I lover the ergo's on the little 8x30 CL's and I am thinking of different ways I could use them with their small compact size. I really like the fact you can hold them with one hand. For some odd reason the smaller FOV didn't bother me as much this time when I tried them. I think you are right about the Swaro's glass. They are referring to the total optical system but the quality of just the glass does make a big difference. "Flip to end all flops!" That's funny.Perhaps you are being a bit literal-minded here Dennis. Of course there is good glass and poor glass but I would think when Swaro say 'glass' they also mean the design, grinding and polishing and coating of the lenses and prisms.
And are you really going to buy a pair of CL 8x30s again? For the third time?
That would be the flip to end all flops o
Lee
-
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.
Swarovski 8x25 CL-P best compact binocular? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Thanks, Close Focus. I don't really understand the negativity but I think it's due to the fact that they have some other brand of compact and they resent the fact that I am inferring that the Swaro 8x25 CL-P is the best compact. But in reality the Leica Ultravid can't really be expected to perform at the level of this newer Swarovski compact. I think these two binoculars the Swaro 8x30 CL and the 8x25 CL-P are very close in performance and I also think there is a lot of interest in these smaller aperture premium binoculars now days because people are tired of carrying a big heavy binocular around.
Last edited:
CloseFocus
Well-known member
But calling a binocular the best compact doesn't necessarily mean it's the best compact for everybody - price has to be taken into consideration. $800 will buy a lot of binoculars with brighter images and wider fields of view, and many people probably think it's ridiculous to pay so much for a little bit of portability. If I were just starting out, I know I would be saving up for a 32 or 42 mm binocular instead. One of the most experienced birders I know uses an old Zeiss compact that looks like it might have been made in the 1970's, but that doesn't stop him from spotting birds before anyone else. If Swarovski were to add a field flattener and HD glass to the 8x25 CL that would make it better, but it would probably cost twice as much. I'm willing to make some sacrifices to pay for expensive binoculars, but even I would draw the line at a $1,600 compact .
My point is I think the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P is the best COMPACT binocular available now. It is definitely not the best binocular optically you can buy for your money. For example, you can buy the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD for about the same price as the Swaro CL-P 8x25 and the Zeiss is definitely better optically. Alpha compacts are definitely not the best "Bang for the Buck" in the binocular world. You have to need and want the small compact size to justify their value. If somebody made some compacts that would perform like Swarovision 8x32's I would pay $1600.00 for them but I don't think it is physically possible.
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I just want to clarify from my post that I wasn't saying the 8x30 CL performs better than my 8x32 Ultravid (Non HD). The Ultravid showed a small bit of glare in the eyepiece when I placed a lamp at a certain angle behind me. The CL showed glare when looking toward any bright light source. As I said, the glare was well controlled, as you would expect in a $900 binocular, but the CL is definitely a mid tier binocular. In terms of build quality, contrast, resolution, and even the smoothness of the focus knob, which I know has been an issue with this model, the Ultravid is in a higher league altogether.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
OK, this is preliminary because it's too cold around here for me to go birding (I'm a cold weather wimp, sometimes). But based on time spent in the backyard which of the compacts in the picture below is the best in terms of the view? Not in terms of size or weight, just the view.
1) Swarovski 8x25 CL Pocket, 12.2 ounces, 357 feet, 17mm eye relief.
2) Leica 8x20 Ultravid, 8.5 ounces, 341 feet, 16mm eye relief.
3) Bushnell 7x26 Elite Custom, 13.5 ounces (Bushnell claims 12; they are wrong), 363 feet, 16mm eye relief, not waterproof.
Answer: let's put it this way, if you don't want to spend $800 on the Swarovski, just spend $230 on the...Bushnell.
I know some who don't wear glasses, Dennis included, have trouble with blackouts on the Bushnell (the eyecups just don't extend far enough for some) but it has a remarkably good view. The Leica is absolutely in the running, but it's clearly not as bright as the other two, the field of view is noticably narrower, and the tiny exit pupil is more fiddly. I'm still sorting it out, but honestly I could live without the Swarovski. It's not that much better than the other two. :eek!: Did I just say that!!
I've tried probably 20 compacts over the last few years. The Bushnell has its quirks (not waterproof, put a strap on it and it hangs practically horizontal, etc.) but the view is right there with the "latest and greatest."
There are lots of other considerations of course: the Bushnell doesn't fold, in the case the Leica is much smaller than the other two, etc. And in my opinion the Leica is the only true "pocket" binocular of the three. In the end it's a personal choice.
Mark
1) Swarovski 8x25 CL Pocket, 12.2 ounces, 357 feet, 17mm eye relief.
2) Leica 8x20 Ultravid, 8.5 ounces, 341 feet, 16mm eye relief.
3) Bushnell 7x26 Elite Custom, 13.5 ounces (Bushnell claims 12; they are wrong), 363 feet, 16mm eye relief, not waterproof.
Answer: let's put it this way, if you don't want to spend $800 on the Swarovski, just spend $230 on the...Bushnell.
I know some who don't wear glasses, Dennis included, have trouble with blackouts on the Bushnell (the eyecups just don't extend far enough for some) but it has a remarkably good view. The Leica is absolutely in the running, but it's clearly not as bright as the other two, the field of view is noticably narrower, and the tiny exit pupil is more fiddly. I'm still sorting it out, but honestly I could live without the Swarovski. It's not that much better than the other two. :eek!: Did I just say that!!
I've tried probably 20 compacts over the last few years. The Bushnell has its quirks (not waterproof, put a strap on it and it hangs practically horizontal, etc.) but the view is right there with the "latest and greatest."
There are lots of other considerations of course: the Bushnell doesn't fold, in the case the Leica is much smaller than the other two, etc. And in my opinion the Leica is the only true "pocket" binocular of the three. In the end it's a personal choice.
Mark
Attachments
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
The focus knob on the Swaro looks like it would be hard to get to, impossible with gloves.
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
James,
Actually, it works great with or without gloves. The bridge has indents and you just roll your finger over the top of the focus knob which is butter smooth. Kind of a neat design.
Mark
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I'll be getting my 8x25 CL next week, and I also have the 8x20 Ultravid and the older Bausch and Lomb 7x24 elite (the waterproof version). The B&L is bright and easy to use for sure, but that's to be expected from it's lower power and bigger objective. The field of view is kind of narrow, but it still performs well. I wouldn't say it performs as well as my Leica, but the Leica is more fiddly due to its small size, and I mainly use it to carry around town when birding on my lunch break. If the Bushnells have a wider field of view and if the eyecups work for me I'll probably get a pair, but I want to look through them first. From the reviews they get, they sound like a bargain.
The Bushnell 7x26 Elite was terrible for me. I don't feel personally it is at the build quality or optical level of the alpha compacts. I bought a Swaro 8x30 CL on E-Bay which Doug says is like new and I had him try the focus and he said it was smooth and easy. $700.00 is pretty good for like new. I don't think the 8x30 CL is really second tier in terms of build quality, contrast or resolution. It has excellent contrast, brightness and resolution and especially build quality. It does have a slightly smaller FOV compared to my Swarovision 8x32. It is a little more comfortable to use than the 8x25 CL-P Swaro and it is way smaller, lighter and more compact than the Ultravid 8x32. It fills it's own niche. A little more comfortable than a compact but smaller and lighter than a 32mm. It is a pretty handy comfortable little binocular which feels real nice in the hand and also looks good.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-C...wBgBGxisdnA72rBXvmeRk%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-C...wBgBGxisdnA72rBXvmeRk%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
Last edited:
The 8x25 CL-P is a work of art. The way the focus works. The way the diopter is set. The quality of the whole binocular. A Bushnell 7x26 Elite at $200.00 is not in the same league quality wise although they do have good optics if the eye relief works for you.
Last edited:
I think I would tend to agree with Mark concerning the 7x26 B&L/ Bushnell. Although I have not looked at the new Swaro 8x25 CL; I did think my 7x26 (owned since 1997) Bausch and Lomb Custom Compact had a easier and more pleasing view than a Swaro 8x20 that I bought and tried a couple years ago. The small swaro was too finicky for me and the B&L had a better overall view. I was a bit surprised how much more that I liked the B&L 7x26 that I had owned for over 15 years. I had never looked through the small Swaro before that, and was honestly expecting the Swaro to be better before comparing them. I was already thinking ahead of time that I was getting the small Swaro 8x20 to replace my "old" compact- esp. for the H2O-proof benefit. But I MUCH preferred the overall optics package on the B&L 7x26. So I sold the Swaro; and kept my old standby. It really had never let me down, and do not know why I thought I wanted to replace it.
I know the 7x26 is somewhat a "tweener" in that it is not a pocket size, and not a full size- but it is still a compact bino.
Here is what BVD said about it ( named it their reference standard at the time):
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Bushnell-7x26-Custom.php
And what they said about compacts in general:
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-bvd.php
Here is a pic I took of my compacts a few years ago when I was reviewing the Swaro 8x30 CL to the 8x30 SLC and the 8x32 EL.
6x25 Bushnell Custom compact on the (L) of the 8x30 CL and the Bausch and Lomb 7x26 CC on the (R)
I know the 7x26 is somewhat a "tweener" in that it is not a pocket size, and not a full size- but it is still a compact bino.
Here is what BVD said about it ( named it their reference standard at the time):
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Bushnell-7x26-Custom.php
And what they said about compacts in general:
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/compact-binoculars-bvd.php
Here is a pic I took of my compacts a few years ago when I was reviewing the Swaro 8x30 CL to the 8x30 SLC and the 8x32 EL.
6x25 Bushnell Custom compact on the (L) of the 8x30 CL and the Bausch and Lomb 7x26 CC on the (R)
Attachments
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Get them side-by-side and you might change your mind. The Bushnell is still made in Japan (or was two years ago when I bought mine), has superb coatings. Everything about it is high quality. Well, the diopter ring is on the loose side, but that's pretty minor.
And the view is so bloody close to the CL Pocket that I'm tempted to return the Swaro.
Here's the differences I've noticed:
1) the Swaro has a more "open" view, less like looking through binoculars. This might be nothing more than a bit more eye relief for my glasses. FOV seems bigger, but I don't think it is. Also the Swaro has notably better edges.
2) Swaro has a little better color. White snow is whiter. Colors in general are more neutral, less red.
3) You get a bit more detail from the 8x CL on a tripod, but handheld the added shake (at least for me) practically negates the difference. Handheld I see about as much detail with the Bushnell.
4) if anything, the Bushnell may have a little less CA. It's contrast seems every bit as good. It also seems to have more of a 3D look to it, something I can't explain.
I've had the Bushnell for two years but never really used it. Never even put the strap on it. The strap goes on today!
Mark
A2GG
Beth
It does fill a nice niche, but it is not way smaller than the UV 32mm.
It is slightly larger. When I was thinking of buying the littl UV I had
the CL and UV side by side at the store on their table. The CL is slightly
taller. The UV is a tiny &x32...one of the few tiny 32's along with Katmai
and Opticron Traveler. That's one reason why I liked the UV 8x32 so much.
It is surprisingly compact.
Nice pictures. Yes it is hard to compare the Bushnell 7x26 Elite with an 8x20 Swaro. The Elite with it's almost 4mm exit aperture is going to be more comfortable and easier to use and brighter in most situations. That's almost the same exit aperture as a 8x32. Big difference. Just make sure the eye relief works for you. The Elite is quite a bit smaller than the Swaro 8x30 CL.
A2GG
Beth
Here CF noticed the same slight size difference as well.
If you check out the specs online for the two models you'll
see that the UV is a little shorter.
The Bushnell is a reverse porro isn't it? That would explain the 3D effect. I know the Bushnell Elite 7x26 does have a pretty quality build for a Bushnell. When you start getting to the level of optics that these two are the optics are really pretty close. The Swaro does have the sharp edges and bigger FOV. IMO that is worth the difference.
That surprises me that the Ultravid is that small for a 32mm.
