Review: LOAVA 7x35 Aglaia III vs. Leica 7x35 Trinovid

The 7x35 binocular has become a rare species, at least in the higher‑quality, higher‑performance ranges. During the 1960s and 1970s, there were numerous Japan‑made 7x35 Porro binoculars, many of them with very wide fields of view and some with decent performance. On the high‑end side, Leitz offered its 7x35 B Trinovid, which was discontinued in the 1980s. After that, only lower‑ to mid‑range binoculars appeared with this specification, the Nikon Action EX being the most prominent example. The re‑introduction of the classical Trinovid line in 2019 eventually filled a gap and placed the 7x35 “Retrovid” as the sole representative of its specification in the extended high‑end range.

The shortage of 7x35 binoculars has always puzzled me: I believe this is a very universal format—more compact than a typical 8x42, yet more suitable for low‑light observations than an 8x32. Furthermore, I enjoy the simplicity and ease of observing with 7x binoculars, which are easy to hold steady and require little focusing effort thanks to their great depth of field. I am therefore excited to report on a newly introduced high‑performance binocular, the LOAVA 7x35 Aglaia III, and to compare it with the Leica Trinovid, which so far has been my favorite 7x35 binocular.

LOAVA is a Beijing‑based brand of optical instruments primarily serving amateur astronomers. Only recently have some of their products reached markets outside China, since Singapore‑based McGill has begun distributing them internationally. The new LOAVA Aglaia III line currently consists of 7x35, 8.5x44, 10.5x44, 12x56, and 15x56 binoculars. Each offers a wide field of view and exceptional edge sharpness, and comes with a generous set of accessories such as a cross‑strap, tripod mount, iPhone adapter, and winged eyecups. These binoculars are available in uncommon colors such as "coffee brown" and "titan gray". I bought the 7x35 for about 600 Euro, including taxes, tariffs, and shipping to Germany.

The classical Trinovid line was introduced by Leitz in 1963. It featured Uppendahl prisms, which gave it an exceptionally slim body shape, and an internal focusing mechanism in which a lens group in the eyepiece was shifted. These original Trinovid binoculars were particularly lightweight, and the 7x35 weighed no more than 550g. Production ceased in the 1970s, then briefly reappeared in the early 1980s. When Leica announced its re‑introduction in 2017, it generated considerable excitement within the binocular community, although in 2019 it finally turned out to have a reduced field of view (140m/1000m instead of 150m/1000m) and ordinary Schmidt‑Pechan rather than Uppendahl prisms. Yet the state‑of‑the‑art coatings gave it an exceptionally bright, contrasty image, far superior to its predecessors. The 7x35 Trinovid (often called the “Retrovid”) can be purchased for 1500 Euro.

The following table summarizes some of the specifications of the two contenders.

Optical performance

Field of View: A very wide field of view is the defining feature of the LOAVA Aglaia III line. More than 180m/1000m is very impressive both for terrestrial observations and at night under the stars. The Leica Trinovid comes with a modest field of 140m/1000m. This point goes to LOAVA.

Edge Sharpness: The Trinovid shows perfectly point‑like stars in the center, but about 70% of the way to the edge the star images begin to smear. Right at the edge, the blur is significant. The Aglaia shows point‑like stars up to ~85%; beyond that, the blur increases slightly toward the edge, where the image remains reasonably fine, so practically the entire field is usable. My wife, who is younger than I am and has very sharp vision, insists that in direct comparison the Trinovid shows the stars at its center with more “punch.” Although I was not able to verify that, it may well be that an old‑school optical design philosophy behind the Leica led to full optimization of center sharpness, whereas the design strategy behind the LOAVA aimed for a good balance of sharpness across the entire field. In any case, this point goes to LOAVA.

Color Fidelity: Both binoculars deliver very bright, contrasty images. I see no meaningful difference; the points are split.

Rectilinear Distortion: The Trinovid shows strong pincushion distortion, as was common in binoculars designed in the second half of the 20th century. Straight lines bow noticeably near the field edges, but panning is smooth. In contrast, the LOAVA has a lower level of distortion, and during panning I experience a modest globe effect. Although I traditionally comment on the panning behavior of binoculars, I do not award points here, since this is highly subjective.

Stray Light: Both contenders suppress stray light well. It takes difficult ambient conditions to produce minor glare with the LOAVA, mostly along the lower edge of the image. In practice this is rarely an issue. The Leica is a true top scorer here: I have rarely experienced a binocular that resists stray light under virtually any conditions, and this is one of them. This point goes to Leica.

Ghost Images: When viewing bright light sources at night, the LOAVA can produce a fine spike resembling the “rainbow spike” seen in some Sky Rover SRBC binoculars. Proper exit‑pupil positioning largely avoids this effect, but such fine tuning is not always possible in dynamic observing conditions. Under the stars it is invisible except on the very brightest objects, where it may appear as a faint line. The Leica does not show these artifacts and receives the point here.

Chromatic Aberration (CA): Color fringing is very low with the Aglaia and visible only far toward the edge of the field. The Trinovid shows color fringes of higher intensity within the outermost 30% of the field. This point goes to LOAVA.

Low‑light performance: Both binoculars have exit pupils of identical size, and with 5mm they are fully suitable for twilight observations. They also offer state‑of‑the‑art transmission of about 90% and perform well even in dense forests where much daylight is blocked. I have compared both binoculars under various ambient light conditions and found no performance differences, so the points are split.

Mechanical construction

Usability and features: The Leica clearly wins in size, weight, and thus mobility. It is no larger than an average 8x32 binocular, but offers superior low‑light performance. This is a binocular you can carry on long excursions; it even fits into the pocket of your jacket. The LOAVA belongs—in size and weight—to the 42mm class of binoculars and is definitely not as pleasant to carry on long walks. However, it comes with cross‑straps that may ease the burden, and accessories such as winged eyecups to prevent light entering from the sides. The close‑focus distance of the Aglaia is shorter, making it suitable for insect studies. There are also filter threads at the objectives, and I am told that suitable filters for astronomical observations will be offered in the near future. Both are versatile in their own ways, and despite their identical 7x35 specifications, they target different users and will be used in different situations. This score is split.

Ruggedness: I fully trust the mechanical reliability of binoculars made by Leica—I even suspect that among high‑end binocular makers, Leica still provides the highest level of mechanical engineering. Yet this Trinovid is not fully waterproof (only splash‑water resistant) and there is no rubber armor to absorb mechanical impact. The LOAVA has already demonstrated its ruggedness during a 4‑week road and hiking trip on the Tibetan highlands. It endured countless hours on bumpy roads, dust, wind, and harsh temperatures at 4000m elevation. I am thus confident that this binocular is ready for wild adventures, and the point goes to LOAVA.

Summary

The following table summarizes the observations above. The best‑performing binocular gets two points, the other one a single point. In case both perform equally well, the scores are averaged.

The “final score” is the sum of the individual scores and is intended as orientation only.

The overall superior binocular is the LOAVA Aglaia III, which I regard as the best 7x35 on the market—likely also the best 7x35 in binocular history. Although the Leica Trinovid is a good binocular, the LOAVA offers a wider, better‑corrected field at just 40% of the Leica’s price. The Trinovid still shines with its compactness and its superb stray‑light resistance, and its brightness and contrast are state‑of‑the‑art. Yet its eyepiece design is outdated, and the lack of full water resistance and close focus makes it less attractive to some potential users. By contrast, the LOAVA delivers the same high performance we have experienced in recent market introductions by Sky Rover and thus replaces the Trinovid as the most advanced 7x35 binocular. Compared with the Sky Rover 6x32 SRBC, the LOAVA has a narrower field of view but superior edge sharpness and a lower level of chromatic aberration. I recommend it to anyone who wants the wide angle, great depth of field, and jitter‑free image of a 7x binocular, provided they are willing to carry the extra weight of its oversized prisms. Those who prefer a lightweight option and are ready to pay extra while accepting a narrower field of view will still be happy with the handsome Trinovid.

Disclaimer

The information given in this report reflects the author’s personal impressions and opinions only. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any specification. I have neither been paid nor supported in any other way to write this review.