-
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 8x56 FL v swarovski 8x56 SLC (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter stan08
- Start date
henry link
Well-known member
I've been using the 8x56 Zeiss as my primary birding binocular for almost 5 years. I reviewed it here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81438
I haven't seen the 8x56 SLC, but, sight unseen, it wouldn't make my short list for a birding binocular based on two specs: the narrow apparent field (52 degrees) and the distant close focus (30').
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81438
I haven't seen the 8x56 SLC, but, sight unseen, it wouldn't make my short list for a birding binocular based on two specs: the narrow apparent field (52 degrees) and the distant close focus (30').
Last edited:
Omid
Well-known member
They are equals in my opinion. Zeiss 8x56 has better field view. SLC 8x56 has better construction and build quality. Note that the smaller field of view of the SLC does not give you a "tunel vision" feel. Its high-eyepoint and wide exit pupil makes the viewing very enjoyable. This is true with the Leica 8x50 as well. They are all very fine instruments.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I guess if you want it for birding, the SLC is out, with very poor close focus.
SLC 8x56 has better construction and build quality.
In what way are they better than the FLS. ?
Please enlighten us.
Scat
Omid
Well-known member
The polymer cover on SLC looks and feels better than the one on Zeiss (my opinion). On the top of that if you extend the eyecups on Zeiss, you will get a most ugly looking binoculars! The outer body of Zeiss 8x56 has a curvature near the eyepiece lens but the eyecups come stright out making it look very ugly. Zeiss 8x56 with eyecups pushed all the way down look nice.
Omid
Well-known member
Since the optics is already wonderful, the [small] difference would come to personal preferences in body design. I discussed the eyecups issue with Steve Ingraham while visiting the Zeiss booth at the SHOT SHOW a couple years ago. He agreed with me and said that the eyecups are perhaps the worst part of the design in 8x56 and 10x56 victory models.
Last edited:
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
There are a lot of posts discussing build quality or looks of the FL's, but to me, the gray of the Nikon SE's looks terribly cheap [looks like plastic], as does the green on any Swarovski.
I think the Ultravids are the prettiest binos currently.
I think the Ultravids are the prettiest binos currently.
Ingle1970
Well-known member
Ultravid BL is the classy looking one, Ultravid BR/HD are just plain jane's, prefer the Zeiss FL to the Ultravid and thats not perfect by any means!
8x56 won't appear any brighter than 8x42 unless it's late enough in the twilight that the eyes open to over 5.2mm, which is well after sunset, probably later than most folks would bird, unless after overtly crepescular species. Even then, a physiological eye construction effect, the Stiles Crawford effect (of the 1st kind) reduces the efficiency of light entering near the edge of the pupil.
My eyes open to about 6.3mm at night, but my 8x42 FL seems just as bright, even in the deepest twilight, as my equally transmissive 7x50 Fujinon.
I recently compared, in bright sunlight, an 8x56 SLC with a 42mm Leica Duovid, set on 8x. The Duovid was as bright, and its view seemed as good in every way. I wouldn't carry such a 56mm monster for a mere 8x. Both views were mighty fine though, don't get me wrong. (aside here--The 8x+12x42 Duovid is far and away the edge-sharpest Leica I have ever looked through! I about fell over. It was about like a Nikon SE, I kid you not. Aesthetically to me at least, this easily made up for its relatively narrow 56deg apparent field.)
Henry Link sees something special in his 8x56 Zeiss FL, and he knows what he's talking about if anybody here does. Maybe the SLC is not as good, maybe I can't see as well as Henry, I just don't know.
Ron
My eyes open to about 6.3mm at night, but my 8x42 FL seems just as bright, even in the deepest twilight, as my equally transmissive 7x50 Fujinon.
I recently compared, in bright sunlight, an 8x56 SLC with a 42mm Leica Duovid, set on 8x. The Duovid was as bright, and its view seemed as good in every way. I wouldn't carry such a 56mm monster for a mere 8x. Both views were mighty fine though, don't get me wrong. (aside here--The 8x+12x42 Duovid is far and away the edge-sharpest Leica I have ever looked through! I about fell over. It was about like a Nikon SE, I kid you not. Aesthetically to me at least, this easily made up for its relatively narrow 56deg apparent field.)
Henry Link sees something special in his 8x56 Zeiss FL, and he knows what he's talking about if anybody here does. Maybe the SLC is not as good, maybe I can't see as well as Henry, I just don't know.
Ron
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
I have never seen binoculars looking as good, let alone looking better, with their eyecups up vs. down. However, what's more important is the functional design of the eyecups, and in my opinion those 8x56 FL eyecups can't be beat in this respect. The have the right diameter, they are nicely rounded on top, and most of all they can be twisted up far enough to accommodate any (I repeat ANY) user. Too short travel is an imperfection of all binoculars I've had through my hands (please don't ask me to disclose all procedures, adjustments and prostheses I tried out to conquer the problem) with one notable exception.
But OK maybe you're not as sensitive or critical on eye piece depth as I am, then let me tell you there's yet another great feature in the FL's eyecup design, something very useful to everybody and yet sadly missing on the greater part of today's binoculars. Ever heard of eye cup friction? The most simple and effective solution to height adjustment? Yes you can choose any in-between position you want, make a mark there and the eyecup will stay put. Cheers!
Renze
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Completly agree. The most comfortable eye-cup position for me is between click-stops but I find that they stay put, even with a lot of use and jostling about. I also find that I can push my eyes into the eye-cups comfortably, without feeling like they are trying to scoop out my eyes, like a few others I have tried.
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Even the FL has those click-stops. By default I guess. By the fault I say.
Renze
Hi Stan
I've got a pair of Hawke 8x56 ED which I like very much. I briefly tried a Swaro 8x56 which was great also but I almost preferred the Hawke being quite a bit more compact and lighter.
I only bought them while my Leica 10x32 HD was being repaired but since I got them I have been using them a lot and always really enjoy them whether for long distance or close in usage, in fact I think they have become my preferred bin even though the Leica will get me closer and show more detail and are obviously more convenient to carry.
A great surprise to me but I have become a big fan of these large low mag bins.
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Renze,
I would be most interested if you could provide a comparative review of your Zeiss 8x56 FL vs Swaro HD 8x42 SLC. In particular, a comparison using your distance glasses would be most appreciated, or a comparison with and without glasses.
How would you rate them in terms of image quality, ergonomics, and general utility for a variety of birding tasks?
Thanks,
Ed
PS. I think this comparison makes sense because they were each optimized with fluoride glass, whereas the 8x56 SLC was not.
I would be most interested if you could provide a comparative review of your Zeiss 8x56 FL vs Swaro HD 8x42 SLC. In particular, a comparison using your distance glasses would be most appreciated, or a comparison with and without glasses.
How would you rate them in terms of image quality, ergonomics, and general utility for a variety of birding tasks?
Thanks,
Ed
PS. I think this comparison makes sense because they were each optimized with fluoride glass, whereas the 8x56 SLC was not.
Last edited:
I've tried the 8x56 SLC's and while they're certainly nice, I feel the 8x56 FL's provide a better viewing experience. I primarily chose to purchase the FL's over the SLC's because of their ability to focus considerably closer than the SLC's and a wider field of view. Optically I find them to be excellent, which Henry's detailed review can substantiate. As far as build quality is concerned here too I find no issue with the FL's.
!00% agreed. Too short eyecups is one of the major reasons I opted out of a Leica Trinovid. A lot of really expensive bins have this issue. I modded my Victory 8x20 eyecups to be wider and come farther out and now they are fantastic where as before they were just ok. I have about 5 pairs of bins with
eyecup modifications.
The full size FL's have great eyecups IMO.
pimpelmees
Well-known member
last week i returned my zeiss fl victory 10x42 , there was a scratch or a hair on the glass inside the left barrel and dust, the replacement i returned also , the rubber was loose in some places and was not tight and didn't fit nice) , so no more zeiss for me !!
