-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Wondering about Ultravids, esp. 12x50... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tenex
- Start date
norway
🔻FP🔻
It's not all nostalgia. I still have yet to handle anything that rivals the quality of the build and materials that makes the tactile experience of the Ultravid series unique; the Noctivid is the closest thing, but it's not quite at the same level. Swaro and Zeiss's best don't feel as nice as either of them.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
No politics here please, this is Birdforum!
This morning at 8 a.m. I looked at a crow sitting on a chimney pot at 120m.
Using a 2007 original model 12x50 Ultravid I did notice some CA, possibly purple on one straight side of the crow against a clear blue sky in bright conditions, handheld.
The other side I didn't notice it, maybe more curves on the crow.
This was on axis with the crow as centred as possible.
The crow was very black against the blue sky.
On a tripod this slight CA would probably be more noticed.
I suppose a 12x50 HD or HD plus would do better.
I think that had the crow been flying I would not notice any CA with the crow centred.
The resolution on the chimney pot with the 12x50 Ultravid was about half that of the Canon 18x50 with IS on both hand held.
But the Canon has colour problems of its own depending on the vari angle prisms position in particular.
Regards,
B.
Using a 2007 original model 12x50 Ultravid I did notice some CA, possibly purple on one straight side of the crow against a clear blue sky in bright conditions, handheld.
The other side I didn't notice it, maybe more curves on the crow.
This was on axis with the crow as centred as possible.
The crow was very black against the blue sky.
On a tripod this slight CA would probably be more noticed.
I suppose a 12x50 HD or HD plus would do better.
I think that had the crow been flying I would not notice any CA with the crow centred.
The resolution on the chimney pot with the 12x50 Ultravid was about half that of the Canon 18x50 with IS on both hand held.
But the Canon has colour problems of its own depending on the vari angle prisms position in particular.
Regards,
B.
I take back this statement from a previous post I made on this thread. I've spent a lot of time using my 8x50's over the past few days and have found them to be comfortable and rock steady for long periods. It just needed a small adjustment to how I was holding them.
They are a supremely easy and relaxed binocular to use.
I think the Ultravid series (for me, that is) has the least wiggle room between great and mediocre viewing experience.
With glasses (which I use all the time) I struggle at times with the 7x42 UVHD+. I am between stops on the eye pieces which in itself is not a problem but I find that the out of all my binoculars the Ultravid is the most finicky in use in terms of eye relief.
I have looked through four models of Ultravids and they are all a bit compromised in viewing comfort for me, which is a shame (or just to bad for ME) as the imaging as such is very much to my liking.
I would love to look through an 8x50 some time. That class of binocular (8x50/56) is unchartered territory for me.
With glasses (which I use all the time) I struggle at times with the 7x42 UVHD+. I am between stops on the eye pieces which in itself is not a problem but I find that the out of all my binoculars the Ultravid is the most finicky in use in terms of eye relief.
I have looked through four models of Ultravids and they are all a bit compromised in viewing comfort for me, which is a shame (or just to bad for ME) as the imaging as such is very much to my liking.
I would love to look through an 8x50 some time. That class of binocular (8x50/56) is unchartered territory for me.
Yes, Ultravids are all about the eye relief for glasses wearers.
The 10x32's, 10x50's and 12x50's I can't enjoy, eye relief is simply too tight for them to be an ownership proposition.
My 8x32's and 10x42's are tight for eye relief (the 8x32's in particular), both need eyecups fully down, but my 7x42's are super comfortable at first click stop and 8x50's have even more flexibility, they're extremely comfortable with the eyecups fully retracted, or at either the first or second click stop (with the alternative 5 click stop eyecups fitted).
This may not be a particularly 'fashionable' opinion, but the view through my 8x50 Ultravid is probably my favourite amongst all the binoculars I have ever tried or owned, closely followed by the view through my 10x42 Ultravid (both HD+ specification). The 8x32's are not so enjoyable, due to the very tight eye relief, and the 7x42's, whilst enjoyable, feel like they lack a little field of view (which may sound strange when I have such enthusiasm for the 8x50's which have an even narrower field of view).
To quote @Canip, there's something about the 8x50 Ultravid which feels "just right". I really can't think of a better way of describing this binocular.
Edit: Interestingly, to me, I appear to have a 'second tier' alpha preference, it seems. I prefer the Ultravid to the Noctivid, the SFL to the SF and the EL to the NL PURE (although the EL vs NL situation may reverse, once I've spent more time using NL's).
Last edited:
I just got some Leica UV HD+ 10x42, taking advantage of a temporary reduction in price. I could not be happier! They are fantastically sharp, relatively small compared to other x42, with great ergonomics (I love their traditional objective covers, very practical).
I see them fairly often in the hands of experienced birders.
I see them fairly often in the hands of experienced birders.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
Same here with my 12x50, balance is good and after i put the eyecups from my 7x42 the eye placement is ok. I don’t wear glasses. From memory though i think the Swarovski 12x50 is a tad more comfortable but then you don’t get this beautiful Leica colors and maybe some unwanted reflections. Best is to have both. I’m awaiting the NL Pure 12x52 now to see if it will be a good addition to my collection.
The 12x50 EL, for it's size, is extremely comfortable, and the view, whilst lacking those Leica colours, stupendous. I get a little shiver of excitement every time I use mine.
Yes, I have them too and really like them! I have never tried the UHVD 12x50 or NL 12x42 though. They are a good fit for my hands and my eye sockets.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
I think i understand what you describe, i have the same -almost spiritual experience- when i look through my Ultravid 12x50+ the view is so extraordinary as to suggest there are devine powers at work which violate the laws of nature. But even then this transcendent view turns to chickenfeed when i pull out my old Zeiss 15x60 BGAT, only than im one with The Universe.
I've only tried Ultravids at the various Bird Fairs, so have limited field experience with them (although, FWIW, I thought the EL series, especially the 10x50, were distinctly superior - the Noctivid being the only Leica that were on a comparable level optically).
I do use the 12x50 format quite a bit, much more than I thought I would. My 12x50 is an old Nobilem that is large and awkward, the huge prisms making for a long stretch to get your finger to the focus wheel, which has the additional annoyance of being too fast and light. It's shaky when held offhand (as the shooters say) and really needs to be steadied, with elbows braced on knees etc for any observation longer than a minute or two, in order to utilize its (considerable) optical qualities. For those reasons it's probably the binocular I take along most unwillingly; I wish there was no need for me to use it. But for finding and following targets at long distances (some of the buildings that the birds I watch come up around are over 2.5km away) I find it very useful indeed.
I've tried the Swaro NL 12x42 and think it's a bit of a different concept - I think intended to be used over more typical birding distances to give viewers a better look at birds (with the large FOV helping to acquire targets quickly). I agree the view of a bird through 12x at those relatively short distances can be very satisfying, but don't feel there is much of an advantage in terms of making an ID in most of those situations. I could see the 12x42 being useful for small birds high up in tall trees though.
I do use the 12x50 format quite a bit, much more than I thought I would. My 12x50 is an old Nobilem that is large and awkward, the huge prisms making for a long stretch to get your finger to the focus wheel, which has the additional annoyance of being too fast and light. It's shaky when held offhand (as the shooters say) and really needs to be steadied, with elbows braced on knees etc for any observation longer than a minute or two, in order to utilize its (considerable) optical qualities. For those reasons it's probably the binocular I take along most unwillingly; I wish there was no need for me to use it. But for finding and following targets at long distances (some of the buildings that the birds I watch come up around are over 2.5km away) I find it very useful indeed.
I've tried the Swaro NL 12x42 and think it's a bit of a different concept - I think intended to be used over more typical birding distances to give viewers a better look at birds (with the large FOV helping to acquire targets quickly). I agree the view of a bird through 12x at those relatively short distances can be very satisfying, but don't feel there is much of an advantage in terms of making an ID in most of those situations. I could see the 12x42 being useful for small birds high up in tall trees though.
Similar threads
