I have not seen the new CLs and have never owned a pair of Swaros but have always been drawn to them. I do own the Conquest HD 8x32 which are a few ounces heavier, uglier, but have a wider field of view and closer focus. They've become my most used bins. Why do people choose the 8x30 CLs instead. I hope my wording doesn't come across as challenging, not my intention. I just wonder what decision factors going into choosing one of these over the other. I do love the looks of the Swaro CL and have been repeatedly tempted to buy a pair. Not interested in 10x versions.
-
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.
Could someone who's compared both discuss why one would choose the Swaro CL Companion 8x30 vs Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 or vice versa? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CSG
- Start date
Have you thought about the CL8x25, a superb small package you can take everywhere.
They perform at a level above their £700 price would suggest.
When I was tempted by the Leica 8x32HD+ recently, luckily I had my Swaros in the car.
A direct comparison showed there to be very little in it, certainly not twice the price difference.
I've had many binos over the years, but these little CL8x25's are without doubt the most 'impressive' due to their size/performance ratio. Quite amazing!!
And unlike 8x30's I have them with me most times.
Worth a look.
They perform at a level above their £700 price would suggest.
When I was tempted by the Leica 8x32HD+ recently, luckily I had my Swaros in the car.
A direct comparison showed there to be very little in it, certainly not twice the price difference.
I've had many binos over the years, but these little CL8x25's are without doubt the most 'impressive' due to their size/performance ratio. Quite amazing!!
And unlike 8x30's I have them with me most times.
Worth a look.
Buff1ehead
Active member
I have the Swaro EL 8x32 SV's, and my wife has the Swaro CL 8x25s, which she prefers. In a word, it's the light weight, but I think she also appreciates the size in terms of ergonomics. They are the bins she would rather take on a long hike or an all-day birding experience. I think the big difference is that she's 5'3" tall while I'm 6'3". Interesting, we both have a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32's that we keep at our cabin, and they suit us both fine although we probably prefer the Swaro's, for her because of the lightness and for me because of the eye relief. I'm a naturalist, and my work often has me in the field for five or six hours at a time making observations, and this is when I feel the Swaro bins are at their best in terms of eliminating eye fatigue. Honestly, however, they're all great optics and I'm never in a situation where I wish I was using the other pair.
Thanks for the responses although neither answers the question I was asking. I have a pair of Zeiss 10x25 Victory compacts for some years which are my hiking bins and exceptional as well so I'm not looking for a pair of 8x25s. I was asking a specific question about people who either own or have done a comparison between the Swaro 8x30 CL Companion and Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD and why one would choose one over the other.
I always liked the idea of the Swaro 8x32 EL but I'm too affected by Swarovision so they fell off my radar some years ago.
I always liked the idea of the Swaro 8x32 EL but I'm too affected by Swarovision so they fell off my radar some years ago.
kb57
Well-known member
I've not used Zeiss Conquest or the new CL Companions, but we do have the old version of the 8x30 CL, which my partner still uses as her main binoculars.
The pros are excellent image quality (IMHO better than my 8x42 Leica Ultravids), light weight and great ergonomics, plus they are small and unobtrusive enough to carry round at all times.
The cons are they are not as robust as the more expensive Swarovskis - I tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially when using them for work, and used to lose the eyecups, necessitating a replacement of the whole eyepiece assembly. I was told when I bought them that they sacrifice build quality over optical quality compared to the ELs, so you pay your money and take your choice. The other attribute they sacrifice to the more expensive models as you are already aware is minimum focussing distance, so they are not ideal for butterflies or dragonflies.
If the new CL Companions are no worse or better optically and in ergonomic / build quality terms, you are not too rough with them in your daily usage, and you don't do a lot of close focussing, they'd be great.
The pros are excellent image quality (IMHO better than my 8x42 Leica Ultravids), light weight and great ergonomics, plus they are small and unobtrusive enough to carry round at all times.
The cons are they are not as robust as the more expensive Swarovskis - I tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially when using them for work, and used to lose the eyecups, necessitating a replacement of the whole eyepiece assembly. I was told when I bought them that they sacrifice build quality over optical quality compared to the ELs, so you pay your money and take your choice. The other attribute they sacrifice to the more expensive models as you are already aware is minimum focussing distance, so they are not ideal for butterflies or dragonflies.
If the new CL Companions are no worse or better optically and in ergonomic / build quality terms, you are not too rough with them in your daily usage, and you don't do a lot of close focussing, they'd be great.
I have never used a Conquest. As close as I can get to a specific response to your question is based on owning and comparing the new 8x30 CL with the Zeiss 10x32 FL and the SW SV 8x32. The main reason I, and most people probably, would choose a 30 over a 32 of similar quality is decreased size and weight especially for travel or more causal viewing if/when you want something more than a pocket but smaller that a standard size 32. The CL performs very well optically with an excellent bright sharp image, easy eye placement, and nice focuser. The CL FOV is reasonable but the AFOV feels a bit narrow. Adjusting the diopter is something of a pain for me. ER is good for me when using glasses. I notice rolling ball in the SW 8x32 but not in the CL. The optical performance of the SW 8x32 is somewhat better of course in direct comparison and I suspect based on all the praise of the Conquest series here, the performance of Conquest would be somewhat better as well. If you do not too often find your Conquest 32s cumbersome, the CL may not be worth it to you. Hope this helps.
Mike
The Conquest HD 8x32s are on the "stout" side, very well built and sturdy. Almost muscular. Excellent mechanism. And the optics are very good. All of this you already know. One of the most popular bins you can choose - for good reason.
With the CL 8x30s, you will lose some of that stoutness (and gain a more streamlined form factor) and lose a fair bit of weight (almost 5 oz.). But the overall dimensions are quite similar. If you find the Conquest HDs to be a tad too chunky, or overly heavy for your liking, the CL 8x30s might be just "the ticket" for you. Not a huge difference, but noticeable, for sure.
You will have better close focus with the Zeiss and a wider field of view. And in my experience, the Zeiss focuser tends to be the better (very smooth and even focusing) between the two brands. But the CL 8x30 is a fine pair of bins, as well.
You just need to get a pair in your hands, and to your eyes, to know for sure if you would prefer them.
With the CL 8x30s, you will lose some of that stoutness (and gain a more streamlined form factor) and lose a fair bit of weight (almost 5 oz.). But the overall dimensions are quite similar. If you find the Conquest HDs to be a tad too chunky, or overly heavy for your liking, the CL 8x30s might be just "the ticket" for you. Not a huge difference, but noticeable, for sure.
You will have better close focus with the Zeiss and a wider field of view. And in my experience, the Zeiss focuser tends to be the better (very smooth and even focusing) between the two brands. But the CL 8x30 is a fine pair of bins, as well.
You just need to get a pair in your hands, and to your eyes, to know for sure if you would prefer them.
Last edited:
We do have a local dealer who sells these brands but they didn't have any in stock. Around here, it seems the main serious optics buyers are hunters who often prefer 10x. The shop told me the CLs don't sell well for them but the higher end Swaro models do.
I guess I was trying to figure out why I'd want to even really look at the CLs other than weight savings. They cost more than the Conquest HD 8x32s and we all can see the other spec differences. There's just something that attracts me to the idea of Swaros even though I've never found a pair I liked better than what I ended up with. Same with Leica (though I'm a fan of their camera lenses). Ah well, not really important, it was just something I was thinking about this afternoon (after seeing the CLs on the BH Photo site). I have to say, while I own four pairs of Zeiss bins, save for the 8x42 HTs, I find them ugly aesthetically while I find Swaros and Leicas to be much more elegant designs. Optically, they're all so good, it boils down more to ergonomics and eye relief for me. As a casual all around user of bins vs. specifically birding, I approach bins with that in mind. Today, I used the Conquests to gaze out on the fields and brush surrounding our home but this evening, I used the 8x42 HTs to look at Jupiter, the Pleiades, and Andromeda galaxy (and some general stargazing). Hiking, I almost always carry the 10x25 Victorys, and in my LX Land Cruiser is where the 8x42 Terras live. The latter fits my philosophy of always have binoculars with you or nearby. The Terras are so-so but I've seen things with them I wouldn't have seen otherwise because I don't worry about them riding in the console of my rig or getting stolen if someone were to break into the vehicle.
Ok.... well the CL's and the Conquests are so close on optical quality, that it just becomes personal choice.
One will fit your hands and eyes better as soon as you pick them up. That is the most important consideration.
The weight difference is negligible in all honesty.
The conquests are built like a tank, I'm sure the Swaro's are too, but I would feel the need to pamper the CL's more, just because they look nicer.
The Zeiss have a great utilitarian feel, you can chuck 'em in the back of your car, the CL's would be 'placed' in the car!!
Swaro is 'seen' as more premium, and that is why people choose that, and both Zeiss and Swaro give great warranties, so equal there.
It's like choosing between a Merc and a BMW.
If you get pleasure looking 'at' your binoculars, as well as looking through them, is a reason people would choose Swaro.
I personally don't mind what my bins look like, I have some Zeiss FL's.... nuff said... hardly gonna win a beauty contest.
But on the other hand, my Swaro CL8x25, I describe them as optical jewels, they are beautifully put together, just gorgeous binos.
You've never had Swaro's so go and treat yourself, life is too short, or pick up a 2nd hand pair as a 'try out'... if you don't like them sell them on, if you do, sell them on and get a new pair.... you can't lose that way.... just an idea.
Just my thought process when buying binos.... hope that helps.
One will fit your hands and eyes better as soon as you pick them up. That is the most important consideration.
The weight difference is negligible in all honesty.
The conquests are built like a tank, I'm sure the Swaro's are too, but I would feel the need to pamper the CL's more, just because they look nicer.
The Zeiss have a great utilitarian feel, you can chuck 'em in the back of your car, the CL's would be 'placed' in the car!!
Swaro is 'seen' as more premium, and that is why people choose that, and both Zeiss and Swaro give great warranties, so equal there.
It's like choosing between a Merc and a BMW.
If you get pleasure looking 'at' your binoculars, as well as looking through them, is a reason people would choose Swaro.
I personally don't mind what my bins look like, I have some Zeiss FL's.... nuff said... hardly gonna win a beauty contest.
But on the other hand, my Swaro CL8x25, I describe them as optical jewels, they are beautifully put together, just gorgeous binos.
You've never had Swaro's so go and treat yourself, life is too short, or pick up a 2nd hand pair as a 'try out'... if you don't like them sell them on, if you do, sell them on and get a new pair.... you can't lose that way.... just an idea.
Just my thought process when buying binos.... hope that helps.
I've had both at different points in time, so I have not compared them side by side. I liked both, they're great binoculars, but I think they are focused to different audiences or needs.
I found the performance of the Conquest HD simply stunning, which you already know. The sharpness, brightness, lack of CA and overall quality is superb. In my case, the 8x42 Conquest HD were my first "good" binoculars, but I found them to be too heavy and prone to "kidney-bean" effect (crescents of black on the sides of the image). The smaller Conquest is to my eyes better than the 8x42, because it's smaller, lighter and has a wider FOV (the 8x42 doesn't shine there). However, and this is probably something chosen by Zeiss, I'd say the Conquest are "sturdy and a bit cluncky" by definition, as a distinctive trait, this gives confidence when using them. In my case, the 8x32 also suffered from some "kidney-beaning", eye placement was crucial. Otherwise, I would have probably sold my Swaro EL SV 8x32, which is my main pair. I compared them side by side and the Conquest were just so close in performance. Maybe the Swaro were a bit brighter and the colours more neutral. Anyway, you probably now most of this since you own the Conquest.
As for the 8x30 CL. I think Swarovski's aim was to go small and light. And while the CL are a bit tall, the tubes feel really slender. As a whole, I found them to be worlds apart from the Conquest. The Conquest is a solid 4x4, or an SUV if you want, the CL are an Italian or English convertible from the 60's, agile, nimble, light, fun! The "tactile" part of it was sensational. Although the tubes are thin they feel reassuringly solid. In fact, holding them you'd be fooled to think they're heavier than their actual weight. As for looks (this is very personal, I know) I found the bare metal bridge and the typeface really ugly and bling-bling to my taste), the Conquest and the CL couldn't be more different. The Zeiss feels like a tool, a perfect machine for a job, while the CL implies some aspirational status (well, that's my take).
The view the CL provided was sensational, with a lot of "pop", crispness, sharpness. However, I remember a surprisingly noticeable amount of CA. So if you're bothered by that, check it out before buying, it could be a deal breaker (especially since you're spoiled by the Conquest in that area). However, what made me sell the CL was a quite simple and (I think) stupid detail: the eyecups are very narrow. I've had this issue with many lovely binoculars. Maybe due to my facial features I just can't stand narrow eyecups. I contacted Swarovski, but to no avail (I had the 8x30 Habicht and in that case you can have 2 different sets of eyecups, black-narrow or rubber/green-wide, I wonder why can't they offer that in roof binoculars).
If I forget about the "eyecup issue", the view through the CL was surprisingly "easy" for a 8x30 (sometimes they're a bit more compromised than 8x32).
Summing up, to my eyes they're different "animals" intended for different purposes/people/needs. The Zeiss are 630 g, the Swaro 490 g. I think the CL "targets" the Ultravid and the Nikon MHG, etc., while the Conquest HD can make anyone have serious doubts about spending almost twice the money on a Swaro EL.
I hope that helps.
I found the performance of the Conquest HD simply stunning, which you already know. The sharpness, brightness, lack of CA and overall quality is superb. In my case, the 8x42 Conquest HD were my first "good" binoculars, but I found them to be too heavy and prone to "kidney-bean" effect (crescents of black on the sides of the image). The smaller Conquest is to my eyes better than the 8x42, because it's smaller, lighter and has a wider FOV (the 8x42 doesn't shine there). However, and this is probably something chosen by Zeiss, I'd say the Conquest are "sturdy and a bit cluncky" by definition, as a distinctive trait, this gives confidence when using them. In my case, the 8x32 also suffered from some "kidney-beaning", eye placement was crucial. Otherwise, I would have probably sold my Swaro EL SV 8x32, which is my main pair. I compared them side by side and the Conquest were just so close in performance. Maybe the Swaro were a bit brighter and the colours more neutral. Anyway, you probably now most of this since you own the Conquest.
As for the 8x30 CL. I think Swarovski's aim was to go small and light. And while the CL are a bit tall, the tubes feel really slender. As a whole, I found them to be worlds apart from the Conquest. The Conquest is a solid 4x4, or an SUV if you want, the CL are an Italian or English convertible from the 60's, agile, nimble, light, fun! The "tactile" part of it was sensational. Although the tubes are thin they feel reassuringly solid. In fact, holding them you'd be fooled to think they're heavier than their actual weight. As for looks (this is very personal, I know) I found the bare metal bridge and the typeface really ugly and bling-bling to my taste), the Conquest and the CL couldn't be more different. The Zeiss feels like a tool, a perfect machine for a job, while the CL implies some aspirational status (well, that's my take).
The view the CL provided was sensational, with a lot of "pop", crispness, sharpness. However, I remember a surprisingly noticeable amount of CA. So if you're bothered by that, check it out before buying, it could be a deal breaker (especially since you're spoiled by the Conquest in that area). However, what made me sell the CL was a quite simple and (I think) stupid detail: the eyecups are very narrow. I've had this issue with many lovely binoculars. Maybe due to my facial features I just can't stand narrow eyecups. I contacted Swarovski, but to no avail (I had the 8x30 Habicht and in that case you can have 2 different sets of eyecups, black-narrow or rubber/green-wide, I wonder why can't they offer that in roof binoculars).
If I forget about the "eyecup issue", the view through the CL was surprisingly "easy" for a 8x30 (sometimes they're a bit more compromised than 8x32).
Summing up, to my eyes they're different "animals" intended for different purposes/people/needs. The Zeiss are 630 g, the Swaro 490 g. I think the CL "targets" the Ultravid and the Nikon MHG, etc., while the Conquest HD can make anyone have serious doubts about spending almost twice the money on a Swaro EL.
I hope that helps.
Thanks for Rg548's and yarrelli's responses. Kinda what I was looking for.
One comment on the kidney been effect on the Conquest 8x32s, I had the same problem initially with mine as well but Zeiss ending up making longer eyecups for this model and sent me a pair. Problem solved. Since then (some years now), they are in the top two easy eye placement bins I own.
One comment on the kidney been effect on the Conquest 8x32s, I had the same problem initially with mine as well but Zeiss ending up making longer eyecups for this model and sent me a pair. Problem solved. Since then (some years now), they are in the top two easy eye placement bins I own.
After researching just about every 8x32 / 8x/30 on the market during the 2020 COVID time....I feel I have tested every one of the bins' in the field (except some current ones which are new on the market). You can't go wrong with either the Conquest or the Swaro (depending on which one though).
For the Conquest....one solid bin. For me....it just wasn't right for me eyes and the overall feel of the bin. The eye-cups caused black-out for me, ....But I cannot say the same thing optically as almost all binoculars in the 8x30 / 8x32 range and in the $1000 price point perform pretty equally ....(I am not making reference to the Alpha bins over $2000 (Leica's, Swaro or Zeiss).
But the difference is how they FEEL in your hands. How are they ergonomically? That will be your deciding factor.
That is true with the exception of the 8x32 EL Swaro. Many (including myself) found the Swaro and my eyes to cause nausea. If I looked at the CL and compared it to the Conquest, I would choose the CL over the Conquest due to how they fit to my eyes, my face. Again, that is personal for the narrow tubes of the CL, how they fit my eyes etc...was just about perfect.
I saw someone mention the Swaro 8x25. While an option....think again on the size of the binocular. Does it feel good, being that small....to you? I consider the 8x25 Swaro, the Zeiss, ....etc to be more 'toylike'... So neither of those are right for my tastes.
But just about any of the 8x32/8x30's will be just perfect, if they fit your eyes, and if they fit your hands / ergonomics. Now, one new binocular to toss into the field might be the Verano BGA VHD 8x32 | Opticron. I haven't had the pleasure of viewing thru these as these bins are new. But based upon my strong 'likeness' of the Opticron Traveller binocular, these new Verano's might be a match you need to look at. They are priced way less than the Swaro's or the Conquests. From what I understand, they are good optically. So if given a chance to pick up a new pair of 8x32's/8x30's I would look at the following:
Nikon HG Monarch series.....nice bin but rather small, but quality are top notch, although very slow in practical birding in the field.
Swaro 8x32 CL series....top notch and top priced!
Verano BGA VHD 8x32 from Opticron (try and see what they are like. Based upon the Nikon's being slow in focus and the CL being over-priced, this Verano might be perfect.
jim
For the Conquest....one solid bin. For me....it just wasn't right for me eyes and the overall feel of the bin. The eye-cups caused black-out for me, ....But I cannot say the same thing optically as almost all binoculars in the 8x30 / 8x32 range and in the $1000 price point perform pretty equally ....(I am not making reference to the Alpha bins over $2000 (Leica's, Swaro or Zeiss).
But the difference is how they FEEL in your hands. How are they ergonomically? That will be your deciding factor.
That is true with the exception of the 8x32 EL Swaro. Many (including myself) found the Swaro and my eyes to cause nausea. If I looked at the CL and compared it to the Conquest, I would choose the CL over the Conquest due to how they fit to my eyes, my face. Again, that is personal for the narrow tubes of the CL, how they fit my eyes etc...was just about perfect.
I saw someone mention the Swaro 8x25. While an option....think again on the size of the binocular. Does it feel good, being that small....to you? I consider the 8x25 Swaro, the Zeiss, ....etc to be more 'toylike'... So neither of those are right for my tastes.
But just about any of the 8x32/8x30's will be just perfect, if they fit your eyes, and if they fit your hands / ergonomics. Now, one new binocular to toss into the field might be the Verano BGA VHD 8x32 | Opticron. I haven't had the pleasure of viewing thru these as these bins are new. But based upon my strong 'likeness' of the Opticron Traveller binocular, these new Verano's might be a match you need to look at. They are priced way less than the Swaro's or the Conquests. From what I understand, they are good optically. So if given a chance to pick up a new pair of 8x32's/8x30's I would look at the following:
Nikon HG Monarch series.....nice bin but rather small, but quality are top notch, although very slow in practical birding in the field.
Swaro 8x32 CL series....top notch and top priced!
Verano BGA VHD 8x32 from Opticron (try and see what they are like. Based upon the Nikon's being slow in focus and the CL being over-priced, this Verano might be perfect.
jim
I am a birder and also carry a camera and lens when out in the field. I have a pair of Swarovski CL 8X30 Companions, the later model. The narrow tubes are easy to hold. The build, fit and finish is top notch. The view is crisp, neutral, contrasty - just plain good - most of the time. It is lightweight too. My usual point of comparison is my 10x42 Zeiss FLs, which are superb in their own right.
A close friend with whom I sit and bird or go out on trips frequently, uses the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32s. I get to handle them quite regularly. Very smart looking (as against the petite nature of the Swaros), extremely well built, and wonderful optics. When on a harness, extremely easy to carry - my friend - he carries a Nikon D850, a 400mm f2.8 lens and another body, TCs etc in his bag - and we have done full days on foot- 19-24 Kms in 8 odd hours.
The Swaros do exhibit a slight amount of CA, even in the centre - when you look for it. Nothing irritating and certainly not a deal breaker. The Conquest HD is a bit better in handling CA. While peering into the shade, the Conquest appears ever so slightly more bright - 32mm vs 30mm? or could even be a personal bias. The FOV - Zeiss 140mts vs Swaro 131 metres - to me is hardly different in any practical way . It is the centre of the view that matters to me and the centres in both bins are excellent.
I wear prescription glasses. With the Swaro I pull up the eyepieces ever so slightly up (I do the same with my FLs) but with the Conquest, with eyepieces down I can see the entire field. The diopter adjustment on the Swaro was a bit complicated, but once done has stayed done. With the Conquest it certainly is easier. I live in India. In the tropics a low sun isn't a problem. neither is use with gloves. The Conquest has a fast focuser. the Swaro has a slower focuser but it is indeed very precise. The objective covers of the Conquest fall off while those on the Swarovski, stay put.
In my opinion and as has been stated in this thread already, the two bins are are two brands of cars or even fountain pens - a fine nibbed Pelikan Souveran vs a Fine Nibed Pilot E95s - a matter of personal choice/ style. I can identify definitively a Red-breasted Flycatcher female or a Common Chiffchaff or a Blyth's Reed Warbler flitting in the shade in a copse of wood amid relatively dense undergrowth from over 100 feet away with either bin. In good light - they offer the same lovely view.
Since I had the larger, heavier Zeiss FL, I chose the Swarovski for a change and it is a fine pair to own.
I am not sure what I have stated will help but thought I would share, anyways
Arijit
A close friend with whom I sit and bird or go out on trips frequently, uses the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32s. I get to handle them quite regularly. Very smart looking (as against the petite nature of the Swaros), extremely well built, and wonderful optics. When on a harness, extremely easy to carry - my friend - he carries a Nikon D850, a 400mm f2.8 lens and another body, TCs etc in his bag - and we have done full days on foot- 19-24 Kms in 8 odd hours.
The Swaros do exhibit a slight amount of CA, even in the centre - when you look for it. Nothing irritating and certainly not a deal breaker. The Conquest HD is a bit better in handling CA. While peering into the shade, the Conquest appears ever so slightly more bright - 32mm vs 30mm? or could even be a personal bias. The FOV - Zeiss 140mts vs Swaro 131 metres - to me is hardly different in any practical way . It is the centre of the view that matters to me and the centres in both bins are excellent.
I wear prescription glasses. With the Swaro I pull up the eyepieces ever so slightly up (I do the same with my FLs) but with the Conquest, with eyepieces down I can see the entire field. The diopter adjustment on the Swaro was a bit complicated, but once done has stayed done. With the Conquest it certainly is easier. I live in India. In the tropics a low sun isn't a problem. neither is use with gloves. The Conquest has a fast focuser. the Swaro has a slower focuser but it is indeed very precise. The objective covers of the Conquest fall off while those on the Swarovski, stay put.
In my opinion and as has been stated in this thread already, the two bins are are two brands of cars or even fountain pens - a fine nibbed Pelikan Souveran vs a Fine Nibed Pilot E95s - a matter of personal choice/ style. I can identify definitively a Red-breasted Flycatcher female or a Common Chiffchaff or a Blyth's Reed Warbler flitting in the shade in a copse of wood amid relatively dense undergrowth from over 100 feet away with either bin. In good light - they offer the same lovely view.
Since I had the larger, heavier Zeiss FL, I chose the Swarovski for a change and it is a fine pair to own.
I am not sure what I have stated will help but thought I would share, anyways
Arijit
Thank you, Arijit! Lovely comparison and just what I hoped someone would be able to provide. Maybe I'll look at the new 7x21 CL Curios if they're ever available around here.
Buff1ehead
Active member
Oops. My mistake. My wife has the Swaro CL 8x30s, not 25s.
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
I have both models too. Got the 8x32 SV since 2013 and the 8x30 CL in 2018. The latter has been passed around to a few bird guides and now it is back with me. They liked it a lot because of the smaller size but still enough for them to ID birds (they have 8x32 and 10x42 as their primary binos). So far so good.
Attachments
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Yeah around Mt. Kinabalu
Similar threads
