10x50 EL or 10x54 HT (6 Viewers)

[Inquisitor]

Hello,

I have been working towards getting the funds for this for quite a while and I am finally ready to order. I want a "big" 10x.

The EL 10x50 seems to be something of a forum champion at the moment. But I can't help but wonder how much brighter the HT might be with a smidgen more diameter and the HT glass?

It seems the EL has a much nicer field of view and eye relief (not to mention edge sharpness) and I am leaning that way due to those specs and partly because of all of the spherical aberration reports in the early 54mm HTs.

Can anyone tell me how good/bad a current 10x54 HT might be?

Would anyone pick the HT over the EL?

Raw/pure resolution, brightness, and glare control are the main considerations. CA would ideally be low but so far I can detect it in anything which I look for it in so I am not going to sweat it. I don't really know yet if I care about edge sharpness as I have never had it.

Thoughts?

Also, why are the Swaros on sale at Eagle?

Thanks

 

[WJC]

Hello,

I have been working towards getting the funds for this for quite a while and I am finally ready to order. I want a "big" 10x.

The EL 10x50 seems to be something of a forum champion at the moment. But I can't help but wonder how much brighter the HT might be with a smidgen more diameter and the HT glass?

It seems the EL has a much nicer field of view and eye relief (not to mention edge sharpness) and I am leaning that way due to those specs and partly because of all of the spherical aberration reports in the early 54mm HTs.

Can anyone tell me how good/bad a current 10x54 HT might be?

Would anyone pick the HT over the EL?

Raw/pure resolution, brightness, and glare control are the main considerations. CA would ideally be low but so far I can detect it in anything which I look for it in so I am not going to sweat it. I don't really know yet if I care about edge sharpness as I have never had it.

Thoughts?

Also, why are the Swaros on sale at Eagle?

Thanks

I doubt Superman could see the difference in brightness.

Bill

 

[David in NC]

Something I have wondered also, but also against the 10x50 Uvid +.

The Swaros are being closed out for the new "Field Pro" models with proprietary strap connectors and cap covers:

http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/el-42-c21011001/el-8p5x42-p5222897

 

[[email protected]]

http://www.kikkertspesialisten.no/p...0x50_10x56_binoculars_review_kikkert_test.pdf
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ww.houseofoutdoor.com/testra...ember-2011.pdf

These are the only comparisons I know of on the big 50mm binoculars from Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica. Many people don't like or believe these tests from kikkertspesialisten . I would think the Zeiss HT with it's bigger aperture and higher transmission would be the brightest especially in twilight conditions. That is what the Zeiss HT's were developed for. Hazy low-light conditions. I personally like the edge sharpness of the Swarovski's but to some people it doesn't matter if the on-axis view is sharp. That would be a very interesting comparison between these three. Too bad you couldn't compare them side by side for yourself. All of them would be superb but I am sure it would just come down to personal preferences which one you prefer. I wouldn't rule out the big Leica Ultravid HD either. You might like it saturated colors.

 

[SuperDuty]

If you're as prone to seeing CA as I am you will find plenty in the 10X50 SV. Interestingly, I had a chance to use a 10X32 SV this weekend and found CA control in that version to be FAR better than the 10X50, on par with the best I've ever seen. They were as easy as the Zeiss SF to hold steady and also super bright in the cloudy conditions I used them in, where they fall short is figity eye placement due to the small exit pupil. To finally see the SV view with virtually no CA was for me just outstanding, sorry I know the last part of this is of topic.

 

[Inquisitor]

SuperDuty, how was the field of view? I see they have a really large field for a 10x. I bet it looks wonderful. Part of me likes the idea of an smaller alpha based on the thought that a smaller one would get used more. This is a huge deal for me and I need to get a lot of use out of the glass.

Damn indecision......this morning i am worried that maybe I better scale it down at least to the 42mm level. Performance schmormance....i am afraid of putting 2.5k+ into a bin just to find out it is only very marginally better than my way lighter and cheaper options and in real life it just collects dust due to the fact that it weighs too much to be of practical use.

You guys that messed around with the SV EL 10x42 on your way to the 10x50, do you ever wonder if the weight and bulk is really worth the slight increase in "sweetness" ? I mean out in the field, not from a handily accessed deck/parking lot/backyard.

I Love the way the Leica HD + are being described with the sparkling colors. But I need 16mm of eye relief as a firm number and they are posted at 15.

Lol, should probably decrease mag and get the 8.5 EL or the 7xHd+. It has been my unfortunate experience that whatever I work myself up into a lather for after surfing specs and reviews that coming down two or three notches for the actual purchase tends to fit real everyday life better.

 

[Vespobuteo]

The HT:s are specialized low light bins,
and have about 5% higher light transmission and 17% larger objectives than the EL:s.

I think the EL:s are more versatile, but the HT:s will perform better in twilight.
The edge sharpness of the EL:s is a very nice feature and the HT:s lag in that aspect.
Both have more CA than their smaller siblings.

If you priority is daylight usage, with some low light use, I would grab the 10x50 EL,
but if twilight usage is the most important the HT will definitely will be on the list to try.
But I would also check out the new 50mm Leica HD Plus.

Personally I don't find 5mm exit pupil large enough for twilight use,
and if you are below 60 years of age, that might be an issue for you.
An 8x50 would be a better alternative in that case.

 

[Vespobuteo]

SuperDuty, how was the field of view? I see they have a really large field for a 10x. I bet it looks wonderful. Part of me likes the idea of an smaller alpha based on the thought that a smaller one would get used more. This is a huge deal for me and I need to get a lot of use out of the glass.

Damn indecision......this morning i am worried that maybe I better scale it down at least to the 42mm level. Performance schmormance....i am afraid of putting 2.5k+ into a bin just to find out it is only very marginally better than my way lighter and cheaper options and in real life it just collects dust due to the fact that it weighs too much to be of practical use.

You guys that messed around with the SV EL 10x42 on your way to the 10x50, do you ever wonder if the weight and bulk is really worth the slight increase in "sweetness" ? I mean out in the field, not from a handily accessed deck/parking lot/backyard.

I Love the way the Leica HD + are being described with the sparkling colors. But I need 16mm of eye relief as a firm number and they are posted at 15.

Lol, should probably decrease mag and get the 8.5 EL or the 7xHd+. It has been my unfortunate experience that whatever I work myself up into a lather for after surfing specs and reviews that coming down two or three notches for the actual purchase tends to fit real everyday life better.

ok, I thought you already had some smaller bins...
when using glasses the ER of the Swaros are much overrated,
the eye cups are deep, and eats 4-5 mm, of the 20 mm ER.
the Leicas might work for you, less stated ER but eye cups are shallower,
but you got to try it for yourself

Personally I wouldn't buy a 10x50 as my first bin,
but it depends on your usage and prefs.

I have the 8.5x SV:s;
nice bins, but quite heavy,
but my 7x42 FL:s are not bad either
and I prefer them in low light,
+ the stability of a 7x is nice,

I would check out the Leica HD Plus 42mm
but I would get an 8x or 7x...
or the 8.5x42 SV:s,
the SV:s are as sharp as it gets IMO.

 

[Inquisitor]

Lol, thanks but not my first or only binocular. Most of the money came from selling other semi-decent binoculars. Just my first of this quality level.
Thanks for letting me know that the SV eye relief is a bit misleading.

Still have 6x32 Viper, 8x30 Monarch 7, 8x42 MeoStar, and Atlas Intrepid 10x42 ( weakest in group)

 

[SuperDuty]

The view is wide, tac sharp, very bright, almost CA free, but not remotely close to the 10X50 in ease of view. The small exit pupil makes for a lot of IP adjusting and binocular repositioning to avoid blackouts. If you can find a Cabela's fairly close, I would give them a call and tell them you want to take the different 10's outside for a comparison.

SuperDuty, how was the field of view? I see they have a really large field for a 10x. I bet it looks wonderful. Part of me likes the idea of an smaller alpha based on the thought that a smaller one would get used more. This is a huge deal for me and I need to get a lot of use out of the glass.

 

[David in NC]

I Love the way the Leica HD + are being described with the sparkling colors. But I need 16mm of eye relief as a firm number and they are posted at 15.

I looked at all the big three and chose Leica for the best view (even though I THOUGHT I'd end up with the HT which had just came out) and am currently happy with my Leica BUT "sparkling colors" might be a marketing ploy or some exaggeration (which I'm prone to do myself sometimes). Granted, I've not tried a +...

 

[[email protected]]

I have the Swarovski 10x50 SV and the Swarovski 8x32 SV and that is it. I thought I would use the 8x32 SV more because of it's smaller size and weight but now I find myself using the 10x50 SV more because the optics are so awesome and you can see more detail with the 10x. The weight doesn't bother me that much because the view is worth it. I have had a LOT of different binoculars including the Nikon 8x32 SE, Nikon 8x30 EII, Nikon 8x32 EDG 2, Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD, Zeiss 8x32 FL, Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA, Canon 10x42 IS-L and the Zeiss 8x42 FL to name a few and the big Swarovski 10x50 SV is the best birding binocular I have had to date. I sold all my other binoculars because it is the one I use. It is just the huge FOV which is sharp to edge at that 10x magnification that makes it incredible. The Swarovski 10x42 SV doesn't have as easy of a view as the bigger 50mm. The bigger exit pupil in the 10x50 SV makes it more relaxing to look through. As others have said it has excellent balance also. But I would try all three in a store if you can and decide for yourself.

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks guys....I am pretty busy right now and decided to just bite the bullet and stop worrying. Practically, my arsenal needed a good 10x and I enjoy somewhat larger exit pupils (34 year old hunter/astronomy guy) Got the old SV El 10x50 for $2399. If I chase down the others later and decide I like them better I know I can get a healthy percentage of my money back.

Plus...based on their general reputation around here I am in for a treat. I know I love 10x50 formats because a 10x50 MeoStar was one of the ones I sold in the fund raising process.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks guys....I am pretty busy right now and decided to just bite the bullet and stop worrying. Practically, my arsenal needed a good 10x and I enjoy somewhat larger exit pupils (34 year old hunter/astronomy guy) Got the old SV El 10x50 for $2399. If I chase down the others later and decide I like them better I know I can get a healthy percentage of my money back.

Plus...based on their general reputation around here I am in for a treat. I know I love 10x50 formats because a 10x50 MeoStar was one of the ones I sold in the fund raising process.

Let us know how you like them.

 

[stereotruckdriver]

If you're as prone to seeing CA as I am you will find plenty in the 10X50 SV. Interestingly, I had a chance to use a 10X32 SV this weekend and found CA control in that version to be FAR better than the 10X50, on par with the best I've ever seen. They were as easy as the Zeiss SF to hold steady and also super bright in the cloudy conditions I used them in, where they fall short is figity eye placement due to the small exit pupil. To finally see the SV view with virtually no CA was for me just outstanding, sorry I know the last part of this is of topic.

Not wanting to get into a pissing match but, where do you find all this CA in the 10x50 sv?

Curious because I use the 10x50 and 8x32 sv's daily.

I don't find CA in either bin a problem especially the 10x50.

Bryce...

 

[SuperDuty]

Right there in the view.

Not wanting to get into a pissing match but, where do you find all this CA in the 10x50 sv?

Curious because I use the 10x50 and 8x32 sv's daily.

I don't find CA in either bin a problem especially the 10x50.

Bryce...

 

[[email protected]]

Not wanting to get into a pissing match but, where do you find all this CA in the 10x50 sv?

Curious because I use the 10x50 and 8x32 sv's daily.

I don't find CA in either bin a problem especially the 10x50.

Bryce...

I don't either. I don't find CA a problem in either the 8x32 SV or 10x50 SV. The ED glass controls it well IMO. I can see almost none on-axis and just a slight amount on the edge which is typical of all binoculars even those with ED glass. I had some Kowa's once and even they had some CA on the edges. The best binoculars I have owned for CA control were probably the Zeiss FL's and Zen Rays ED2's and they also showed some CA on the edges. I have never seen a binocular without a little CA on the edge. Are you seeing the CA on-axis or at the edge? Are you sure it is CA? I believe even with ED glass it is hard to get rid of all the CA with the fast focal ratio's of a binocular. If the manufacturer concentrated on CA there would probably be other aberrations as a result. Optics are all about compromises.

 

[ronh]

Henry Link, one of our most respected members, tested the 8x54 HT at length and in detail, and found it pretty badly wanting in terms of sharpness and CA. To its credit, he found brightness noticeably improved over that of the FL. You can find his in depth review if you do some searching, but his pre-review teaser captures the important points.



"I’ve now spent some considerable time with the 8x54 HT. Once I have things organized I’ll start another thread with the results of the tests I did, including photos of lateral chromatic aberration, star-tests, color bias, etc.

For folks who just want the skinny without the optogeeky details I’ll just say that the sample I saw was just as bad as the one Kimmo saw and in nearly identical ways.

The main problems I could identify are excessive lateral color, which appears close to the field center or even in the center with very slight pupil decentering, and excessive spherical aberration, which is still not well corrected even when the binocular is stopped down to 22mm. There are also other anomalies in the star test, which may play a role. Perhaps others will have some ideas about those when I post the star-test photos.

I’ll just add that this specimen’s failure to form a sharp image in the center of the field was not subtle. I think any but the most casual user would find it unacceptable in a binocular at any price."



These findings have been confirmed visually by other experienced forum members. Now admittedly the 8x, not the 10x, is Henry's passion, but it is hard to imagine the 10 doing anything but magnifying the flaws of the 8x another 25%.

I have no personal experience with the binocular, but this is a guy I trust.

Ron

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks Ron,

Henry's threads about the big 8x HT is where I got my "reports of spherical aberration" from that was mentioned in #1. If I remember correctly you lost personal interest in the 10x54 to possibly replace your older 10x56 because of his work.

Although in a way I would really rather be a Zeiss "fan" the more I thought about it and read the advice I was getting it was clear to me that the 10x54HT was more of a relatively lightweight (vs 56mm models) low light one-trick pony and that I could reasonably expect the SV to be better in general use and comfort ( weight, size, eye relief, fov, edge sharpness, probably better resale if later applicable).

 

[WJC]

Henry Link, one of our most respected members, tested the 8x54 HT at length and in detail, and found it pretty badly wanting in terms of sharpness and CA. To its credit, he found brightness noticeably improved over that of the FL. You can find his in depth review if you do some searching, but his pre-review teaser captures the important points.



"I’ve now spent some considerable time with the 8x54 HT. Once I have things organized I’ll start another thread with the results of the tests I did, including photos of lateral chromatic aberration, star-tests, color bias, etc.

For folks who just want the skinny without the optogeeky details I’ll just say that the sample I saw was just as bad as the one Kimmo saw and in nearly identical ways.

The main problems I could identify are excessive lateral color, which appears close to the field center or even in the center with very slight pupil decentering, and excessive spherical aberration, which is still not well corrected even when the binocular is stopped down to 22mm. There are also other anomalies in the star test, which may play a role. Perhaps others will have some ideas about those when I post the star-test photos.

I’ll just add that this specimen’s failure to form a sharp image in the center of the field was not subtle. I think any but the most casual user would find it unacceptable in a binocular at any price."



These findings have been confirmed visually by other experienced forum members. Now admittedly the 8x, not the 10x, is Henry's passion, but it is hard to imagine the 10 doing anything but magnifying the flaws of the 8x another 25%.

I have no personal experience with the binocular, but this is a guy I trust.

Ron

Hi Ron:

Is it just me, or have you been absent from these pages for a good while?

Bill