• 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.

Maven B3 8x30 ... (1 Viewer)

Hi Frank,

I'm waiting for your review.

We had lots of sun and cold weather yesterday so there are probably comments you can make about it there and so far today it is sunny but not so cold. And then we are supposed to get some clouds. Looks like you can give it a workout over the next few days!

I hope it is somewhat more detailed than the one Dennis put up.

Bob
 
Last edited:
A big brown truck rolled up in front of my house.....

;)

Bob,

I have been using it extensively since I received it. Only complaint at this point is the central hinge needs to be tighter.

Positives: (teaser) - very bright, color neutral and huge sweet spot.

Now time to go read Dennis's comparative review.;)
 
FrankD, do you still have access to a Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 so you can compare the Maven B3 8x30 to it? That would be a very useful comparison, though the Maven is about 35% more expensive.
 
I don't at the moment but could stop at the local Cabelas to compare.
I would think the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 would be a closer competitor for the Maven than the Swarovski CL 8x30 I compared it with but unless you compare them outside under different lighting conditions it would be meaningless. The differences in a superior binocular are really noticed under poor lighting conditions or with sun and glare. When I compared the two the Maven looked pretty good in daytime. It was when the sun started to set that the Swarovski CL showed it's superiority.
 
I would think the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 would be a closer competitor for the Maven than the Swarovski CL 8x30 I compared it with but unless you compare them outside under different lighting conditions it would be meaningless. The differences in a superior binocular are really noticed under poor lighting conditions or with sun and glare. When I compared the two the Maven looked pretty good in daytime. It was when the sun started to set that the Swarovski CL showed it's superiority.

Conclusion is ..... no noticeable superiority between Swaro and Maven during daylight viewing.

CG
 
According to Maven, the transmission #'s are the peak number. They said since that is what almost everyone else in the industry posts for their transmission number. So, they thought that would be the best, and most fair number to post for simply comparison purposes.

I do not know how other companies arrive at, or what numbers they use when they post them; so it does make sense from a marketing comparison purpose, to just post them the way others do.

Thanks for that information, Stephen. Peak transmission seemed the most likely, particularly for the 30mm models.

I'm not so sure every company uses peak transmission and certainly most reviews that supply only a single number rather than a spectral curve appear to use either the ISO "daylight" standard or a measurement at the peak daylight sensitivity of the eye of around 550-555m. Some reviews supply "Day" and "Night" figures to correspond to the shift in maximum eyesight sensitivity to around 510nm under dark conditions. Maven's numbers should not be directly compared to any of those.
 
Last edited:
Conclusion is ..... no noticeable superiority between Swaro and Maven during daylight viewing.

CG

CG,

I'm not suggesting means anything much in practice, but Gijs' transmission plot for the Swarovski CL peaks at 93% or a just below the peak figure for the B3.

Something I'd rate as far more important is sharpness or effective resolution. Several people on the forum and more elsewhere have criticised the CL's lack of sharpness. I've tried it 15 times I think but that might only represent 12 different samples and every one has been soft. Not just marginally softer than the rest of the Swaro range but rubbing shoulders with the budget end of the spectrum, the level of detail I'd expect from a decent 4 or 5x. The Kite Lynx, Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and yes even the Prostaff7s 8x30 are distinctly sharper in my opinion. Amazing what people will pay for a pretty jacket with a designer label.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Frank makes of the B3 particularly sharpness. ;).

David
 
CG,

I'm not suggesting means anything much in practice, but Gijs' transmission plot for the Swarovski CL peaks at 93% or a just below the peak figure for the B3.

Something I'd rate as far more important is sharpness or effective resolution. Several people on the forum and more elsewhere have criticised the CL's lack of sharpness. I've tried it 15 times I think but that might only represent 12 different samples and every one has been soft. Not just marginally softer than the rest of the Swaro range but rubbing shoulders with the budget end of the spectrum, the level of detail I'd expect from a decent 4 or 5x. The Kite Lynx, Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and yes even the Prostaff7s 8x30 are distinctly sharper in my opinion. Amazing what people will pay for a pretty jacket with a designer label.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Frank makes of the B3 particularly sharpness. ;).

David
Sorry. I really don't agree with those opinions. In my opinion and comparing the CL to my Swaorvski SV 8x32 which most would agree is a pretty sharp binocular the CL is quite sharp and it has a bigger sweetspot as a % of the FOV than the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30. Also, it controlled glare better than the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 which I directly compared it with. In most optical reviews the CL has done quite well.
 
Conclusion is ..... no noticeable superiority between Swaro and Maven during daylight viewing.

CG
That is not really what I concluded even though it might suggest that. I said the Maven looked "Pretty Good." I didn't say it looked as good as the Swarovski 8x30 CL. Once I started comparing them back and forth even in day light I preferred the Swarovski but at low light the differences were even greater.
 
CG,



Something I'd rate as far more important is sharpness or effective resolution. Several people on the forum and more elsewhere have criticised the CL's lack of sharpness. I've tried it 15 times I think but that might only represent 12 different samples and every one has been soft. Not just marginally softer than the rest of the Swaro range but rubbing shoulders with the budget end of the spectrum, the level of detail I'd expect from a decent 4 or 5x. The Kite Lynx, Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and yes even the Prostaff7s 8x30 are distinctly sharper in my opinion. Amazing what people will pay for a pretty jacket with a designer label.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Frank makes of the B3 particularly sharpness. ;).

David

David,

I would agree with your assessment. When I tested (2) different samples of CL's against the previous recent Swaro 8x30 SLC NEU, A Swaro 8x32 EL, a Pentax 8x32 DCF ED; and even my previous 7x30 SLC (2000)- the CL was to my eyes definitely not as sharp.

Compared to the SLC NEU that it replaced, it was obvious that the CL was not as sharp, same with the Pentax DCF ED, and obviously the Swaro 8x32 EL. And I have to say that it was even somewhat surprising to me that the 8x30 CL was not as tack sharp as my Swaro 7x30 SLC- even considering the 8x vs 7x. But, the 7x30 SLC that I had was a cherry sample.

To me, even though the Swaro CL, had good build quality, it just did not line up to the usual Swaro optic quality. And that does not even take into consideration the quite narrow FOV.
 
CG,

I'm not suggesting means anything much in practice, but Gijs' transmission plot for the Swarovski CL peaks at 93% or a just below the peak figure for the B3.

Something I'd rate as far more important is sharpness or effective resolution. Several people on the forum and more elsewhere have criticised the CL's lack of sharpness. I've tried it 15 times I think but that might only represent 12 different samples and every one has been soft. Not just marginally softer than the rest of the Swaro range but rubbing shoulders with the budget end of the spectrum, the level of detail I'd expect from a decent 4 or 5x. The Kite Lynx, Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and yes even the Prostaff7s 8x30 are distinctly sharper in my opinion. Amazing what people will pay for a pretty jacket with a designer label.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Frank makes of the B3 particularly sharpness. ;).

David

Even Jan the Swaro Man doesn't like the CL Companion, and wrote something to the effect, that the CL was not worthy of the Swaro brand (he can chime in and give his exact words). Considering what a huge fanboy he is, that speaks volumes.

Some BF member, it might have been Steve C., did a 3-way comparo on Optics Talk, with the 8x32 EL, 8x30 SLC and 8x32 CL. In terms of sharpness, he rated them 1. EL 2. SLC 3. CL.

It doesn't surprise me that the EL would be "sharper" than the CL, for the huge price difference, it had better be, but disappointing that it did not at least match the discontinued SLC since for all intents and purposes, the CL replaced the 8x30 SLC. On top of that, Swaro shaved off nearly a degree FOV.

"Pretty jacket," for sure, the CL is a nice looking bin and comfortable to hold from what many have said, but it should at least match the SLC in sharpness since it sells for $100 more than what the SLC sold for before its last year when the price jumped from $800 to $1,100.

Given the popularity of the 8x30 SLC, I would imagine a lot of hunters bought the 8x30 CL based on the 8x30 SLC's reputation.

There are "gear heads" among hunters, too, check out the bin forum on Optics Talk, which frequently includes Steve C. and Frank D., but for most hunters, that critical extra sharpness might not be as important as the CL's high light transmission and its compactness. They are looking for antlers, not tiny field markings on small birds.
 
Last edited:
Even Jan the Swaro Man doesn't like the CL Companion, and wrote something to the effect, that the CL was not worthy of the Swaro brand (he can chime in and give his exact words). Considering what a huge fanboy he is, that speaks volumes.

Some BF member, it might have been Steve C., did a 3-way comparo on Optics Talk, with the 8x32 EL, 8x30 SLC and 8x32 CL. In terms of sharpness, he rated them 1. EL 2. SLC 3. CL.

It doesn't surprise me that the EL would be "sharper" than the CL, for the huge price difference, it had better be, but disappointing that it did not at least match the discontinued SLC since for all intents and purposes, the CL replaced the 8x30 SLC. On top of that, Swaro shaved off nearly a degree FOV.

"Pretty jacket," for sure, the CL is a nice looking bin and comfortable to hold from what many have said, but it should at least match the SLC in sharpness since it sells for $100 more than what the SLC sold for before its last year when the price jumped from $800 to $1,100.

Given the popularity of the 8x30 SLC, I would imagine a lot of hunters bought the 8x30 CL based on the 8x30 SLC's reputation.

There are "gear heads" among hunters, too, check out the bin forum on Optics Talk, which frequently includes Steve C. and Frank D., but for most hunters, that critical extra sharpness might not be as important as the CL's high light transmission and its compactness. They are looking for antlers, not tiny field markings on small birds.
I find it strange that some people don't find the Swarovski CL 8x30 sharp and I have to defend them because I think they are getting a bad wrap. Comparing them to my Swarovsions 8x32 the CL's are very sharp on-axis even though they don't have the big FOV and sharp edges of the SV. Here is a review by a pretty knowledgeable reviewer who gave the CL's a 9 out of 10 for image quality. Regardless in my comparison the CL's were sharper than the Maven's 8x30. Here is the review and some quotes. It is interesting that this reviewer who has much experience and has no connections with optical companies is saying the same kind of things I was in my review. Also, is his Kite 8x30 HD review which is good but he only gave the Kites an 8 for image quality. The Kites look a lot like the Mavens 8x30.

"What I also thought was very impressive was that even in very poor light, the CL with it's 30mm objectives compared very well to my rather average 8x42mm control and I really struggles to identify the brighter pair. This just goes to show how it is not only how much light gets collected by the objective lens that is important, but how the quality of the glass and the coatings can make such a big difference in the the amount of light that finally gets transmitted to your eyes."

"I would describe the amount of softening on the edges of the view as extremely minimal and as good as any binocular that I have ever looked through."

"So whilst the variances are really very hard to spot (for me anyway), what did impress me was the vibrancy of the view through the CL Companion especially when looking into darker areas with a lot of shadows.
They were also a little better at resolving very fine details as well as having just that bit more contrast than my controls, but not so much contrast that makes the image look unnatural."

"Compared to almost all true compacts (objectives of 28mm and under) that I have used, the quality of the view through these for me is as good as it gets with much improved low light performance to boot.
Compared to mid-sized bins (usually with 32mm objectives) the optical quality of these ranks them up there with some of the best."

http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Swarovski-CL-Companion-8x30-109.htm

http://www.bestbinocularsreviews.com/Kite8x30LynxHD-127.htm
 
Last edited:
Even Jan the Swaro Man doesn't like the CL Companion, and wrote something to the effect, that the CL was not worthy of the Swaro brand (he can chime in and give his exact words). Considering what a huge fanboy he is, that speaks volumes.

Some BF member, it might have been Steve C., did a 3-way comparo on Optics Talk, with the 8x32 EL, 8x30 SLC and 8x32 CL. In terms of sharpness, he rated them 1. EL 2. SLC 3. CL.

It doesn't surprise me that the EL would be "sharper" than the CL, for the huge price difference, it had better be, but disappointing that it did not at least match the discontinued SLC since for all intents and purposes, the CL replaced the 8x30 SLC. On top of that, Swaro shaved off nearly a degree FOV.

"Pretty jacket," for sure, the CL is a nice looking bin and comfortable to hold from what many have said, but it should at least match the SLC in sharpness since it sells for $100 more than what the SLC sold for before its last year when the price jumped from $800 to $1,100.

Given the popularity of the 8x30 SLC, I would imagine a lot of hunters bought the 8x30 CL based on the 8x30 SLC's reputation.

There are "gear heads" among hunters, too, check out the bin forum on Optics Talk, which frequently includes Steve C. and Frank D., but for most hunters, that critical extra sharpness might not be as important as the CL's high light transmission and its compactness. They are looking for antlers, not tiny field markings on small birds.

Brock,

I think Henry was among the first to make such a comment but there are no shortage of those that agree.

It's complete speculation of course but I can see some logic in seeking to avoid the CL competing with and undermining the ELSV sales. If they pitched it at the lowest DIN ISO resolution standard allowed for a 'high quality' binocular it would be 8 arcseconds at 30mm and 12" at 20mm. Probably doesn't mean much to most here but it means that someone with 20/15 eyesight should see the EL was better. If they chose the standard for 'general' use then someone with 20/20 would be just able to see the difference.

I suspect they are designed to sit close to the 'high quality' limit as that would account for what I see. That would be about two fold worse effective resolution than the best I've got and likely others in the Swarovski range. Of course not everyone here would see such differences.

David
 
The CL is dark, dull, uninspiring and lacks FOV. For less money, you get much more with the Kite Lynx 8x30.

Maybe the Habicht is a worthy, small, leightweight 8x30. I am waiting for mine:king:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top