Swarovski 8x30 CL kikkert test....surprising (1 Viewer)

3

308CAL

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #1

Outranks the 8x32FL!!!!wow

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0_8x32_binoculars_review_kikkert_test8x30.pdf

I bought a new one for $800.00 today.... Good buy?

 

FrankD

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #2

Does google translate do PDF files?

 

Torview

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #3

Very best of luck with your purchase, as a Fl owner I can`t concur though with that outcome, the Cl I tried was at the level of the old 30mm Conquest IMO.

 

T

typo

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #4

Torview said:

the Cl I tried was at the level of the old 30mm Conquest IMO.

Click to expand...

Not that high in my opinion.:C

David

 

G

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #5

Dear all,
I have investigated the qualities of the Zeiss Victory FL 8x32, the Swarovski CL Companion 8x30, the old Zeiss Conquest 8x30 and the new Zeiss Conquest 8x32HD.
The Companion is not made to be a competitor of the Victory FL and it certainly does not have the high specifications of it. However, the Companion is lighter than the Zeiss Conquest (503 versus 560g ), has a larger FOV (124m/1000m versus 120 m/1000m), a shorter close-focus (2,5m versus 3 m) and it as a higher light transmission (93% versus 90). The image quality is certainly comparable or slightly better than that of the Zeiss Conquest in my opinion. I am surprised that the Norwegian test ranks the Companion higher than the Zeiss Vicory FL, since the specifications of the Victory FL outperform that of the Companion.

 

Torview

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #6

typo said:

Not that high in my opinion.:C

David

Click to expand...

I was thinking it but did`nt like to post it.

 

S

stephen b

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #7

IMO- Optically the Swaro 8x30 CL is not as good as the Swaro 8x30 SLC NEU from the testing that I did. The CL is light and it is pretty bright, but it has a smaller FOV, and has less contrast and apparent resolution/ sharpness when compared to the discontinued SLC NEU.

I do not think ( in fact I would say, to me I know) Swarovski never meant for the CL to compete with the big dogs- whether it was theirs or others.

I think if they still had the SLC NEU on the shelves for customers to really compare to- it would significantly cut into the CL sales.

Plus the 8x30 SLC will go down as the classic that it is. IMO- the CL will not be thought of in the future as a classic. Time will tell, but I do not see it happening.

 

Torview

Well-known member

• Oct 17, 2012

• #8

To be honest I found it totally outgunned by the Meopta 8x32, which would be my sub-alpha 32mm roof choice.

 

S

stephen b

Well-known member

• Oct 18, 2012

• #9

Torview said:

To be honest I found it totally outgunned by the Meopta 8x32, which would be my sub-alpha 32mm roof choice.

Click to expand...

Very true. The Meopta 8x32 to me is significantly better than the CL. Another "sub-alpha" in this 32 mm class that is also quite a bit better than the CL, is the Pentax 8x32 DCF ED. And also the Vortex Viper HD 8x32 is better. And those are just a couple that I can think of.

To me, for price point the CL should be more in the next tier down- the "sub, sub alpha class", and probably should be priced about where the Viper HD is, or at the price of the Swarovski compacts are at.