swarovski 10x50 vs swarovski 8.5x42 (1 Viewer)

I have a question to those who have experience with the two top swarovision binoculars - which is the sharper, brighter and more 3D image binocular, and which have more wow effect? Thanks!

I have had them both and they are both good but I preferred the 10x50 SV. To me it had more wow effect because of the bigger AFOV. The 10x50 SV is slightly brighter and sharper and has more 3D image than the 8.5x42 SV also IMO. A 50mm will almost always outperform a 42mm binocular.

both excellent bins, the 50 would be a little brighter but if you do most of your watching in forestry then the 8.5 would give you more depth of field.

Having compared the two side by side, I wouldn't necessarily say there is a noticeable difference in sharpness and brightness.

The 10x50 SV though does have a slight few % extra AFov, and somehow seems to have noticeably more 3D impression. These, and the pleasing (to me) size and stability go together with other elements of the view to give the 10x50 much more WOW effect - among the top in the market :king:



Chosun :gh:

Hati said:

I have a question to those who have experience with the two top swarovision binoculars - which is the sharper, brighter and more 3D image binocular, and which have more wow effect? Thanks!

Click to expand...

We have 8X32, 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's (all pre-Field Pro).
If you wear eyeglasses as I do the 8X32 SV has the greatest WOW factor for a couple of reasons. 1. Superb eye relief. 2. Sharp as a tack across the FOV. 3. Superb handling characteristics (light, small, great eyecups) 4. Much brighter than would expect from an 8X32.

The 8.5X42 and 10X50 differ in a couple of ways.

The 10X50 is big and heavy which results in greater handshake. Handshake can quickly eliminate any magnification advantage so be careful in choosing. In direct hand-held comparison the 8.5X42 reveals details a bit faster simply due to less handshake. My 7X42 Ultravid does it even better. Despite its weight and larger size, the 10X50 is a gem once you've mastered the required ergonomics. Based on experience, I use it for raptors because I find that handshake is inconsequential when following moving targets and I, therefore, see more with 10X than 8.5X. Originally, I purchased the 10X50 for backyard astronomy, a task it performs beyond my expectations. Using a customized binocular mount I get perfectly stable and quite extraordinary views of the night sky. Unmounted, stars are good but not much more than dancing specks of light.

The 8.5X42 is the perfect combination of magnification and size. Mine is very sharp, colors are natural, eye relief is adequate (I could use 1-2mm more) and the overall image is top notch.

All the SV's have the so-called "flat field" view. I understand the complaints related to this optical design but I've never been bothered by it at all. In fact, I am bothered a bit by other designs but that's not under discussion.

Between the 8.5X42 and 10X50 the 10X50 will initially WOW the viewer more based on increased magnification and a wonderful AFOV. The weight and large size might also wow you in the opposite direction. My wife would never use either but is quite content with the 8X32. The all-purpose choice is probably the 8.5X42 but what do I know. After a long absence my 7X42 Ultravid is back in my hands and I'm going to take a hard long look at the Noctivid. There's just something about the Leica view that is hard to define and even harder to ignore.

Good luck!

I 100% agree with the last post. I recently purchased the 8x32 field pro after having tried all of the field pro models. You can't go wrong with any of them to be honest as they are all outstanding. Having tried all of them i felt the biggest difference between them was the ergonomics i.e size/weight/handling etc.

Optically they are all excellent but the size/weight and feel of the 8x32 just felt perfect. As much as i loved the 10x50 i found them too big/heavy and i just couldn't hold them steady enough to really get the benefit of the additional power. To get the best from anything above 8x i feel i need to mount them on a tripod and if i am going to tripod mount them then i feel i would be better going for something like the 15x56.

dmcharg said:

I 100% agree with the last post. I recently purchased the 8x32 field pro after having tried all of the field pro models. You can't go wrong with any of them to be honest as they are all outstanding. Having tried all of them i felt the biggest difference between them was the ergonomics i.e size/weight/handling etc.

Optically they are all excellent but the size/weight and feel of the 8x32 just felt perfect. As much as i loved the 10x50 i found them too big/heavy and i just couldn't hold them steady enough to really get the benefit of the additional power. To get the best from anything above 8x i feel i need to mount them on a tripod and if i am going to tripod mount them then i feel i would be better going for something like the 15x56.

Click to expand...

You don't need a tripod. A Canon 10x42 IS-L has optics equal to the Swarovski 10x50 SV plus it has IS which gives you about 30% more resolution. The Canon also handles glare a little better and you can buy one for 1/2 the price of the Swarovski.

[email protected] said:

You don't need a tripod. A Canon 10x42 IS-L has optics equal to the Swarovski 10x50 SV plus it has IS which gives you about 30% more resolution. The Canon also handles glare a little better and you can buy one for 1/2 the price of the Swarovski.

Click to expand...

IS in a 10x bin seems a bit overkill, but I guess the extra weight of the bulky Canon (1110 grams + batteries), makes IS a must have...

I suggest a 10x42 SF instead, it has rock solid view due to the low weight and good ergonomics and the FOV is huge. And it's only 790 grams. The wow factor in the SF is as big as in the 10x50 Swaro but in a better and more manageable package.

I have recently purchased the 8.5x42, after spending a week comparing them against the 10x50.
I really wanted the 10x50, they are a tremendous binocular but after much deliberation I decided against it. I'm a one binocular man and the 8.5 is a great all rounder. The main issue with the 10x50 is the weight. I'm 37 and a landscaper, so probably as strong as I'll ever be, and I still found holding the 10x50 up to my eyes a strain after awhile. Even if I could handle it for now, in several years down the line, I'd probably wish I had bought the lighter model.

Vespobuteo said:

IS in a 10x bin seems a bit overkill, but I guess the extra weight of the bulky Canon (1110 grams + batteries), makes IS a must have...

I suggest a 10x42 SF instead, it has rock solid view due to the low weight and good ergonomics and the FOV is huge. And it's only 790 grams. The wow factor in the SF is as big as in the 10x50 Swaro but in a better and more manageable package.

Click to expand...

I like the Zeiss 10x42 SF although the SV 10x50 is a little better because of the bigger exit pupils. IS is not overkill in the Canon 10x42 IS-L. When the view is tripod steady I can see more. About 30% better resolution at 10x. When I really want to see something clearly or make out detail I grab the Canon's. I preferred the Canon's over the 10x50 SV and the SV is the best 10x out there in a normal binocular.

Hati,

About the 10x50, Roger Vine in his review of the Binos
http://scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x50EL.htm
complained about the eye relief being annoyingly tight, despite being one of his favorite Binos.
So if eye relief is important to you, you should take it into consideration.

Thank you very much for all of us for the very useful posts! It will be a hard choice for me.