• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swarovski 8x25 CL-P best compact binocular? (1 Viewer)

OsageArcher said:
As a minority of one I like my Zeiss 10x25 Victory Compacts a lot...they just take some getting used to, to be able to steady them as well as a mid- or full-sized binocular. Fit and finish and overall design is top-notch as are the optics (and unfortunately the price is up there too)...
Click to expand...

Well, now you're a minority of two. I love mine and they're the ones I usually have on hikes and for search and rescue. You learn how to use them properly after a time or two.

The 8x25 swaros with their dual hinge and larger size hold absolutely no appeal for me.
 
CSG said:
Well, now you're a minority of two. I love mine and they're the ones I usually have on hikes and for search and rescue. You learn how to use them properly after a time or two.

The 8x25 swaros with their dual hinge and larger size hold absolutely no appeal for me.
Click to expand...



I have an 8x20 Victory B T*. It is quite good but I never much liked it's small eye cups so I got a Swaro 8x25 CL P which has larger eye cups. (The size specs for the 10x25 CL-P are virtually the same as the 8x25 CL P.)

I noted that although the Swaro 8x25 was longer and wider than the Zeiss 8x20 while in use, it was more narrow than the Zeiss when folded up so I decided to check the specs of the Zeiss 10x25 Victory and I found out that the Swarovskis, when folded, are smaller overall than the Zeiss 10x25 Victory except for weight.

The little Zeiss 8x20 is also thicker front to back at it's hinge when folded than my Swarovski is when it is folded.

The Swaro's (Both the 8x25 and 10x25 CL P) weigh 3 and 1/2 ounces more--probably because they have more metal in their construction-- but they are shorter by .4" and when folded are 1.3" narrower than the Zeiss 10x25 Victory.

I keep my 8x25 CL-P in a Nikon case that came with my Nikon 10x25 LX L. They are just about the same size and fit in the case with room to spare. But the little Zeiss 8x20 B T* causes the case to bulge slightly at the sides when I put it inside because it is wider than both the Swarovski and Nikon when it is folded.

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
I have an 8x20 Victory B T*. It is quite good but I never much liked it's small eye cups so I got a Swaro 8x25 CL P which has larger eye cups. (The size specs for the 10x25 CL-P are virtually the same as the 8x25 CL P.)

I noted that although the Swaro 8x25 was longer and wider than the Zeiss 8x20 while in use, it was more narrow than the Zeiss when folded up so I decided to check the specs of the Zeiss 10x25 Victory and I found out that the Swarovskis, when folded, are smaller overall than the Zeiss 10x25 Victory except for weight.

The little Zeiss 8x20 is also thicker front to back at it's hinge when folded than my Swarovski is when it is folded.

The Swaro's (Both the 8x25 and 10x25 CL P) weigh 3 and 1/2 ounces more--probably because they have more metal in their construction-- but they are shorter by .4" and when folded are 1.3" narrower than the Zeiss 10x25 Victory.

I keep my 8x25 CL-P in a Nikon case that came with my Nikon 10x25 LX L. They are just about the same size and fit in the case with room to spare. But the little Zeiss 8x20 B T* causes the case to bulge slightly at the sides when I put it inside because it is wider than both the Swarovski and Nikon when it is folded.

Bob
Click to expand...
Having had the Zeiss I thought it was bigger than the Swaro. Thanks for confirming that. The Swaro really folds down small with the double hinge and when you open it up it is surprising how big it really is. A nice size for hand holding. The Zeiss's offset hinge is not quite as efficient as the Swaro's double hinge in compacting the binocular.
 
CloseFocus said:
I recently had the chance to look at these binoculars at a local Cabelas, and these are the impressions I had:

1) The optics are very good. They perform just as you would expect a premium binocular to perform that fits between the mini and mid sized category.

2) The focus knob, though not as user friendly as those on my mini Ultravids, is still much better than the tiny knob on my old Trinovid minis, and the indentation in the binocular body makes access to the focus knob much easier. Why didn't anybody else think of that?

3) If I only had a full sized binocular these would be my only second pair. I would not buy either a mini or mid sized binocular, because the Swarovskis perform both functions well enough for me.

4) The 10x25 CL is not as good as my 10x25 Ultravid, mainly because of Leicas better focus knob.

5) The 8x25 CL is more useful than my 8x20 Ultravid. If I were going on a long hike in the woods, I would much rather have the Swarovskis. They weigh significantly less than my 10x32 Ultravids, but their larger exit pupil and less fidgety eye placement issues would make them much more useful for finding fast moving birds in the shadows. 8x20 and 10x25 binoculars just don't cut it in these situations.

6) The price is right. If I had to spend under a thousand dollars to own only one pair of premium binoculars, I would buy an 8x25 Cl.

That said, I would not jump into any purchasing decision. If Leica were to come out with an 8x25 Ultravid I would probably rather have that, because it would probably have the Ultravid focus knob I prefer. Even Nikon has come out with an 8x24 ultralight mini (7 ounces) in the $200 price range (the Aculon t51's) that may perform well enough to give the Swarovskis some competition, although the reviews aren't in yet.

I'm glad they are finally making binoculars in this size range in lower powers. 8x20 and 10x25 binoculars have been the only mini options for way too long. For me, a 7x25 would be even better. Maybe someday.
Click to expand...
Me too. I really like the 8x25 format especially in a premium binocular like the Swaro. 8x20's are too fidgety and 8x30's are not pocketable so the 8x25 strikes a balance between the two and seem to me to be about the biggest aperture you can put in your front pocket. I had mine out tonight and I was quite impressed how long It was usable after sunset. WAY longer than an 8x20 which gets dim a lot quicker. Not a 32mm or 42mm but better than a tiny 20mm.
 
CloseFocus said:
I recently had the chance to look at these binoculars at a local Cabelas, and these are the impressions I had:

1) The optics are very good. They perform just as you would expect a premium binocular to perform that fits between the mini and mid sized category.

2) The focus knob, though not as user friendly as those on my mini Ultravids, is still much better than the tiny knob on my old Trinovid minis, and the indentation in the binocular body makes access to the focus knob much easier. Why didn't anybody else think of that?

3) If I only had a full sized binocular these would be my only second pair. I would not buy either a mini or mid sized binocular, because the Swarovskis perform both functions well enough for me.

4) The 10x25 CL is not as good as my 10x25 Ultravid, mainly because of Leicas better focus knob.

5) The 8x25 CL is more useful than my 8x20 Ultravid. If I were going on a long hike in the woods, I would much rather have the Swarovskis. They weigh significantly less than my 10x32 Ultravids, but their larger exit pupil and less fidgety eye placement issues would make them much more useful for finding fast moving birds in the shadows. 8x20 and 10x25 binoculars just don't cut it in these situations.

6) The price is right. If I had to spend under a thousand dollars to own only one pair of premium binoculars, I would buy an 8x25 Cl.

That said, I would not jump into any purchasing decision. If Leica were to come out with an 8x25 Ultravid I would probably rather have that, because it would probably have the Ultravid focus knob I prefer. Even Nikon has come out with an 8x24 ultralight mini (7 ounces) in the $200 price range (the Aculon t51's) that may perform well enough to give the Swarovskis some competition, although the reviews aren't in yet.

I'm glad they are finally making binoculars in this size range in lower powers. 8x20 and 10x25 binoculars have been the only mini options for way too long. For me, a 7x25 would be even better. Maybe someday.
Click to expand...
Nice analysis. Like most people you put a lot of thought before you make a big purchase like most people.
 
The 8x25 CL is a nice looking bin, but I'm with Alexis and Kimmo in that I'd rather have the 8x20 Uvid. It's quite a bit smaller, 2/3 the weight, and has that great focus knob. Oh, it even costs less.

The CL, for me, is pushing the definition of a pocket bin. I don't want a little brick in my pocket. Leica's kept their focus here ;)
8x25 is an attractive format, but for me the size creates a "neither fish nor fowl" dilemma.

For the 5 oz and $180. difference, I'd go with the 8x30CL first, if I needed a compact binocular.

But hey, thanks again Dennis, for trying to set us straight.
 
Kevin Conville said:
The 8x25 CL is a nice looking bin, but I'm with Alexis and Kimmo in that I'd rather have the 8x20 Uvid. It's quite a bit smaller, 2/3 the weight, and has that great focus knob. Oh, it even costs less.

The CL, for me, is pushing the definition of a pocket bin. I don't want a little brick in my pocket. Leica's kept their focus here ;)
8x25 is an attractive format, but for me the size creates a "neither fish nor fowl" dilemma.

For the 5 oz and $180. difference, I'd go with the 8x30CL first, if I needed a compact binocular.

But hey, thanks again Dennis, for trying to set us straight.
Click to expand...
I tried the Uvid twice and it is definitely a nice binocular and smaller and lighter. For me personally though it was a little TOO fidgety. I think quite a few people stay away from compacts for that exact reason. The CL-P doesn't feel like a brick to me at 11oz. especially in it's belt case. I had the 8x30 CL and it is a LOT bigger than the CL-P and loses the pocket binocular status and for some reason the CL-P has better contrast than the CL. I guess you have the choice of 8x20, 8x25 or 8x30 now even in Swaro's so take your pick. I have the 8x32 Swarovision and now the 8x25 CL-P so it works out good for me but I guess my point is Swarovski did a pretty nice job on these pocket binoculars and if you have given up on pockets I suggest you give these a try. They might just change your mind about pockets. They are quite a different animal.
 
Kevin,

Many people are perfectly content to carry around 10x25 Alpha roof prisms with double hinges and AFAIK no one has ever complained about them "pushing the definition of a pocket bin." They all have almost the same dimensions as the Swarovski 8x25CL-P.

I carried my Nikon 10x25 LX L around for a long time and it is the same size as my 8x25 CL-P although the latter, which you describe as "a little brick," weighs 1.7 ounces more and that is likely caused by it's larger more comfortable eye cups. It also has longer ER and a much wider FOV.

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
Kevin,

Many people are perfectly content to carry around 10x25 Alpha roof prisms with double hinges and AFAIK no one has ever complained about them "pushing the definition of a pocket bin." They all have almost the same dimensions as the Swarovski 8x25CL-P.

I carried my Nikon 10x25 LX L around for a long time and it is the same size as my 8x25 CL-P although, the latter, which you describe as "a little brick," weighs 1.7 ounces more and that is likely caused by it's larger more comfortable eye cups. It also has longer ER and a much wider FOV.

Bob
Click to expand...
The thing that surprised me about the CL-P and nobody really talks about it too much is that it has Swarovision edges meaning sharp right to the edge so you really don't miss the bigger field of a full size binocular because you have a 100% sharp sweetspot. The only difference I see between the CL-P and my Swarovision 8x32's are the advantage of the bigger exit aperture on the bigger binoculars which makes for more comfort and less picky eye placement and the bigger FOV on the 32mm. That is all. So for $800.00 you are getting almost Swarovision optics in a smaller package with the CL-P. A very good bargain, as far as, Swaro's go.
 
Bob,

You might have missed the "for me" part of my statement regarding my definition of a pocket bin. It really has everything to do with what pocket one is referring to, I suppose.

Here's a few specs. The CLs weight close to Nikon ProStaffs, though less bulky. The Uvid 8x20s are downright petite. In a shirt pocket, the little ones would be OK, the larger ones not so much. Again, for me.

I used to use my 10x25 Trinovids in this fashion. With the strap around my neck and the folded bins in my shirt or vest pocket.

Dimensions
4.5 x 3.9 x 2.2"*/*11.43 x 9.91 x 5.59* cm
Weight
12.52 oz*/*355 g
ProStaff 8x25

Dimensions
4.3 x 2.5 x 1.8" / 11 x 6.3 x 4.6 cm
Weight 12.2 oz / 346 g
CL 8x25

Dimensions
2.4 x 4.5 x 1.4" / 60.96 x 114.30 x 35.56 mm
Weight .61 lb / 277 g (9.76 oz)
Leica Uvid 10x25

Dimensions
3.70 x 2.36 x 1.38" / 9.40 x 5.99 x 3.51 cm 1
Weight 8.64 oz / 245 g
Leica Uvid 8x20

The Swaro 8x25s are probably the best 8x25 bins available, and it's a good format. For those like yourself, you're onto something.
I'd rather have the little Leicas.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
I tried the Uvid twice and it is definitely a nice binocular and smaller and lighter. For me personally though it was a little TOO fidgety. I think quite a few people stay away from compacts for that exact reason. The CL-P doesn't feel like a brick to me at 11oz. especially in it's belt case. I had the 8x30 CL and it is a LOT bigger than the CL-P and loses the pocket binocular status and for some reason the CL-P has better contrast than the CL. I guess you have the choice of 8x20, 8x25 or 8x30 now even in Swaro's so take your pick. I have the 8x32 Swarovision and now the 8x25 CL-P so it works out good for me but I guess my point is Swarovski did a pretty nice job on these pocket binoculars and if you have given up on pockets I suggest you give these a try. They might just change your mind about pockets. They are quite a different animal.
Click to expand...

Dennis was that the Leica Ultravid 8x20 with the tight focus wheel that was very hard to turn?
 
Kevin Conville said:
Bob,

You might have missed the "for me" part of my statement regarding my definition of a pocket bin. It really has everything to do with what pocket one is referring to, I suppose.

Here's a few specs. The CLs weight close to Nikon ProStaffs, though less bulky. The Uvid 8x20s are downright petite. In a shirt pocket, the little ones would be OK, the larger ones not so much. Again, for me.

I used to use my 10x25 Trinovids in this fashion. With the strap around my neck and the folded bins in my shirt or vest pocket.

Dimensions
4.5 x 3.9 x 2.2"*/*11.43 x 9.91 x 5.59* cm
Weight
12.52 oz*/*355 g
ProStaff 8x25

Dimensions
4.3 x 2.5 x 1.8" / 11 x 6.3 x 4.6 cm
Weight 12.2 oz / 346 g
CL 8x25

Dimensions
2.4 x 4.5 x 1.4" / 60.96 x 114.30 x 35.56 mm
Weight .61 lb / 277 g (9.76 oz)
Leica Uvid 10x25

Dimensions
3.70 x 2.36 x 1.38" / 9.40 x 5.99 x 3.51 cm 1
Weight 8.64 oz / 245 g
Leica Uvid 8x20

The Swaro 8x25s are probably the best 8x25 bins available, and it's a good format. For those like yourself, you're onto something.
I'd rather have the little Leicas.
Click to expand...
That Uvid 8x20 is tiny. They are sweet if they work optically for you.
 
[email protected] said:
That Uvid 8x20 is tiny. They are sweet if they work optically for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, and if you choose the BL version of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid (as I do; I don't see the need for rubber armoring on a bin that never needs to be set down, or that is small enough to be set atop its own folded neck strap) you'll find it even smaller and lighter than the specs given by Kevin Conville, which are for the BA version.

--AP
 
Except for a very thin leather (or leatherette) covering glued around the middle of their tubes to help one's grip; the Nikon 8x20LX L and 10x25LX L have no armoring either.

Bob
 
ceasar said:
Except for a very thin leather (or leatherette) covering glued around the middle of their tubes to help one's grip; the Nikon 8x20LX L and 10x25LX L have no armoring either.

Bob
Click to expand...
The Nikon's are good optically and cheaper but the Uvid is cooler looking. I bought one 8x20 Uvid for $400.00 on E-bay but is just didn't work well for me.
 
ceasar said:
Except for a very thin leather (or leatherette) covering glued around the middle of their tubes to help one's grip; the Nikon 8x20LX L and 10x25LX L have no armoring either.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Nikon 8x20 LXL is already an ounce heavier than even the rubber armored version of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid.

--AP
 
Alexis Powell said:
Yes, but the Nikon 8x20 LXL is already an ounce heavier than even the rubber armored version of the Leica 8x20 Ultravid.

--AP
Click to expand...

I know. The rubber armored one is the practical one to buy if you want the Leica 8x20. It only costs about $170.00 more than the Nikon to save that ounce of weight. The leather covered one costs more and the color versions are way more!;) The Silverline compacts are still listed and I gotta admit they are really fine looking binoculars! But they have their price too. If I really wanted a Leica 8x20 I'd spring for them!:king:

I checked the prices on Camera Land.

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
I know. The rubber armored one is the practical one to buy if you want the Leica 8x20. It only costs about $170.00 more than the Nikon to save that ounce of weight. The leather covered one costs more and the color versions are way more!;) The Silverline compacts are still listed and I gotta admit they are really fine looking binoculars! But they have their price too. If I really wanted a Leica 8x20 I'd spring for them!:king:

I checked the prices on Camera Land.

Bob
Click to expand...
I am kind of partial to the cobra skin ones myself or the ostrich. HaHa! Pretty sweet looking. The cobra ones are Trinnies though. Still cool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEITZ-8x20-...201011667456?pt=Binocular&hash=item2ecd3aa200

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Ultra...231118624745?pt=Binocular&hash=item35cfbe57e9
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
I know. The rubber armored one is the practical one to buy if you want the Leica 8x20. It only costs about $170.00 more than the Nikon to save that ounce of weight. The leather covered one costs more and the color versions are way more!;) The Silverline compacts are still listed and I gotta admit they are really fine looking binoculars! But they have their price too. If I really wanted a Leica 8x20 I'd spring for them!:king:

I checked the prices on Camera Land.

Bob
Click to expand...

Check eBay instead. I got my 8x20 and 8x42 Ultravid Silverlines on eBay for the price of the black rubber models. They are factory refurbished (does anyone know what that involves?), but they look and feel like new. The 8x20came with a very fine hard leather case that is actually too nice for me to use in the field. The 8x42's came with a cordura case. I wanted leather lined binoculars because there are certain tactile issues with rubber armored binoculars I don't like (I think I give Swarovski the edge when it comes to the feel of their rubber armor). At first I resisted buying the Silverlines because I didn't want other birders thinking I was trying to make a fashion statement, but then I realized that was a pretty stupid reason not to buy a pair of binoculars. And they do attract stares, there's no denying that. But the prices on the Silverlines were just too good to pass up, and I'm glad I got them now. Maybe the glint of the sun on the silver might scare a bird or two, but frankly, the Silverlines are prettier than a lot of birds anyway.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

R
8x20 in possession. Which one to add?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
mwhogue
M
G
Swarovski CL 8x25 vs 8x30
Replies
2
Views
3K
gastonbe
G
R
Curio 7x21 vs Leica trinovid 8x20
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Swedpat
S
R
Choosing pocket binoculars
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
forent
forent
A
Swarovski 8x30 CL B vs Nikon Monarch M7 8x30 - suggestion
Replies
13
Views
4K
Elkhornsun
E

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top