Recently I compared the Leica 7x35 Trinovid with the LOAVA 7x35 Aglaia III, a new Chinese binocular with stunning performance. Among the few disadvantages of the LOAVA were its high weight, particularly in relation to the small and lightweight Trinovid. Just a couple of months later, while I was in China again, a good friend gave me an unknown (to me) new binocular made by Yuemu ("Pleasing") and called Qingfeng ("Green Peak"). It is a wide-angle yet lightweight 8x32 model with a 9.2° field and an image that appears to be sharp to the edge.
I have now also received the 7x32 variant of the same Yuemu Qingfeng series. It is slightly wider, with a 10° field, and weighs 560g, exactly the same as the 7x35 Leica Trinovid. This therefore provides a fine opportunity to compare these two lightweight models and see how they perform.
Not much is known about the origin of this binocular, except that the CEO of Yuemu appears to be a gentleman named Wu and that the factory is believed to be located in Kunming. This 7x32 binocular belongs to the most recent generation, made in 2026, and is easily distinguishable from the 2025 variant, whose diopter setting faced the eyepiece side of the bridge. I cannot find any serial number. These Yuemu binoculars are also sold in Japan, and they are distributed in Sweden under the name NSO Viken. I purchased my copy from McGill in Singapore and paid about 460 Euro, including tariffs, taxes, and shipping to Germany.
The classic 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 resumed in the early 1980s. When Leica announced its reintroduction in 2017, it generated considerable excitement within the binocular community. In 2019, however, the new version finally turned out to have a reduced field of view (140m/1000m instead of 150m/1000m) and ordinary Schmidt-Pechan rather than Uppendahl prisms. Nevertheless, its state-of-the-art coatings gave it an exceptionally bright, contrasty image, far superior to its predecessors. The last retail price of the 7x35 Trinovid, often called the “Retrovid”, was 1500 Euro, but I learned with regret that Leica discontinued this model in early 2026.
The following table summarizes some of the specifications of the two contenders.
| Real angle | Apparent angle | Eye relief | Exit pupil | Close focus | Weight(*) | |
| of view (deg) | of view (deg) | (mm) | diam. (mm) | (m) | (gram) | |
| Yuemu Qingfeng | 10.0 | 64 | 18.1 | 4.6 | ~2 | 560 |
| Leica Trinovid | 8.0 | 56 | 16 | 5.0 | ~3.5 | 560 |
Field of View: The Trinovid offers a modest field of 140m/1000m, easily accommodated by small prisms, which contributes to the slim shape of its housing. The Qingfeng, at 175m/1000m, is considerably wider, allowing the observer to take in extended flocks of birds or mountain ranges. The difference is striking, and Yuemu receives the first point of this comparison.
Edge Sharpness: The Trinovid shows perfectly point-like stars in the center, but at about 70% of the way to the edge the star images begin to smear. Right at the edge, the blur is significant. The Qingfeng shows patterns that differ between the left and right tubes: in the right tube, the stars are perfect in the center, become only slightly soft in the region between 75% and 90%, and are point-like again near the edge, a pattern known as an 'Absam ring'. Through the left tube, stars are slightly blurry near the upper edge and perfect at the lower edge, an asymmetrical distribution. To be clear: the degree of blurriness seen through either tube of the Qingfeng is far lower than anything visible in the Leica beyond 80%, where it becomes much worse toward the edge. I use stars of second-magnitude brightness, and this test is sensitive. During daylight observations, it is quite difficult to distinguish the patterns described in the Yuemu binocular, whereas the Leica visibly becomes unsharp toward the edge. The Qingfeng appears practically sharp across the entire field during daytime observations and receives the point.
Color Fidelity: Both binoculars deliver very bright images without any color tint. Leica is famous for its saturated color rendition, and the Qingfeng is competitive here. All colors, including warm tones, are represented with full saturation. 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 bend noticeably near the field edges, but panning is smooth. The 7x32 Qingfeng appears to be essentially distortion-free (whereas the 8x32 variant has a little pincushion distortion), and I am unable to see any visible bending of straight edges. As a consequence, this binocular behaves very differently during panning: it shows me a clearly visible globe effect, in which the moving image appears to roll over a slightly curved globe. In comparison, the panning of the Leica appears rather natural to me, although, under close inspection, its significant pincushion distortion almost seems to make the image roll over the surface of a concave bowl, which might be described as a kind of "anti-globe" effect. It is fun to compare the panning behavior of these two binoculars with their complementary distortion designs. Although I traditionally comment on the panning behavior of binoculars, I do not award points here, since this involves highly subjective elements of visual perception and is judged differently by different observers. In any case, the Yuemu, with its excellent reproduction of straight lines, would be a good choice for architectural studies.
Stray Light: When I used the 8x32 Qingfeng (made in 2025) in the field, I quickly noticed a susceptibility to glare, which often affected image contrast. With the 7x32, this defect has been partially eliminated. I see fewer glossy sections on the inner tube walls, and in the field these kinds of whiteouts appear rather rarely and at reduced intensity. Still, there are occasional milky areas affecting the lower sections of the field when the sky is bright or during twilight, when the eye pupils are expanding. Therefore, the 7x32 definitely still has a weakness in its resistance to stray light, though it performs well in most situations. The Leica is a true top scorer here: I have rarely experienced a binocular that resists stray light under virtually any condition, and this is one of them. This point goes to Leica.
Ghost Images: When viewing bright light sources at night, the 7x32 Qingfeng produces a diffraction spike through each tube, forming a faint cross-like pattern around sufficiently bright street lanterns. These spikes are generated at the roof edges of the prisms, and their intensity seems to be related to the precision with which these edges are polished. With the 8x32 the effect is more obvious, but I do not know whether this difference compared with the 7x32 results from random sample variation or indicates an improvement in the new 2026 production run. The Leica does not show these artifacts, and it receives the point here.
Chromatic Aberration (CA): Color fringing is very low with the Qingfeng and visible only far out toward the edge of the field. Even there, the edges of high-contrast objects show only faint hints of color. In this respect, the Yuemu binocular is competitive even with high-end binoculars, perhaps being surpassed only by the Zeiss SF or Kowa Prominar. The Trinovid shows color fringes of higher intensity within the outermost 30% of the field. This point goes to Yuemu.
Low-light performance: In daytime, these binoculars show images of equal brightness, indicating a very similar level of transmission. Only in advanced twilight, when it becomes sufficiently dark for the eye pupil diameter to reach the 5mm level, does the Leica show its advantage. Its image is then slightly, but visibly, brighter. It is interesting to note the far more significant difference between the 7x32 and the 8x32 Qingfeng. Both probably have the same transmission, but the difference in exit pupil diameter (4.6mm vs. 4.0mm) is definitely a game changer once it becomes dark. This point goes to Leica.
Usability and features: The Qingfeng scores with several impressive specifications. It has a close-focus distance of 2m, compared with 3.5m for the Trinovid, and its eye relief is greater, too. I also like the position of the large focusing wheel, which makes handling very comfortable in the field. The rubber armor is thin and may not protect the instrument against mechanical impact, but it offers an anti-slip surface that allows the binocular to be held securely even with gloves. The Leica Trinovid is somewhat spartan here, though I prefer its pull-up eyecups, which allow more accurate positioning than the Qingfeng's eyecups. Overall, the Qingfeng appears more versatile in the field and receives the point here.
Mechanics and ruggedness: I find the focuser of the Qingfeng somewhat imprecise. Over the last week of testing, it has developed a slight mechanical play when focusing from close to far distance, and turning the wheel generally feels less responsive than the Trinovid's focuser. Here, I also observe a difference from the focuser of the 8x32 version of the Qingfeng, which performs better; by contrast, the diopter setting of the 7x32 is smoother than that of the 8x32. It has several click stops, but the spacing is too coarse, so I can hardly find the optimum setting for my eyes. Furthermore, I do not have full confidence in the ruggedness of the Qingfeng's single-bridge design, although I have not experienced any failure. The Qingfeng is supposed to be fully waterproof, a plus compared with the Leica, which is specified as splash-waterproof. All in all, however, I would trust the mechanical durability and ruggedness of the Trinovid more than that of the Yuemu, which appears somewhat sloppy in its machining and possibly rather fragile. Time will tell whether my judgment is justified, but as things stand today, I would award this point to the Trinovid.
The following table summarizes the observations above. The better-performing binocular receives two points, the other one a single point. When both perform equally well, the scores are averaged.
| Angle of | Image | Stray | Ghost | Color | Low | Image | Usability | Mechanical | Final | |
| field | sharpness | light | image | fringing | light | color | & features | ruggedness | score | |
| Yuemu 7x32 Qingfeng | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 13.5 |
| Leica 7x35 Trinovid | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 | 13.5 |
The “final score” is the sum of the individual scores and is intended as a guide only.
The Yuemu Qingfeng offers several sensational performance values, along with some weak points that could be improved. This binocular manages to place a very wide image with near-perfect edge sharpness into a compact and lightweight body. The views are spectacular, offering a bright, wide image with well-saturated colors and excellent suppression of color fringing. Stray light suppression should be further optimized, and some mechanical features, such as the focuser and the diopter setting, do not display state-of-the-art precision. Particularly remarkable is the complete absence of distortion, which makes this binocular a truly orthoscopic instrument, reproducing straight lines with high accuracy. It is an excellent choice for architectural studies on city tours, though its panning behavior may be unpleasant to some observers. Compared with the LOAVA 7x35, the 7x32 Qingfeng is just a little behind, both optically and mechanically, but it is so much lighter that it will be the preferred choice on tours where mobility matters.
The Leica Trinovid holds its ground against this new contender, with its outstanding contrast due to excellent glare resistance, prisms of the highest quality, and mechanical engineering that makes it feel like a precision instrument. Both the Yuemu and the Leica are pleasantly lightweight, and while the Yuemu offers a wider field, the Leica delivers some extra light in advanced twilight. Both are remarkable binoculars: not high-end, but well positioned in the elevated mid-range, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The Yuemu comes with a dramatically lower price tag, however, providing an alternative for users who are unwilling or unable to pay for the Leica.
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.
Last modified: June 2026