New Swarovski EL vs Zeiss SF. (1 Viewer)

binomania · Oct 11, 2015

Hi to all, i've received from Swarovski a specimen of the new EL 8.5x42
I am testing in these days and i hope to write my impression on binomania in the next days
Here's a photo.
You can see other images and my first impressions, here:
http://www.binomania.it/anteprima-del-nuovo-swarovski-el-field-pro-package/

Vespobuteo · Oct 11, 2015

binomania said:
Hi to all, i've received from Swarovski a specimen of the new EL 8.5x42
I am testing in these days and i hope to write my impression on binomania in the next days
Here's a photo.
You can see other images and my first impressions, here:
http://www.binomania.it/anteprima-del-nuovo-swarovski-el-field-pro-package/

looking forward to that!

any visible changes to the coatings? looks more orange on the photos??
also interested in if the weight really is less on the new 8.5x42?
or if it's just an "marketing error" in the tech specs...800 instead of 830g?

SuperDuty · Oct 13, 2015

A Swarovski rep told me that there are unannounced coating changes almost every year, so the 2016 model probably has different coatings than this years, and this years probably different than last year's and so on. Getting the one with the latest coatings will be a fleeting advantage, and he also said you would be hard pressed to see a difference in them, which makes me wonder why they change them so often.

PeterPS · Oct 14, 2015

New EK weight

also interested in if the weight really is less on the new 8.5x42?
or if it's just an "marketing error" in the tech specs...800 instead of 830g?

"Marketing trick" indeed: I have weighed the 10x42 EL, weight with the objective caps about 875g, without 851g. As expected heavier than the Swarovision model, similarly to the 32mm model. Probably Swaro thought 800g looks better when compared with the 790g of the SF! (the weight of the latter is quite close to 790g). IMO somebody comparing the EL and SF in a store environment would choose the SF most of the time----it feels better in the hand, the SmartFocus works really well, it's optically quite similar to the EL, and those two new bumps for strap of the EL do not help.....

Peter.

Vespobuteo · Oct 14, 2015

pesto said:
"Marketing trick" indeed: I have weighed the 10x42 EL, weight with the objective caps about 875g, without 851g. As expected heavier than the Swarovision model, similarly to the 32mm model. Probably Swaro thought 800g looks better when compared with the 790g of the SF! (the weight of the latter is quite close to 790g). IMO somebody comparing the EL and SF in a store environment would choose the SF most of the time----it feels better in the hand, the SmartFocus works really well, it's optically quite similar to the EL, and those two new bumps for strap of the EL do not help.....

Peter.

binomania did weigh them, they seem to be 800 grams now,

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3296514&postcount=3043

previous version (8.5x42) is 838 grams, with no accessories mounted,

I like the more solid feel of the SV:s,
SF:s actually felt too light in the hands for me,
that balance thing, hmmm, mostly marketing....??
but tastes differ,
try before buy,

dalat · Oct 15, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
binomania did weigh them, they seem to be 800 grams,

Not if you read the comment you linked properly

NDhunter · Oct 15, 2015

I am wondering why all of the concern about the weight of these binoculars.

They are almost identical. How about what counts, the view .

Jerry

Vespobuteo · Oct 15, 2015

dalat said:
Not if you read the comment you linked properly

hmm,
if you interpret the "hood of the eyepieces" as "eye cups" perhaps,
but I didn't,
why would you weigh binoculars without eye cups?

not even the weight of a pair of binoculars seems possible to establish any consensus over...

I give up...
:-O

kabsetz · Oct 15, 2015

I also interpreted Piergiovanni's comment as meaning eyecups. Reason being, in addition to the smiley he included, is that I have weighed the new SV now twice on two different scales. Although I don't recall the exact figures, I remember that they weren't significantly lighter than the previous model. I'll try to re-check this if I can.

Kimmo

binomania · Oct 16, 2015

kabsetz said:
I also interpreted Piergiovanni's comment as meaning eyecups. Reason being, in addition to the smiley he included, is that I have weighed the new SV now twice on two different scales. Although I don't recall the exact figures, I remember that they weren't significantly lighter than the previous model. I'll try to re-check this if I can.

Kimmo

Hi! Sorry for my bad english. I weighed the binoculars without eyecups to make a verification . It is not the first time, that the declared weight concerns the binoculars without eyecups. In fact, the weight declared by Swarovski is similar what I have verified removing the eyecups!: 800g. .
Kind Regards from Italy.

Vespobuteo · Oct 16, 2015

binomania said:
Hi! Sorry for my bad english. I weighed the binoculars without eyecups to make a verification . It is not the first time, that the declared weight concerns the binoculars without eyecups. In fact, the weight declared by Swarovski is similar what I have verified removing the eyecups!: 800g. .
Kind Regards from Italy.

3

pretty creative accounting if that's how Swaro got the weight to be 800 grams,
maybe they will do like Zeiss with the HT:s and add a figure for "Weight in use"...
I almost can feel the smell of diesel fumes...

kabsetz · Oct 16, 2015

I really doubt anybody would go as far as saying that you are supposed to remove the eyecups to get to a specified weight or, on the other hand, deliberately specify a weight that excludes the eyecups. Rather, it is more likely optimistic rounding of figures to the nearest neat number, done in "good faith" and hoping that not too many folks actually weigh these things. Also, the actual weight will vary slightly from sample to sample, although in my limited experience these weight fluctuations are mostly well under 10g for normal binoculars.

When I write tests, I have usually included the weight of the binocular with its supplied strap and eyepiece rain guard, as these I tend to always have attached to the binocular if I carry it around and use it.

I didn't get to re-weigh the new SV EL yet, but did weigh the outgoing 10x42 SV EL on a certified electronic letter scale. It scored 828g with eyecups but without any accessories. A Zeiss 10x42 SF weighed 780g on the same scale, and 782 on my digital kitchen scale.

Kimmo

Vespobuteo · Oct 16, 2015

the prev. version (8.5x42) was 835 grams and the 10x42 840 grams
according to Swarovski's own specs.
5% is a bit hefty for rounding of, IMO

PeterPS · Oct 16, 2015

So the figures for the weight of the new EL I gave above are chopped liver!? In fact it was quite clear that the weight will increase rather than decrease, as there has been no change in the optics or mechanics, only the strap lugs have been changed and the new ones should be a bit heavier.
Btw, never heard before about giving the weight of bins w/o the eyecups---in fact for most bins one cannot remove the eyecups.

Regarding Jerry's questions about the view, the SV is optically identical to the new EL, and the former has been compared with the SF in quite some detail: briefly stated, the macro-contrast of the SF is better, owing to an excellent glare control, but the micro-contrast&sharpness of the SV appears to be just slightly better. Also, to my eyes, the view through the SF is more relaxing (and 3D).

Peter.

ticl2184 · Oct 17, 2015

Just to Clarify.

Is the New EL lighter or heavier than the old one???

Additionally is the new version replacing the old one or our they going to be selling both versions in future?

Cheers Tim

PeterPS · Oct 17, 2015

Hi Tim:

The new EL is heavier than the old EL---see post 4 above. The specs for the new 22mm EL correctly show the weight increase, but the ones for the new 42mm EL show a wrong weight (smaller than the actual weight by some 50g).

Many dealers still sell the old ELs at discounted prices as long as they have them in stock. This is an indication that the old EL is a discontinued model.

Best, Peter.

ticl2184 · Oct 17, 2015

Hi Peter.

New 22mm EL??

Do you mean 32mm???

ticl2184 · Oct 17, 2015

Can you clarify Peter

What is the actual weight of the 10x42 and 8x32 new EL...

If anyone's listening from Swarovski....Can we please have the correct specifications advertised.

People like myself spend hundreds of pounds for what is stated in the advertised specs.

Surely not to much to ask at this price level..

Cheers Tim

PeterPS · Oct 17, 2015

Do you mean 32mm???

I sure do, sorry.

What is the actual weight of the 10x42 and 8x32 new EL...

I have put only the new EL 10x42 on a scale: 875g with the objective lens covers on (which are "integrated" for the new EL, and not that easy to take off), and 851g with no accessories, so about 50g heavier than in the specs.

Peter.

ticl2184 · Oct 17, 2015

Thanks Peter...

Are Swarovski havin a laugh???

It says 800g...

Cheers Tim

New Swarovski EL vs Zeiss SF. (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

...

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-Known Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread