Zeiss 10x42 SF -or- Leica Ultravid HD+ 10x42... that is the question! (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

Paul... did you have a try at wiping off the powdery substance?

As for difference in sharpness and clarity between SF and UVHD+, to my eyes it is a very minor difference, probably not noticeable without giving some close comparison to notice. The difference in color quality, the "view" as it might be called, is more readily apparent.

Hi ZD,

I didn’t try to use any product to wipe it down, just used my fingers to rub the powder. It did kind of wipe off, but I didn’t like it for over $2000. I’ve handled one of these at a local Bay Area where a birder had one and it had no clue of that. And the rubber was black, mine was kind of grayish. Maybe you could take a few photos of yours and post. Thank you..

To further the UVHD and SF conversation I’ll do more evaluations when I get the replacement. From my initial impressions and only from that first hour I’ll say this, if I was only allowed to choose one of them , I’d choose the Leica, not necessarily for the optics but because of how small, beautiful, compact and these binoculars have a punch in the view.

On the other hand because I’ll likely keep both (I fell in love with both optics) I would choose to use the SF for all day outings, more serious birding as the FOV is better, the focuser is a dream and the faster getting your eyes on board with the immersive feel. There’s not much optically that separates these two other than the form factor. One is real cool, the other is more of a tool.
paul.

 

[ZDHart]

Hi ZD,

I didn’t try to use any product to wipe it down, just used my fingers to rub the powder. It did kind of wipe off, but I didn’t like it for over $2000. I’ve handled one of these at a local Bay Area where a birder had one and it had no clue of that. And the rubber was black, mine was kind of grayish. Maybe you could take a few photos of yours and post. Thank you..

To further the UVHD and SF conversation I’ll do more evaluations when I get the replacement. From my initial impressions and only from that first hour I’ll say this, if I was only allowed to choose one of them , I’d choose the Leica, not necessarily for the optics but because of how small, beautiful, compact and these binoculars have a punch in the view.

On the other hand because I’ll likely keep both (I fell in love with both optics) I would choose to use the SF for all day outings, more serious birding as the FOV is better, the focuser is a dream and the faster getting your eyes on board with the immersive feel. There’s not much optically that separates these two other than the form factor. One is real cool, the other is more of a tool.
paul.

Paul... all three of my SFs are black and without the dusty look. My Conquest HD armor is black, but not quite as deeply so - they are a little softer (muted?) in color intensity. There is slightly more purchase to the SF armor feel, whereas the Conquest HD armor is quite smooth.

Like you, I love both the SFs and the UVHD+, especially in x32 size. I had initially thought I would compare the two and go with whichever I liked better. As it turned out, I liked both so much that I just decided to have both, because even though they're duplicative in magnification and objective sizes (8x32 to 8x32 and 10x32 to 10x32) they're dramatically different in "character" (perhaps, "personality," if you can apply that term to binoculars) and in form factor. I also view them quite as you do - SFs kind of as an excellent tool and UVHD+ as incredibly cool in character and enchanting to have and use. Certainly, either one gets the job done quite well.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul... all three of my SFs are black and without the dusty look. My Conquest HD armor is black, but not quite as deeply so - they are a little softer (muted?) in color intensity. There is slightly more purchase to the SF armor feel, whereas the Conquest HD armor is quite smooth.

Like you, I love both the SFs and the UVHD+, especially in x32 size. I had initially thought I would compare the two and go with whichever I liked better. As it turned out, I liked both so much that I just decided to have both, because even though they're duplicative in magnification and objective sizes (8x32 to 8x32 and 10x32 to 10x32) they're dramatically different in "character" (perhaps, "personality," if you can apply that term to binoculars) and in form factor. I also view them quite as you do - SFs kind of as an excellent tool and UVHD+ as incredibly cool in character and enchanting to have and use. Certainly, either one gets the job done quite well.

I must be the lucky one. A Meopta with a bubble in the ocular , a Nikon HG with a lose metal partials on a lens cell, a Nikon M7 with differences in coatings on the objectives, a Zeiss 10x42 with a bad focuser, a trinovid with terrible CA and now the SF.

I was tempted to exchange the SF 32 for a 8x42 because I have so many good 8x30/32’s. But for me 80%+ of my observing is done in good daytime lighting. I don’t see any improvement or optical benefit with a 42 over 32 in those conditions when all things are equal (comparing same quality binos). To me I don’t see the point to carry around binoculars that weigh 25-30% more and are larger just for those 15-20% of times I use binos in low light. For those I have the 7x42 Habicht’s.

ps, I did the exact same thing. Try them both out and keep the better one. Only problem was they were both the better one, just in different ways but equally desirable.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul... did you have a try at wiping off the powdery substance?

As for difference in sharpness and clarity between SF and UVHD+, to my eyes it is a very minor difference, probably not noticeable without giving some close comparison to notice. The difference in color quality, the "view" as it might be called, is more readily apparent.

Hi ZD,

Do you know when Leica switched where the Ultravids were made? I was told their entry level Trinovids were made in Portugal but all their upper highend binos were made in Germany.


I had originally bought a Leica TrinovId and was told at the time that the entry-level binos were all made in Portugal. And that the upper level Alphas were made in Germany. My new ultravid’s are made in Portugal. Does anybody know when this change was made or was the information I was given wrong? I appreciate any input. Thank you.

Paul

 

[ZDHart]

Hi ZD,

Do you know when Leica switched where the Ultravids were made? I was told their entry level Trinovids were made in Portugal but all their upper highend binos were made in Germany.


I had originally bought a Leica TrinovId and was told at the time that the entry-level binos were all made in Portugal. And that the upper level Alphas were made in Germany. My new ultravid’s are made in Portugal. Does anybody know when this change was made or was the information I was given wrong? I appreciate any input. Thank you.

Paul

My UVHD+ 10x32s and UVHD+ 7x42s, purchased over the summer of this year, are marked Made in Germany. My UVHD+ 8x32s, which were purchased early fall of this year, are marked Made in Portugal.

I'm not sure when Leica began UVHD+ production in their Portugal facility, but if I had to guesstimate, I would say probably early to mid 2021.

From what I can observe, all indications are that the made in Portugal UVHD+ models are every bit as finely made and every bit as crispy sharp and colorful as those made in Germany. I cannot tell them apart in any way.

Leica has been producing fine quality products in their Portugal facility for a great many years; it is quite well established. I have every confidence that their Portugal production equals the quality of their Germany production.