• 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.

what are the "weaknesses" if any of the 8.5x42 EL? (1 Viewer)

(Originally Posted by [email protected]
The big reason they outsell Zeiss and Leica is that they are about $500.00 less expensive. In my opinion the Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL'S are still a notch down optically from the the Zeiss 8x42 FL. Most reviews agree with that conclusion.)

Agree cost is a factor. When I was looking at getting new binos a couple of years ago I tried the 8.5×42 EL's, the 8×32 FL and 8×32 Ultravids.

Did I notice much difference in the view? To be honest, no. There were slight differences which have already been alluded to on this thread, but I could quite could quite comfortably have lived with any of them. I wasn't so kenn on the Zeiss ergonomics, liked the feel of the Swaros and liked the compactness of the Ultravid's.

I went for the ULtravids because I got a good deal from Leica as the new HD's were coming out, and this made them a few hundred GBP cheaper than Zeiss or Swaro. Now, had they they all been the same price my overall favourite would still have been the Ultravid, but if either Zeiss or Swaro had been significantly cheaper I would have gone for them.

They are all good quality binos. I don't see how anyone can really say that one is better than the other. All our eyes are different, and some will see CA where others don't, some will see improved contrast, brightness etc.

I am quite happy with my Ultravids, but if someone has some cheap Swaros or Zeiss to sell I will see if the budget will stretch.;)
 
Nick Elliston said:
(Originally Posted by [email protected]
The big reason they outsell Zeiss and Leica is that they are about $500.00 less expensive. In my opinion the Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL'S are still a notch down optically from the the Zeiss 8x42 FL. Most reviews agree with that conclusion.)

Agree cost is a factor. When I was looking at getting new binos a couple of years ago I tried the 8.5×42 EL's, the 8×32 FL and 8×32 Ultravids.

Did I notice much difference in the view? To be honest, no. There were slight differences which have already been alluded to on this thread, but I could quite could quite comfortably have lived with any of them. I wasn't so kenn on the Zeiss ergonomics, liked the feel of the Swaros and liked the compactness of the Ultravid's.

I went for the ULtravids because I got a good deal from Leica as the new HD's were coming out, and this made them a few hundred GBP cheaper than Zeiss or Swaro. Now, had they they all been the same price my overall favourite would still have been the Ultravid, but if either Zeiss or Swaro had been significantly cheaper I would have gone for them.

They are all good quality binos. I don't see how anyone can really say that one is better than the other. All our eyes are different, and some will see CA where others don't, some will see improved contrast, brightness etc.

I am quite happy with my Ultravids, but if someone has some cheap Swaros or Zeiss to sell I will see if the budget will stretch.;)
Click to expand...



CA is the big decider in choosing between these big three alphas. If you CAN see it you will go with the Zeiss FL's, Leica Ultravids, and the Swarovski's in that order. The Swarovski's to me shows the most CA of th three and it really bothers me. I still feel the Zeiss FL's are a tad sharper than the other two and for me it is very easy to see the difference.
 
mooreorless said:
[email protected] said:
No people start getting emotional when you say something bad about the binoculars they own. It's like saying their kids are dumb or something. They start taking it personal. It's kind of funny really. Everybody thinks what they have is the best and it may be for them but it's not the best for everybody but they don't understand that.
Talk about emotional.;) I have tried both the 8x32FL and 8x42Fl nice binoculars, not perfect by a long shot. Such is life. I have tried the 8x32EL and nice as well. Felt better in the hand, much better.
Click to expand...

Yes I had a pair of 8x32 EL's. Their ergonomics are nice but they are not quite as good optically as Zeiss FL's or Ultravids to me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
josika said:
Actually the latest Kikkert tests have the 10x42 and the8.5x42 ELs ahead of the Zeiss FLs; however they have the 8x32 Fls ahead of the corresponding ELs.
Ben.
Click to expand...

In the new Kikkert test the Zeiss FL still had better numbers in optics. The Swarovski EL ranked ahead of the Zeiss because they were more robust or they considered the build quality a little heavier which they are. The 8x32 FL's are the best of the lot though. Better off-axis resolution than the 42's and bigger FOV.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to point out that Dennis' quote from me on the subject of the Swarovski 8x32 EL dates from July 2005. I might not come to the same conclusion about more recently produced EL's.
 
Nick Elliston said:
Agree cost is a factor. When I was looking at getting new binos a couple of years ago I tried the 8.5×42 EL's, the 8×32 FL and 8×32 Ultravids.

Did I notice much difference in the view? To be honest, no. There were slight differences which have already been alluded to on this thread, but I could quite could quite comfortably have lived with any of them. I wasn't so kenn on the Zeiss ergonomics, liked the feel of the Swaros and liked the compactness of the Ultravid's.

I went for the ULtravids because I got a good deal from Leica as the new HD's were coming out, and this made them a few hundred GBP cheaper than Zeiss or Swaro. Now, had they they all been the same price my overall favourite would still have been the Ultravid, but if either Zeiss or Swaro had been significantly cheaper I would have gone for them.

They are all good quality binos. I don't see how anyone can really say that one is better than the other. All our eyes are different, and some will see CA where others don't, some will see improved contrast, brightness etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Nick, they are all good, with optics close enough to have other factors tilt a decision one way or another.

It would make sense that those of us who post on this site are way more obsessed with bins than even the very educated birder or hunter, and that we we naturally amplify small differences much the same way a hardcore wine connoisseur will expound dramatically between two very good vintages. Add each our our unique personalities to the mix and you might see a difference in how we describe very small differences in performance.

Dennis who is very experienced and knowledgeable about optics sees it is a black and white, absolute win for the FL while 308 is equally convinced that the EL is the absolute best. Neither seems to accept the fact that others with equal credentials may honestly see it different. I scrupulously read every possible review on all of the sights, but it ultimately came down to me actually looking through all of them, my eyes (20-15 vision), like the Leicas best, Swaro second and Zeiss last. That said all three are head and shoulder above all others except the Nikon SE which is my absolute favorite.

John
 
Entertaining thread :) It seems that the ultravid hd is the middle-way. Not best or worst at anything, and their supporters seem to be more layed back ;)
 
[email protected] said:
CA is the big decider in choosing between these big three alphas. If you CAN see it you will go with the Zeiss FL's, Leica Ultravids, and the Swarovski's in that order. The Swarovski's to me shows the most CA of th three and it really bothers me. I still feel the Zeiss FL's are a tad sharper than the other two and for me it is very easy to see the difference.
Click to expand...


Dennis

My recollection of the Zeiss is that yes, it was a clear, sharpe view. As I mentioned earlier, it was the ergonomics that I wasn't so keen on. Ergonomics would not be too important to me though if outweighed by other factors.

We are of course really talking about just one model from each manufacturer. Opinions might be different if we compared other models across the range.

Nick
 
Kammerdiner said:
This summer I was drooling over a 1999 911 convertible, black with a gorgeous tan interior, but then I got my mind right and bought the Zeiss--for about $25,000 less. My wife didn't even complain about the cost after the Porsche episode. Try it, works like a charm.;)

But I can imagine the little 8x32 FL's sitting on the sumptuous tan leather of that Porsche while I'm cruising the countryside for birds. The best of all possible worlds.
Click to expand...
But what your wife imagines (and the reason she was happy you got the bins, not the Porsche), is you cruising the nightclubs in your new Porsche with oh-so-comfy tan leather interior, and no bins at all.;)
 
henry link said:
I'd like to point out that Dennis' quote from me on the subject of the Swarovski 8x32 EL dates from July 2005. I might not come to the same conclusion about more recently produced EL's.
Click to expand...



They haven't changed them too much to my eyes Henry. I had a pair in about 2006 and I looked at them not too long ago and they looked about the same with quite a bit of CA. Check them out though. I value your opinion.
 
[email protected] said:
They haven't changed them too much to my eyes Henry. I had a pair in about 2006 and I looked at them not too long ago and they looked about the same with quite a bit of CA. Check them out though. I value your opinion.
Click to expand...

Is CA worse in the ELs than Ultravid BRs? I do see CA but am able to nullify it a lot by centering the image, also as a hunter looking for game in the woods it is less of an issue. My 8x32 SEs have very little CA, while my 10x42 SEs have more but not as much as my 8x42 BRs. If ELs are worse than my BRs that would be quite a bit of CA, but as I stated earlier I don't think CA is much of an issue with hunters and 99% of bins around here are sold to hunters. My test for CA is watching our black horses against the snow during winter.

John
 
[email protected] said:
They haven't changed them too much to my eyes Henry. I had a pair in about 2006 and I looked at them not too long ago and they looked about the same with quite a bit of CA. Check them out though. I value your opinion.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice much CA with my EL until someone showed me how to look for it one day. My Zen ED handles this better than EL. But this does not bother me much. Under normal condition, I didn't notice it at all, or too busy to look for it. I hope the new EL will make a significant improvement in this regard.
 
The one area where the 42mm Zeisses are unequivocally better than the competition is brightness--they are just that smidgen brighter because of the prism design. And, while brightness is important especially in a hunting binocular, it's not everything--contrast, resolution, size of sweet spot, control of stray light and so on also come into play. Also, I've played with enough of them to know that they're not all equally good. I've used the 8x42 Zeiss for some time under a variety of conditions and I will say that I wouldn't bet the farm on being able to see things with them in every circumstance that I couldn't see through a Swaro 8x5x42 or Nikon SE. It's just not that black and white.
 
I can not detect any ca what so ever in my ED2, they must be one of the best out there when it comes to ca-control and superior to the EL in that respect, not in ergonomics though ;)

falcondude said:
I didn't notice much CA with my EL until someone showed me how to look for it one day. My Zen ED handles this better than EL. But this does not bother me much. Under normal condition, I didn't notice it at all, or too busy to look for it. I hope the new EL will make a significant improvement in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
John M Robinson said:
Is CA worse in the ELs than Ultravid BRs? I do see CA but am able to nullify it a lot by centering the image, also as a hunter looking for game in the woods it is less of an issue. My 8x32 SEs have very little CA, while my 10x42 SEs have more but not as much as my 8x42 BRs. If ELs are worse than my BRs that would be quite a bit of CA, but as I stated earlier I don't think CA is much of an issue with hunters and 99% of bins around here are sold to hunters. My test for CA is watching our black horses against the snow during winter.

John
Click to expand...

John that is a rough test for any binocular. The only thing that I have that doesn't show CA in the snow is my Celestron 80ED, well also a Meade ETX 90 RA .;)
Regards,Steve
 
kristoffer said:
I can not detect any ca what so ever in my ED2, they must be one of the best out there when it comes to ca-control and superior to the EL in that respect, not in ergonomics though ;)
Click to expand...

The Zeiss FL's are a little better controlling CA's than the ED2's although the ED2' are excellent in that regard especially when the price is considered.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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

Passakorn
Are there any users of both Zeiss SFL 8x30 and VP 8x25 that can comment on how they compare?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mike Crawley
Mike Crawley
T
Billingham Galbin
Replies
7
Views
671
albie...
A
hopster
Focus to infinity for short-sighted users
Replies
7
Views
780
eronald
E
matt green
The difficult £400-£700 range?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
jring
J
W
Optics quality expectations
Replies
16
Views
1K
tehri
tehri

Users who are viewing this thread

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