8x32 Ultravid advice? (1 Viewer)

[mikefitz6]

A local shop has the non HD 8x32 Leicas on sale for $1156. I am tempted to grab them. I have the Swarovski CL's that I will compare them to the Leicas tonight. If the difference is obvious enough I will sell the CL's to fund the Leicas.

I have looked at 8x42 HD and non HD and could see a difference in favor of the HD's. Is the difference noticable in the 8x32's? I am not sure if the performance difference would be worth the extra $750 dollars for me, but I am interested in others opinions.

I am curious about others who may have compared the Swaro CL's and the Ultravids.

I know the bottom line is what looks best to me. I tried some Zeiss 8x32 FL's and the diopter adjustment would not hold so they went back. It was still good to try them because I verified what I have suspected for several years, Leica glass is more pleasing and natural to my eyes more than Swarovski or Zeiss.
(don't miss the "to my eyes" part!)

Thanks

Mike

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Mike,
If you have the opportunity to compare the CL Companion and the Leica Ultravid side by side, I can advise you to put them on top of each other and quickly look at the same object one after the other. That way your "image memory" is optimally served and comparison is quite well possible.
The Ultravid has a slighter larger FOV and it also very compact, but I think that the image quality may be a little less bright then the image quality of the CL Companion, because of the difference in light transmission and the difference in color reproduction. The 2 mm more objective diameter of the Ultravid will probably not compensate for the transmission differences between both instruments. I like the handling omfort of both, but you better find out for yourself. One thing I find not pleasant at all from the Ultravids is the way the eyecups are inserted in the binocular. Not a screw mount, like the CL but a sort of bayonet, which is very hard to handle. A person who is not strong in his/her hands can not remove th eye cups of the Ultravids.
I wish you a lot of success with your choice,
Gijs

 

[PennineBirder]

Mike
I have a pair of the original (non HD) Ultravid 8 x32 and I am very happy with them. Optically it is hard to see a difference between this version and the current (HD) version. The main difference between the two versions is the focus wheel.
The original ones (mine included) had a notchy focus with some play in it. The HD version overcame this defect by using a modified focus assembly as I understand.
I sent mine back to Leica eventually as the play in the focus was driving me mad (it should not have been there on a high end instrument like this) and they replaced the focus mechanism (under warranty) with the HD version (I think). It is now smooth as silk.
Check the focusser before you buy otherwise I'm sure you'll be delighted with your new bins.

Peter.

 

[Perry Grin]

Having tried a number of 8x32's including the zeiss, I finally picked up some 8x32 (non-HD) ultras. I have not compared them to the CL's so can't comment there but I am very happy with them. So much better than the Zeiss which I felt were flat and lacked depth of colour IMHO (though brighter with a much better focus mechanism). I have a similar problem with the focus as the previous poster - sightly notchy with a little play but I'm not letting it bother me. They compare very well to my 10x42 SLC (non-HD) giving a very similar image though not as bright but in a much smaller, lighter package.

 

[St. Elmo]

I agree... check the focus wheel for any free play.... it's a flaw in the non-HD Ultravids. Otherwise, be aware of the difference the color balance. The Ultravid view will probably look warmer than the Swaro... so much so that it might even make the Swaro view look uncomfortably cool.

 

[ronh]

The quality of the CL is good, but the field of view is so narrow that its view isn't much fun. The eyepieces help keep it small I guess, but hold its performance back. Your eyes are your own but if only the Leica's focuser works okay (always a bit of a crap shoot), for me it would be the easy choice. Let us know what you decide.
Ron

 

[jan van daalen]

IMHO it's not fair to compare the CL with the UV.
The CL is a totally lower class bin, compared to the leica standard.
The CL belongs in the class of the Meopta Meostar, but I doubt it would even beat that one.
Only, is the difference 750,00 dollar worth? That's up to you. I would buy the Leica for sure. But then again, this Leica belongs in the FL/EL range.
Jan

 

[Kevin Conville]

I wouldn't get too excited about any differences between the std. and HD versions, especially in the 32mm bins. $1150 sounds pretty good to me.

Check the focus though.

Both of my Uvids had perfect focusing, no play, no notchiness, and smooth. In fact the only Leicas (out of 6) that I've had that had any issue with focus were 10x42 Trinovid BAs circa 1990, and it was very minor.

 

[Mac308]

A local shop has the non HD 8x32 Leicas on sale for $1156. I am tempted to grab them. I have the Swarovski CL's that I will compare them to the Leicas tonight. If the difference is obvious enough I will sell the CL's to fund the Leicas.

I have looked at 8x42 HD and non HD and could see a difference in favor of the HD's. Is the difference noticable in the 8x32's? I am not sure if the performance difference would be worth the extra $750 dollars for me, but I am interested in others opinions.

I am curious about others who may have compared the Swaro CL's and the Ultravids.

I know the bottom line is what looks best to me. I tried some Zeiss 8x32 FL's and the diopter adjustment would not hold so they went back. It was still good to try them because I verified what I have suspected for several years, Leica glass is more pleasing and natural to my eyes more than Swarovski or Zeiss.
(don't miss the "to my eyes" part!)

Thanks

Mike

Hi Mike, 7x32/8x32 are all I've used for 25 years. My favorite sized bin and I've owned most of them.

I currently use the same 8x32 BR that you're interested in. Have had them since 2007. I honestly can see little difference between it and the HD version. I like the hydrophobic coating on the new HD, but not enough to sell mine and choke up the additional $. The coating is the only reason I'd consider a change, and for most people it's not that important. My focus is only slightly "rachety", but no different than the previous 8x32 BN's I had.

Like you, I' find the Leica view beautiful and warm, unlike the Zeiss. The Swaro is not as bad, but the Leica is a superior bin to the CL by quite a bit IMO, and the "rolling ball" of the new Swarovision bothers me, not to mention I'm convinced the Leica's are far more robust.

I've owned the 8x32 Zeiss FL... bought it thinking it might replace the Leica 8x32 BR. Wrong! Really disliked the fast focus, and spending a week comparing the two side by side, including on optical charts in a variety of lighting conditions, the Leica had slightly finer resolution.

At the end of the day, the Leica has the most robust build, warm view, small size, and optics equal to or better than the top tier 8x32's.

For that price I'd grab them and not worry about anything else.

A binoculars worth is not just its image, and the build quality of the Leica is on par with a Teutonic Tank...

 

[mikefitz6]

Lots of good opinions. Thanks!

I did take the CL's in to compare them last night. I did not look at specs prior until today because I wanted my unbiased opinion of the comparison.

For what it is worth, here is what I found.

Handling - Leica
Both are easy to handle, but the Leica seemed to be just a bit heavier and that made it seem a little steadier in my hands. The Leica seemed to be a more robust, but I could not tell you why it felt that way. (My first thought when I handled them was that the Leica was a chunkey little devil, but I thought 'robust' sounded more highfalutin).

Brightness - Swaros
This was a surprise. 30 vs 32 objective. I did not have a chance to look under real dark conditions, but the CL's seemed to pull a little more out of the shadows. Gijs mentioned that. It may have been the blue color cast that the CL's seemed to have vs the warmer tones of the Leicas.

Contrast - Leicas
Despite the fact the CL's seemed brighter, I could see detail better with the Leicas with certain colors or patterns. White lettering on a yellow sign was much easier with the Leicas. The pattern on a porcelain bird showed more detail with the Leicas and the CL's seemed more washed out with the blue color cast. (isn't that sad that I could find no real birds outside. I thought with binos this expensive the birds would be lined up to show off)

Sharpness - Leicas
The Leicas were just more 'crisp' on fine detail

FOV - Leicas
I did not notice this to any great degree, but with careful looking it was there. I guess I tend to look more at the center of view and not so much the edges.

Edge of Field - Leicas
The Leicas were sharper farther toward the edge of the field than the CL's.


Focus Wheel - Draw
The Leicas had the notchy feeling some of you talked about where the CL's were smooth. The CL's were definitely harder to turn than the Leicas.

Having said all that, the Leicas did not blow away the CL's. My wife and son would see no difference between the two binos. In fact I would bet that some binos with nice ruby coated objectives would leave them just as happy with the view. This is true with just about anything however. The connoisseur (that is another highfalutin term for obsessive compulsive) will see a difference in cameras, cars, fly rods, or binoculars. Most folks won't unless you point it out and they are still unimpressed.

Connoisseurs have less in there bank accounts because the details are important.

I suspect I will soon have less in my bank account.

Thanks to all.

Mike

 

[Neil Hagley]

I have the 10x32 HD Ultravids - they are stunning! I find the extra magnification is more often useful than not. They are so light I can 'wear' them all day and hardly notice (unlike my Zeiss 10x40's). When spending a lot on a pair of bins I would always suggest trying all variations of the ones you close in on.

 

[mikefitz6]

Neil,

I took your advice, kind of. After going into the store to buy the Leica 8x32 I started to think. I have 2 pairs of 8x32's (Swaro CL, Nikon SE), a Leica 8x20, and a 10x42 Nikon SE. Maybe what I needed was a different kind of bino altogether. I decided it would not hurt to look at the Canon 12x36 IS (the only one the store had). Well, I bought it. I have 30 days to see if I like it. Just a quick summary - more CA but easier to see detail with the 12x and the IS. I may still get the Leicas instead, but right now there are some advantages to the Canon IS. Oh yeah, I saved about $300 over the Leicas. ($850 vs $1150).

I will post my first impressions in more detail on the Canon site.

Mike

 

[PHA]

Hello Jan,

I disagree about the CL being in the same class of the Meopta Meostar!!! The MM are in the same class with the top line of the Big Four....!

PHA

 

[brocknroller]

Hello Jan,

I disagree about the CL being in the same class of the Meopta Meostar!!! The MM are in the same class with the top line of the Big Four....!

PHA

PHA,

You are not alone. I've read a number of reviews both on BF and elsewhere that also didn't rate the CL as highly, although I did watch a You Tube video last night by a Brit who had the 10x30 CL, and he thought it was the bee's knees. He remarked how his friend, Trapper John, used them to spot beavers in his traps. Not exactly a litmus test like comparing them on DVDs.

I suspected the varying opinions on the CLs had to do with the needs of hunters vs. birders, but here are some comments on the CLs from a hunter on Optics Talk that echo yours:

"IMHO the Swaro 8x30 CL is not as good as the Swaro 8x30 SLC or Swaro 8x32 EL.
I went over the top and have bought quite a few 8x30 to 8x33 bino's over the last few years.
The CL's are very compact but do not optically match the Kowa 8x33 HD, Meopta 8x32, Zeiss 8x32 FL or Nikon 8x32 EDG (Nikon is much heavier than the others though).
I have done informal tests (with other folks helping) and they are OK but not up to standards of the top tier glasses.
Their purpose is as a moderately priced (for Swaro) very compact glass with decent optics.
The new Zeiss 8x30 Conquest HD's are supposed to be better optically but not as compact.
The Meopta and Kowa, while not as compact are better glass."

Post #4:

http://www.opticstalk.com/swarovski-cl-8x30-vs-el-8x32_topic33597.html

PHD

 

[Tvc15_2000]

I used both Leica HD 10X32 and 10X42 at late afternoon and after sunset during the cold snap 2 weeks ago at Liberty Marsh in Walkill NY. We saw views like the photos Herb Houghton took below. Temps got down to about +5F when the sun went down. But its worth it!


I try and go there every January. These birds hunt a limitless supply of voles on the marsh for long periods of time a few feet off the ground for fantastic viewing. Good up close viewing of Harriers for hours in the later afternoon. Short Eared Owls appeared at sunset, followed by a guest appearance of a Barn owl at twilight.


Beside providing great views the focus of the HDs was tight smooth and as easy to focus in the cold as it is to focus in the summer. No stiffening due to the cold at all. I have no play problems on the HDs and my 10X32s have been in constant use for years, and are my favorite unless I am owling after dark when I reach for the 42s. I won’t spit hairs about what binocular is ”best”. But the Leicas certainly rank well with any top competitor. I happen to prefer the Leica ergonomics, weight, compactness, ruggedness and above all else – the view.

Check out the claws on the barn owl (Herbs photo). http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/45/767545.jpg


Herbs Photos
Short Eared Owls at Liberty Marsh
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1182930

Barn Owl at Liberty Marsh
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1185378

Harrier Hawks & Short Eared at Liberty Marsh – We had great looks at this birds for hours.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1181536

 

[Mac308]

Here I am with my 8x32 Ultravids a -24*F... no focus problems. My old 8x30 SLC's would be VERY stiff in those temps.

 

[brocknroller]

Here I am with my 8x32 Ultravids a -24*F... no focus problems. My old 8x30 SLC's would be VERY stiff in those temps.

Mac,

Great "Big Sky" scenery. At -24* F the focusers on my SE and EII wouldn't be stiff, they'd be frozen solid. One of my favorite outdoor writers, John McPhee, has a cabin in Montana where he holds a writer's retreat in the summer. My prof used to go out there with him, not sure if he still does.

The only bin I've had out below 10* was my Nikon 8x32 HG. It was 0* F at the time. Even though I cooled down the bin in the unfinished basement for an hour, the heat from my hands created heat waves that made for "bad seeing". The image would be clear and then blur. But the focuser kept turning normally. Needles to hay, I didn't stay out very long, not being used to those cold temps (we've had lows in the single digits a few times this year, but daytime highs dipped below the 20s only once so far).

Mooreorless had the same HG and his 8x30 SLCneu outside for a half hour to cool down when it was 10* (?), and when he picked them up to use them he said his SLC's focuser turned more smoothly (albeit, harder in one direction than the other - not that he noticed .

Could be Swaro improved the cold weather performance of the SLCneu or since his neu was fairly new (less than a year old), the newer grease in his bin might have made the difference. From my experience with an older EL, which had a stiff focuser, the grease tends to dry out after years of use. Perhaps sending the SLC in to Swaro to get new grease will help with its cold weather performance.

Tell Steve what kind of hat you have on since you apparently don't need to lift it to get at the front side focuser on the Trinnie. He likes the objective side focuser on his SLC for that reason.

Btw, what you were watching?

Brock