Imagine watching "Gravity" in 3D, with a pair of Nikon EII binos! That would be like 1968 all over again:smoke:
-
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
Imagine watching "Gravity" in 3D, with a pair of Nikon EII binos! That would be like 1968 all over again:smoke:
CloseFocus
Well-known member
I finally got my 8x25 CL's after returning the 8x30 CL's I ordered (Eagle Optics shipped them out 15 minutes before closing on a Friday - that's what I call dedication!) I was going to wait until they got a new shipment of the black model, but I decided that would show too much dust when riding my bike down dirt roads, so I went with the sand color instead.
Except for image brightness, the 8x25 does almost everyting better than the 8x30. The focuser is ultra smooth and has almost no resistance when focusing, but it doesn't feel too loose either. It focuses freely from near to far with just a few spins of the finger, and the body indentation not only makes it easy to find the focus knob, it keeps it from sticking out above the body, so there's one less thing to get snagged when pocketing or storing them. I thought the large focus knob of the 8x30 was one of its main selling points, but for me it was just a little too sticky, and frankly I don't think I would even mind the 8x25 focus knob design on an even larger binocular.
Ergonomically the 8x25's are much more comfortable to use than even my 10x25 Leica Ultravids, even though the Swaros do take up a little more room with their long center bridge and wider tubes. The long bridge gives you someplace to put your fingers, whereas the Leicas always leave 4 or 5 fingers up in the air. The wide bridge might add an ounce or two, but in this size binocular that's not necessarily a bad thing. You would think the 8x30 would have the ergonomic advantage by dint of sheer size, but I found the non-offset thumb indents very annoying - I had to be careful not to jam the tips of my thumbs together when adjusting the interpupillary distance.
The case for the 8x25 looks like it was built specifically for this binocular. The case for the 8x30, on the other hand, was so big I initially wondered if they sent it to my by mistake. Maybe Swarovski had a bunch of cases sitting in a warehouse somewhere...?
I had no problem with the diopter knob on the 8x30, but when I spend big bucks on a binocular I want them to stand apart from less expensive brands, and the diopter button on the 8x25 just looks more upscale.
The hinges are a little on the loose side, but I think it was Ceasar who said he unfolds the right tube completely and only adjusts the left tube - that works very well for me too. It also puts the index finger in a slightly more comfortable position for turning the focus knob (if you're right handed). The hinges on my compact Ultravids are much stiffer by comparison. That makes the Leicas feel more solid, but the Swaros are much better grab and look binoculars, and that's why I bought them, to carry with me when I'm doing something other than birding.
For me, the improved performance, both ergonomic and optical, over my 8x20 Ultravids makes the 8x25 CL worthwhile. The image is both sharper and brighter, as you would expect. And they are easier to use than my 10x25 UV's. People have already mentioned the bigger eyecups than a typical compact, but it looks like the eye lenses themselves are also a couple of millimeters bigger, and whatever difference that makes, the CL feels less claustrophobic than any other compact I have looked through. So far, I'm glad I bought them.
Except for image brightness, the 8x25 does almost everyting better than the 8x30. The focuser is ultra smooth and has almost no resistance when focusing, but it doesn't feel too loose either. It focuses freely from near to far with just a few spins of the finger, and the body indentation not only makes it easy to find the focus knob, it keeps it from sticking out above the body, so there's one less thing to get snagged when pocketing or storing them. I thought the large focus knob of the 8x30 was one of its main selling points, but for me it was just a little too sticky, and frankly I don't think I would even mind the 8x25 focus knob design on an even larger binocular.
Ergonomically the 8x25's are much more comfortable to use than even my 10x25 Leica Ultravids, even though the Swaros do take up a little more room with their long center bridge and wider tubes. The long bridge gives you someplace to put your fingers, whereas the Leicas always leave 4 or 5 fingers up in the air. The wide bridge might add an ounce or two, but in this size binocular that's not necessarily a bad thing. You would think the 8x30 would have the ergonomic advantage by dint of sheer size, but I found the non-offset thumb indents very annoying - I had to be careful not to jam the tips of my thumbs together when adjusting the interpupillary distance.
The case for the 8x25 looks like it was built specifically for this binocular. The case for the 8x30, on the other hand, was so big I initially wondered if they sent it to my by mistake. Maybe Swarovski had a bunch of cases sitting in a warehouse somewhere...?
I had no problem with the diopter knob on the 8x30, but when I spend big bucks on a binocular I want them to stand apart from less expensive brands, and the diopter button on the 8x25 just looks more upscale.
The hinges are a little on the loose side, but I think it was Ceasar who said he unfolds the right tube completely and only adjusts the left tube - that works very well for me too. It also puts the index finger in a slightly more comfortable position for turning the focus knob (if you're right handed). The hinges on my compact Ultravids are much stiffer by comparison. That makes the Leicas feel more solid, but the Swaros are much better grab and look binoculars, and that's why I bought them, to carry with me when I'm doing something other than birding.
For me, the improved performance, both ergonomic and optical, over my 8x20 Ultravids makes the 8x25 CL worthwhile. The image is both sharper and brighter, as you would expect. And they are easier to use than my 10x25 UV's. People have already mentioned the bigger eyecups than a typical compact, but it looks like the eye lenses themselves are also a couple of millimeters bigger, and whatever difference that makes, the CL feels less claustrophobic than any other compact I have looked through. So far, I'm glad I bought them.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Great review CLosefocus! I agree with the whole thing.
Coincidentally, I was about to post an update myself. So here goes:
OK, for me the 8x25 Pocket CL is a keeper. Took me awhile to decide because the Bushnell 7x26 Elite is so darn good that sometimes I hardly saw the point in keeping the Swaro. What follows mostly compares the Swaro and the Elite.
Where the Bushnell excels is ease of view and brightness in low light. The exit pupil makes a big difference here (3.7mm v. 3.1mm) and the lower magnification makes for a significantly more stable view. In low light the Bushnell pulls ahead by a surprising margin, but again the exit pupil is the main cause.
The Swaro betters the Bushnell in most categories though: brighter in good light, flatter field (really impressive edges here), more detail with 8x, lighter weight (12.2 ounces v. 13.5 ounces), more compact when folded, waterproof, more neutral color (the Bushnell is warmer, a bit yellow in comparison). The Swaro also has a minimal field stop ring so the view looks much bigger even though the FOV is nearly identical. The Bushnell, along with many other compacts, has some "tunnel vision." The Bushnell also has an atrocious hang angle, tipping way out at the ocular.
The Swaro also is brighter and has a significantly easier view than 8x20’s. Exit pupil again. On a 5 mile walk the other day, I was repeatedly reminded how much quicker the view settles with the Swaro than it does with my 8x20 Ultravid. But the Bushnell’s view is easier still. All this with my glasses, so YMMV.
Gripes about the Swaro? The edges and corners of the bridge and hinges are sharp. Since there's only room for three (of my) fingers on the bridge, my pinky goes off the front and wraps around the barrels by the objectives. Not a problem except it rides over those sharp edges. After a while you may notice it. Depends on how you end up holding them I guess.
In cold weather, the unarmored hinge and barrel feel cold. Swaro could have saved weight with magnesium instead of aluminum and then armored the whole thing. The Pocket is so little and costs so much I can’t believe going with aluminum was a cost issue. Maybe it is.
It could use a rainguard of some sort, even if you have to remove it before folding and storing. Most compacts lack this, but I was out in a drizzle the other day and really missed having one. Has anybody seen a rainguard small enough for the CL? The eyecups are about 32mm across. I'll try to improvise something and if it's any good I'll post about it.
Hinge tension is lower than I would like, but during a 5 mile walk it held the IPD just fine. I think I’m just used to my 8x20 Leica which has much tighter hinges.
The strap lugs have sharp edges. I suspect they will wear through the narrow (5mm) strap fairly quickly. If you own a Pocket, keep an eye on that.
Is it the “best” compact? Unless you want something smaller/lighter like an 8x20mm, or are willing to call something bigger like an 8x30 “compact,” I’d say yes. It’s the best I’ve used and it’s a keeper for me. Oh, and if you want to save $569 just get the Bushnell. I could probably live with that one too.
Mark
PS: a comment in response to Closefocus. The 8x25 "field bag" is indeed the only one I'll probably use. Even so it could be a bit trimmer. The bags supplied with the 32mm and 42mm SV's are just too big and I use neither. The 8x30 CL comes with the 32mm SV bag, so it's even more too bigger.
Coincidentally, I was about to post an update myself. So here goes:
OK, for me the 8x25 Pocket CL is a keeper. Took me awhile to decide because the Bushnell 7x26 Elite is so darn good that sometimes I hardly saw the point in keeping the Swaro. What follows mostly compares the Swaro and the Elite.
Where the Bushnell excels is ease of view and brightness in low light. The exit pupil makes a big difference here (3.7mm v. 3.1mm) and the lower magnification makes for a significantly more stable view. In low light the Bushnell pulls ahead by a surprising margin, but again the exit pupil is the main cause.
The Swaro betters the Bushnell in most categories though: brighter in good light, flatter field (really impressive edges here), more detail with 8x, lighter weight (12.2 ounces v. 13.5 ounces), more compact when folded, waterproof, more neutral color (the Bushnell is warmer, a bit yellow in comparison). The Swaro also has a minimal field stop ring so the view looks much bigger even though the FOV is nearly identical. The Bushnell, along with many other compacts, has some "tunnel vision." The Bushnell also has an atrocious hang angle, tipping way out at the ocular.
The Swaro also is brighter and has a significantly easier view than 8x20’s. Exit pupil again. On a 5 mile walk the other day, I was repeatedly reminded how much quicker the view settles with the Swaro than it does with my 8x20 Ultravid. But the Bushnell’s view is easier still. All this with my glasses, so YMMV.
Gripes about the Swaro? The edges and corners of the bridge and hinges are sharp. Since there's only room for three (of my) fingers on the bridge, my pinky goes off the front and wraps around the barrels by the objectives. Not a problem except it rides over those sharp edges. After a while you may notice it. Depends on how you end up holding them I guess.
In cold weather, the unarmored hinge and barrel feel cold. Swaro could have saved weight with magnesium instead of aluminum and then armored the whole thing. The Pocket is so little and costs so much I can’t believe going with aluminum was a cost issue. Maybe it is.
It could use a rainguard of some sort, even if you have to remove it before folding and storing. Most compacts lack this, but I was out in a drizzle the other day and really missed having one. Has anybody seen a rainguard small enough for the CL? The eyecups are about 32mm across. I'll try to improvise something and if it's any good I'll post about it.
Hinge tension is lower than I would like, but during a 5 mile walk it held the IPD just fine. I think I’m just used to my 8x20 Leica which has much tighter hinges.
The strap lugs have sharp edges. I suspect they will wear through the narrow (5mm) strap fairly quickly. If you own a Pocket, keep an eye on that.
Is it the “best” compact? Unless you want something smaller/lighter like an 8x20mm, or are willing to call something bigger like an 8x30 “compact,” I’d say yes. It’s the best I’ve used and it’s a keeper for me. Oh, and if you want to save $569 just get the Bushnell. I could probably live with that one too.
Mark
PS: a comment in response to Closefocus. The 8x25 "field bag" is indeed the only one I'll probably use. Even so it could be a bit trimmer. The bags supplied with the 32mm and 42mm SV's are just too big and I use neither. The 8x30 CL comes with the 32mm SV bag, so it's even more too bigger.
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Great review CLosefocus! I agree with the whole thing.
Coincidentally, I was about to post an update myself. So here goes:
OK, for me the 8x25 Pocket CL is a keeper. Took me awhile to decide because the Bushnell 7x26 Elite is so darn good that sometimes I hardly saw the point in keeping the Swaro. What follows mostly compares the Swaro and the Elite.
Where the Bushnell excels is ease of view and brightness in low light. The exit pupil makes a big difference here (3.7mm v. 3.1mm) and the lower magnification makes for a significantly more stable view. In low light the Bushnell pulls ahead by a surprising margin, but again the exit pupil is the main cause.
The Swaro betters the Bushnell in most categories though: brighter in good light, flatter field (really impressive edges here), more detail with 8x, lighter weight (12.2 ounces v. 13.5 ounces), more compact when folded, waterproof, more neutral color (the Bushnell is warmer, a bit yellow in comparison). The Swaro also has a minimal field stop ring so the view looks much bigger even though the FOV is nearly identical. The Bushnell, along with many other compacts, has some "tunnel vision." The Bushnell also has an atrocious hang angle, tipping way out at the ocular.
The Swaro also is brighter and has a significantly easier view than 8x20’s. Exit pupil again. On a 5 mile walk the other day, I was repeatedly reminded how much quicker the view settles with the Swaro than it does with my 8x20 Ultravid. But the Bushnell’s view is easier still. All this with my glasses, so YMMV.
Gripes about the Swaro? The edges and corners of the bridge and hinges are sharp. Since there's only room for three (of my) fingers on the bridge, my pinky goes off the front and wraps around the barrels by the objectives. Not a problem except it rides over those sharp edges. After a while you may notice it. Depends on how you end up holding them I guess.
In cold weather, the unarmored hinge and barrel feel cold. Swaro could have saved weight with magnesium instead of aluminum and then armored the whole thing. The Pocket is so little and costs so much I can’t believe going with aluminum was a cost issue. Maybe it is.
It could use a rainguard of some sort, even if you have to remove it before folding and storing. Most compacts lack this, but I was out in a drizzle the other day and really missed having one. Has anybody seen a rainguard small enough for the CL? The eyecups are about 32mm across. I'll try to improvise something and if it's any good I'll post about it.
Hinge tension is lower than I would like, but during a 5 mile walk it held the IPD just fine. I think I’m just used to my 8x20 Leica which has much tighter hinges.
The strap lugs have sharp edges. I suspect they will wear through the narrow (5mm) strap fairly quickly. If you own a Pocket, keep an eye on that.
Is it the “best” compact? Unless you want something smaller/lighter like an 8x20mm, or are willing to call something bigger like an 8x30 “compact,” I’d say yes. It’s the best I’ve used and it’s a keeper for me. Oh, and if you want to save $569 just get the Bushnell. I could probably live with that one too.
Mark
PS: a comment in response to Closefocus. The 8x25 "field bag" is indeed the only one I'll probably use. Even so it could be a bit trimmer. The bags supplied with the 32mm and 42mm SV's are just too big and I use neither. The 8x30 CL comes with the 32mm SV bag, so it's even more too bigger.
Kammerdiner,
Nice post, but one remark on your PS post.
In Holland (Europe), the CL 30 comes in another (smaller) bag than the SV32.
Down here most customers prefer the CL bag to put their 32SV in. It fits much better. It has no clip for the waisbelt and only one compartment.
Jan
CloseFocus
Well-known member
It could use a rainguard of some sort, even if you have to remove it before folding and storing. Most compacts lack this, but I was out in a drizzle the other day and really missed having one. Has anybody seen a rainguard small enough for the CL? The eyecups are about 32mm across. I'll try to improvise something and if it's any good I'll post about it.
Is it the “best” compact? Unless you want something smaller/lighter like an 8x20mm, or are willing to call something bigger like an 8x30 “compact,” I’d say yes. It’s the best I’ve used and it’s a keeper for me. Oh, and if you want to save $569 just get the Bushnell. I could probably live with that one too.
Mark
Mark,
I was wondering about some kind of aftermarket eyepiece and lens covers myself. If you find something that works let me know.
BTW, I already have a 7x26 Bausch and Lomb Elite. 7x works good for watching the birds at the feeder, but outdoors I like at least an 8x. Even so, if the view through the Bushnells is good enough, it never hurts to have one more binocular, just in case...
Is it the “best” compact? Unless you want something smaller/lighter like an 8x20mm, or are willing to call something bigger like an 8x30 “compact,” I’d say yes. It’s the best I’ve used and it’s a keeper for me. Oh, and if you want to save $569 just get the Bushnell. I could probably live with that one too.
Mark
Mark,
I was wondering about some kind of aftermarket eyepiece and lens covers myself. If you find something that works let me know.
BTW, I already have a 7x26 Bausch and Lomb Elite. 7x works good for watching the birds at the feeder, but outdoors I like at least an 8x. Even so, if the view through the Bushnells is good enough, it never hurts to have one more binocular, just in case...
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Mark,
I was wondering about some kind of aftermarket eyepiece and lens covers myself. If you find something that works let me know.
BTW, I already have a 7x26 Bausch and Lomb Elite. 7x works good for watching the birds at the feeder, but outdoors I like at least an 8x. Even so, if the view through the Bushnells is good enough, it never hurts to have one more binocular, just in case...[/QUOTE]
CF,
Yes, I can't quite embrace 7x either. But in this case, because of the light weight involved, the lower shake of 7x nearly nullifies the higher resolution of 8x. It's pretty close in everyday use, for me anyway. My mind kind of "stitches together" details, so on average the 8x gives me more. It's not necessarily more "relaxed" however.
You're right about the caps too: with the right objective caps and rainguard for the 25mm CL you could probably skip the case, shove 'em in your pocket directly, and head for the hills. That would be nice.
Mark
I was wondering about some kind of aftermarket eyepiece and lens covers myself. If you find something that works let me know.
BTW, I already have a 7x26 Bausch and Lomb Elite. 7x works good for watching the birds at the feeder, but outdoors I like at least an 8x. Even so, if the view through the Bushnells is good enough, it never hurts to have one more binocular, just in case...[/QUOTE]
CF,
Yes, I can't quite embrace 7x either. But in this case, because of the light weight involved, the lower shake of 7x nearly nullifies the higher resolution of 8x. It's pretty close in everyday use, for me anyway. My mind kind of "stitches together" details, so on average the 8x gives me more. It's not necessarily more "relaxed" however.
You're right about the caps too: with the right objective caps and rainguard for the 25mm CL you could probably skip the case, shove 'em in your pocket directly, and head for the hills. That would be nice.
Mark
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Thanks, Jan.
I've seen the 30mm CL's but not the cases. I'm going by what someone posted here on Birdforum, so it might have changed? I haven't seen anything about a 30mm CL case here in the states. Most places list a 30-32mm field bag, which would be huge for the 30mm CL, if indeed it's the same as that which came with my 32mm SV.
Bob would know. Bob?
Mark
Mark,
Ive never seen an 8x32SV.
The 8x30CL fits into the bag with room to spare with it's strap wound around it. It is 4.7" x 4.5" per Eagle Optics. The 8x32SV per Eagle Optics is 5.3"x 4.3". There is enough room in the bag to handle it's longer length and more width if need be. It is plenty wide enough. My Kahles 8x32 fits into it comfortably and it is wider and longer than the 8x30CL.
Bob
Last edited:
Nice reviews and very accurate. I have the Swarovski 8x25 CL-P, 8x30 CL and the Swarovision 8x32 now and I like them all. The 8x25 CL-P for it's compactness and astounding optics and then the 8x30 CL for a little more brightness and comfort with it's bigger exit pupil but I when want the ultimate in performance I grab the big 8x32 SV for the ultimate easy view. But I could very well get by with JUST the 8x25 CL-P as my main birding binocular. It is that good. If you bird in the daytime mostly you will not miss much with it versus a 32mm. I thought I would never say that about a compact but I really think the CL-P is the best compact on the market right now. It is really the only binocular you need but I just like the other two. The CL for it's in between size and all around good performance and the big SV for it's just awesome optics. I prefer the Swaro 8x30 CL over the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 even though the Zeiss had slightly better optics because I prefer the smaller size, weight and ergonomics of the Swaro. Besides I have the bigger Swarovision 8x32 anyway which has better ergonomics and better optics than the Zeiss HD.
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Diane Porter (Birdwatching.com) also wrote that her 10x25 CL could be her all around and only birdwatching binocular.
I won't go that far about the 8x25 CL, but it is the best compact I've used.
Swarovski has a neat trio in the 42mm SV, 32mm SV, and 25mm CL. They are separated almost equally by size and weight, with 8 ounce steps between them: 12.2, 20.5 and 28.0. Folded, the Pocket is a big step down in size from the 32mm however. I thought the 30mm CL was kind of in between so I passed on that one, but others like it a lot.
For me, the 32mm SV is the overall gem of the bunch. If I had to choose just one, that would be it.
Bob, the tag inside my 32mm SV bag states "M 30/32." Is that what your 30mm CL came with? I suspect that's what we get here in the states. Jan said there's a smaller one for the CL in Europe that also works for the 32mm SV. If so, I'd like to get one.
Mark
I won't go that far about the 8x25 CL, but it is the best compact I've used.
Swarovski has a neat trio in the 42mm SV, 32mm SV, and 25mm CL. They are separated almost equally by size and weight, with 8 ounce steps between them: 12.2, 20.5 and 28.0. Folded, the Pocket is a big step down in size from the 32mm however. I thought the 30mm CL was kind of in between so I passed on that one, but others like it a lot.
For me, the 32mm SV is the overall gem of the bunch. If I had to choose just one, that would be it.
Bob, the tag inside my 32mm SV bag states "M 30/32." Is that what your 30mm CL came with? I suspect that's what we get here in the states. Jan said there's a smaller one for the CL in Europe that also works for the 32mm SV. If so, I'd like to get one.
Mark
Mark,
The only tag I can find in mine says "H03-2011" And on it's reverse side it says "Made in Vietnam." The tag is down inside at the bottom corner of the front left side. (Looking down into the bag with the frontside forward.)
Bob
Last edited:
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Thanks, Bob.
The tag I mentioned is at the top and back, like the tag on a shirt. The tag at the bottom is "SGL 05-2011." Sounds partly like a date code?
So I guess there are two versions, although no one stateside sells the CL version by itself. Dennis, what say you? How does the SV work in the CL case?
Sorry to all for what could better be served by PM's. I thought that with all the grumbling over the too big "field bags" others might like to know.
Mark
The tag I mentioned is at the top and back, like the tag on a shirt. The tag at the bottom is "SGL 05-2011." Sounds partly like a date code?
So I guess there are two versions, although no one stateside sells the CL version by itself. Dennis, what say you? How does the SV work in the CL case?
Sorry to all for what could better be served by PM's. I thought that with all the grumbling over the too big "field bags" others might like to know.
Mark
winwinbino
Well-known member
Yes, yes, yes ! The CL is real nice. I was deciding to purchase the CL Pocket, but change my mind after I saw the spec. It's too "bulky" as a compact. I attached a photo showing Hawke Sapphire ED 8x25, Leica 8x20 & HGL 10x25. The Hawke is just little bit bigger than UV820.
Andy
Attachments
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Mark,
As it so happened today, the lady from Swarovski Austria responsible for the designs of those bags visited us today and we discussed the bags also. There is a XL for the 56 series; a L for the 42/50 series and a M for the 32 series. These bags are bulkier than the bags for the CL 30, because of the fact they are designed for those people who wrap the strap around the bin and then store them in the bag with the eyecups open and the oculaircaps on it.
The CL bag is a totally different bag and not to be confused by the M size.
You can just order them at Swarovski's.
We do the same (order them separately) and give the customer the choice.
Jan
Thanks Jan,
I fully closed the binocular and wrapped the strap around width of my 8x30CL and left the eye cups extended and put it into the CL case it came in. That way most of the width of the case is used up but there is still some room left above the eye cups.
I usually wrapped the strap vertically around the hinge of the binocular and there was plenty of extra room both in width and length that way.
Bob
I fully closed the binocular and wrapped the strap around width of my 8x30CL and left the eye cups extended and put it into the CL case it came in. That way most of the width of the case is used up but there is still some room left above the eye cups.
I usually wrapped the strap vertically around the hinge of the binocular and there was plenty of extra room both in width and length that way.
Bob
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Bob,
That's correct, but if you use the SV32 in the CL bag you can't.
Then you have to close the eyecups and put the strap behind the hinge in order to get the bag closed. There is no spare room left.
It's just what the customer wants (it turns out they often want both so we give the CL bag for free).
Jan
Kammerdiner
Well-known member
Thanks for the info, Jan. :t:
Don't forget the CL 8x30 in the group! I like it quite a bit. Your right though the 8x32 SV is the jewel of the bunch. It is my serious birding binocular. I don't think it can be beat overall. I have the 30/32 case for my SV but my 8x30 CL came in a case that is about 20% smaller and the CL 8x30 fits pretty nice in it. It has no strap just a belt loop but if you wear a pretty wide belt it actually works pretty nice around your waist on your belt. Swarovski cases are a little big but overall they are pretty nice and I have been using them lately.
That's what my CL 8x30 case says also. It is a smaller case than the SV 8x32 case.
I tried my SV 8x32 in my smaller CL 8x30 case and it did fit but it was pretty tight. The top zipper was kind of tight to close. So I don't think I would recommend it and also the smaller CL case remember does not have a shoulder strap so it is belt loop or nothing. The regular SV case is a little big but it does hold the binocular strap without problem and it lays well against your side because it is contoured.
