• 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.

looking at buying high end binoculars (1 Viewer)

B

bingsca

New member
Hi Everyone

I am new to the forum and I am currently looking a buying a pair of high end binoc's such as Swarovski EL or Zeiss FL in the 10 x 42mm size. Has anyone tried out both binoculars of any other eqivalent? I am into astronomy but want to get into nature viewing (birds etc).

Thank you!

Chris
 
bingsca said:
Hi Everyone

I am new to the forum and I am currently looking a buying a pair of high end binoc's such as Swarovski EL or Zeiss FL in the 10 x 42mm size. Has anyone tried out both binoculars of any other eqivalent? I am into astronomy but want to get into nature viewing (birds etc).

Thank you!

Chris
Click to expand...

All good choices. I've tried the above, plus the Leica Ultravids. I currently own the 8x42 Ultravid, 10x32 Ultravid, the Zeiss 10x42 FL and the 8x32 Swarovski ELs. Allowing for differences in occular and objective configuration, the Ultravids are significantly more impressive than the Zeiss and Swaros. Of the Swarovski/Zeiss competition -- it depends on my mood. Both of these choices have significantly more flare than either of the Leica Ultravids, but of the two (Zeiss/Swarovski) I might err on the side of the Swarovski in spite of the blue/green shift in the shadows, as they are somewhat "crisper" than the Zeiss.

Any of the three makes, however, will be magnificent optical choices. Ultimately you should probably get the one's that "feel" the best for you.

Robert / Seattle

(PS. Get the Ultravids)
(PPS. Otherwise, Swarovkis for ergonomics, Zeiss for eye comfort)
 
Last edited:
bingsca said:
Hi Everyone

I am new to the forum and I am currently looking a buying a pair of high end binoc's such as Swarovski EL or Zeiss FL in the 10 x 42mm size. Has anyone tried out both binoculars of any other eqivalent? I am into astronomy but want to get into nature viewing (birds etc).

Thank you!

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,

If you have that kind of money they are all great. Ultimately buy the one that suits you. Everyone on here has their own favourites and I suspect that is due to the variations in our own eyes as much as the binoculars.

One thing I would say is if you are starting out in birding then go for 8x in preference to 10x. All newbies seem to want max magnification, I think 8x is enough, plus you get less shake, a wider field of view (easier to find birds) and a greater depth of field. Just my opinion - before I get shot down in flames! |=)|

Have fun looking.

Paul
 
Both the Swarovski ELs and the Zeiss FLs are excellent as are the Leica Ultravids and the Nikon HGs. They all have superb optics, I'm sure you'd be impressed by any of them. They do however feel very different in the hand, also the eyecups and focus is variable. The best thing to do is to test them side by side as see which suit you best.
 
Yes, try them all; if you live in a big city there's no excuse not to. Try them at dusk or at night as well, on murky terrestrial targets. Things to watch for:

Zeiss: when comparing with Swarovski I found Zeiss had a wider sample variation, and none were quite as sharp. That was my main desideratum. Consider also the hand comfort when using the FL for long periods--some people complain about the ridges.

Leica: there are claims that it's sharper or more contrasty than Swarovski, but I found it much more difficult to achieve good focus, which to my mind cancels out any marginal optical superiority. The mechanism felt like I was working a little invisible pulley strung with fishing line. In my own comparison tests I rejected Leica after thirty seconds. Same with their scope.

No mystery which one I went for (8.5x), and after six months I guess about 50% of what gets me out and birding is still the pleasure of using the equipment.
 
Last edited:
Zeiss: when comparing with Swarovski I found Zeiss had a wider sample variation, and none were quite as sharp.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there is some trade off in getting a fairly nice flat field but then losing a tiny bit in sharpness?
 
I wonder if there is some trade off in getting a fairly nice flat field but then losing a tiny bit in sharpness?
__________________
Click to expand...

This is something I have often pondered myself. It seems that we rarely find a binocular which exhibits both a wide, flat, in-focus image coupled with an image that truly is "razor sharp". I believe I have held some cherry units of certain models that come very close to matching this ideal but they are often few and far between even in the high end brands.
 
FrankD said:
This is something I have often pondered myself. It seems that we rarely find a binocular which exhibits both a wide, flat, in-focus image coupled with an image that truly is "razor sharp". I believe I have held some cherry units of certain models that come very close to matching this ideal but they are often few and far between even in the high end brands.
Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------
This quote from an old thread (along with my more recent reply) is about sharpness vs. "sweet spot", but sounds similar to the impression you guys are having:

high end tradeoffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Traynor

I'm beginning to think that many owners find the centerfields of the Ultravid and FL line so good they are willing to tolerate small sweet spots. The EL, SLC, and Nikon HG's have larger sweet spots, but I always get the impression these models lack the super crisp centers found in the Trinovid/Ultravid and FL lines. I often wonder if a small sacrifice is made in the central portion of an image in order to extend the sweet spot as far as possible. That doesn't appear true in my SE, but in all the roofs I've examined it seems to be a trend. Surely, Leica and Zeiss would extend their wonderful centerfields if it were possible to do so, unless it was prohibitively expensive.

John
----------
This is old, but perhaps worth bringing back up. I first noticed this trend myself when comparing a Zeiss ClassiC 8x30 with Nikon LXL 8x32. I've noticed the same trend in the mid-range options as well. For instance, Conquest is sharper in center than Monarch, but Monarch has wider sweet spot.

This tradeoff does seem to be a roof issue. My EII (as John mentions with the SE) has both qualities: very sharp in center AND large sweet spot. And the sweet spot on my EII is noticeably wider than that of the LXL.

After looking through most top end ROOFS, the Swaro 8x32 EL (to me) has the best all around set of compromises, perhaps followed by the LXL in 8x42. But, with my $300 EIIs serving me so well, I haven't yet been able to justify the $$ just for waterproofing, less bulk and slightly greater eye relief. Incidentally, the EIIs don't seem to have the blackout issues of the SEs, plus a significantly wider FOV than anything else under consideration.


I wonder if others agree with John's statement (??)...

APS
 
AP,

John and I discussed this very issue over the past year, especially when hawkwatching. I would love to hear one of the binocular designers chime in on this issue. I know I have seen one or two who claim that there still is a significantly wide sweet spot in some of the binoculars you mentioned but I do not think they define it in the same manner that we do.
 
FrankD said:
This is something I have often pondered myself. It seems that we rarely find a binocular which exhibits both a wide, flat, in-focus image coupled with an image that truly is "razor sharp". I believe I have held some cherry units of certain models that come very close to matching this ideal but they are often few and far between even in the high end brands.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 10 x 42 SE has all of the above. "Nuff said!

Cordially,
Bob
 
Ok, maybe I should have included the word "roof prism" in my earlier comments.... ;-)

...and don't tempt me with that 10x42 SE. That is one of the popular models I have yet to own.
 
I would just like to thank all you guy's for the very helpful feedback and suggestions. I will try out all three brands in an astronomy store and then go from there. I will keep you all posted. Thanks again!

Chris A
 
"...and don't tempt me with that 10x42 SE. That is one of the popular models I have yet to own."

Frank you know you want to try this one. :)

Chris A. good luck with your quest.

Regards,Steve
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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

0
New binoculars
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
tx2ad
T
F
Decent High Powered Binoculars
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Jkloz
J
S
8x32 advice?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
coolhand68
C
A
Are aspherical lenses and other tech present in mid to high end binoculars?
Replies
6
Views
761
Maljunulo
M
Passakorn
How do other alphas compare to the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and Zeiss Victory 8x25 Combo?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Rg548
R

Users who are viewing this thread

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