Steve C
Well-known member
OK, if I compare these anymore, I’ll blow an optic nerve, so here goes. This is intended to be a comparative evaluation that looks at both as objectively as I can. I will do this in two parts. I have both of these binoculars, am satisfied (mostly) with both and I have no preference as to producing a “winner”. Frankly the short story is that there is no winner anyway.
Not long ago I did a review of the Maven B2 in 9x45. During the course of that review, I had a chance to do some comparison with a Swarovski SV EL 10x42. I was surprised the Maven stood up as well to the Swarovski as it did. I knew that the Maven was a different sort of binocular within a very short period of using it, and the more I used it the better it seemed to get. I was left with a feeling of not really knowing for sure whether my eyes were deceiving me, or if the Maven was as good as I thought. So to settle that issue in my own mind I decided I needed my own alpha reference glass. Since I had started my comparison with Swarovski I decided to stay there. I also had more familiarity with Swarovski than any other alpha class binocular. Where I am, the places I can go to actually look at top tier glass nearly always have a Swarovski of some flavor. Sometimes a Zeiss, rarely a Leica, and never a Nikon EDG. I had always been impressed by the accolades of the after sales service Swarovski seems renowned for.
So Swarovski it was. Problem was which one? I had already had some issues, rather extreme, on my part with rolling ball with the 8.5x42 SV in particular with the first year run of the Swarovision. However I had seen some later production versions since the 2010 introduction and the issue seemed somewhat resolved. To me the edges are different. Understand this is not an indictment of Swarovski. It was simply a reaction of a particular set of eyes (mine) to the design concept of a particular optical design (Swarovision). I make nothing more of it at this point than that. I was not affected by the 10x42 I used for review so the SV was back in the running. However, so was the SLC, which in some ways I like better than the SV. So I did a little scratching around locally and was able to come up with loan of a 10x42 SLC-HD, and 8.5x42 of recent production, and a recent 10x42 SV. I figured one of these would sing its song and tell me which way I wanted to go. Well they all sing a mighty fine song, there is no denying that. The problem was, like the original 10x42 in the review, none of them proved capable of unhorsing the Maven B2. No, I am not saying the Maven B2 is better. I am saying it is a terrific binocular which has no need to back away from any optics comparison. The Maven B2 qualifies for the Olympics, although it won’t be on the medal podium for every event, it won’t be shut out either. My goal was to find an alpha glass that would unseat the Maven, so since none of the above did that in any significant way, I went up the ladder to the 10x50 SV EL. When the SV series was introduced I saw the entire line at our local show, the Winter Wings Festival. SONA was there with the full meal deal of everything Swarovski had. I experienced a deep disappointment over the 8.5 which I was almost prepared to buy. I was however most impressed with the 50 mm SV siblings, but at the then $2,900 price, that was simply $5-700 too steep. So with that experience and looking at some of the comments here, that is where I went. I used the trade in program offered by SWFA, a large dealer in the Dallas Texas area. They have a trade in program and I happened to have a bunch of excess binoculars that would spend too much time sitting on my shelf. I happened to have enough for the trade in, a set of the winged eye cups, the Swarovski binocular harness, and a shipping upgrade to second day air delivery.
We often hear the phrase “all things being equal”. Well, all those things are never equal and that does not change here. These are two large binoculars of different designs, the Maven B2 uses Abbe-Koenig prisms, and the SV is Schmidt-Pechan. The SV is 10x50, the B2 is 9x45. The ergonomics are vastly different. While the AK design has a higher transmission than the SP of the SV, the difference is certainly below the 4-5% increase we hear that our eyes need to be able to tell a difference. While I was initially somewhat skeptical of the 94% transmission of the B2, I am convinced at this point that that figure has to be quite close to the mark. They will both resolve the same thing things on a resolution target at the same distance, a distance corrected for different magnifications. Both seem to have 45, and 50 mm apertures and both seem to be right on the money based on EP measurements of their stated magnifications.
The Maven is a simpler design. There is a simple, traditional right eye diopter, simpler, but quite effective, screw out eye cups, there is no fluorite glass (read expensive) and there is no field flattening technology (again read expensive). Maven did not go into the flat field arena, again saving some money. The focus mechanism seems more refined on the Swarovski. The simplicity of the Maven construction and the Maven approach of selling customer direct has produced a remarkable binocular at significant savings. Maven could have added these in some combination to the design, but as I noted in the review, the B2 would have been more expensive, not necessarily more field worthy.
The apparent robustness of construction seems that each is about on par with the other. The Swarovski does engineer in the smaller details Maven left out above, and some will certainly feel a premium binocular should include those.
Maven is of course a brand new entrant in a crowded market and this always seems to be a bone of contention. This is in contrast to a long and solid history from Swarovski. So there is a choice here to make certainly.
Swarovski sits at the pinnacle of modern binocular development and certainly needs no more introduction.
Part 2 to follow shortly
Not long ago I did a review of the Maven B2 in 9x45. During the course of that review, I had a chance to do some comparison with a Swarovski SV EL 10x42. I was surprised the Maven stood up as well to the Swarovski as it did. I knew that the Maven was a different sort of binocular within a very short period of using it, and the more I used it the better it seemed to get. I was left with a feeling of not really knowing for sure whether my eyes were deceiving me, or if the Maven was as good as I thought. So to settle that issue in my own mind I decided I needed my own alpha reference glass. Since I had started my comparison with Swarovski I decided to stay there. I also had more familiarity with Swarovski than any other alpha class binocular. Where I am, the places I can go to actually look at top tier glass nearly always have a Swarovski of some flavor. Sometimes a Zeiss, rarely a Leica, and never a Nikon EDG. I had always been impressed by the accolades of the after sales service Swarovski seems renowned for.
So Swarovski it was. Problem was which one? I had already had some issues, rather extreme, on my part with rolling ball with the 8.5x42 SV in particular with the first year run of the Swarovision. However I had seen some later production versions since the 2010 introduction and the issue seemed somewhat resolved. To me the edges are different. Understand this is not an indictment of Swarovski. It was simply a reaction of a particular set of eyes (mine) to the design concept of a particular optical design (Swarovision). I make nothing more of it at this point than that. I was not affected by the 10x42 I used for review so the SV was back in the running. However, so was the SLC, which in some ways I like better than the SV. So I did a little scratching around locally and was able to come up with loan of a 10x42 SLC-HD, and 8.5x42 of recent production, and a recent 10x42 SV. I figured one of these would sing its song and tell me which way I wanted to go. Well they all sing a mighty fine song, there is no denying that. The problem was, like the original 10x42 in the review, none of them proved capable of unhorsing the Maven B2. No, I am not saying the Maven B2 is better. I am saying it is a terrific binocular which has no need to back away from any optics comparison. The Maven B2 qualifies for the Olympics, although it won’t be on the medal podium for every event, it won’t be shut out either. My goal was to find an alpha glass that would unseat the Maven, so since none of the above did that in any significant way, I went up the ladder to the 10x50 SV EL. When the SV series was introduced I saw the entire line at our local show, the Winter Wings Festival. SONA was there with the full meal deal of everything Swarovski had. I experienced a deep disappointment over the 8.5 which I was almost prepared to buy. I was however most impressed with the 50 mm SV siblings, but at the then $2,900 price, that was simply $5-700 too steep. So with that experience and looking at some of the comments here, that is where I went. I used the trade in program offered by SWFA, a large dealer in the Dallas Texas area. They have a trade in program and I happened to have a bunch of excess binoculars that would spend too much time sitting on my shelf. I happened to have enough for the trade in, a set of the winged eye cups, the Swarovski binocular harness, and a shipping upgrade to second day air delivery.
We often hear the phrase “all things being equal”. Well, all those things are never equal and that does not change here. These are two large binoculars of different designs, the Maven B2 uses Abbe-Koenig prisms, and the SV is Schmidt-Pechan. The SV is 10x50, the B2 is 9x45. The ergonomics are vastly different. While the AK design has a higher transmission than the SP of the SV, the difference is certainly below the 4-5% increase we hear that our eyes need to be able to tell a difference. While I was initially somewhat skeptical of the 94% transmission of the B2, I am convinced at this point that that figure has to be quite close to the mark. They will both resolve the same thing things on a resolution target at the same distance, a distance corrected for different magnifications. Both seem to have 45, and 50 mm apertures and both seem to be right on the money based on EP measurements of their stated magnifications.
The Maven is a simpler design. There is a simple, traditional right eye diopter, simpler, but quite effective, screw out eye cups, there is no fluorite glass (read expensive) and there is no field flattening technology (again read expensive). Maven did not go into the flat field arena, again saving some money. The focus mechanism seems more refined on the Swarovski. The simplicity of the Maven construction and the Maven approach of selling customer direct has produced a remarkable binocular at significant savings. Maven could have added these in some combination to the design, but as I noted in the review, the B2 would have been more expensive, not necessarily more field worthy.
The apparent robustness of construction seems that each is about on par with the other. The Swarovski does engineer in the smaller details Maven left out above, and some will certainly feel a premium binocular should include those.
Maven is of course a brand new entrant in a crowded market and this always seems to be a bone of contention. This is in contrast to a long and solid history from Swarovski. So there is a choice here to make certainly.
Swarovski sits at the pinnacle of modern binocular development and certainly needs no more introduction.
Part 2 to follow shortly
