• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Cl (1 Viewer)

Troubador

Troubador

Moderator
Hi Gijs

Its taken a long time but as promised I looked through the CL 8x30 again while visiting Focus Optics.

For sure its an attractive instrument but that is normal for Swaro.

But I found the FOV rather restricted and the sharpness just not upto Swaro standards.

It is a very nice tourist binocular but I wouldn't place it in the same class as EL or SLC.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Troubador said:
It is a very nice tourist binocular but I wouldn't place it in the same class as EL or SLC.

Lee
Click to expand...

I often read something according to these lines and always wonder, why should it be measured, as a sub € 1000,- bino, against any top of the line bino? The CL Compaanion is middle class, Swaro or not.
 
The problem with that logic is that there are FAR superior "middle class" options these days. The Zeiss Conquest HD, Meopta Meostar, Minox HG, etc. immediately come to mind. And with the competition from Chinese produced binoculars pushing up from below, it's hard to argue that much moolah on the CL if you will just be using it as a compact / backup / travel bin.

If you are a Swaro fanboy, just love the Swaro view and ergonomics, and just want a "mini Swaro" that is tiny and light as a backup for your main Swaro(s), and can afford it... then fine, go for it. But otherwise I think there are much better options.
 
I wouldnt deny that, in the price bracket up to € 1000,-, there are lots of fine binoculars. What I meant was, only because its a Swaro, its not necessarily and automatically always top of the heap.
 
It seems to be popular with women and I am thinking of getting one for my wife. It is very light. Comes in 3 colors. It's FOV is quite adequate compared to the old Zeiss 8 x 30 Conquest. And if people can come on here and state that they can afford to pay $2300.00 for a Swaro then I guess I can pay $900.00 for a CL without apologizing for it.

If I do get it I will be able to compare it with my 8 x 30 SLC. Certainly the ergonomics of the CL will be better which should even things out if it's optics aren't quite as good. And I guess the same thing can be said about the other $900.00 8 x 32s mentioned above.

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
It seems to be popular with women and I am thinking of getting one for my wife. It is very light. Comes in 3 colors. It's FOV is quite adequate compared to the old Zeiss 8 x 30 Conquest. And if people can come on here and state that they can afford to pay $2300.00 for a Swaro then I guess I can pay $900.00 for a CL without apologizing for it.

If I do get it I will be able to compare it with my 8 x 30 SLC. Certainly the ergonomics of the CL will be better which should even things out if it's optics aren't quite as good. And I guess the same thing can be said about the other $900.00 8 x 32s mentioned above.

Bob
Click to expand...
Go the distance and get her the 8X32 Swarovision. There's nothing like it in 32mm...absolutely nothing.
 
Bob, don't you already have like a zillion binoculars including multiple alphas? Does your wife not like ANY of those already? :D

It does seem to be built to appeal to women though given the tiny size and weight. I'm not so sure about the ergonomics though, for me at least I found them very unpleasant ergonomically because I couldn't get a comfortable view. The eye relief was much too long for the eyecups and the eyecups are so small that I couldn't balance them under my brow. Maybe for old ladies with glasses and small hands they would work right :p

If your wife does need her own 8x32 and you don't want to pop another $2k alpha I'd go with the Viper HD or Conquest HD 8x32. Both are compact and light and IMO much better values than the CL. And you already have two pairs of the Kahles 8x32 too right (old and new)? None of those appeal to her?
 
eitanaltman said:
Bob, don't you already have like a zillion binoculars including multiple alphas? Does your wife not like ANY of those already? :D

It does seem to be built to appeal to women though given the tiny size and weight. I'm not so sure about the ergonomics though, for me at least I found them very unpleasant ergonomically because I couldn't get a comfortable view. The eye relief was much too long for the eyecups and the eyecups are so small that I couldn't balance them under my brow. Maybe for old ladies with glasses and small hands they would work right :p

If your wife does need her own 8x32 and you don't want to pop another $2k alpha I'd go with the Viper HD or Conquest HD 8x32. Both are compact and light and IMO much better values than the CL. And you already have two pairs of the Kahles 8x32 too right (old and new)? None of those appeal to her?
Click to expand...

My wife wears glasses and likes smaller binoculars she can carry around easily in a hand bag. She used my Pentax 9 x 28 a lot and liked it because it worked well with her glasses. It's a bit long in the tooth now that my son used it for 8 months in Chile and the Andes and it has been staying in my car day and night.

Last year we visited Cape May and she used my Swarovski 8 x 30 SLC. The focus wheel didn't bother her and it worked well with her glasses but it was a bit bulky. She is a casual birder and often just likes to look through binoculars. I thought that the 8 x 30 CL might be right up her alley. (9x28 vs 8x30.) At 17.5 ounces it's only about 5 ounces heavier than the Pentax and it's optics have to be much better and the FOV is much wider.

I only have three 8 x 32 roof prisms. An LX L and 2 Kahles (One new-one old.) The LX L is heavy and the Kahles, while on the compact side, is a small tank: It is clearly designed for hunting. It is 21.5 ounces. The Kahles looks much like the 8 x 32 Viper but it's exterior must be different because Allbino's noted that the Viper had some looseness on it's covering near the eye cups. (The Viper is also 60 grams lighter.) I can't see anywhere that could happen on the Kahles. It has a hard rubber covering. It reminds me of the Leica Trinovid.

Personally I don't like 8 x 32 roofs very much. The Nikon is real good but when I got a 10 x 32 LX L I didn't use the 8 x 32 much after that. I liked the 10 x 32 better. And when I got the the 10 x 32 EDG, it blew me out!

Bob
 
Last edited:
ceasar said:
My wife wears glasses and likes smaller binoculars she can carry around easily in a hand bag. She used my Pentax 9 x 28 a lot and liked it because it worked well with her glasses. It's a bit long in the tooth now that my son used it for 8 months in Chile and the Andes and it has been staying in my car day and night.

Last year we visited Cape May and she used my Swarovski 8 x 30 SLC. The focus wheel didn't bother her and it worked well with her glasses but it was a bit bulky. She is a casual birder and often just likes to look through binoculars. I thought that the 8 x 30 CL might be right up her alley. (9x28 vs 8x30.) At 17.5 ounces it's only about 5 ounces heavier than the Pentax and it's optics have to be much better and the FOV is much wider.

I only have three 8 x 32 roof prisms. An LX L and 2 Kahles (One new-one old.) The LX L is heavy and the Kahles, while on the compact side, is a small tank: It is clearly designed for hunting. It is 21.5 ounces. The Kahles looks much like the 8 x 32 Viper but it's exterior must be different because Allbino's noted that the Viper had some looseness on it's covering near the eye cups. (The Viper is also 60 grams lighter.) I can't see anywhere that could happen on the Kahles. It has a hard rubber covering. It reminds me of the Leica Trinovid.

Personally I don't like 8 x 32 roofs very much. The Nikon is real good but when I got a 10 x 32 LX L I didn't use the 8 x 32 much after that. I liked the 10 x 32 better. And when I got the the 10 x 32 EDG, it blew me out!

Bob
Click to expand...
You have quite a personal hoard...now it's time to treat the lady of the house to an unbeatable 8X32 Swarovision. As you know, the CL is overpriced and nothing like the SV. I'm sure she'll loan it to you on occasion.
 
I didn't exactly flip out over the CL either. The Conquest HD I tried ate it alive. Bob, I bet you'd agree if you tried one. Golly the CL is cute, but I think if I had to have small, I'd skip the CL and go for Swaro's nice compact.

But I am so macho, it doth bias my perspective. I'm also married. If she wants a CL, get her a CL!
Ron
 
The CL did not impress me, even beeing a Swaro fanboy.
It is a 400$ quality optics inside of a 1000$ roof body.

But my gf loved it after the try, and did not think the optics were bothersome.
Seems women tend to prefer the bodies to the optics (as long as the optics are correct), mine didn't see the optical difference between other alphas and the CL, and eventually prefered the CL body to every other bins of the shop.
It seems to be an attractive pair for women.
 
Torview said:
The least "bang per buck", (to quote a popular phrase found on Birdforum), this birder has ever tried.
Click to expand...

Yes Torview summed it up.

Being a Zeiss Fanboy I didn't mention the Conquest HD 8x32 I tried at the same time but since it has been mentioned already by Ron I will repeat what he said. The Conq just shot the CL to pieces.

It does wear a pretty frock though and I can see why anyone who doesn't obsess over optics would be seduced by its appearance and brand name.

Lee
 
litebeam said:
Interesting...
Probably overpriced to keep people thinking it's typical Swaro quality....
Click to expand...

I do wonder if they deliberately keep the prices high, and prevent dealers from discounting, in order to maintain the image, if you'll excuse the unintended pun. An immaculate finish is surely part of the brand image too.
 
I guess you can`t blame Swaro for charging what they do if users are willing to stump up the readies.

Maybe its just optic junkies like (well most of us here) who find it lacking, maybe it fits the brief very well for a great deal of users.
 
litebeam said:
Interesting...
Probably overpriced to keep people thinking it's typical Swaro quality....
Click to expand...
Leif said:
I do wonder if they deliberately keep the prices high, and prevent dealers from discounting, in order to maintain the image, if you'll excuse the unintended pun. An immaculate finish is surely part of the brand image too.
Click to expand...

The truth is that the production costs are high because, at the end of the day, producing binoculars at a high quality and our highly skilled labour force just is not cheap and the only way to be able to make this product cheaper would be to go to the far east; something we were not willing to do.

@Leif, yup, and we like immaculate finishes too :t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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

M
Pure NL the right one for me?
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Yarkho
Yarkho
D
Even a Senior might like the My Junior 7x28
Replies
10
Views
1K
Dennis Mau
D
M
What is Swarovski up to? 18x56 soon
Replies
18
Views
2K
Owlbarred
Owlbarred
Ignatius
In praise of the Habicht SL
Replies
2
Views
1K
Ignatius
Ignatius
R
Cl Companion 8x30 vs. SFL 8x30 vs. ?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
10K
tx2ad
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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