Swarovski 8.5x42 El, Zeiss 8x42 FL & purple fringing

[moman]

Hi,
I would appreciate your opinions which will hopefully help me make a decision.
I have a pair of Zeiss 8x42 FL's which I like a lot. I recently tried out 3 pair of Swarovski 8.5x42 EL's. Two of the older ones were not as bright as the Zeiss nor as contrasty. The third pair of EL's, (which is the latest fast focus model and which I bought) is quite impressive. It has slightly better depth of field than the Zeiss and is just is bright and contrasty. I also like the 1/2 greater power.
Now my question: I took both out on a very clear sunny day. I could see no difference between the two in various viewing situations, until I viewed a distant white house with foliage in front. With the Swarovski I could see a fairly high degree of purple fringing around the foliage and parts of the house. The Zeiss showed virtually none. I will eventually have to sell one pair or the other (I can't afford to keep both, and see no need to). Do you think the additional purple fringing of the Swarovski's is sufficient justification to sell them and keep the Zeiss? And how much of an issue is purple fringing in most situations?

[Chris Oates]

I can get purple fringeing from my Swift 828's very occasionaly when viewing black backlit ducks against water - it's hardly noticeable and happens so rarely I forget about it - if I had it to the extent you have nothing would pursuade me too keep the bins - in the bright light of summer it will get worse.
If I show my Brother an example of the 'purples' he doesn't notice it, same as most people never comment about outdoor TV pictures of branches etc which suffer terribly from it. (and that's with a £50,000 lens)

[moman]

I can get purple fringeing from my Swift 828's very occasionaly when viewing black backlit ducks against water - it's hardly noticeable and happens so rarely I forget about it - if I had it to the extent you have nothing would pursuade me too keep the bins - in the bright light of summer it will get worse.
If I show my Brother an example of the 'purples' he doesn't notice it, same as most people never comment about outdoor TV pictures of branches etc which suffer terribly from it. (and that's with a £50,000 lens)
Hi Chris,
Some people never notice purple fringing, but it seems that once you discover it you always notice it--when present.
I suspect that this is a trade-off with roof prism binoculars, and that its absence in the Zeiss fl's may be the exception to the rule.

[Pinewood]

Purple fringing is an example of chromatic aberration. Even if you do not notice the color, there is deterioration of the image. Then again, all binoculars are design compromises, so we pick the one which works for us. I know of one binocular design which was called a "no compromise," glass. Actually, it was compromised by weight and cost even if its optics approached a "no compromise" state.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

[bradshrike]

Purple fringing is an example of chromatic aberration. Even if you do not notice the color, there is deterioration of the image. Then again, all binoculars are design compromises, so we pick the one which works for us. I know of one binocular design which was called a "no compromise," glass. Actually, it was compromised by weight and cost even if its optics approached a "no compromise" state.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Well said...

[Swissboy]

Hi,
I will eventually have to sell one pair or the other (I can't afford to keep both, and see no need to). ...

One question that always arises (for me) when I read such statements:

This procedure of finding the optimal model by buying and reselling must involve considerable financial losses. (Unless you can buy at wholesale prices.) As no one would buy a used pair at even close to the full price. Thus, I think it makes more sense to get your stuff from places like EO, that take them back within a certain time.

[Marko_]

Do you think the additional purple fringing of the Swarovski's is sufficient justification to sell them and keep the Zeiss?


Shouldn't YOU be making that decision ?!!

[moman]

Shouldn't YOU be making that decision ?!!
Yes, but sometimes what seems like a worthwhile trade-off at first becomes a major annoyance as you continue to use the binoculars under various conditions. The trade-off with the Swarovski 8x42's are the excellent depth of field and uniform image quality across the field, vs. the purple fringing. Therefore the feedback from others who have used these binoculars longer than I have and under different conditions would be helpful.

[Swissboy]

. The trade-off with the Swarovski 8x42's are the excellent depth of field and uniform image quality across the field, vs. the purple fringing.

I notice that I very much concentrate my eyes to the center of the field. The remainder is mostly for overview and to avoid the tubular impression. So a slight reduction in image quality towards the edges is no problem for me.

As I have posted elsewhere, I recently had a chance to make a comparison again between the models you are considering plus the Ultravid. Swarovski came in last, but as this had been a somewhat battered demo model, I would not be surprised if it had been one of the old ones you mentioned as being inferior. I often wonder how companies think second choice models would do against the competition. At that testing opportunity, there were also a number of top line scopes. And would you believe the Nikon 82 model came with an OLD zoom?! That is the best way to convince everybody that the competition is better. It's worse than not being present, as potential customers can compare directly. And these impressions are also being spread as we do here in BF.

[Leif]

Yes, but sometimes what seems like a worthwhile trade-off at first becomes a major annoyance as you continue to use the binoculars under various conditions. The trade-off with the Swarovski 8x42's are the excellent depth of field and uniform image quality across the field, vs. the purple fringing. Therefore the feedback from others who have used these binoculars longer than I have and under different conditions would be helpful.

I agree with Marko. I know which I would choose (I did) but things which annoy me do not bother some others and vica versa. As said by others, they all involve compromises. The Zeiss has a bit worse off axis performance, but better CA correction. As you've discovered for yourself.

Leif

[moman]

After comparing both binoculars in varying conditions and places I decided to keep the Swarovski's and sell the FL's.
Both are superb binoculars and the FL's do have less purple fringing, however with continuous use of the binoculars this was very seldom a factor. Both have about the same brightness and central sharpness (I think Swarovski may have made unannounced optical improvements, including changes in the coating). What finally won me over to the Swarovski is their greater depth of field and slightly better edge sharpness. When I switched back and forth between the two pair, the Swarovski image just seemed to fall right into place with less effort than with the Zeiss.

[blakebart]

Hello,

I agree with you on a decision based on long-term preference, ease of use and that the negatives and compromises do recede into the background. I am particularly conscious of chromatic aberration (CA) because of my photographic background. Once noticed it is just so apparent that you lock onto it, whether it be in pictures or in the binocular image. One has to spend lots of money for photographic lenses that have minimal CA. I just bought a pair of the Swaro 7x50 Habicht SLs (old stock, but in brand new condition) and they do exhibit some CA. Yet when I compare them to admittedly less expensive binos, the Swaros win hands down...zero internal reflection, they adjust to my super-narrow-set pupils, and in general the amazing 3-D effect they have, not to mention their brightness, even in twilight conditions. The only other negative is the long focus rack which does not lend itself to rapid focusing. But like all pieces of professional equipment, it is up to us to learn how to use them effectively, and appreciate their engineering. No product is perfect; as was said before in this forum design is necessarily the result of compromise.

Regards,

Blake

[denco@comcast.n]

One question that always arises (for me) when I read such statements:

This procedure of finding the optimal model by buying and reselling must involve considerable financial losses. (Unless you can buy at wholesale prices.) As no one would buy a used pair at even close to the full price. Thus, I think it makes more sense to get your stuff from places like EO, that take them back within a certain time.

I buy and sell binoculars all the time and generally make money on them. The trick is similar to trading stocks. Buy low and sell high. I always buy like new in the box used binoculars for a fraction of their retail cost and if I don't like them for some reason and want to try something else I usually sell them at a profit.
I bought a BNIB(Brand New in Box) pair of Swarovski's EL 8x32 for $1000.00 and sold them for $1150.00. I bought a BNIB 10x42 Nikon SE for $400.00 and sold them for $550.00. I bought a BNIB Zeiss FL 10x42 for $900.00 and sold them for $1150.00. I bought a BNIB Nikon Monarchs 8x42 for $175.00 and sold them for $250.00. I just bought a BNIB Nikon LX L 8x42 for $700.00(These retail for $1300.00 but I might keep these I like them quite a bit). Alot of times I just buy and sell binoculars to make some extra money and I enjoy doing it, as well as , I enjoy trying different binoculars. Kind of like a hobby. It's amazing the deals out there if you constantly have your eyes open and be ready to jump on a deal at a moments notice.

Dennis

[ceasar]

But do they work OK after they have fallen off those trucks?
Bob :'D

[FrankD]

But do they work OK after they have fallen off those trucks?
Bob

If you ship them back to Nikon to be repaired under the No Fault policy then they do. ;)

[Swedpat]

According to my own experience chromatic aberation isn't a big issue as long the magnification is less then 10x. If you really try to notice it you can surely, but the question is if it's a real problem. I wonder also if the problem mainly is caused by a wrong eye setting at the oculars, a slight move of the eye can decide if you see CA or not.

Patric

[Bill Atwood]

I buy and sell binoculars all the time and generally make money on them. The trick is similar to trading stocks.

Well...this is fairly easy to do with a rising market price.

[Pileatus]

I buy and sell binoculars all the time and generally make money on them. The trick is similar to trading stocks. Buy low and sell high. I always buy like new in the box used binoculars for a fraction of their retail cost and if I don't like them for some reason and want to try something else I usually sell them at a profit.
I bought a BNIB(Brand New in Box) pair of Swarovski's EL 8x32 for $1000.00 and sold them for $1150.00. I bought a BNIB 10x42 Nikon SE for $400.00 and sold them for $550.00. I bought a BNIB Zeiss FL 10x42 for $900.00 and sold them for $1150.00. I bought a BNIB Nikon Monarchs 8x42 for $175.00 and sold them for $250.00. I just bought a BNIB Nikon LX L 8x42 for $700.00(These retail for $1300.00 but I might keep these I like them quite a bit). Alot of times I just buy and sell binoculars to make some extra money and I enjoy doing it, as well as , I enjoy trying different binoculars. Kind of like a hobby. It's amazing the deals out there if you constantly have your eyes open and be ready to jump on a deal at a moments notice.

Dennis
Dennis,

I sold all my bins and bought a Swarovski 8X32 when you told me it was as good as your new FL. Then I sold the Swarovski and bought an FL because you told me Swarovski and Leica were second-rate and simply couldn't compete with the FL. By the way, did that Leica ever sell for you on Astromart and do you remember telling us you preferred the Swarovski EL view to the FL.? I bought a Monarch for the car because you said an engineer told you its optics were identical to the LX and you liked it more than the FL. I sold the FL because you did. Then I bought a Nikon LX because you said that was better.

Gee, Dennis, it appears to me as if you've been priming your sales pump as you buy and sell the same models you so heartily recommend here on BF.

John

PS
The SE 8X32 is still my absolute favorite followed by my 7X42 Ultravid, which is as good a backup as I could find! By the way, Dennis, when you get around to comparing the 7X42 Ultravid to your 8X42 LX you're going to discover two things: (1) the 8X42 LX has the wider sweet spot and (2) the 7X42 Ultravid reveals more color and detail...in spite of its lower magnification. It surprised me too!