Choosing a 7x42 between UVHD+ and EDG (6 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.