-
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.
Would it be crazy to get a pair of 7x35 Retrovids instead of 8x32 HD+ Uvids? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter b-lilja
- Start date
eitanaltman
Well-known member
LOL!!! Welcome to the internet
Not only do forums have different sections, you don't have to post each sentence in its own post and clutter up a thread with redundant irrelevancies.
How did you even end up on this thread?
Mac308
Well-known member
I'm a fan of 30/32/35 mm binocular objectives (I've never owned 40/42mm binoculars, though I have used many different ones). To the OP, I know you won't go wrong with the 7x42 Ultravid... it's a mind blowing binocular.
My first binocular was a 7x35 back in the early 1970's. Later in the 80's I moved to a Nikon 8x30. Since then I've had a Swarovski SLC's in both 7x30 and 8x30, a Zeiss 8x32 FL, and three Leica 8x32's, a BN, BR, and currently the HD.
Were I to buy a 42mm binocular, the Leica 7x42 would probably top the list, followed by the 8x42 Noctivid or perhaps Ultravid.
When Leica announced the 7x35 Trinovid (Retrovid) I was ecstatic. I've always thought the 7x35 size is the finest all-around compromise for size, weight, magnification, and exit pupil. When it didn't readily appear some years back after its initial announcement I was disappointed. When it was finally released this year without an armored version (and lacking waterproofing and objective covers) I was also disappointed. However, I've gotten past all that. I'll buy a pair this coming year, and will retrofit HD objective covers (or whatever) and the BN ocular rain guard to it. While I haven't actually looked through a pair, the quality of reviews found on this forum and elsewhere leaves me little doubt I'll love them.
Lastly (and aside) I often see forum members recommending the 8x32 Zeiss FL when the subject of 30-ish mm binoculars comes up. While there is much to like about them, in the sample of one I owned (and others I've subsequently tried) I found them optically inferior to a circa 2007 Leica 8x32 BR I had. Apart from general viewing, I also compared them on the USAF optics chart in a variety of lighting conditions over many days to the 8x32 BR I had at the time. The Leica had undisputedly better resolution no matter the lighting. I also preferred the Leica's warmer image. In the hands, the Zeiss build also felt and looked cheap compared to the Ultravid. The only thing about the Zeiss I preferred over the Leica was its eye-relief, but it wasn't significantly better enough to offset its other faults. I got rid of them.
My first binocular was a 7x35 back in the early 1970's. Later in the 80's I moved to a Nikon 8x30. Since then I've had a Swarovski SLC's in both 7x30 and 8x30, a Zeiss 8x32 FL, and three Leica 8x32's, a BN, BR, and currently the HD.
Were I to buy a 42mm binocular, the Leica 7x42 would probably top the list, followed by the 8x42 Noctivid or perhaps Ultravid.
When Leica announced the 7x35 Trinovid (Retrovid) I was ecstatic. I've always thought the 7x35 size is the finest all-around compromise for size, weight, magnification, and exit pupil. When it didn't readily appear some years back after its initial announcement I was disappointed. When it was finally released this year without an armored version (and lacking waterproofing and objective covers) I was also disappointed. However, I've gotten past all that. I'll buy a pair this coming year, and will retrofit HD objective covers (or whatever) and the BN ocular rain guard to it. While I haven't actually looked through a pair, the quality of reviews found on this forum and elsewhere leaves me little doubt I'll love them.
Lastly (and aside) I often see forum members recommending the 8x32 Zeiss FL when the subject of 30-ish mm binoculars comes up. While there is much to like about them, in the sample of one I owned (and others I've subsequently tried) I found them optically inferior to a circa 2007 Leica 8x32 BR I had. Apart from general viewing, I also compared them on the USAF optics chart in a variety of lighting conditions over many days to the 8x32 BR I had at the time. The Leica had undisputedly better resolution no matter the lighting. I also preferred the Leica's warmer image. In the hands, the Zeiss build also felt and looked cheap compared to the Ultravid. The only thing about the Zeiss I preferred over the Leica was its eye-relief, but it wasn't significantly better enough to offset its other faults. I got rid of them.
