New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Leica vs. Zeiss
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Leica vs. Zeiss

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/27/2006 at 21:13
Hairpin151 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/25/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Thinking about either the Leica 12x50 Ultravids or the Zeiss 10x56's or possibly bigger.What are the pro's and con's of either,I'm needing some advise.Thanks.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2006 at 00:34
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Online
Points: 10981
The pro of both is the tremendous optical and mechanical quality.

The cons of both are overinflated pricetags.

The argument between Ultravids and FLs comes down to personal preference.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2006 at 08:57
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

It depends on what you will be using them for.  Neither would I suggest for all around use.  What situation will you be using them for.  Long range glassing with tripod?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2006 at 19:00
Narrow Gap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/16/2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 127
I would give a very slight edge in low light viewing to the Zeiss Victory 10X56 FL's because of the exit pupil edge of the 10 power zeiss versus the 12 power of the Leica. The other slight edge i would give the Zeiss in low light viewing is because the Zeiss has the Abbe-Koenig prisms which let more usable light through to your eyes. As far as middle of the day viewing goes you will be hard pressed to pick out an advantage.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/29/2006 at 06:29
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971
...and both are too large for handholding. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/29/2006 at 08:03
Hairpin151 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: September/25/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2
I have a pair of Zeiss Classics 10x40's that I've been packing around for years that I cannot do without,I am looking for more I guess when stationary but not a spotting scope.As far as considering Leica too,I guess that I'm intrigued by the ultravids.It appears that you get more for less with them,as far as weight goes anyway.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/30/2006 at 09:38
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971

 

 

Optics Myth:

"Twilight factor" is key to performance in dim light.

The quality of the coatings is much more important. A Zeiss 10x56 would have a twilight factor of 23.66, a Leica 12x50 would have a twilight factor of 24.49. From my own experience, I would get the Ultravids for low light, because their coatings work very well to enhance the contrast of dark shades and colors in dim light.

But I would not get a giant binocular like that. I have an Ultravid 10x42 and it is all you can ever need for hunting. I never felt that they should have been brighter – I used them to count sandpipers under full moon, they should work for hunting.

You sometimes see "twilight factor" listed in a binocular description, as a measure of the resolving power in dim light. This term was more important years ago, before modern optical coatings were invented, than it is today.

Twilight factor is a mathematical formula that shows how both the size of the objective lens and the magnifying power contribute to a binocular's ability to show detail in dim light.

The twilight factor is the square root of the product of the diameter of the objective lens and the magnifying power of the binocular. [For example, an 8x32 binocular would have a twilight factor of 16, and a 10x42 would have a twilight factor of 20.5.]

However, in a modern binocular, performance in dim light depends more on the quality of the optical coatings than on the twilight factor formula. Good coatings can double the amount of light that gets through the binocular.

If you pick up an old binocular from the 40s, or a cheap, low-quality binocular, you'll see very poor performance in dim light. Then look through a modern, top-quality binocular with the same magnification and lens size, and see how much brighter and clearer the image is, despite the fact that both binoculars have the same twilight factor rating.

So if you're looking for good image quality in twilight conditions, you shouldn't just rely on the twilight factor number. You have to take the quality of the coatings into account.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/30/2006 at 10:02
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
anweis' Truer words were never spoken. And the other BS term, relative brightness.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/30/2006 at 11:56
Bird Watcher View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1490
Take a look at; http://zbirding/Truth/prisms/prisms.htm
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/30/2006 at 14:48
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Online
Points: 10981
Ah, that's where Stephen Ingraham went.  He is the guy who used to maintain betterviewdesired.com

I knew he went to work for Zeiss, but did not know about this website.  I tend to agree with his judgements, but he better be able to back up some of the claims he makes about competing binoculars.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/01/2006 at 00:47
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

I would say that twilight factor always have been an uninteresting nonsence number.

Not only that is not is taking coatings and construction under consideration but also as it's just pure humbug.

 

Regardless if you look through a Zeiss 3-12x56 or a Leupold 6,5-20 in twilight you will find out that you can se the best around 8-10X and not on the highest setting regardsless that they have a higher twilight factor.

 

When comparing a Zeiss 7x50 binocular to a Zeiss 15x50 Binocular the same thing is also very clear, the 7x50 binocular is much brighter.

 

So if not the frontlens is big enogh it doent matter how big the twiligth factor is, you will not see anything through it anyway.

 

When it comes to glasses from the 40th I have to dissagree.

It all comes down to quality and not only coatings.

This binocular is brighter at night than mostly modern glasses, and it have never had any coating as it was a export product to the Swedish army in 1940 and the Germans wouldent let them coated optics.

However the optical quality is very good.

 

 

Regards Håkan

 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2006 at 14:23
jednoralski View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/05/2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 12

Zeiss 10x56 will be better for unsurpassed low light performance, more heavy,  in my opinion by magnification 10 it is still possible to look thru without tripod

 

Leica 12x50 very good binocular not so heavy, like zeiss  but for longer observations tripod will be necessary

 

Many hunters in States use smaller binoculars with objectives like 40 or 42 mm but they are not useful in low light conditions.

 

Since some weeks I use Nikon Monarch 10x56 and friend of my Nikon Monarch 10x42, by good light there is the same picture, but in the dark only x56 is useful

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2006 at 08:14
anweis View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: January/29/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 971
Originally posted by jednoralski jednoralski wrote:

Many hunters in States use smaller binoculars with objectives like 40 or 42 mm but they are not useful in low light conditions.

 

Nikon Monarch 10x56 and friend of my Nikon Monarch 10x42, by good light there is the same picture, but in the dark only x56 is useful

 

 

I would not call the Monarch a premium binocular, or a great one, or even a good one.

Yes, many hunters use 42 mm binoculars because they work. You obsiously have never looked through a premium binocular.

With a pair of premium 8x32 i will see more than with a 10x56 Monarch anytime.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2006 at 11:01
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by jednoralski jednoralski wrote:

Many hunters in States use smaller binoculars with objectives like 40 or 42 mm but they are not useful in low light conditions.

 

Nikon Monarch 10x56 and friend of my Nikon Monarch 10x42, by good light there is the same picture, but in the dark only x56 is useful

 

Hunters in the states find the 40 mm class of binocular acceptable because in general, hunting hours are limited to something like 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset (or something similar.) Within these limitations a 40mm glass will provide all the low-light viewing power ever needed. You are certainly correct however, that the 50+mm class of glass will provide greater low-light capacity.

 

Originally posted by anweis anweis wrote:

I would not call the Monarch a premium binocular, or a great one, or even a good one...

 

With a pair of premium 8x32 i will see more than with a 10x56 Monarch anytime.

 

I agree that the Monarch is not a premium binocular but, would have to disagree with the notion that it isn't even a good one.  I know quite a few people who own and absolutely love them. They may not be "all that" for those of us who spend too much time obsessing over optics, but we do tend to be an unreasonably picky bunch.

 

I would sure love to actually test the notion of a premium 32mm binocular against a monarch in 56mm. I'm not sure I would bet on the smaller glass winning as I don't think the quality difference would be sufficiently large but, it would be a fun experiment. 

 

 

 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2006 at 11:51
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Online
Points: 10981
I am not sure how this test would work out.  The results would depend rather heavily on the age of the tester, i.e. on how big the tester's exit pupil dilates.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2006 at 15:19
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

True, but if done with a variety of testers of different ages, vision prescriptions, etc. and (if possible) coupled with some objective laboratory testing to determine the actual % of ambient light being transmitted by each optic, some fairly instructive information could be gleaned.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2006 at 17:01
jednoralski View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/05/2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 12

Hunters in Central Europe do hunting 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset, we also do hunting in the night - for predators and wild boars - especially  by moon. That’s why we use very often scopes and binoculars with 56 + mm objectives (quite often Swarovski, Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena). No one serious hunter will hunt in the night with 32 mm objective and it doesn’t mater what kind of mark it is.  In low light conditions we simply need more light and that’s possible with big objectives only. Of course coating and other technical solutions are very important but if we have the same solutions, and magnifications  bigger objective  is heavy but better.

I use Monarch because is 5 times cheaper than Swarovski, and other differences are not as big.

I also would sure love to actually test the notion of a premium 32mm binocular against a monarch in 56mm,  if possible use the same magnification please.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/18/2007 at 18:51
zeissoem2 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: March/18/2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 119
Originally posted by www.technika.nu www.technika.nu wrote:

I would say that twilight factor always have been an uninteresting nonsence number.


Not only that is not is taking coatings and construction under consideration but also as it's just pure humbug.


 


Regardless if you look through a Zeiss 3-12x56 or a Leupold 6,5-20 in twilight you will find out that you can se the best around 8-10X and not on the highest setting regardsless that they have a higher twilight factor.


 


When comparing a Zeiss 7x50 binocular to a Zeiss 15x50 Binocular the same thing is also very clear, the 7x50 binocular is much brighter.


 




So if not the frontlens is big enogh it doent matter how big the twiligth factor is, you will not see anything through it anyway.


 


When it comes to glasses from the 40th I have to dissagree.


It all comes down to quality and not only coatings.


This binocular is brighter at night than mostly modern glasses, and it have never had any coating as it was a export product to the Swedish army in 1940 and the Germans wouldent let them coated optics.


However the optical quality is very good.


 


 


Regards Håkan


 



 


 



Nice to this "best ever made" again.-blc8x60

Edited by zeissoem2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/18/2007 at 19:29
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

Yes, of course: the "best ever made."

 

Having tired of making such obviously superior optics in the early to mid 1940's and wanting to enjoy a more closely run optics-marketing race, Zeiss subsequently chose to discontinue this model in favor of manufacturing low-brow crap like the Classic, and the Victory FL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There must be something in the water in Norway and Sweden....

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/18/2007 at 23:27
zeissoem2 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: March/18/2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 119
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Yes, of course: the "best ever made."


 


Having tired of making such obviously superior optics in the early to mid 1940's and wanting to enjoy a more closely run optics-marketing race, Zeiss subsequently chose to discontinue this model in favor of manufacturing low-brow crap like the Classic, and the Victory FL.


 


 


 


 


 


 


There must be something in the water in Norway and Sweden....


 


 



Zeiss did not make more 8x60 like this, because it is too expensive to do it.

Edited by zeissoem2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/19/2007 at 12:11
zeissoem2 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: March/18/2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 119

Do you know that Meopta is making a lot of lenses for Svarowski???

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/19/2007 at 13:40
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by zeissoem2 zeissoem2 wrote:

How many in the US do know that Copper outside of the Statue of Liberty is coming from Karmøy-Norway

 

The easier question is; "how many care?" 

 

 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/19/2007 at 13:42
ND2000 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 308

Ha, LOL lucznik!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/19/2007 at 13:49
zeissoem2 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: March/18/2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 119
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Originally posted by zeissoem2 zeissoem2 wrote:

How many in the US do know that Copper outside of the Statue of Liberty is coming from Karmøy-Norway

 

The easier question is; "how many care?" 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe more than others care about Meopta lenses in Svarowski binos.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/19/2007 at 13:50
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436

Originally posted by zeissoem2 zeissoem2 wrote:


Zeiss did not make more 8x60 like this, because it is too expensive to do it.

 

There is no such thing as a product that is "too expensive" to make.  It may be too expensive to mass-market but, that's a totally different issue. If this vintage binocular actually offered a superior image to modern binocular offerings, it would still be made - regardless of cost. What's more, someone would still buy it, also regardless of cost.

 

Right now a company called Questar is making a spotting scope called the "Birder " that makes the image from any Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss, etc. scope pale by comparison.  Of course, it's rather large, somewhat unweildy, and costs over $4000 (which in turn means you don't see them very often) but, they still make them for those who truly do want the best and are willing to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Leica vs. Zeiss"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Leica vs. Zeiss mjones Binoculars 20
Zeiss Vs. Leica CONKDOR Rifle Scopes 3
Which Is Best For Hunting? Leica vs. Zeiss yellowdog Binoculars 13
Leica, Swaro or Zeiss Stadle Rifle Scopes 9
Leica Ultravid HD vrs Zeiss Victory Bino's little cleo Binoculars 4
leica or zeiss? Dyelynn Laser Rangefinders 5
Zeiss Victory vs. Leica 1200, 1600 FireEMT5 Laser Rangefinders 10
Leica-Zeiss-Swarovski leica man Binoculars 1
Leica v. Zeiss pass-thru Laser Rangefinders 0
Zeiss Leica or Swaro? TheDrakeTaker Binoculars 46 9/27/2007 4:52:14 PM


This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.