seaward said:Has anyone tested these side by side? I have the Leupolds currently and can't imaging the Swarovski ELs being much better but I have never tried Swarovski ELs of any other Swarovski's for that matter..
Thnaks for your input!
Luca said:Well, in store in fluorescent light, and at a glance, you may not see a difference. But i assure you that there is enough difference to put the Swaro in a different class, above of course.
Pretty much everything is better in the EL compared to the Golden Ring: colors and color finging, contrast, stray light, handling, weight, size. Whether the "better" is worth an extra $700, it's up to you.
BMR said:Buster, I'm a big Leica fan and like them better than any others (I have an 8x32, 10x50, and 8x42, all Trinovids), but it begs the question - why 3 Swaro ELs for you if you've been disappointed in them?
seaward said:Has anyone tested these side by side? I have the Leupolds currently and can't imaging the Swarovski ELs being much better but I have never tried Swarovski ELs of any other Swarovski's for that matter..
Thnaks for your input!
Here is another thought, a Zeiss rep said in that German haughty manner that "he could not understand why Swarovski sold so many ELs as they use a lower grade of glass than Zeiss" one grade lower is how he put it and he should know as Swarovski buy from schot glass which is owned by Zeiss. I have always thought Swarovski should stick to making glass trinkets and leave binocular making to the experts.kabsetz said:Buster and all,
I smell the opportunity here to raise the sample variation issue yet again, but with a slight twist. Since binocular users (especially the kind who spend 1000$ or more on their gear) are very picky, the units that end up being offered second-hand are probably much more likely to be lemons than your average "fresh-from-an-unopened-box." Of course, there can be other reasons for people selling a relatively new premium binocular, but most people buy such instruments to use and to keep, and if they end up selling soon thereafter, it is usually because they were not satisfied with the view. Judging by the prices, the ones you bought may have been client returns also if they weren't outright second-hand units. I happen to share the sentiment that the 8x32 EL is not quite as good as it should be, but I hold the 10x42 and 8.5x42 EL's in rather high regard.
Kimmo
In English please.foxbo said:Fiddler, have you jumped for your donkey lately and wound up in a hole?
FIDDLER said:stick to making glass trinkets and leave binocular making to the experts.
......................................................fiddler.
Another word for Swarovski is it?Luca said:Hogwash.
That's English.
FIDDLER said:"he could not understand why Swarovski sold so many ELs as they use a lower grade of glass than Zeiss" one grade lower is how he put it fiddler.
OldPhotos said:Had a chance to compare these two again today at Gander Mountain in 10x42 along with a pair of $280 Nikon Monarchs and a pair of $800 Steiners. Was a more distinct difference this time. Although the Gold Rings had a nice clear view in bright light, they were VERY poor in low light, unlike the prior pair's experience. Only mechanical issue I could determine that might have impacted the optical performance was the necessity of diopter adjustment to the extreme + to be able to achieve appropriate focus from both barrels. The Swarovski's and Nikon's adjustment was -0- or neutral and the Steiners was +1. And the Nikon Monarchs were much better than the Gold Rings in the low light viewing as well. Perhaps colimnation problems?
The Steiners were decent, but not as good as the Nikons or Swarovskis in low light either. Also compared a pair of Swarovski SLCs at the beginning, but eliminated them immediately because of insufficient eye relief for my eyeglasses. The customer service rep helping me also wore eyeglasses, and he had the same problem with the SLCs. And in spite of his muscular build, he also complained about the weight of the Gold Rings. His experience in hunting from a tree stand or blind with constant binocular use for many hours gave the Gold Ring's weight a substantial negative. While he needed the 42mm objective for low light observing, he also valued the lighter weight of the other manufacturer's more recent designs for his extended use.
All in all, it was a most useful comparison, again verifying the superb optics and handling of the ELs. The surprise of the session was the performance of the Nikon Monarchs! For less than 1/5th the price, they provided a very nice view! Decent color rendering, sharp focus, good low light performance and comfortable ergonomics in an inexpensive package. While not up to the overall acuity of the ELs, and lacking their excellent contrast, they look to be a real value.