Choosing a 7x42 between UVHD+ and EDG (3 Viewers)

[HenRun]

Hopster: you can't really go "wrong" with the Leica 7x42 UVHD. It is a very nice binocular. But would you prefer it as your go-to bino?
Hard to tell.

Only "problem" I had with it was that I found out (after some use) that the AFOV was on the small side compared to the other (8X) binoculars I had floating around. The view is gorgeous and if you want that classic Leica rendering it is there.

For me I could not get around the AFOV difference and that I could more easily make out small birds at mid distance with any 8X I compared with. That extra AFOV and that slightly lower magnification was something I found lacking, in comparison. For mid distance viewing I found I almost always wanted a little more magnification.

For general viewing and closer quarters I loved everything about it. Minimum focusing distance is not that great but it was for the most part adequate.

I am using glasses and I had a very small silicone ring as a spacer.
As for colors, contrast, handling, build and view (except for AFOV) I think it is one of the nicest binoculars I have looked through.

Focusers on the HD Plus are usually not a problem. Some of the older Ultravids were prone to feeling uneven and could bind slightly, especially if you use one finger on the focuser. I think the focuser was slightly reworked on the HD plus models.

On my 12x50HD Plus the focuser works best with two fingers. I would not say it is one of the better focusers out there, but it is fine. It feels like it will last and keep the same. My Meopta is much smoother but varies more with temperature and goes from perfect to a bit loose.

 

[hopster]

Hopster: you can't really go "wrong" with the Leica 7x42 UVHD. It is a very nice binocular. But would you prefer it as your go-to bino?
Hard to tell.

Only "problem" I had with it was that I found out (after some use) that the AFOV was on the small side compared to the other (8X) binoculars I had floating around. The view is gorgeous and if you want that classic Leica rendering it is there.

For me I could not get around the AFOV difference and that I could more easily make out small birds at mid distance with any 8X I compared with. That extra AFOV and that slightly lower magnification was something I found lacking, in comparison. For mid distance viewing I found I almost always wanted a little more magnification.

For general viewing and closer quarters I loved everything about it. Minimum focusing distance is not that great but it was for the most part adequate.

I am using glasses and I had a very small silicone ring as a spacer.
As for colors, contrast, handling, build and view (except for AFOV) I think it is one of the nicest binoculars I have looked through.

Focusers on the HD Plus are usually not a problem. Some of the older Ultravids were prone to feeling uneven and could bind slightly, especially if you use one finger on the focuser. I think the focuser was slightly reworked on the HD plus models.

On my 12x50HD Plus the focuser works best with two fingers. I would not say it is one of the better focusers out there, but it is fine. It feels like it will last and keep the same. My Meopta is much smoother but varies more with temperature and goes from perfect to a bit loose.

Hi HenRun

I am considering my standard pair (often taken out together) to become 7x and 12x. 7x for handheld scanning and in-the-woods, 12x for zooming in on detail, raptors and seashore/lakes, often on a monopod unless for birds in flight. As you know, my 12x is also your favourite Meopta and is a definite keeper! The FOV and DOF differences would then be substantial and worth carrying two optics for.

At the moment, I usually have the 8x on my chest attached to the backpack like a harness and the 12x in the backpack, along with a modified walking pole (which I always take hiking anyway) to use as monopod. This works very well but when viewing closer and handheld I sometimes wish I had a more stable and wider view with a better DOF.

You make an interesting point about AFOV. My default glass is the 8x Noctivid which has a very decent AFOV and the Leica colours in spades. I will try not to sell it to fund the 7x because that would then become my single binocular 'do everything' carry. But if the 7x needs to replace it for financial reasons, it will need to have great colour and a great focuser - as well as excellent sharpness to deal with your issue about enough detail being available. Neither the Leica nor the Nikon will have the AFOV of the NV. It's very difficult to know without looking through them how this will affect me.

Perhaps I would find the 7x a step too far down in mag to compensate the extra DOF and stick with a lovely NV that I already have?

First world problems!

 

[HenRun]

I have been down the very same train of thought. I figured at the time that 7x and 12x would be a great spread for bringing two binos at the same outing, for the very same reasons as you. For scanning and panning the Ultravid 7x42 is supernice.

For me, that extra DOF was not enough to compensate for the magnification, especially coupled to the AFOV difference.

I have no emotional bond at all to my SFL 8x40 but I could not overlook that it works better for me on its own and part of a dual set up.
8x and 12x is quite a jump already.

Also the SFL has perfect balance and it is as steady as any 7X I have looked through and that is something that won me over in the end. It does not pan a field as nicely as the Ultravid (or some other nice binos) but the SFL is a solid performer and brings everything I want out of a 8X binocular without being unique.

I have an emotional bond to my little Meostar B1 8x32 but to be honest the SFL "feels" lighter and is more stable to look through. Even so I sometimes bring both the Meostars because the little one packs away nicely in my smallest bag. And, the little Meostar is a bino I always enjoy using even though it optically ranks below most of what I have owned. It has that nice, good enough blend of characteristics that make me appreciate it just as much as the optically superior companions.

If I could only have ONE I am not sure I would pick it. But if I lost it it would be the one I would miss the most.

As for the Ultravid I am sure you would find it a bit different in use to the Noctivid. Build quality, size and handling aside, the Noctivid is not a small binocular, you might feel like the Ultravid is a slight step down in optical quality. Depending on your preferences.

If (when) I leave my trade/ daily job and sell off some gear I will have the opportunity to start hoarding a few select binos and if/when that happens I will most likely source up a 7x42 - but it won't be a daily driver.

 

[hopster]

As for the Ultravid I am sure you would find it a bit different in use to the Noctivid. Build quality, size and handling aside, the Noctivid is not a small binocular, you might feel like the Ultravid is a slight step down in optical quality. Depending on your preferences.

I am happy for the UVHD to be smaller and lighter of course! I'm sure the build quality will be similarly high. I have heard varying opinions about the focuser but most people have said that optically it is right up there. In fact some say it's their favourite all time binocular. If e.g. the CA was worse or it was significantly less sharp or contrasty then I would have a problem with that.

The Nikon is still in my mind with its apparently excellent CA and focuser.

 

[looksharp65]

I'm sorta married to the EDG 7x42, but it's mostly loyalty that keeps us together, and the knowledge there's no finer binocular than the EDG, at least if it's a 7x42. You just don't divorce it!!!
The Vortex Fury had what I called a great PFOV for me as a spectacle user. In short, it means that the "black ring" outside the FOV is very thin and allows perceiving visual cues from outside the portion of your human field of view occupied by the binocular.
I went to E II 8x30 and shortly after, the Meostar B1 8x32. The latter feels sort of similar to me PFOV-wise as the Fury although the Meostar has a much bigger AFOV.

With the EDG, I think going back to less magnification, smaller AFOV and wider black rings around the fieldstop makes it slightly underwhelming, and then the focuser is tighter than I prefer. Going with the little Meostar (or the Kite 8x30 when I wear contacts) seems so much more leisurely, like going somewhere with a buddy rather than one's significant other where you have to behave, so to speak.

I have decided to try to take the EDG as often as I can, but then there's the spectacle thing. I cry rivers in the cold Swedish west coast gale so contacts are preferable...which points towards E II or the little Kite.
So I guess few and far between rendez-vouses with the "wifey" will stay the norm, if I'm being realistic. I'm lice-ridden with binoculars now, as we would say in Sweden, meaning there's a big redundancy. 'First world problems' is a major understatement.
I'm very happy with the MHG 8x42 now and can understand that the SFL 8x40 is partially similar, being a sort of end game device and consequently almost boring. Tempted by a Canon 18x50 that sells locally for peanuts, but I'll be able to abstain from it. Probably.

//L

 

[hopster]

I'm sorta married to the EDG 7x42, but it's mostly loyalty that keeps us together, and the knowledge there's no finer binocular than the EDG, at least if it's a 7x42. You just don't divorce it!!!

...

With the EDG, I think going back to less magnification, smaller AFOV and wider black rings around the fieldstop makes it slightly underwhelming, and then the focuser is tighter than I prefer. Going with the little Meostar (or the Kite 8x30 when I wear contacts) seems so much more leisurely, like going somewhere with a buddy rather than one's significant other where you have to behave, so to speak.

I have decided to try to take the EDG as often as I can, but then there's the spectacle thing. I cry rivers in the cold Swedish west coast gale so contacts are preferable...which points towards E II or the little Kite.
So I guess few and far between rendez-vouses with the "wifey" will stay the norm, if I'm being realistic. I'm lice-ridden with binoculars now, as we would say in Sweden, meaning there's a big redundancy. 'First world problems' is a major understatement.
I'm very happy with the MHG 8x42 now and can understand that the SFL 8x40 is partially similar, being a sort

//L

I'm not sure if this is a love story... or not!

Well if you ever do decide to get a divorce I may be able to take her off your hands.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hopster: you can't really go "wrong" with the Leica 7x42 UVHD. It is a very nice binocular. But would you prefer it as your go-to bino?
Hard to tell.

Only "problem" I had with it was that I found out (after some use) that the AFOV was on the small side compared to the other (8X) binoculars I had floating around. The view is gorgeous and if you want that classic Leica rendering it is there.

For me I could not get around the AFOV difference and that I could more easily make out small birds at mid distance with any 8X I compared with. That extra AFOV and that slightly lower magnification was something I found lacking, in comparison. For mid distance viewing I found I almost always wanted a little more magnification.

For general viewing and closer quarters I loved everything about it. Minimum focusing distance is not that great but it was for the most part adequate.

I am using glasses and I had a very small silicone ring as a spacer.
As for colors, contrast, handling, build and view (except for AFOV) I think it is one of the nicest binoculars I have looked through.

Focusers on the HD Plus are usually not a problem. Some of the older Ultravids were prone to feeling uneven and could bind slightly, especially if you use one finger on the focuser. I think the focuser was slightly reworked on the HD plus models.

On my 12x50HD Plus the focuser works best with two fingers. I would not say it is one of the better focusers out there, but it is fine. It feels like it will last and keep the same. My Meopta is much smoother but varies more with temperature and goes from perfect to a bit loose.

That is exactly how I feel about the Leica 7x42 UVHD+. The small AFOV was a dealbreaker for me but most 7x42's are that way, outside of the Zeiss FL 7x42 with it's 8.6 degree FOV, but then it had a little too much green bias and too much distortion for my tastes.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I'm sorta married to the EDG 7x42, but it's mostly loyalty that keeps us together, and the knowledge there's no finer binocular than the EDG, at least if it's a 7x42. You just don't divorce it!!!
The Vortex Fury had what I called a great PFOV for me as a spectacle user. In short, it means that the "black ring" outside the FOV is very thin and allows perceiving visual cues from outside the portion of your human field of view occupied by the binocular.
I went to E II 8x30 and shortly after, the Meostar B1 8x32. The latter feels sort of similar to me PFOV-wise as the Fury although the Meostar has a much bigger AFOV.

With the EDG, I think going back to less magnification, smaller AFOV and wider black rings around the fieldstop makes it slightly underwhelming, and then the focuser is tighter than I prefer. Going with the little Meostar (or the Kite 8x30 when I wear contacts) seems so much more leisurely, like going somewhere with a buddy rather than one's significant other where you have to behave, so to speak.

I have decided to try to take the EDG as often as I can, but then there's the spectacle thing. I cry rivers in the cold Swedish west coast gale so contacts are preferable...which points towards E II or the little Kite.
So I guess few and far between rendez-vouses with the "wifey" will stay the norm, if I'm being realistic. I'm lice-ridden with binoculars now, as we would say in Sweden, meaning there's a big redundancy. 'First world problems' is a major understatement.
I'm very happy with the MHG 8x42 now and can understand that the SFL 8x40 is partially similar, being a sort of end game device and consequently almost boring. Tempted by a Canon 18x50 that sells locally for peanuts, but I'll be able to abstain from it. Probably.

//L

I am also very happy with the MHG 8x42 after trying all the 7x42's. They are simply lacking in AFOV. Too, me, they were a let-down because of the small AFOV in general, but I like a big FOV.

 

[HenRun]

Hopster: I don't think you would find CA troublesome in the UVHD+ 7x42.
I am really not a fan of CA but it was not a concern for me with the 7x Ultravid.
For the most part I would not have my eyes simmering around the field stops anyway.

As others have chimed in with regards to AFOV: that is one of the issues that may or may not be a dealbreaker.

Going from the generous AFOV of the Meopta 8x32 to the Leica UVHD and back was too telling to ignore. Some people care less about AFOV and quite a few hold the Ultravid 7x42 as their favourite binocular. I too love it, but for practical reasons I don't have it.

Looksharp: you nailed it with the comment on the MHG/SFL binos. They have no unique or particularly charming characteristics but they do it all so well you can rely on them under just about any conditions. Flawless is not the same as perfect when it comes to emotional optical hobbery-snobbery.

 

[Patudo]

I think a 10x52 NL, and 8x30 Binuxit would be a brilliant ménage a trois. Karlie Kloss and Marlene Dietrich!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hopster: I don't think you would find CA troublesome in the UVHD+ 7x42.
I am really not a fan of CA but it was not a concern for me with the 7x Ultravid.
For the most part I would not have my eyes simmering around the field stops anyway.

As others have chimed in with regards to AFOV: that is one of the issues that may or may not be a dealbreaker.

Going from the generous AFOV of the Meopta 8x32 to the Leica UVHD and back was too telling to ignore. Some people care less about AFOV and quite a few hold the Ultravid 7x42 as their favourite binocular. I too love it, but for practical reasons I don't have it.

Looksharp: you nailed it with the comment on the MHG/SFL binos. They have no unique or particularly charming characteristics but they do it all so well you can rely on them under just about any conditions. Flawless is not the same as perfect when it comes to emotional optical hobbery-snobbery.

The MHG/SFL are jacks of all trades. They're not the best in any area, but they are pretty good at everything, and they have no 'glaring' weaknesses. They both represent probably the best value in a birding binocular around, especially when you can get the MHG 8x42 for less than a $1000 and the SFL 8x40 for less than $1100.

 

[hopster]

Since the comments above about underwhelming AFOV in both the UVHD+ and the EDG, I have been reading up about AFOV a little. For both, the ISO value is ~52.2 degrees which is indeed rather modest; the simple value is just 7 x 8 = 56 degrees.

However, a comment by Henry Link here:

AFoV Calculations

There are two methods of calculating the apparent field of view. The first is to multiply the true FoV in degrees by the magnification of the binocular. The second ISO method is to calculate the angle as if the binocular were nearer by a factor of its magnification. To take an example, the...

www.birdforum.net

..had me thinking. I'm assuming the EDG has higher AMD from the flatter field and so should be closer to the ISO calculation with the Leica presumably the other way around. Subsequently I found that Binoculars Today measured the EDG at 54.5 and the UVHD+ at 55.5 which supports this idea. For those that have both, does the image appear bigger in the Leica? I know it's only ~1 degree so I'm not expecting any dramatic differences. It seems that most describe larger AFOV as like a 'larger screen' or sometimes in terms of being a more immersive view. Is that a fairly universal opinion (if such a thing exists here)?

It also has me thinking a bit more deeply about the importance (or otherwise) of AFOV and how it may interact with exit pupil. For example, you may have a huge AFOV but with a small exit pupil then you wouldn't be able to use it all by roaming your eye around or you'll start to get vignetting i.e. blackouts. Has this been discussed before? If not - and if I'm not 'barking up the wrong tree' here which is quite possible - then one could make certain decent assumptions like the eyeball being a sphere of a fixed diameter and for different binocular exit pupils and actual pupil openings calculate how much the eye can rotate before vignetting occurs.

I have started down this path because I am starting to believe that I need to adjust ER slightly differently on my Noctivid 8x depending if the day is dull or bright. The only reason I can think this might be necessary is because my pupil is wider or narrower with the lighting conditions. Certainly the NV is very fussy about eye position if you want to use the field edge without blackouts or excessive CA.

 

[HenRun]

Hopster: in short; for me (with or without glasses) the viewed image through the 7x42 UVHD appears smaller.
It feels more "distant" with larger field stop area surrounding it (as compared to the 8X binos I have). Like peering through a tube. A wide tube, if you will.

The SFL (to me) has larger but not huge AFOV. The Pure NL has huge AFOV and is like sticking your head in a bucket of light. Very immersive.
The 8x32FL I used to have (and the 10x32FL) are both like the Leica: fairly small AFOV. I might remember one of them wrong, it has been a while and I keep mixing them up in memoriam.

Looking through your Noctivid is probably like looking through a bucket (with no bottom).

On the Leica 12x50 UVHD the AFOV is larger, and the view is more like peering through a bucket (with no bottom) and very small field stop area surrounding the image. The view is "surprisingly large" considering I wear glasses and the ER is supposed to be short and it is a 12X. It is larger than on my Meopta 12x50 which is kind of like the SFL to me: very good (certainly good enough) but not class leading AFOV and neither is as "immersive" as some others.

As for eye placement I need to fiddle around a little bit more with the Leica than with the Meopta. Depending on angle and posture it varies from good to excellent. Though the Meopta has less "give" it is easier to park it right where I need it.

 

[Conndomat]

The 8x32FL I used to have (and the 10x32FL) are both like the Leica: fairly small AFOV. I might remember one of them wrong, it has been a while and I keep mixing them up in memoriam.

Looking through your Noctivid is probably like looking through a bucket (with no bottom).

Hello,

I think your memory is deceiving you here!

Both FLs have a noticeably larger AFOV than the Leica UV 7x42 and even a bit more than the Noctivid 8x42.

The problem is that with the 7x42 configuration it is difficult to achieve a large AFOV. The Zeiss FL has an even larger AFOV, but at the expense of field curvature and a lot of astigmatism. Even though this glass is good in the center, you have to accept the noticeable aberrations in the edge area. In fact, with this glass a maximum of 2/3 of the AFOV is usable, the rest is blurry.
I could never get used to the FL 7x42; I find the smaller but better corrected image in the edge area of the UV much more pleasant.

The Noctivid is a bit more immersive than the UV due to its larger AFOV. On the other hand, when I use the UV, I simply enjoy the overall package and don't constantly think about whether to use a larger or smaller AFOV.

Ultimately, it's a matter of individual priorities. If a large AFOV is at the top of your list, the UV 7x42 isn't the right binocular. If you're looking for a coherent overall package, the UV might be just the right binocular.

Andreas

 

[Dennis Mau]

Hello,

I think your memory is deceiving you here!

Both FLs have a noticeably larger AFOV than the Leica UV 7x42 and even a bit more than the Noctivid 8x42.

The problem is that with the 7x42 configuration it is difficult to achieve a large AFOV. The Zeiss FL has an even larger AFOV, but at the expense of field curvature and a lot of astigmatism. Even though this glass is good in the center, you have to accept the noticeable aberrations in the edge area. In fact, with this glass a maximum of 2/3 of the AFOV is usable, the rest is blurry.
I could never get used to the FL 7x42; I find the smaller but better corrected image in the edge area of the UV much more pleasant.

The Noctivid is a bit more immersive than the UV due to its larger AFOV. On the other hand, when I use the UV, I simply enjoy the overall package and don't constantly think about whether to use a larger or smaller AFOV.

Ultimately, it's a matter of individual priorities. If a large AFOV is at the top of your list, the UV 7x42 isn't the right binocular. If you're looking for a coherent overall package, the UV might be just the right binocular.

Andreas

I agree 100%! Very nice explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of those binoculars. You're correct in that it is just a matter of priorities of ultimately what binocular you choose. This is one of the best posts I have read in quite a while on Bird Forum.

 

[HenRun]

Hi Andreas, thank you for jogging my memory.

I agree with what you write. I happen to like large AFOV and the smaller magnification of the 7x42 coupled with the smaller AFOV than what I am used to is my two only "complaints" in an otherwise truly excellent binocular. If I did not compare it to a decent AFOV and likewise excellent 8x32/40 I am sure I could have gotten used to it.

I should have put the AFOV in perspective: the 7x42 has the "smallest" of the ones I have tried. Yes the 8x32FL has a larger AFOV than the 7x42 (I did a shootout a few years back with the Meopta 8x32, the 8x32FL and UVHD7x42) but it is still smaller than the Meopta.

Between the FL8x32 and the UVHD7x42 I much prefer the Leica. It was one of the few instances where I can definitely see a color bias (in the FL) and one that I did not like. Had the 8x32FL on and off over the decades but had nothing to compare to. Which can be a good thing.

What I can't remember is if the AFOV in the 10x32FL and 8x32FL differs?

I know I think the 8x32FL has a little smaller AFOV than I like (which is way I have kept the Meostar 8x32 ever since comparing them) but I can honestly not recall if the 10x32FL is similar. Back at the time I had it it was my only binocular for a few years, using it without glasses. I cared or knew little about AFOV.

Dennis: Yes, it is always a matter of priorities.

Budget aside, there are people who (for better or worse) do not care or do not compare enough to draw any conclusions.
I am not saying it is a bad thing. I like so many different binoculars that I can forgive a few drawbacks but in the end I have to boil it down to what is most important for me.

 

[HenRun]

PS

I have only looked a minute or two through a Noctivid a few years back. I have no recollection of AFOV. I had my more troublesome glasses back then and I did not get an immediate impression of it. It was too large footprint and way to expensive for what I was after at the time.

I should not assume anything about the AFOV in the Noctivid but I had hoped it would be "better".

 

[hopster]

PS

I have only looked a minute or two through a Noctivid a few years back. I have no recollection of AFOV. I had my more troublesome glasses back then and I did not get an immediate impression of it. It was too large footprint and way to expensive for what I was after at the time.

I should not assume anything about the AFOV in the Noctivid but I had hoped it would be "better".

Binoculars Today measured the NV 8x AFOV at 59.5 degrees. So 4-5 degrees more than the 7x's or a bit less than 10% so I'm surprised it is so noticeable but it clearly is as more than one has mentioned it.

Leica Noctivid 8×42 – Binoculars Today

For comparison, the NL 8x is 69, the SF 8x is 64.

The site is actually quite useful because they have a good database of optics and often measure the AFOV rather than calculating it.

 

[HenRun]

Interesting, will have a look at it.

AFOV is something I have a hard time relating to by numbers / percentage alone. Seeing is believing for my eyes.
But with a few reference points (binoculars I have seen through) it might be easier for me to relate to them numbers.

 

[HenRun]

Hopster: interesting that they observe that Noctivid has slightly worse CA suppression than UVHD+.