• 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.

Opinion: Zeiss 10x40 Classic v. Swarovski 10x40W Traditional (1 Viewer)

B

berryns

Well-known member
I am considering trading my Zeiss 10x40 Classics for a pair of Swarovski 10x40W binoculars.

I have never handled the Traditionals so I am looking for opinions on them. How do the Traditionals stack up against the Zeiss Classics in performance, size, and construction?

In a 10x40 I value the depth of field, sharpness, and ergonomics. I do not wear glasses so eye relief is not an issue.

Thanks!
 
berryns said:
I am considering trading my Zeiss 10x40 Classics for a pair of Swarovski 10x40W binoculars.

I have never handled the Traditionals so I am looking for opinions on them. How do the Traditionals stack up against the Zeiss Classics in performance, size, and construction?

In a 10x40 I value the depth of field, sharpness, and ergonomics. I do not wear glasses so eye relief is not an issue.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Hi Berryns

I owned a 10x40 BGA Dialyt for years and have happy memories.

I haven't owned or handled the 10x Swaro though I have handled the 7x version.

So just a couple of observations for you to think about.

The field of view according to the official specs is slightly better (by 4 metres at 1,000 metres) for the Swaro, so no real difference there.

Both being 10x bins you can expect the depth of field to be the same although porro enthusiasts will tell you that the wider-spaced objective lenses give a sort of 3D effect that they consider a terrific quality and which personally I struggle to see.

With the moving eyepieces that do the focusing it is difficult to waterproof a porro bin. So your 10x40 Swaro will either not be waterproof or the focus action will be very very stiff due to the tightly gripping seals and this is likely to get much stiffer in cold weather.

Presumably the bulkier shape doesn't deter you.

Good luck with your choice.

Lee
 
Hello berryns,

I have had 4 Swarovski Habicht 10x40 over the years...Today I still have and use (and is one of my favorite binocular) one of the latest version and the W GA (green rubber armored). It has a neutral colour view, unlike the older ones that had that yellow tint, used (as Swarovski said) to increase the contrast and the greens and browns at down and dusk. For the hunters, more than the birdwatchers. Being me in both categories...Anyway, this last one is absolutely neutral on this. I never owned a Zeiss Diatal *T*P, the last version, but a close friend of mine do own one. Instead, I have had a Leica Trinovid BA for 5 years. I put, optically, these two on the same level. But the Swarovski Habicht I have is better optically. Clearly. Better, also, than the "famous" Nikon SE 10x42. I tried both side by side MANY times and I have no doubt about that.
The build quality of the S Habicht, even the old ones I have had (the first made in the late `70s) is SUPERB. Even that old ones NEVER fogged in many hunts in the Andes....And in spite of being used hard, really, NEVER fail mechanically!!! Great binoculars made in the Old Way. The only criticism, not an issue for me but yes for some other people, could be the rather short eye releif. And, as a birdwatcher binocular, the rather long focusing distance of about 3,5-4 meters. And a little less than perfect stray light or flare control compared with my Zeiss FL or my just arrived HT both 10x42. Noticeable only in extreme front light situations. But better than the Diatal or Classic 10x40 *T*P of my friend...!
And this is all I will said about it....Je!

Good luck!

PHA
 
Last edited:
berryns said:
I am considering trading my Zeiss 10x40 Classics for a pair of Swarovski 10x40W binoculars.

I have never handled the Traditionals so I am looking for opinions on them. How do the Traditionals stack up against the Zeiss Classics in performance, size, and construction?

In a 10x40 I value the depth of field, sharpness, and ergonomics. I do not wear glasses so eye relief is not an issue.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I owned both models, sold my Swaro and still own and use the Zeiss Classic. I found the Swaro focuser to be overly stiff (likely due to its waterproofing seals) and the eyepices to be difficult to use. The Swaro was somewhat brighter (as to be expected from a porro) but I preferred the more neutral, wide field view from the Zeiss. Neither binocular offered modern close focus capabilities, and I suspect the Swaro, while among the best built of the porros, would prove more fragile and prone to collimation issues in the field than the Zeiss. My Swaro was the leather covered version and it felt neither as secure nor as handy as the heavy rubber armoring of the Zeiss. Hope that's helpful.
 
Well, I just bent over into a contortion that even Ravi the Scorpion would be amazed at in order to kick myself for selling my 050xxx 10x42 SE because it was pretty much flawless - great optics, great ergonomics, and a buttery smooth focuser, which I'm sure your Swaro Habicht doesn't have, based on comments about the 8x30 model's focuser.

Allbinos also rated the SE's higher, because the Habichts had truncated pupils (2.9% on one side, 1.5% on the other), visible flares near the pupils, distortion a bit too high (for Arek's taste), and very small eyecups which made the binoculars fall into his eyes (he tested the non-rubber armored version).

He did admit, however, that he thought the Habichts were "beautiful" and that asking them get all those "cons" right was like asking "a 1966 Ford Mustang to comply with the contemporary requirements for emission of exhaustion fumes and to do 100 kilometers to five litres." IOW, the design is old vs. the SE's.

Could you please elaborate on why you think the 10x40 Habicht is "better" than the 10x42 SE?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Contortionist%2C_posed_in_studio%2C_ca._1880.jpg

Brock


PHA said:
Hello berryns,

I have had 4 Swarovski Habicht 10x40 over the years...Today I still have and use (and is one of my favorite binocular) one of the latest version and the W GA (green rubber armored). It has a neutral colour view, unlike the older ones that had that yellow tint, used (as Swarovski said) to increase the contrast and the greens and browns at down and dusk. For the hunters, more than the birdwatchers. Being me in both categories...Anyway, this last one is absolutely neutral on this. I never owned a Zeiss Diatal *T*P, the last version, but a close friend of mine do own one. Instead, I have had a Leica Trinovid BA for 5 years. I put, optically, these two on the same level. But the Swarovski Habicht I have is better optically. Clearly. Better, also, than the "famous" Nikon SE 10x42. I tried both side by side MANY times and I have no doubt about that.
The build quality of the S Habicht, even the old ones I have had (the first made in the late `70s) is SUPERB. Even that old ones NEVER fogged in many hunts in the Andes....And in spite of being used hard, really, NEVER fail mechanically!!! Great binoculars made in the Old Way. The only criticism, not an issue for me but yes for some other people, could be the rather short eye releif. And, as a birdwatcher binocular, the rather long focusing distance of about 3,5-4 meters. And a little less than perfect stray light or flare control compared with my Zeiss FL or my just arrived HT both 10x42. Noticeable only in extreme front light situations. But better than the Diatal or Classic 10x40 *T*P of my friend...!
And this is all I will said about it....Je!

Good luck!

PHA
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
brocknroller said:
Well, I just bent over into a contortion that even Ravi the Scorpion would be amazed at in order to kick myself for selling my 050xxx 10x42 SE because it was pretty much flawless - great optics, great ergonomics, and a buttery smooth focuser, which I'm sure your Swaro Habicht doesn't have, based on comments about the 8x30 model's focuser.

Allbinos also rated the SE's higher, because the Habichts had truncated pupils (2.9% on one side, 1.5% on the other), visible flares near the pupils, distortion a bit too high (for Arek's taste), and very small eyecups which made the binoculars fall into his eyes (he tested the non-rubber armored version).

He did admit, however, that he thought the Habichts were "beautiful" and that asking them get all those "cons" right was like asking "a 1966 Ford Mustang to comply with the contemporary requirements for emission of exhaustion fumes and to do 100 kilometers to five litres." IOW, the design is old vs. the SE's.

Could you please elaborate on why you think the 10x40 Habicht is "better" than the 10x42 SE?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Contortionist%2C_posed_in_studio%2C_ca._1880.jpg

Brock
Click to expand...

Geez Brock you should of kept that Nikon 10x42SE if it had a buttery smooth focuser, mine didn't my Nikon 8x32SE doesn't in fact the Swarovski 8x30SLC neu I have and the one you have complained about the focuser, has a buttery smooth focuser [both directions] compared to the Nikon 8x32SE I have and no contest in the cold.

Brock there is a slight difference in focus feel the one direction in the SLCneu if this makes you feel better.

Nathan sorry I can't help you on this. I hope the twins are not keeping you up at night.
 
Last edited:
mooreorless said:
Geez Brock you should of kept that Nikon 10x42SE if it had a buttery smooth focuser, mine didn't my Nikon 8x32SE doesn't in fact the Swarovski 8x30SLC neu I have and the one you have complained about the focuser, has a buttery smooth focuser [both directions] compared to the Nikon 8x32SE I have and no contest in the cold.

Nathan sorry I can't help you on this. I hope the twins are not keeping you up at night.
Click to expand...

Steve,

I don't consider your SLC's focuser to be "buttery smooth," it's not rough but it turns harder in one direction than the other like many Swaro focusers. How you can't feel that difference befuddles me since it's quite obvious to me, particularly since I have to use my ring finger to focus because of the SLC's objective side focuser, which is not my cup o' tea. .

I think the reason my SEs and BB EIIs have buttery smooth focusers is due to the fact that they all were new (or nearly new) when I bought them, whereas you have a 504xxx 8x32 SE, which dates back probably to around 2002 or 2003, and your 10x42 SE was an 002xxx, which was made in in the last century (probably around 1997). I think the viscosity of the grease changes with continued exposure to heat and cold with external focusers. You should send your 8x SE to Nikon for re-greasing, then it will be as good as new.

In any case, the reason I sold the 10x SE was due to my shaky hands. Really great bin, but I couldn't hold it steady like I could the 10x EII, which, unfortunately, I had to sell out of necessity.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Hi brock,

I compared, more than once, the Swarovski Habicht (last variation) with the Nikon 10x42 SE.
MY Habicht with the last Nikon I saw was better in the: contrast and colour and in the center resolution having the Habicht a so-called sweet spot much more than adecuate. For me. I see throught a binocular in the natural way: throught the center and around it. Is very uncofortable, to me, to look trhought the edges...I must say I have had some binoculars where the sweet spot was very small and the edge softness very bad. One example was a Zeiss Dialyt 8x20 *P (not *T...), the ones made like the 8x30 and 10x40. Very bad in this matter.
Going back to the Habicht 10x40 I have, no doubt I chose it over the Nikon SEs I have seen. Small optical differences but enough. In the construction and mechanics the Habicht is superb!!!!

Best Regards

PHA
 
PHA it surprises me that you have bought a Zeiss 10x42 HT after the negative report you gave this bin when you tried one in Barcelona last year.I think this requires further amplification,!!! Eddy
 
Hello Eddy,

Ha!!! You catch me!!!! Yes, I bought a used but pristine HT, indeed!! I sold my beloved and used FL, here in Argentina, because I have had an offer for this HT I couldnt refuse!!! And make some cash in the trade!!!!
By the way, my "negative" report was relative as I said, between that two samples of HT and Swarovision. Not a Habicht Porro....!(for etudiant)
In a few days I will report my impressions about this HT, of course!!!

Best Regards!

PHA
 
I can certainly see PHA's point in that in his opinion- the Habicht 10x40 was optically better in a number of ways over the 10x42 SE.

Because I thought the same thing when comparing the 8x30 Habicht and the 8x32 SE. Both were the latest versions that I tested ( Habicht- 2013; and SE newest serial number ). Even though the 8x32 SE was better in certain ways- has a flatter field and did better with glare and stray light. But in some of the main areas that really mean the most to me- the Habicht was better. Great contrast, very accurate color rendition; and most important to me, the Habicht was sharper when it came to resolving details. It just showed me more every time I really put the two to the test in how sharp they were. Was not by a lot, but was there every time in all times of day and light conditions. And this was over a couple weeks.

I can see how a birder first in good weather may like the SE better. But for me as a hunter and wildlife watcher more so than a birder; and in some tough weather conditions- the Habicht was a much better fit. Plus- it just has the tough, classic style that just exudes excellence and class. Don't get me wrong about the 8x32 SE- it is a benchmark that all great 30/32 mm bino's are judged by- and rightly so. But the Habicht bested it for me in a couple areas; including some pure optical ones, which at first was a bit of a surprise.
 
Last edited:
Hello Stephen,

I couldn´t agree more what do you write! Better said than me! And more accurate. You put in words exactly what my experience was testing both binoculars. For me was also a surprise the first time having read all about the SE. A very good binocular but second to a new Habicht for my use.

Best regards

PHA
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone first off let me apologize for not responding to any of the posts. I was waiting to figure out what I was going to do with my Zeiss Classics.

Even though the Classics have their flaws I have decided to keep them, they work well for me and have a bit of nostalgia.

Thank you for your help.
 
Nathan I sort of thought you would end up keeping the Zeiss Classics. BTW the Zeiss 10x40 looks in excellent shape. The Zeiss 8x30 Safari doesn't really look that much smaller, not as long as the 10x40. They are both in very good shape.:t:
 
The 10x40 is a 2004 model, so it has the latest coatings. As far as condition it's almost perfect. The only thing are the oculars, the previous owner wasn't the best at cleaning the lenses. The objectives are in fine shape.

The Safari look deceivingly large because the 10x40's are so small. However, compared to the 8x30 Classic B/GA the Safari is much larger.

If anyone else would care to see:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17198853@N04/8126218053/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17198853@N04/8126242030/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17198853@N04/8126244438/
 
chartwell99, post 4,
There is a broad misconception about the vulnerabiliy of porro binoculars compared with roof prism binoculars. If you study the use of military equipment over the last century, you will see that there are hardly roof prism binoculars for military use. The Bausch and Lomb porro type binoculars but also the so-called Zeiss design from WW-2 are extremely sturdy and strong and many are waterproof and can stand rough treatment very well in contrast to a lot of modern roof prism binoculars.
So your idea that the Swarovski Habich 10x40W would be more vulnerable than the Zeiss Classic 10x40 is not correct. Swarovski produces the Habicht 10x40 also especially for military use and they are of exceptional high quality both optically as well as mechanically. I will give you another example: during a company visit to the Zeiss factory in Wetzlar, we were shown a Hensoldt 8x30 porro for military use and the Zeiss employee, who was talking to us, dropped the binocular "by accident" on the concrete floor. We were shocked but he smiled, took the binocular showed it to us and it was in perfect shape: no collimation problems no damage.
So if you want to have a very strong binocular: buy a top quality porro.
Gijs
 
Hello Gijs,

My extremely limited experiences compared with yours, are the same about the strenght of a well made Porro. My first really good binocular was a Habicht WA made in the seventies. I bought it used in an old, nonexistent today, shop of used optics at Buenos Aires in 1981. I paid for it a ridiculous price...! I think a little more than the price of the leather case alone...The binoculars had the leatherlike coat chipped and a general very bad look. But the optics and mechanics were almost pristine!!! I used it for 20 years as my only binocular. For general use in the field. Living and working in the rangelands of Patagonia, where I carry a binocular everyday, plus the backpack and horse hunting I did, and do, each year since 1980, the binoculars, and the rest of the equipment as well, are tested in many ways. These old Habicht NEVER FAILED in all those years!!! Were without any trace of the leatherlike coating, looking bad really, but remains in PERFECT shape in optics and mechanics and the collimation never moved!!!! I would still be using them if not were stollen from my truck in 2002....!

Best Regards!

PHA
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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

G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
R
Analysing Binoculars
Replies
6
Views
679
beacon hill
beacon hill
J
Asking for advice on pocket binocular
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Zedster
Zedster
J
Swarovski CL 8x25 vs Zeiss Terra ED 8x25: one more comparison
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Elkhornsun
E
hopster
Optical comparison of Habicht 10x40 and HT (or FL) 10x42
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
hopster
hopster

Users who are viewing this thread

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