paying attention to AFOV very much as I was so used to looking through narrow viewfinders as a photographer (including Leica M cameras).

Today, the 7x42 UVHD+ does feel a bit dated in regards to AFOV (as does the 8x32 FL) and I was never impressed with the focuser on the samples I tried. I bought a new 7x42 UVHD+ and had it serviced by Leica with a sticky focuser and it was returned to me after six weeks with a service certificate and was just as bad as when it was sent in.

I did later on order from another dealer and had a week with the SFL 8x40 and the 7x42 UVHD and there was no justification in keeping the Leica since the SFL did, for the most part, outperform the UVHD. And the focuser was still not that great on that UVHD. That was when I "gave up" on the 7x42 UV. I liked both but owning TWO expensive 7/8X binoculars when I actually use my Meopta 12x50 most seemed like a bad idea.

The view however, was always to my liking. Even if the SFL 8x40 would feel so much more immersive there is something the Ultravid view gave me during my two trials (different copies) with the 7x42 that I could not shake.
It all boiled down to me not accepting the price of the UVHD for the sum of all parts, ergonomics, focuser, close focus and AFOV given the price. Over time I would sometimes still pine for that UVHD look - which I honestly found a bit strange. I have for the most part been a more "clinical, sterile and sharp contrasty look" kind of guy when it comes to binos.

Some postings by members here kept resonating with me, sane people like Dries, Tenex and Conndomat have all had very good pragmatic and down to earth outlook on optics and I really respect that.
EDIT: that is not to say the rest of you are insane. I can't remember all the good advice and helpful insight and input from everyone.

Having two similar - yet different - binos usually makes ME indecisive, often thinking none of them are "right" for me, but together they do the job. The flaw with that way of thinking is that I personally often would miss the traits of the "other bino" when I am out with the stable mate. One of the problems is I actually like comparing.

I find that if I stick with one bino and_ just use it and don't compare it to other binos_ I usually only need a week or two to figure out if it is a keeper or not. Basically that is what happened when I boiled down my 7/8X range to "just" the SFL 8x40. It is arguably the "best" of all the 8x binos I have had and tried. It really is. Ergonomics are superb too, focuser is fast and precise.

BUT, my muscle memory is engrained with using x32 binos my whole life so it felt weirdly "bulky" despite being lighter and actually almost disappearing in use.

I figured I can't go through the whole 7x42 UV experience again but another binocular I particularly like is the Meopta 8x32 Meostar. I sold mine to a forum member over here in Sweden - with some regrets - but trying hard to not end up a bino hoarder.

So when I felt I missed that little side kick I was very excited to find new old stock of the B1.1 on sale.

Or so I thought. It turned out to be the older B1. With the previous diopter knob. Well, I can always send it back I thought but immediately when I picked it up I felt right at home. The binocular disappeared in hand and the view is immersive. Optically it is a little behind the best and outgunned by the SFL but man, does it feel great to use!

I decided to just use the Meostar for a few days, and not compare. I was so at home with it that I felt (again) that this is a keeper. Optics are great, perhaps not best in class - but the optics/handling is so comfortable. Also, with the uncertainty of the Meopta brand I see the purchase as an investment in binocular history.

Whatever happens to Meopta I am now the proud owner of two great binos from them, the 12x50, still my most used bino, and the 8x32 which I think is both cool, beautifully made and is a very well rounded performer. It has a rather slow focuser, but I have gotten used to it and the rest it does it does so well.

- Hey Man, what happened to the Leica rant?

Oh, yes, in the tail end of my mid life crisis with various binoculars I was so happy being reunited with the Meopta 8x32 that I started looking at trying out a used 7x42 UVHD, as I was still having memories of the great viewing experience. Totally ignoring my past evaluation from a year ago.

Also I thought that perhaps I could find a decent focuser on one unit some day. I had, after all, tried the 8x32 UVHD+ which had a very good focuser - but not the view I was after, with glasses.

Much to my surprise there was a 20% SALE on the 7x42 UVHD+ at a reputable online retailer (with a physical store).
I could not resist. If nothing else, I needed to bury the idea or make sure my missing the 7x42 was just wishful thinking. I felt bad ordering it since I had returned the previous Leica from the very same place and I was thinking it might very well be the same unit I will be getting again and if so, the focuser was very grainy.

But, to this day, about a month or so ago (whos counting days anyway) it arrived and proved to be the very first Leica 7x42 UVHD+ I have ever held that has GREAT focuser. Not perfect, but actually very, very good! Granted I have "only" tried four other 7x42 UVHD in hand but all the rest had pretty lousy focusers. I do get it now, that Ultravids can have very good focusers... ...I had just not had one for myself.

Well, what about the rest? I decided to just use the Leica for a week, and nothing else. It has not all been smooth sailing as I had some kidney beaning at first and adjusting the eye cups I felt the view was a bit narrow and adjusting back and forth I had trouble finding the sweet spot for me. Which has been true for most of the UV range for me anyway.

But, the 7x42 - even with all the slight inconveniences - has been so rewarding in use and after the first week and half I had worked out the ergonomics to my advantage - which was very difficult going back and forth from the SFL, since they are VERY different in that regard! The view really resonates with me and feels very calm and I do prefer the panning of the 7x42 over the SFL 8x40. For birds in flight the 7x42 is not the best for me, but for general use both the Meopta 8x32 and the 7x42 UVHD gives me some satisfaction in use - other than optical properties - that the SFL does not quite do as well for me.

I did let it sink in for a few weeks and continued to cycle the bins on a three to four day basis, use them every day and I ended up selling both my Zeiss binos the last couple of weeks.

The VP8x25 was my bird feeder bino, the Meopta does that just as well (though the Zeiss optics are a little crisper) and I like the Meopta view better, it is simply more than good enough. I feel I can use the Meopta for just about anything and I am not as concerned with having the ultimate sharpest bino. I was, but handling won me over in the end. As for the SFL I was a little on the fence. I still think it is just about the best bang for the buck solid performer at or around the Alpha range and for a majority of people (me included) as good a bino as you would ever need. Period.

The birder who bought it from me was very excited and is looking forward to this years outings - and rightly so!

But every time I cycled back to the Leica I cared less and less about the shortcomings and simply enjoyed using it. I don't even think it is awkward in hand as I did before. And those times I was thinking " I could probably have spotted that with the SFL" I could shrug it off, with "so what, I have the 12x50 Meopta for the long range".

I don't know if it is perseverance, plain stupidity or passion. I love optics.
Just can't stand owning too much premium glass that seldom get used. I probably could If I had as much time out birding/ in nature as some of you do. If I still travelled as much as I used to do I would probably have kept the SFL 8x40 as it is a great performer under all conditions. Arguably more versatile as well.

But, I haven't been as happy as I have been with the Leica 7x42 UVHD+ since back in the days when I had the Zeiss 8x32 FL, and not wearing glasses, and not comparing tints.

This is not even a love letter to Leica, if the focuser had been as mediocre as the other 7x42 UVHD I had tried, I would probably have buried my quest for good, none of the other current Leica offerings appeal to me.
It actually took removing that single drawback out of "all the drawbacks" to keep the 7x42 growing on me.

I have nursed a persistent cold since Tuesday and inbetween the bouts of mild fever I have been cycling the Meopta and the Leica. Won't make the mistake of letting the Meopta go again, it will serve nicely as a traveling bin as well.

When the fog lifts I will head up the mountain knoll (sounds more impressive than "hill" which is more true to the matter) and air the Swarovski BTX. It has not been out for a month and a half and I always look forward to using it. Leica will be side kick in the new holster/sling bag I got for it.

 

[tenex]

The VP8x25 was my bird feeder bino, the Meopta does that just as well (though the Zeiss optics are a little crisper)

I briefly tried a B1+ 8x32 recently; my first impression was that it wasn't quite as sharp as my others. Then I started fiddling more with the diopter, which I realized I found difficult to get right for some reason, and it improved. I wonder whether this might work for you.

The 10x50, for me (in conjunction with my glasses), did not have sufficient eye relief for me to use them comfortably, and (along with the 8x30 CL Companion) generated the most extraordinary levels of CA I have ever seen in an 'alpha' binocular.

Can anyone confirm how much CA the 12x50 has? There just aren't many user reports. As to handling, generally I've been more attracted to 56s than 50s which seem to have most of the bulk without all the advantages, but 12x seems to come in 50mm.

the [UV] focus movement feels from a different age

There have been complaints (not always resolvable by service!) but every UV I've handled myself over the years has had a lovely smooth focuser.

I like conventional optical designs, so I should like UVs. But the 32 didn't strike me as enough of an improvement on my BN, the 42s have underwhelmed me somehow (and had eyecup depth issues), so that leaves a 50 to be curious about. Which reminds me that UVs seem to be the very last full range of alpha bins, Swaro and Zeiss having gone to an assortment of different models instead.

 

[lisamerlot]

What do you think of Nikon UV binoculars? Are they any good? I keep getting recommendations to get Nikon but after joining this forum there seems to be so many more options available.

 

[HenRun]

tenex, you are right.
On the Meopta 8x32 I did have to pay extra attention to the Diopter setting which made a difference. It lacks a little bit of contrast compared to the UVHD+. That probably makes for the perceived (not necessarily true) difference in apparent sharpness at far.

That aside, the difference in magnification from 7x to 8x still gives me more ”pull” at distance for smaller objects.

As for the 12x50 UV my memory has that CA was troublesome. I hesitated to write that since it was a while back. That is also why I want to revisit the bino at some point and see if I still think the same. I am not as stringent on CA as I was just a few years back but I still don’t like it.

 

[HenRun]

Compared to the SFL 8x40 the Meopta is a little less of everything. After some use I don’t think of it much unless I would compare them, I think adequate is a poor choice of words, the Meopta is great.

It is one of those perfect size bins for my hands and that is worth plenty for a bino, even if it isn’t the only one I have.

With the VP8x25 it was the other way around, optics are great and performance is great but the handling was compromised. The Meostar is so much nicer in use, but I would not have turned down the glass of the VP in the Meostar.

In this case handling trumps optics in the sum of all parts.

With the Leica 7x42 the optics are right up my alley, but I do expect occasional glare at times and will cope with that.

Since I find 8x and 7x equally easy to handhold I probably lose out some small detail extraction but I think it is worth it for the fine view. Looking at some deer through semi thick mist I lacked nothing in ”clarity” of details with the Leica. The Meostar is a little warmer to the image which I appreciate since most of the area I scan from/at home is shaded for long parts of the day. On drab grey days it is a subtle contrast boost to my eyes.

 

[HenRun]

Oh, it seems we have similar eye cup issues. I am not sure you would like the 12x50 then.

If you are saying the older Trinovids are better it makes me curious to try one out some day.

I am not entirely happy with the 7x42 uvhd eye cups. But, since I now have a smooth focuser I am coping with it, even if it means sometimes floating the bino in front of my glasses. Good posture helps in my case. 🤓

 

[mwhogue]

What do you think of Nikon UV binoculars? Are they any good? I keep getting recommendations to get Nikon but after joining this forum there seems to be so many more options available.

Sorry, do you mean Leica UV versus Nikon binoculars? If so, the Nikon EDG models are comparable to Leica UV's and both are excellent in my experience. Generally Nikon binoculars offer a lot of value at the price. I recently compared my SW FP 10x32 with a friend's Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 on the Pacific Northwest coast and was very impressed with the Monarch.

Yes, the overwhelming number of contenders available can result in paralysis by analysis. When it comes to deciding which binocular, as in boxing, it is best to let your hands go sooner rather than later. Buy one and use it. That's the only way you will know.

Lastly, IMO it's best to spend as much as you can reasonably afford. I have bins dating back to 1955 which still work perfectly well, so a good one can last a lifetime.

Good luck with the Quest.

Mike

 

[lisamerlot]

Sorry, do you mean Leica UV versus Nikon binoculars? If so, the Nikon EDG models are comparable to Leica UV's and both are excellent in my experience. Generally Nikon binoculars offer a lot of value at the price. I recently compared my SW FP 10x32 with a friend's Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 on the Pacific Northwest coast and was very impressed with the Monarch.

Yes, the overwhelming number of contenders available can result in paralysis by analysis. When it comes to deciding which binocular, as in boxing, it is best to let your hands go sooner rather than later. Buy one and use it. That's the only way you will know.

Lastly, IMO it's best to spend as much as you can reasonably afford. I have bins dating back to 1955 which still work perfectly well, so a good one can last a lifetime.

Good luck with the Quest.

Mike

Thank you Mike. I can borrow my neighbours when I need to but would like to own my own good pair one day when I can afford to. He has Nikon Monarch I think that cost him about £1000. I am more inclined to buy second hand Nikon prostaff as my first pair as it won't break the bank. I'm not going to rush into it. I'm learning a lot by getting lots of advice from the forum. Thank you everyone for welcoming me and helping me so far.

I'm on Teleguard to if anyone else here is, feel free to add me, My ID is 3KH4SZHZW. There doesn't appear to be any bird groups on there only photography groups. I might start a new group.

Lisa

 

[tenex]

I keep getting recommendations to get Nikon but after joining this forum there seems to be so many more options available.

We're discussing expensive ("alpha") bins here, where members tend to think of buying a great bin for life and obsess over the investment, but that's not you yet. Your posts elsewhere indicate a tight student budget, so don't fret too much, you'll find something that will work well for now. As someone already recommended, visit a good shop like LCE and try whatever you can afford, including pre-owned as you may get a nicer model for similar money. Good luck, and continue to enjoy birding!

If you are saying the older Trinovids are better it makes me curious to try one out some day.

I've used BN 32 for 20+ years and found the (single-position!) eyecups perfectly adequate, as I did the UV versions. It's the 42s that are problematic, even the 2011-15 Trinovid (same body as UV) which barely worked with the eyecups in the position meant for removing them. (Caution: this may have been true of BN 42s too, which I never tried.)

 

[Thotmosis]

I have nursed a persistent cold since Tuesday and inbetween the bouts of mild fever I have been cycling the Meopta and the Leica.

That was an interesting long read. Welcome back to Leica and i wish you a speedy recovery from your cold.

Owning both Trinovid BN’s (10x32, 7x42 and 8x42) and UVHD (10x25, 8x32, 7x42) and UVHD+ (12x50) i find the Trinovid BN handling the best for my facial structure.

I was looking for a 12x50 BN but then this used/mint UVHD+ came across my path for an offer I couldn’t refuse and the ergonomics works for me. They feel light in the hands and offer a good balance to me, the view is really outstanding. I don’t wear glasses and im not sensitive to CA though. It was not love at first sight: but after i put the longer eyecups from my 7x42 on the 12x50 we get along just fine.

I was also in the market for a Swarovski 12x50 (tried them once and i was really impressed, from memory i think they had a better handling then my Leica’s even), NL Pure 12x42 (I didn’t try them even as i heard that you have to pay extra for the headrest) and the Meopta had unfortunately too wide minimum IPD so i was on the look out for a (preferable used) Leica.

I also have a Duovid 8-12 x 42 and i thought about trading it in for 10 or 15x56 after obtaining the 12x50 but i found out that because of the compactness of it compared to the UVHD 12x50 i can not let it go. The shorter barrels come in handy when using it case of strong winds and of course the dual magnification is nice when you are tired after longer period of observing or when you are in the woods.

 

[Binastro]

I just tried the as new 2007 Ultravid, not a modern version.

I don't use it often.

On axis there is no CA that I can see.

However, by 50% to the edge there is CA, which is more obvious near the edge.

I like the pincushion distortion, I hate distortionless eyepieces, they make me seasick as in the Soviet 10x42/7x30?

The edge of the Ultravid is poor for me as I have little accommodation.

The field I previously measured at 5.75 degrees.

I do use it at night sometimes as it shows many more stars than say the 8x32 BA.

However, if I want resolution day or night, I go straight to the Canon 18x50 IS, which resolves at least twice as well handheld compared to the 12x50 Ultravid.

The Zeiss 20x60S has three times better resolution.

If I want a 12x50, I am just as happy using the Minolta Activa, Japanese Ultraview or Nikon Action VII cheapy.
Even the 12x50 Yukon Futurus has a field around 5.7 degrees, but as with all Yukons the coatings are poor. It is surprisingly good for the price, at least my sample.

The Komz 12x45 is much easier as it is lighter and very well balanced, but doesn't show as faint stars as the 12x50 Ultravid.

I am also just as happy using a 12x56 Nikon, 12x56 Savannah ED or 13x56 Minox.

But birdwatchers would prefer the higher quality Ultravid.

I find the 12x50 Ultravid a bit bulky for long time use.

It is a high quality binocular.

Regards,
B.

 

[ReinierB]

And yet UV 12x50 is one of only two high-end models left, Zeiss having not made one since the pre-FL Victory. ER is marginal for eyeglass wearers, but FOV is good, and it's a more affordable alternative to EL, especially for those who don't care about flat field or open bridge design.

Have you ever tried the EL 12x50? I prefered the ergonomics of the SLC 42 over the EL 42 partly because it doesn't have an open bridge. However, the thicker barrels of an EL 50 are very nice for a grippy hold and because of that there is enough space between the barrels for my hands.
The eye relief and the length of the eyecups fit my eyes perfectly. With the EL 10x42 and 10x50 the perfect eye cups position was between two positions. Always a bit annoying.
I haven't tried an UHVD 50 yet, but I really like my EL 12x50. Secondhand, but still in mint condition.

 

[chill6x6]

In some idle browsing yesterday I was struck by how many shops, even Leica's own, have very few Ultravids in stock. Maybe just 8x32 or 7x42... and that's online, forget brick and mortar. (The local birding shop dropped Leica years ago.) Since I was curious about the 12x50, I noticed there are absolutely no YouTube videos about it, not even comparing to the Swaro, while the 10x50 and even MeoStar have a couple. Of course the whole UV line is just tweaking an optical design that was class-leading 35 years ago, and last tweaked a decade ago... but there isn't even anything from back then.

And yet UV 12x50 is one of only two high-end models left, Zeiss having not made one since the pre-FL Victory. ER is marginal for eyeglass wearers, but FOV is good, and it's a more affordable alternative to EL, especially for those who don't care about flat field or open bridge design. Is there some further pitfall, like a small sweet spot or terrible CA? The only way to even try one is to purchase, and not having a real need at all, that seems an abuse of the return privilege.

50mm Ultravid HD+... You are right that they are hard to find. When I bought my 8X50 it was the ONLY one in the USA and it came from Leica, NJ.

Several years ago when I crossed the 12X50 bridge of course I considered everything available and READ every word about 12X50s that was available. I've forgotten if you wear eyeglasses or not....BUT IF YOU DO....the SV 12X50 is probably the way to go and the direction I went. It is such an excellent binocular and I believe it IS the best 12X50 available ALTHOUGH.... If ER isn't an issue I honestly believe the UVHD+ and the Meostar would be excellent choices as well. I have a 7X50 Meostar and although it too is an older design it's quite a nice binocular. One thing about the Ultravids and Meostars....Both ARE older but proven designs and I bet either will be problem free and will last you forever.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I just tried the as new 2007 Ultravid, not a modern version.

I do use it at night sometimes as it shows many more stars than say the 8x32 BA.

However, if I want resolution day or night, I go straight to the Canon 18x50 IS, which resolves at least twice as well handheld compared to the 12x50 Ultravid.

The Zeiss 20x60S has three times better resolution.

Since I'm thinking of buying the Leica 12x50 HD+ I'm interested in the resolution. Of course, when handheld the stabilized binoculars win. But for long distance viewing my binos are on a tripod and then the real resolution is important. Is there still a difference in resolution when the binos are mounted on a tripod? The expensive Ultravid should be 'sharper' than the lower priced 12x binos.

Reviews are rare and it's hard to tell how much better the plus version is so I try to get all sorts of information about the old and new version.

 

[Binastro]

It depends what type of resolution.

Because the 12x50 Ultravid shows more stars, the brighter ones are bigger.
So separation of brighter stars may be less good in the Ultravid than say a cheaper 12x50 with smaller stars.

To separate Mizar at 14.4 arcsecond double star the best situation is light variable cloud too get an optimum brightness.
Or twilight.

I suppose the same could happen with a test chart or newspaper.

I would not worry about the resolution of the 12x50 Ultravid. It is a high quality binocular.
But resolution depends on brightness levels and a 12x doesn't get anywhere near the resolution limit for a 50mm aperture.

When birdwatchers talk of resolution, I wonder what they mean.

There is resolution of double stars of various brightness.
Equal or unequal double stars.
Resolution of black dots on a white background.
Resolution of white dots on a black background.
A grey background.
A coloured background.
Resolution of lines of varying length.
Resolution of double lines of varying length.
Resolution of multiple dots.
There really is no one standard.

And using a 1951 air force test chart doesn't tell the whole story.

But using a 12x50 Ultravid on a tripod I don't think you will be disappointed, although another 12x50 may perform differently considering the many different types of resolution.

Maybe a 3x booster would show some differences.
The two tubes are usually not identical.

I try 3 or 6 cheaper identical binoculars before I buy the best sample.

Regards,
B.