LEITZ’S TRINOVIDS - Models and Numbering (2 Viewers)

[John A Roberts]

Lee

On the serial number table:
- the last observed 8x32 (non-B) is 792k
- the first observed 8x32 B is 789k

So a possible scenario is:
- the B series production may have started with a first batch from 789k to 790k
- the last batch of the non-B production may have been the 792k range
(and possibly some other model may have had the batch in the 791k range)
Hence the batch numbering crossover - but no duplicate numbered units

A possible reason for the late non-B batch may have been to use the last non-B eyepieces still on hand (see the Introductory table re the different eyepiece collars/ eyepiece types)

John

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

John Roberts,
Gary Hawkins does not mention in his study that the 6x24 Trinovid had another production run after 1965.
With regard to the 7x35B: I had performed transmission measurements of 7x35B Trinovids and there was a considerable difference between the older one and a later one (I have to check the production years), so I wrote to Leitz/Leica and after quite some waiting time I received a letter from mr. Hengst, who had been in charge of the design and production team responsible for the Trinovid line that the production of the 7x35B was stopped at a certain stage but restarted again because the binocular was so much in demand.
Since preparation of Sint Nicolaas time is in full swing in our house (and that takes more effort than measuring a load of transmission spectra, since we have to make surprise gifts and funny poems which are kept a secret for everybody in the house until the big day) it will take a while before I am able to find that letter and the precise years.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Production of the 7x35B was stopped in 1975 and started again in 1982 and it was fully stopped in 1988. The 7x35B was the first of the Trinovid-2 binocular line with roll-down rubber eyecups (Gary Hawkins).
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Lee, post 30,
Just an hour ago two test reports of:
-1- the "old"Leitz Trinovids and
-2- binoculars with very large FOV
are on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Some of your questions may be answered there.
Gijs van Ginkel

Thanks Gijs.

Lee

 

[garymh]

Hi,

Just to answer a few points here :

My figures for the field of view of the first series Trinovid we taken from Leica archive material, brochures or from actual binoculars I own or have owned. There were quite a few different versions of this model bouncing around in 1958 and this may be the reason for this discrepancy. No two of this initial series seems to look identical.

I did state in my book about the Trinovids that a later run of the 6x24 was manufactured due to demand from the American market. I cannot, however, find accurate dates for this.

Leica serial numbers do not always follow on logically. A range of number is allocated to each production run. Different lists of numbers also applied to different binoculars. Therefore a 7x42 Trinovid with s/n 111111 may have been made a year or two earlier (or later) than a 10x40 Trinovid with s/n 111112.

Servicing can also play a part in how some binocular may appear different. If a 1960s Trinovid ,for example, was sent in for a new body for some reason during the 1980s it would probably have have a later style body fitted due to availability. This would result in an early numbered binocular having differences such as later style strap lugs and badges.


Gary

 

[dipped]

House of outdoors link : https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/verrekijkers/verrekijkers-testen-en-vergelijken/

 

[Binastro]

Hi Gijs,
I managed to access the website from your second link, and view the tests of wide angle binoculars.
But only in Dutch, which I don't speak, but I managed the basics.

I was surprised at the low transmission of the Pentax 7x35. Any ideas why it is so low?

I made the Bushnell Xtrawide 4x21 actually as 3.5x21, and accept your 3.4x22. I measured the field on stars as 18.5 degrees.

I made the 4x22 Dowling and Rowe (Libra) field 16.5 and 16.3 degrees on different occasions.

I think that the Komz 8x30 field is 150m at 1000m. You list 120m at 1000m.What is your actual measure?

Thank you for the test.
Is it available in English?
Regards,
B.

 

[Binastro]

Hi Gijs,
Re post 47, I cannot edit texts with this second computer, although I could access the website.

Re the Komz 6x24, as I don't speak Dutch, what were your comments on flare, glare and ghosting, especially if streetlights are nearby at night, or just in the day?

And how did you rate the Minolta 7x35 Standard MK? I measured the actual field as 11.05 degrees.
If your 7.4x is accurate, this is impressive.

 

[Binastro]

Gijs,
It could be that your Minolta 7x35 has better coatings than mine, perhaps coated prisms?
The slightly later Minolta Activa Porros had fully multicoated optics. The 12x50 Activa clearly shows fainter stars than less well coated Porros.

The 15x70 Revelations vary. Some have fully multicoated optics, some don't. Some don't have coated prisms. Even the distributor didn't seem to know this.

Do the Russian binoculars have different coloured coatings on the left and right tubesl?. This seems normal for them.

 

[Binastro]

Gijs,

I made the 8x30 Nikon E2 field 8.85 degrees from memory, using star separations.
Simply multiplying by 8x gives 70.8 degrees simple AFOV.
Did you give a measure for the E2 magnification?

Minolta 7.4x35 x 11.05 degrees gives 81.8 degrees simple AFOV.

Regards,
B.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Binastro, posts 47-50,
I will try to answer your many questions as well as possible,
The FOV's mentioned were measured from all binoculars as were the transmission data and other technical data.
I did not see any color difference of the coatings between the two eyepieces of the Soviet binoculars.
The results of the Pentax binoculars were intriguing: the binoculars had gold coloured coatings and the transmissions were low. One must realise that all binoculars investigated, except for the Meopta 7x42, were 20-60 years old and we carefully cleaned al optical surfaces from the outside optics, checked by eye if any obstructions or fungus or whatever ageing effects could be seen visually, if not, we investigated the binoculars. In this test we did not investigate the Nikon E2 so I als did not compare the E2 with the binoculars tested here. The Minolta 7x35 results were very pleasing and I met a collector who also had one and was similarly impressed by its performance and from the measured results I actually would prefer the Minolta over the Nikon E2 for its optical quality and handling comfort. Moreover the FOV was considerably larger of the Minolta.
I hope that I answered your questions properly.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Binastro]

Thank you Gijs,

Ah, the dreaded gold coated eyepieces, maybe, which was a crazy Pentax excursion. The Pentax binocular with gold eyepieces that I have gives a very dull world view.

I will have to check your test results again, but I think that genuine Komz 8x30 binoculars have an 8.5 degree field.
There are Chinese versions of Russian binoculars that have small fields.
Not sure where my Komz 8x30s are at the moment.

With Soviet binoculars it is not the eyepieces that have different coloured coatings, it is the objectives. I have seen many examples with different objective coatings, probably from different batches of objectives. I don't notice any clear colour differences in the view, but this is something that I don't really look for.

Thanks again.
B.

 

[Renze de Vries]

My figures for the field of view of the first series Trinovid we taken from Leica archive material, brochures or from actual binoculars I own or have owned. There were quite a few different versions of this model bouncing around in 1958 and this may be the reason for this discrepancy. No two of this initial series seems to look identical.Gary

I can't confirm this from my experiences. First series Leitz Trinovids are scarce and seldom on offer on eBay. Over the years I have seen 5 7x42's come by and these were all identical, exept for one which showed Leitz Trinovid printing on the lower bridge. I have seen 4 8x40's and these were identical as well.

Renze

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Please, let me again ask my question:

Comparing the Trinovids of the pre-BA/BN era (the one that will or will not soon to be re-introduced as the retro-Trinovid) with the BA/BN-type is there any significant difference in the picture delivered or, in other words, is there a slight hue to be recognized and probably will affect the transmission?

I remember fairly well that back in the 1980s in the pre-phasecorrected era a look through a Zeiss 10x40 T* without P delivered a yellowish hue.

 

[Renze de Vries]

Please, let me again ask my question:

Comparing the Trinovids of the pre-BA/BN era (the one that will or will not soon to be re-introduced as the retro-Trinovid) with the BA/BN-type is there any significant difference in the picture delivered or, in other words, is there a slight hue to be recognized and probably will affect the transmission?

I remember fairly well that back in the 1980s in the pre-phasecorrected era a look through a Zeiss 10x40 T* without P delivered a yellowish hue.

Elmer,

No contest, the Leica Trinovids, successors to the Leitz Trinovids, are much better binoculars, optically. And it's not only becasue of the phase coating, the Leica's are a completely different design.

Renze

 

[John A Roberts]

A QUICK UPDATE of POST #37 - Incorporating data from Renze de Vries


Renze de Vries was kind enough to send me a spreadsheet of data that he’s been recording over an extended period
I have not had a chance to go through it in detail, but I’ve used the information to update the points that I addressed in my earlier post
and as previously, I’ve used Gary Hawkins’ information as the primary basis for dating

So for those interested in numbering and dating details:


EARLIEST OBSERVED PRODUCTION
8x32 - #626,312
10x40 - #626,861
6x24 - #628,684

So unsurprisingly, all 3 commenced production in 1963


6x24 PRODUCTION
- 628 to 651k [to 1965]
- 698k [1968/ 1969]
- 710 to 712k [also 1968/ 1969]
- 775k [1972/ 1973]

There appears to have been initial production to 1965, and then:
- an additional run in 1968/ 1969
- and then another run in 1972 or 1973


7x35 B PRODUCTION
- 645 to 653k [no B marking; transition to B marking between: 653,526 and 653,702]
- 653 to 812k [to 1973]
- 900 to 968k [from 1983]

Renze’s observations make it clear that:
- initial 7x35 B production was to 1973
- then in 1983, B production resumed and BA production commenced (see RA Introduction below)
And then B units continued to 968k

The last point raises a discrepancy, as Gary indicated that 7x35 production ceased in 1984
However, I’ve recorded:
- a 7x35 B unit #963k, and
- a 7x35 BA unit #984k
both with Ersnst Leitz Wetzlar markings

This would indicate production of 1985 or later, as the ‘ELW’ marking was adopted when the company was acquired in that year by a new owner
In addition, the 7x35 BA #984k unit is within the last 11,000 units produced (see the last section below), so it perhaps dates to 1986 or 1987


RUBBER ARMOUR INTRODUCTION
The earliest observed RA units in Green and Black respectively, are:
- 8x40 BA - 867k/ 875k
- 10x40 BA - 867k/ 927k
- 7x42 BA - 873k/ 887k
- 8x32 BA - 889k/ 945k
- 7x35 BA - 900k/ 902k

The numbering clearly fits Gary’s information for Green RA units:
- BA x40/42 introduced in 1979
- BA x32/35 introduced in 1983


TOTAL PRODUCTION SPAN
Renze’s information extends the potential range by around 5,000 units:
- from #626,312 (8x32) to #995,188 (10x40 BA) [verses my earlier range to 990,375]

In addition, I recently observed an early Leica 7x42 BA unit #999,237, so this further limits the maximum possible extent of the v2 Trinovid number range

 

[Polytech]

A QUICK UPDATE of POST #37 -

EARLIEST OBSERVED PRODUCTION
8x32 - #626,312

Hello. I registered just to add something. I bought an old Leitz Trinovid 8x32 on a local internet market. And was searching the internet for the info about these interesting binoculars. To my surprise the serial number on my pair is lower.

 

[mrWRONGtx]

Would these be genuine or replicas

 

[mrWRONGtx]

Sorry.. forgot to post pics earlier..lol

 

[Renze de Vries]

Would these be genuine or replicas

Nothing wrong with these Mr. Wrong. Why the doubt?

Renze