Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 8x32FL vs 8x32 Ultravid -

Please only comment if you have had both..........

I am wondering about edge distortion and "apparent FOV".

I know the 8x32 Trinovids were mostly sharp to the edge and had a awesome picture window view.

Wondering about these two in the subject line on a direct comparison.

thanks

Dave

Dave,

I have owned the 8x32 FLs and have handled the 8x32 Ultravids on several occasions. This is a tough comparison in my opinion especially in regard to the two issues you mentioned. It has been my experience and the experience of others that the 32 mm FLs have a wider "sweet spot" in comparison to their 42 mm counterparts. With that thought in mind I think the Ultravid and FL are entirely comparable in terms of edge sharpness. The Ultravid might have a slight edge but it would be marginal at best.

Apparent field of view is another issue that would be difficult to use as a criteria to separate one from the other. Both are fairly close if memory serves me...408 or so for the Ultravid and 420 for the FL. A 12 foot difference is only about .2 of one degree and therefore should not play a huge difference in the apparent field of view.

There might be a more noticeable difference if you were to compare apparent sharpness or the level of apparent brightness.

Hope this helps somewhat but I think this is going to come down more to ergonomics.

First of all, both of them are truly outstanding, superb binoculars, and I've owned and have hunted with all versions of the 8x32 Leica a great deal.

I bought a set of first-generation 8x32 'Leitz' Trinovids more than 25 years ago, and it was an extrmely good, sharp, reliable, lightweight glass that I loved to use, and it had excellent, grippy rubber-armor, but later I traded them to one of the guys I hunt with.

In early 1995, I bought a set of 8x32 Leica Ultravids, and they were decidedly better optically than those excellent, older Leitz 8x32s were. The downside was they were bulkier, heavier, and they had some sort of hard, slick plastic/rubber armor that wasn't as sure and grippy as before. They also had eyecups that tended to collapse at the worst possible moment, which I saw as a design defect.

I couple of years ago, I bought a set of 8x32 Ultravids, and there's no doubt in my mind that Leica has now come full-circle and well beyond, and they are currently making not only the finest binoculars they've ever built, but specifically the best 8x30/8x32-class binocular than anyone has ever offered. They're sharper and brighter than any prevous version; sharp to the very edge, light, tough, built from the finest materials, plus they're grippy, and the eyecups don't collapse until you want them to to. They're miles ahead of the older Leitz version, and they're miles ahead of the latest Trinovid version as well. I've hunted with them in Zimbabwe as well as here in OR, and they're my favorite all-around binoculars. I'm doing all of my hunting with them this year as well.

I looked through the latest Ultravid 8x32 HD (high-definition) version at hunting convention this year, and they're a bit brighter as well.

Leica keeps on making them better, and there's no doubt that you'd be glad you bought a set of 8x32 Ultravids instead of the Trinovids..........

AD

Thanks guys!!

I carefully compared the 8x32FL's to the 8x32Ultravids and also the 8x32 EL's. I thought that the FL's were the best of the bunch in that size and power and bought a pair. None of them is a bad choice but to my eyes the FL's were noticably better than the other EL's and Ultravids. I haven't looked through the Ultravid HD's yet.
If possible go to a shop that has both and spend as long as you can looking through both. Try looking into the dark corners of the store or take them outside if possible and look to make out as fine of details as possible. Then let you own eyes decide which is best for you......................................DJ

Its a coin flip, Let your eyes decide. I choose the FLs, not taking anything away from the Leica I just liked the feel of the Zeiss a little better. Both are outstanding...Good luck........547.

Eye relief for eye glass wearers? It looks like the Zeiss has about a 3mm advantage from the spec sheets?

I bought both and compared them side by side. They both are great but after comparing glass, eye relief, FOV, weight and just overall ergonomics, I sent the Ultravids back. These were not the HD's so I don't know if that would change my opinion. Either of them is an excellent choice and I'm sure you could hunt forever and never find them lacking but to my eyes the FL's were noticably brighter. Other little things like the weight, FOV, eye relief and Lotutec coating tipped the scale to the Zeiss. You're an old Zeiss user, aren't you? You know what they say--- Once you try Zeiss, the others aren't as nice.

Jim

Interesting... I thought the Zeiss was/is the equal of the Leica but I like the Leica as much. I can't like the overall feel of the Zeiss... too many plastic bits and a "cheapish" feeling. The Leica feels like the proverbial Teutonic Tank and looks elegant by comparison.

In the end, I doubt you can go wrong with either and judging one or the other on a "sample of one" is a wrong-headed notion IMO...

I looked at them all and felt that the Ultravid was the best, but not competitively priced. I bought the Swaro SLCs in the 8x32s. Thing I liked best about the Leicas is that they will fit a shirt pocket when folded!

Wow! You must have huge shirt pockets!

Jim

Dennis, I understand the new SLC's have the EL glass which is supposed to account for their new, higher price tag.?.? I bought a pair of the previous Gen 8x30 SLC's two years ago on clearance for $700. Nice bins for the coin.

Assuming you've handled both and think the feel is comparable then to me it would boil down to which one can be had a better deal. I own Ultravids but did handle the the FL's and my opinion was a toss up as far as optical abilities. I did like the feel of the Ultravids slightly more and Cabelas made it easy for me as they had a brand new set in their bargin bin for a price well below 1K - no brainer.

They're both sweet!

Binoculars are a lot like riflescopes in that there's a whole lot more to them that just how bright they look in the store.

When I was a kid, many gun stores pushed certain lines of riflescopes, and they sold them under the guise that they were "brighter than LEE-UH-POLD", and cheaper as well. What I didn't know was that these dealers pushed those scopes because there was a higher profit margin in them, and that the scopes were engineered to look brighter under floursecent store lighting. I also found out (the hard way!) that they even though those scopes were respectably sharp and bright in the store and even in natural light, internally they were very poorly built, and in some cases the internal adjustments (all plastic) went haywire very quickly, they fogged in rainy weather, etc.

Same with binoculars. It seems as though everyone has some sort of low-priced binocular that's supposed to be "just as bright" or "better" than Leica (or some other top make), and yet most of them are not built all that well internally, and they feature a lot of glue and plastic, and most of the time they do their very best to keep the internal construction aspects a secret.

Not Leica. For many years they were the only company that would feature cut-out display specimens at various sportsmen's shows (like SCI), and to this day, they're not a bit bashful about detailing and describing just how their binoculars are put together internally, and the materials they're made out of.

AD

Allen, that's the reason I stick with Leica... LOTS of internal metal and a reputation for durability that was earned.

Brad, I agree.

I'd rather invest in a good used set of Ultravids than a brand-new set of 'most everything else........

AD