Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leica 8X32 Ultravid (Photo Heavy)

Good pick, Jimmy. You will totally love the Ultravids.

Have a great Thanksgiving.

Steve

I have been testing and investigating a new pair of binos and I have to say, in less words than dogzapper but I have the same results. I just purchased the 8x32 ultravids myself and if there is a better glass for the money I missed it, they have awsome clairity and crispness at all ranges with fantastic colour. Dogzapper I think posts like the one you gave to us are valuble and I found it helpful to make a decision as I was interested in the same pair of glasses you were. Thanks

JB.

JB,

Thanks, my friend. Your comments made all of the work totally worthwhile.

Steve

dogzapper, how do you think the Ultravid 8x32's would compare to the Ultravid 8x42's? Your write up is all too convining that I should get a pair of the 8x32's but in your opinion would be gained by going with the 8x42's?

I just picked up a pair of 8x32s this afternoon from Doug, hopefully they are the equal of Steve's!

Frankly, I have no idea. The 42s are possibly better in low light (although my Geovids definitely were not). Frankly, the smaller, lighter package makes the 8X32s my binoculars of choice.

If a guy sat in an elevated stand all day, like the TV hunters, ten size and weight would not be an issue. For guys like us, sixe and weight is really important.

Honestly, if the 42s were 10% better, I'd still opt for the 8X32 Ultravids ... and you can surely bet that the 42s do not have that much of an advantage.

Steve

Give us a report when they come. I'm sure you'll love them.

Steve

I have been a big fan of the 8x30 size for years. I recently "upgraded" and got the Swarovski 8x30 SL. They are slightly larger than the ultravids (possibly a plus in the steadiness dept.)and about $400+ cheaper. The thing I like best about them is the lens covers- the best in the business and where I hunt it is DUSTY- the lens covers stay put and keep dust out.

When comparing, I thought the Ultravid was ever-so-slightly better.

For bowhunting- the Leicas are better as they will fit in most shirt pockets!

I have a set of Ultravid 8x32s as well as a set of Ultravid 8x42s.

Of the two, there's no question that the 8x42s are somewhat brighter, demonstrating that if all other factors are equal (and in this case, that's certainly so), the binocular with the largest set of objective lenses wins. Of course, the trade-off is that they're a little bulkier and a little heavier, but they are by no means burdensome, and I've carried them up a lot of steep mountains.

I use my 8x32s for most African hunts, general use close to home, plus elk hunts that are in broken-timber country.

The 8x42s are used for all open-country hunts, and they are clearly superior when you're glassing early and late in the day.

AD

Steve, since you started this thread and since I believe I remember you also have a Leica BRF, may I turn the thread a bit if you don't mind since it seems you've settled this issue quite well.

I have a Leica Trin BA, 10x42 which weighs as much as a small tire - 33 ozs. It's a great glass but I'm considering replacing both it and my Nikon RF wit the Leica 10x42 BRF at 31 ozs.

How do you like yours (If I'm correct) as to utility, optics, and etc.?

Thanks Steve,..or others.

Gdv

George, I bought a set of Leica Trinovids when they first came out, and I used them for a number of years on many hunts in various states and countries. I was very happy with them, and I used them exclusively for quite some time.

When the Ultravid was announced, I soon thereafter tested a set of them in 8x42. At that point, I traded my 8x42 Trinovids in on a set of 8x42 Ultravids. The Ultravids are smaller, lighter, brighter, grippier and otherwise more ergonomic, and feature better eyecups that don't inadvertently collapse the way the Trinovid eyecups often did. The Ultravid is, in all respects, a superior binocular.

As far as I'm concerned, the only valid reason to go with the Trinovid is lower cost, and these can be had for very good prices on today's market.............

AD

Allen, I have to agree the 8x42 BR's are a wonderful bin. Your pairing them with the 8x32 is the best of all worlds IMO. There's no doubt the big 42mm objective gives a slightly more satisfying image for extended glassing, and the 7x42 even more so.

My compromise for the type of hunting I do is the 8x32 but then I'm a Norwegian/Yankee/Backpacker so the "less is more" mentality is second nature... I guess I'm genetically predisposed to the 8x32

I started out with a pair of 7x35's in the early 1970's and have never owned anything other than 7x30,7x35,8x30,8x32 bins. I'd imagine if I started with a bigger bin that's what I'd be used to and that's what I'd use. Maybe. Genetics are not easily overcome

I did the same.

First I got 8x42 Trinovids... awsome but heavy so I sold them.

Then I got a pair of pre-certified 8x32 Ultravids from Doug.

OMG these suckers are awsome, got mine last year...

I think ya done good.

Spot

Brad, it likely won't come to pass, but I'd love to see Leica introduce a 7x35 Ultravid; that's a useful size, and totally under-appreciated today. Compactness and light carrying weight can be a real blessing, no doubt about it!

I had a set of Rochester-built Bausch & Lomb 7x35s (built in 1954) that were really awesome, although there's no question that they're now obsolete by today's standards.

At one point, I had a set of 10x42 Trinovids, but I came to the conclusion that the 8x42s were brighter and offered more of what I wanted and needed. I've never missed the extra magnification.......

AD

Allen, I'm with you... I've lobbied Leica for a 7x32 Ultravid (or better yet, 7x35) for several years to no avail. Also totally agree, 10x42's have never done it for me. If I'm going to carry a 42mm bin I'd like it to offer something my 8x32's don't... 2x more magnification and added internal glass with extra bulk and weight aren't it!

Count me in with you guys who would LOVE seeing a good pair of 7x32/35 binoculars available, from Leica.
33 ounce 7x42 binox are too much for me and Michigan hunting.

Don

I have used Zeiss 8x32 binos for exactly 40 years and find that they have worked very well; this is multiple long isolated forest fire lookouts, Canadian Coast Guard Lightstation and nature study as well as hunting. One REALLY works a bino on fire towers and I always wanted more power for certain situations.

I got a Leica 10x42 BN a couple of years ago and ahve used it plus my buddie's 10x42 UV exclusively since; it is a FINE glass and excellent in the Chilcotin, Muskwa and other more open areas of BC. But, it IS heavy to carry and more than needed in most of my hunting.

Last spring, I talked with a Leica rep from the USA and asked him about a 7-32 UV while checking out his sample 8-32 UV; he didn't seem too interested. So, in due course, I am going to buy the new 8-32HD as this is the best bino for my hunting I have yet seen....kinda pricey, tho'. Well, ya gets what ya pays for.

Out of some consciousness of stewardship I've convinced myself that I can get by very nicely with two bino's. I've an early gen Swarov 7x42M, porro, with the green rubber armor. It's sweet, but then I've not peered through an Ultravid and probably shouldn't by the sounds you boys make.

But, with the 7x, the next logical step up for #2 was a 10x and that's how I came to the 10x42 BN. I can use the power but have decided the 33 oz has given me a crooked neck (no I don't like the harness affairs). And I realize the BRF is only two oz ligher.

Can anyone shed light here on the BRFs? Do I take it that their optics are of the Trinovid BN type?

Good weekend to all. Sleeting here; keeping me and my manic dog from the pheasants.

Gdv

The BRF, has a warranty that bites. That alone, is enough for me to turn away.

My friend George,

Yup, I own a pair of 8X42 Leica BRFs as well and they were the first binocular used in comparison to the Leica 8X32 Ultravids. Frankly, I found the comparison to be stunning.

Frankly, I'm thinking of selling my Geovids. After all, I now own the 8X32s and I recently bought a Leica CRF 1200 rangefinder from Doug (the CRF 1200 is beyond fabulous).

Merry Christmas,

Steve

Here is what I wrote:


In totally inspecting the Leica 8X32 Ultravid binoculars, I found that Doug was indeed a truthful fella. The binoculars were absolutely brand spanking new. The paper box was perfect and the contents looked untouched by human hands.

Yeah, Doug did GOOD!!!

I thought that I'd take on the BIG DOG initially. The first comparison I made was a head-to-head battle between the new Leica 8X32 Ultravids and my beloved Leica 8X42 Geovids. Obviously, this was going to be the ultimate test of each.

Please bear in mind that I am a trained Graduate Gemologist and not an optics guy. My terms may be gemological and not optical.

My parameters were:
1. Sharpness of image
2. True natural colors
3. General handling qualities (ergonomics)
4. Ease of focus
5. Usefulness in near-darkness
6. Field of view

In looking and handling the Geovids and the Ultravids, it was obvious that there was a HUGE difference and size and ergonomics. The Geovids were large, held study and generally felt big. The Ultravids felt tiny, by comparison, but held wonderfully steady fit my (rather large) hands much better. The combination of the size and weight differences told me that I'd be much more likely to carry the Ultravids.

But was the image as good? Was the Ultravid as useful in near-darkness? Was the field of view smaller? Was the Ultravid anywhere near equal to the fabulous Geovids?????

After several days and evenings of comparing the 8X32 Ultravids to the 8X42 Geovids, I've come up with some surprising answers.

First of all, I could find absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the two binoculars in use at dusk. When the light is too dark for ome, it is too dark for the other. One would suppose that the 42mm obvective lenses of the Geovids would give them the edge, at least a couple of minutes, but it just wasn't there. They are both superb and great in the dawn and dusk, but my eyes judged them as fully equal.

Something I discovered quite by accident was that the Ultravids, the smaller binoculars, actually have a considerably wider field of view than the Geovids. I was scanning some trees one day, looking for comparitive sharpness, and discovered that the Ultravids just plain "looked wider" than the Geovids.

When I searched out the specifications on the Internet, I found that my eyes were telling me the truth; the field of view is 404 feet at 1,000 yards for the Ultravid and a 373 feet field of view at 1,000 yards for the Geovids. That gives roughly a nine percent edge in field of view to the Ultravids. Is that signigicant? I believe so.

In just plain sharpness of image, it's about a draw. Both the Ultravid and the Geovid are absolutely superb. I found that I liked the dioper adjustment and focus knob of the Ultravid better than the setup on the Geovid, but that was a purely personal thing and is no big deal.

In size; Holy Crap, the Geovids are BIG and the Ultravids are NICE. This photo tells it all. Which would you rather carry?





After spending the last several days and dusks comparing the Ultravids and the Geovids, I've very much in the corner of the Ultravids. The size is perfect, the focusing is easy, the image is razor sharp, the colors are natural and the weight is nothing.

The only thing missing from the Ultravid is the rangefinding capability that is so wonderful in the Geovids. To be sure, having both rangefinding and binocular capability in a single set of optics is a wonderful thing.

So, I guess it comes down to the following: Do you want to carry a rangefinder all of the time that you carry your binoculars???

As an personal answer to that question, I just ordered a brand-new Leica rangefinder, the CRF 1200, from Doug. And the only reason I ordered a brand-new one is because there are no Certified Pre-Owned ones.

My "Go-To" binoculars will be my new Leica 8X32 Ultravids and, when I need the capability, I will carry the state-of-the-art Leica CRF 1200 rangefinder.