Binoculars: 8x32 or 10x32?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I plan to get a pair of binoculars, probably Ultravid HD Plus. I've wanted a good pair for a long time, and a recent bequest allows me to get exactly what I want, as a memento of the giver.

I can't decide between 8x32 or 10x32, so looking for comments on what you have found better, why, and what you use them for. Do you get more benefit from the extra magnification, from the wider angle or from the better performance in low light?

If I do a google search, I find nothing but recommendations from twitchers or hunters, and I'm not into birds or blood sports. I would use them for lightweight travel and tourism, getting a closer look at buildings and other attractions, upland hiking, and yes, some wildlife. They would live in my camera bag. I'm posting here in the hope I might find someone with similar interests, but all comments would be welcome.

Edited March 6, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

For the general use you are describing I would recommend 8x25. Easier to hold stable, a wider view plus compact and you don't need the magnification for specialized birding, etc.

[LocalHero1953]

We have a pair of Pentax 9x20, about 30-40 years old, which my wife normally uses. I find them a bit too small, and sometimes a bit dim. Hence I'm looking at the x32s, though keeping an open mind. 

I may have to wait till I can get out and try them in the shops. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[masjah]

I've got a pair of 8x32 Ultravid HD+. I am no sort of binocular expert, and I use mine for general purposes. With the alternatives you mention, the trade off is between magnification and potential maximum brightness, as well as size and ease of holding.. The exit pupil of the 10x32 is 3.2mm and that of the 8x32 is 4mm. So if the environment is dim enough (twilight or night) so that your own pupils are open beyond 3.2mm then you get the benefit. At my age, 4mm is about the limit anyway. But I have a benign tremor, so the extra magnification of the 10x would be problematical, and, as I don't do birding, for general use I don't really need it anyway. I like the extra compactness of the 8x32 - it's surprising how useful they are unexpectedly - for example when visiting a historic house to examine ceiling detail, and they work well as "opera glasses" in the theatre. These are the sort of factors you need to consider to see which is best for you. The one thing I would say is to try them both for yourself to see how they handle for you. The Ultravid HD+ 8x32 needs to be held accurately to get the image correct - other makes are more forgiving in that respect but may have a consequential trade-off in other areas.

[david strachan]

I have many binoculars, unfortunately non are Leica...one day, sigh!

Besides the many uses Astronomy is wonderful with binos.  I would get the largest objective that also suits other uses and carrying.  32mm sounds good.

X10 are difficult to hold for many people...you may want to hand your binoculars to someone else to use.

Enjoy Paul.

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

We have a pair of Pentax 9x20, about 30-40 years old, which my wife normally uses. I find them a bit too small, and sometimes a bit dim. Hence I'm looking at the x32s, though keeping an open mind. 

I may have to wait till I can get out and try them in the shops. 

Even the 25 series  is amazingly bright. Visit a shop where you can try a few out.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny you should ask.  I don't own binoculars, but just this week decided to explore pros/cons of different specs, brands, etc.  I just used the microphone on my smart tv remote and asked for related YouTube videos.  There were many fine summaries, including some by independent reviewers with groups of people...experienced and novice... trying out many brands and options at different price points, and then rating their attributes and preferences.  Heresy here, but in the top price category, Swarovski had some advantages over Leica, and vice versa.  Best all-rounders tended to be 8x32 or 8x42.  I wouldn't buy, though, without handling first...same as with camera viewfinders....personal comfort levels and such, including glass wearers.

Jeff

[jaapv]

The feature I like best in Leica over Zeiss and Swarovsky is the deliberate distortion. When panning rectilinear binoculars will introduce a "spinning world" effect. Leica's design eliminates that. I would say that there is little to choose in sharpness between the three, but Leica Ultravids are the brightest, Zeiss slightly more contrasty and both Zeiss and Leica are somewhat more robust than Swarovsky. I use a Trinovid  10x42 Jagd for wildlife, but my wife's newer Ultravid 8x32 are clearly brighter - and considerably lighter The HD Plus version should be even better.  If I were to buy for general travel I would buy Ultravid 8x25 for still being top quality, but pocketable. For sailing I would choose Ultravid 7x42, with a wider angle of view it makes observation from a moving platform more easy and it has amazing brightness for night use. As for glass wearers, all three have a good eye relief and collapsible eyecups.

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

If I were to buy for general travel I would buy Ultravid 8x25 for still being top quality, but pocketable.

As far as I can see on the Leica website, the only ones available are 8x20 or 10x25. Would you still choose one of those?

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, masjah said:

I like the extra compactness of the 8x32 - it's surprising how useful they are unexpectedly - for example when visiting a historic house to examine ceiling detail, and they work well as "opera glasses" in the theatre.

These are a couple of scenarios I could envisage using them for.

[jaapv]

I didn't realize they were no longer available(showing my age I guess).  In that case 10x25.

[Gibbo]

I inherited my Father's Trinovid 10x25 BCA binoculars, I'm not sure exactly how old they are though. I carry them with me when we are out walking the dogs and suchlike and find them very convenient as they slip into my pocket easily. Even in their nice soft leather(?) pouch they measure 12x7x4cm. They come in handy when trying to identify birds and stuff but I never really spend a lot of time studying anything at a distance. They are lovely and light and every time I look through them it's a bit of a 'wow' moment as they are just so clear!

[a.noctilux]

I second Gibbo for the Trinovid 10x25 BCA.

We(my wife also) are fans of binoculars which we use since decades.

...

In the past...we used to carry binoculars with our photographic gear.

Most binoculars were of heavy types to be "universal" like Trinovid 8x42 BA waterproof or 10x40 of different periods, even one stabilized Canon IS 10x30.

 

But since we get older, the weight of those binoculars are too much to carry or to use.

Five years ago, my wife wanted to try the Trinovid 10x25 BCA, it was a revelation to carry and use everywhere, almost everyday in our pockets

( need not to say that after that we have our own 10x25 BCA used many times at same time each day  ).

When not in use, the nice idea (thinking of collapsible lens from Leitz) is folding so small (over other brands) 60mm x36mm x110mm to be most pockettable possible.

Sometimes we regret not to be able to focus under 5m, that's the only thing that Leica may offer closer focus.

I think that the 8x20 can focus to 3m if that is important.

[LocalHero1953]

Thanks for all the advice and comments, everyone. I am now fairly sure that I want either Ultravid 8x32 or 10x25, but I will have to try them out when shops open and we're allowed out for such things - probably at this place, which has the double advantage of being a binocular specialist, and situated in North Norfolk, where we are likely to visit when we can.

My brother is a twitcher, and reviewed the market for binoculars when he retired, ending up with a pair of Swarovski 8x32, which he thought had more of the wow factor than the Leicas - though he thought both were well clear of Zeiss and the rest. Personal tastes, I guess, but I feel obliged to test those as well. 

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My brother is a twitcher..,

Stabilized binoculars should help with that.  
 

Had to look up this term, as I’m not British, nor a bird watcher. 

I am curious, though, what you think of each option.  I hadn’t considered the diminutive Leica 10x25 until prompted by this thread.

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Stabilized binoculars should help with that.  
 

Had to look up this term, as I’m not British, nor a bird watcher. 

I am curious, though, what you think of each option.  I hadn’t considered the diminutive Leica 10x25 until prompted by this thread.

Jeff

My hands are reasonably steady - I can hold our current Pentax 9x20 without too much trouble - so I am unlikely to go for stabilised binocs, though I might try them to see.

My brother also has a pair of Swarovski 8x25 for pocketability but describes the 8x32 as "standout better for identification [of birds]". He doesn't think 10x adds much beyond 8x. I still favour the Ultravid 8x32, which are distinctly smaller than the Swarovskis. Testing them all will be interesting. That will probably be the latter half of April. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Jeff S]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My hands are reasonably steady - I can hold our current Pentax 9x20 without too much trouble - so I am unlikely to go for stabilised binocs, though I might try them to see.

My brother also has a pair of Swarovski 8x25 for pocketability but describes the 8x32 as "standout better for identification [of birds]". He doesn't think 10x adds much beyond 8x. I still favour the Ultravid 8x32, which are distinctly smaller than the Swarovskis. Testing them all will be interesting. That will probably be the latter half of April. 

Stabilization was meant to be a joke to counteract ‘twitching’.

The rest was serious.  I had planned to test Leica and Swarovski, probably 8x32 and 8x42, but will add 10x25.  As an aside, I do have a left hand twitch from a benign tremor, which doesn’t hinder my photography, but will have to see about binoculars.

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, Jeff S said:

Stabilization was meant to be a joke to counteract ‘twitching’.

The rest was serious.  I had planned to test Leica and Swarovski, probably 8x32 and 8x42, but will add 10x25.  As an aside, I do have a left hand twitch from a benign tremor, which doesn’t hinder my photography, but will have to see about binoculars.

Jeff

I realised you weren't serious - but only after I replied!

I look forward to hearing your conclusions after testing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Not sure when I’ll get a chance, possibly not until warm weather sets in and life returns to some semblance of normality.  But I’ve had fun from my couch checking out options.

Jeff

[jwr50]

I have a pair of 8x32 Ultravid HDs and a pair of Swarovski 8.5x42s.  Both are excellent binoculars, but I think the 8x32 Ultravids are better for general use.