Steve C
Well-known member
This has taken me far longer to get posted than I imagined it was going to. I’ve had a bunch of Murphy’s Law stuff, including with the binoculars, explained later on. Being pretty busy with getting a bunch of new alfalfa up and established has been pretty time consuming too.
Both binoculars are large instruments, the Maven is 35 oz., the SV is 38. The Maven is 7.7”, eye cups extended, the SV is 7.5. The B2 has a 3.5 inch, four finger long objective barrel, the SV has a three finger, almost 4 finger gap in the hinge some 2.75 inches long. I can wrap one hand only fully around the SV barrels. The B2 has room for both hands around the objective barrels. The both make statement straight out of the box they mean business and for the most part live up to that early impression.
Image performance:
There is not a lot to pick from here. Both offer bright, razor sharp, crystal clear, compelling, even stunning images. Even better in many aspects than walking up closer to the subject. Both are equally neutral in color bias, both have contrast level that seem perfectly balanced to the brightness and color levels. The images are strikingly similar. About the only thing that will separate the SV and B2 images is the edge performance of the SV design. As for me, to quote the Clark Gable line…”frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”…about sharp to the edge performance. But I full well realize some do. The image of the B2 and the SLC-HD may be too difficult for most to tell apart.
EDIT: For some of the people I showed the binoculars to, some thought the Swarovski was brighter. It is, but the brightness, for me at least, was fleeting and at first glance. after using one then the other it quickly became a non issue. So it may well be some will see the Swarovski line as brighter. This happen a bit with the 10x42 SLC-HD too. How I forgot this sentence I don't know, but here ist the edit anyway.
The SV SL 50 is a bit brighter than the B2. It is not a lot and not too noticeable, unless the binoculars are out in low light conditions. At that point, the extra light bearing surface and the increase of 1x in magnification begin to assert themselves.
The resolution of detail at distance is pretty much on par out to a mile or so. As the distance increases, as the light fades, or as you push limits hard, the SV will begin to edge ahead. The difference is not great but there.
When evaluating a binocular, I have a little test I do. I call it the just relax test. It’s pretty simple and I have found it quite useful. What it is, after using the binocular for some time, I simply command my eyes to just relax. I find myself in awe sometimes at how much squinting I was doing without realizing it was happening. That squinting will surely catch up at some point. This test didn’t work with these two binoculars. When you put either one of them up to your eyes, you can feel a physical relaxation sensation in your eyes, a concrete, palpable, real physical sensation. This may well be part of the reason so many people have referred to the image improvement of the SV 50 over the SV 42. While the SLC and the 42 mm SV do not do this, they do not cause much if any noticeable relaxation when I do my test.
Field of View Performance:
The Maven B2 lists a 377’ fov, this one checks at 385. That is a 7.3* fov and an afov of 66*. The SV EL checks in at its listed 345’ and 66* afov. The SV EL seems to have a bit wider fov. Perhaps it is due to the flat field SV technology, I don’t know, perhaps it is something else.
The B2 field is very well done and there is not much apparent distortion at the edge. Some field curvature at the outer 10% or so. Not flat, but very well done.
Apparent Resolution and Sharpness:
There is not much doubt in my mind the B2 is very close to the advertised 94% overall transmission. Swarovski only claims 90% light transmission, but I tend to think the real figure is higher than that. What that boils down to is that the actual light transmission difference is probably too close for our eyes to detect. Using a color USAF type chart originally posted here some time ago by BF member Surveyor (Ron) each binocular has equal ability to resolve detail from that chart. I adjusted the distances for the 9x and 10x magnifications. I have no intention of doing a real resolution test here. To separate any real differences, I need to develop a much more refined distance control measurement. I simply don’t have the time for that. Also I don’t think Ron’s color chart is quite the right size and I have not the time to fix that right now either. The bottom line is that both will resolve as well as most eyes can see.
Glare control and CA Suppression:
If there is a binocular better at glare control than the Maven B2, I have no idea what it might be. The B2 is not perfect, but real close. The Maven will cut through glare that can be bothersome in the SV. While the SV 50 is decent in the glare control regard, it is not as good as the B2. I do not think there is any such thing as a glare free binocular. While many design features are in play, there is also too many human errors. Eye placement, eye relief, and some others will always play a role.
The B2 has two bright perfectly round crystal clear exit pupils shining back at the viewers nested in a gloss obsidian black ocular surface. No ghosting or false ep’s here. The SV does indeed have some false ep’s. The two seem equally well blackened internally.
CA suppression seems about equal.
Ergonomics:
This is a very personal deal, so take that into account that this is my own particular personal preference. The Maven B2 wins this one every day of the week and twice on Sunday. For me it is mostly the extra length of the objective barrel and the extra space attained from the 20 mm objective lens offset. The SV SL 50 is balanced right at the center of the binocular. It is well balanced and easy to hold steady, better than the SV EL 10x42. The B2 is balanced just rearward of the center of the hinge. However I grab the Maven, it comes up comfortable. Now the SV 50 is certainly not uncomfortable by any means, but the limited space between the barrels is a tiny bit of a problem for me. I have no issue to take with those folks who have commented at how well balanced the SV 50 is. This is just my statement of personal preference, not as something everyone should take as gospel.
Focus:
The B2 has a counterclockwise focus to infinity, the SV is clockwise. The B2 has a stiffer focus than the SV EL. In spite of certain reports, this SV EL has a very smooth and precise focus movement. The close focus goes to the B2. I can focus easily to 4’. The SV EL is closer to 10’. The Maven focus requires deliberate user input to move. The SV EL did on occasion move focus position without my input. The Maven has a 20 mm off set of the objectives relative to the oculars. At my 66 mm IPD, the objectives centers are 86 mm. There is an apparent 3-D advantage for the Maven over the SV. Both have exceptional depth of focus for greater than 8x magnifications. Focus either on something in the distance and both are nearly focus free from 75 yards to infinity. Both require about the same focus travel to come closer.
The SV focus is softer and smoother, but I think the Maven is more precise. Either focus design is certainly workable. User call on preference. They are different, so there is a choice.
This will not finish quite the way I’d hoped. Seems that the relationship between my eyes and my 10x50 SV EL has been beset by partial rolling ball gremlins. I find this really strange, as well as quite frustrating, and extremely disappointing. Initially when I did the Maven B2 review, I did not see RB in the Swarovisions, specifically in the 10x42 SV I used in that review. After using Swarovisions in 8.5 and 10x42 over the last year or so production and prior to the purchase of this 10x50, I had no problems, save for ever so slight with the 8.5. Given my intense RB reaction to the initial SV in 8.5x42 I had figured the effect had been fixed or moderated, or I had maybe gotten used to it and it was now a non issue. Since my early experience with the 50mm SV’s, when the 8.5 hit me so hard, was positive, and I figured this was a pretty safe choice. When I got the 10x50 SV there were no problems and I thought I’d come upon the alpha glass that I’d call mine. However after a couple of weeks, I began to notice some slight distortions at the bottom of the fov when I panned upward. Not enough to bother, but there. At the end of another week, the effect began dead center in the view. When panning upward. The bottom half of the image seemed to race away from the center, like rapidly decreasing a zoom setting from high to low. Since it had begun to start at image center field, the effect dragged my vision with it. Like the start of full fledged rolling ball, never quite getting to the full encore, just starting. I called SONA and talked to a tech rep. He did not know what to say other than this has not been reported from 10x50’s, but there is some issue with 8.5’s. He referred me to a higher up the chain fellow I’d met a couple of times at shows. I’m not going to drop names, but a lot of you know or have met this guy. Nice fella, knows his Swarovski’s. He suggested that I try turning the binocular upside down to see if it was isolated to just the bottom, then use each barrel as a monocular and see if the effect was confined to the bottom part of this binocular. Well, BANG, when I did that, the effect is now everywhere, except for horizontal panning. As a result, now the effect is back in all of the Swarovisions for me. So there is now a nearly certain probability this gets sold. So leaving this cheerful circumstance aside, I’ve attempted the comparison. I subscribe the effect to nothing more than the reaction of my DNA optical system to the mechanical optical system of the binocular.
So what one to buy?
This is a perspective laden question. It is my belief that one of the two biggest reasons to like or dislike a binocular comes down to whether the little voices inside your head (my head included) will shut up and let you use the binocular. Some people can do this with relatively inexpensive glass. Some need to know they have gone as far up the ladder as they can go, at which point they shut up and use the binocular and the fact it is an alpha can tend to get the credit. Having it fixed in your mind you have a binocular beyond reproach is likely the best reason for the purchase of the alpha. The Maven will quell that beast for some, but not for others. The other big reason is physical compatibility between user and binocular, assuming the binocular is of sufficient quality to begin with.
Maven Outdoor Gear is literally the new kid on the block. Yes they have terrific optics made by an experienced OEM with long history. What we typically consider as alpha brands have time and experience on their side. They have solid, established reputations. That alone is fact enough for many. I have no quarrel with that position. So Maven has to establish their history. It is my opinion they will do that if they keep offering optics like they have and if they stick to their present warranty and service regimen. But aside from a few good reviews, they will sink or swim based on the quality of their product, the level of service they offer, and how well they can market and stand behind their stuff. For my part, I saw the binocular and made a nearly instantaneous decision I was not sending it back to Maven. I have no regrets with that decision. Others will react differently. I have no quarrel with that either. As simply as I can put it, if you can’t see it with one, you won’t see it with the other one either. The real difference here between these binoculars has to come down to lab tests. The difference that exists is one of those things too close for the eye to call.
To answer my own question, I’m keeping the Maven B2. It is the clear answer to the question ...”what is the best glass I can get for around a thousand bucks?” What I would have done if the Swarovski EL SV 10x50 would not have given me the rolling ball? I doubt I would have sold the Maven. I certainly would have kept the Swarovski. As to where I go from here, I’m letting that decision sit for a while. The Maven B2 is so good, I would feel somewhat silly having some $2k tied up in an alpha glass. However the Zeiss HT and the Swarovski SLC are still strong possibilities. I have no personal doubt whatsoever at this point the Maven B2 and B3 combination will do whatever I need done with a handheld magnification, anyplace on the planet I need to use either one or both. Even though the 10x50 SV does a better job at distance, it needs to have more magnification than 10x to show more usable detail. I may decide to up the thing to a good 15x56 to use as a spotting scope replacement. Right now Swarovisions are out of the running. Check the classifieds as these Swarovski SV EL 10x50 will be there for sale shortly. My rolling ball issues aside, I echo the statements about the view of the SV 10x50. The SV 50 is about as much better than the SV 42 as it is better than the B2, which is not a lot.
So there it is. I’ve said too much somewhere, and not enough elsewhere. I’ll get some photos up when I can.
Both binoculars are large instruments, the Maven is 35 oz., the SV is 38. The Maven is 7.7”, eye cups extended, the SV is 7.5. The B2 has a 3.5 inch, four finger long objective barrel, the SV has a three finger, almost 4 finger gap in the hinge some 2.75 inches long. I can wrap one hand only fully around the SV barrels. The B2 has room for both hands around the objective barrels. The both make statement straight out of the box they mean business and for the most part live up to that early impression.
Image performance:
There is not a lot to pick from here. Both offer bright, razor sharp, crystal clear, compelling, even stunning images. Even better in many aspects than walking up closer to the subject. Both are equally neutral in color bias, both have contrast level that seem perfectly balanced to the brightness and color levels. The images are strikingly similar. About the only thing that will separate the SV and B2 images is the edge performance of the SV design. As for me, to quote the Clark Gable line…”frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”…about sharp to the edge performance. But I full well realize some do. The image of the B2 and the SLC-HD may be too difficult for most to tell apart.
EDIT: For some of the people I showed the binoculars to, some thought the Swarovski was brighter. It is, but the brightness, for me at least, was fleeting and at first glance. after using one then the other it quickly became a non issue. So it may well be some will see the Swarovski line as brighter. This happen a bit with the 10x42 SLC-HD too. How I forgot this sentence I don't know, but here ist the edit anyway.
The SV SL 50 is a bit brighter than the B2. It is not a lot and not too noticeable, unless the binoculars are out in low light conditions. At that point, the extra light bearing surface and the increase of 1x in magnification begin to assert themselves.
The resolution of detail at distance is pretty much on par out to a mile or so. As the distance increases, as the light fades, or as you push limits hard, the SV will begin to edge ahead. The difference is not great but there.
When evaluating a binocular, I have a little test I do. I call it the just relax test. It’s pretty simple and I have found it quite useful. What it is, after using the binocular for some time, I simply command my eyes to just relax. I find myself in awe sometimes at how much squinting I was doing without realizing it was happening. That squinting will surely catch up at some point. This test didn’t work with these two binoculars. When you put either one of them up to your eyes, you can feel a physical relaxation sensation in your eyes, a concrete, palpable, real physical sensation. This may well be part of the reason so many people have referred to the image improvement of the SV 50 over the SV 42. While the SLC and the 42 mm SV do not do this, they do not cause much if any noticeable relaxation when I do my test.
Field of View Performance:
The Maven B2 lists a 377’ fov, this one checks at 385. That is a 7.3* fov and an afov of 66*. The SV EL checks in at its listed 345’ and 66* afov. The SV EL seems to have a bit wider fov. Perhaps it is due to the flat field SV technology, I don’t know, perhaps it is something else.
The B2 field is very well done and there is not much apparent distortion at the edge. Some field curvature at the outer 10% or so. Not flat, but very well done.
Apparent Resolution and Sharpness:
There is not much doubt in my mind the B2 is very close to the advertised 94% overall transmission. Swarovski only claims 90% light transmission, but I tend to think the real figure is higher than that. What that boils down to is that the actual light transmission difference is probably too close for our eyes to detect. Using a color USAF type chart originally posted here some time ago by BF member Surveyor (Ron) each binocular has equal ability to resolve detail from that chart. I adjusted the distances for the 9x and 10x magnifications. I have no intention of doing a real resolution test here. To separate any real differences, I need to develop a much more refined distance control measurement. I simply don’t have the time for that. Also I don’t think Ron’s color chart is quite the right size and I have not the time to fix that right now either. The bottom line is that both will resolve as well as most eyes can see.
Glare control and CA Suppression:
If there is a binocular better at glare control than the Maven B2, I have no idea what it might be. The B2 is not perfect, but real close. The Maven will cut through glare that can be bothersome in the SV. While the SV 50 is decent in the glare control regard, it is not as good as the B2. I do not think there is any such thing as a glare free binocular. While many design features are in play, there is also too many human errors. Eye placement, eye relief, and some others will always play a role.
The B2 has two bright perfectly round crystal clear exit pupils shining back at the viewers nested in a gloss obsidian black ocular surface. No ghosting or false ep’s here. The SV does indeed have some false ep’s. The two seem equally well blackened internally.
CA suppression seems about equal.
Ergonomics:
This is a very personal deal, so take that into account that this is my own particular personal preference. The Maven B2 wins this one every day of the week and twice on Sunday. For me it is mostly the extra length of the objective barrel and the extra space attained from the 20 mm objective lens offset. The SV SL 50 is balanced right at the center of the binocular. It is well balanced and easy to hold steady, better than the SV EL 10x42. The B2 is balanced just rearward of the center of the hinge. However I grab the Maven, it comes up comfortable. Now the SV 50 is certainly not uncomfortable by any means, but the limited space between the barrels is a tiny bit of a problem for me. I have no issue to take with those folks who have commented at how well balanced the SV 50 is. This is just my statement of personal preference, not as something everyone should take as gospel.
Focus:
The B2 has a counterclockwise focus to infinity, the SV is clockwise. The B2 has a stiffer focus than the SV EL. In spite of certain reports, this SV EL has a very smooth and precise focus movement. The close focus goes to the B2. I can focus easily to 4’. The SV EL is closer to 10’. The Maven focus requires deliberate user input to move. The SV EL did on occasion move focus position without my input. The Maven has a 20 mm off set of the objectives relative to the oculars. At my 66 mm IPD, the objectives centers are 86 mm. There is an apparent 3-D advantage for the Maven over the SV. Both have exceptional depth of focus for greater than 8x magnifications. Focus either on something in the distance and both are nearly focus free from 75 yards to infinity. Both require about the same focus travel to come closer.
The SV focus is softer and smoother, but I think the Maven is more precise. Either focus design is certainly workable. User call on preference. They are different, so there is a choice.
This will not finish quite the way I’d hoped. Seems that the relationship between my eyes and my 10x50 SV EL has been beset by partial rolling ball gremlins. I find this really strange, as well as quite frustrating, and extremely disappointing. Initially when I did the Maven B2 review, I did not see RB in the Swarovisions, specifically in the 10x42 SV I used in that review. After using Swarovisions in 8.5 and 10x42 over the last year or so production and prior to the purchase of this 10x50, I had no problems, save for ever so slight with the 8.5. Given my intense RB reaction to the initial SV in 8.5x42 I had figured the effect had been fixed or moderated, or I had maybe gotten used to it and it was now a non issue. Since my early experience with the 50mm SV’s, when the 8.5 hit me so hard, was positive, and I figured this was a pretty safe choice. When I got the 10x50 SV there were no problems and I thought I’d come upon the alpha glass that I’d call mine. However after a couple of weeks, I began to notice some slight distortions at the bottom of the fov when I panned upward. Not enough to bother, but there. At the end of another week, the effect began dead center in the view. When panning upward. The bottom half of the image seemed to race away from the center, like rapidly decreasing a zoom setting from high to low. Since it had begun to start at image center field, the effect dragged my vision with it. Like the start of full fledged rolling ball, never quite getting to the full encore, just starting. I called SONA and talked to a tech rep. He did not know what to say other than this has not been reported from 10x50’s, but there is some issue with 8.5’s. He referred me to a higher up the chain fellow I’d met a couple of times at shows. I’m not going to drop names, but a lot of you know or have met this guy. Nice fella, knows his Swarovski’s. He suggested that I try turning the binocular upside down to see if it was isolated to just the bottom, then use each barrel as a monocular and see if the effect was confined to the bottom part of this binocular. Well, BANG, when I did that, the effect is now everywhere, except for horizontal panning. As a result, now the effect is back in all of the Swarovisions for me. So there is now a nearly certain probability this gets sold. So leaving this cheerful circumstance aside, I’ve attempted the comparison. I subscribe the effect to nothing more than the reaction of my DNA optical system to the mechanical optical system of the binocular.
So what one to buy?
This is a perspective laden question. It is my belief that one of the two biggest reasons to like or dislike a binocular comes down to whether the little voices inside your head (my head included) will shut up and let you use the binocular. Some people can do this with relatively inexpensive glass. Some need to know they have gone as far up the ladder as they can go, at which point they shut up and use the binocular and the fact it is an alpha can tend to get the credit. Having it fixed in your mind you have a binocular beyond reproach is likely the best reason for the purchase of the alpha. The Maven will quell that beast for some, but not for others. The other big reason is physical compatibility between user and binocular, assuming the binocular is of sufficient quality to begin with.
Maven Outdoor Gear is literally the new kid on the block. Yes they have terrific optics made by an experienced OEM with long history. What we typically consider as alpha brands have time and experience on their side. They have solid, established reputations. That alone is fact enough for many. I have no quarrel with that position. So Maven has to establish their history. It is my opinion they will do that if they keep offering optics like they have and if they stick to their present warranty and service regimen. But aside from a few good reviews, they will sink or swim based on the quality of their product, the level of service they offer, and how well they can market and stand behind their stuff. For my part, I saw the binocular and made a nearly instantaneous decision I was not sending it back to Maven. I have no regrets with that decision. Others will react differently. I have no quarrel with that either. As simply as I can put it, if you can’t see it with one, you won’t see it with the other one either. The real difference here between these binoculars has to come down to lab tests. The difference that exists is one of those things too close for the eye to call.
To answer my own question, I’m keeping the Maven B2. It is the clear answer to the question ...”what is the best glass I can get for around a thousand bucks?” What I would have done if the Swarovski EL SV 10x50 would not have given me the rolling ball? I doubt I would have sold the Maven. I certainly would have kept the Swarovski. As to where I go from here, I’m letting that decision sit for a while. The Maven B2 is so good, I would feel somewhat silly having some $2k tied up in an alpha glass. However the Zeiss HT and the Swarovski SLC are still strong possibilities. I have no personal doubt whatsoever at this point the Maven B2 and B3 combination will do whatever I need done with a handheld magnification, anyplace on the planet I need to use either one or both. Even though the 10x50 SV does a better job at distance, it needs to have more magnification than 10x to show more usable detail. I may decide to up the thing to a good 15x56 to use as a spotting scope replacement. Right now Swarovisions are out of the running. Check the classifieds as these Swarovski SV EL 10x50 will be there for sale shortly. My rolling ball issues aside, I echo the statements about the view of the SV 10x50. The SV 50 is about as much better than the SV 42 as it is better than the B2, which is not a lot.
So there it is. I’ve said too much somewhere, and not enough elsewhere. I’ll get some photos up when I can.
Last edited:
