Swarovski 8x32EL - Calling all owners! (3 Viewers)

[Pileatus]

If you're serious about an 8X32 EL, read this.
http://www.birddigiscoping.com/2007/06/binocular-talk.html

 

[Alexis Powell]

Dialyt,

The differences among these binoculars with respect to ergonomics are probably more important that their optical differences. Most users prefer the ergonomics of the Zeiss 8x32 FL and Swarovski 8x32 EL to the Swaro 8x30 SLC. I own both the EL and the FL and I much prefer the EL. Overall, I also prefer the optics of the EL overall but I'll admit that the lower CA of the FL would be a welcome addition to the EL's talents. The FL is quite a bit shorter too if that is important to you (the EL is the same length as some 8x42 models).

As for 8x30 SLC versus 8x32 EL, the former is a fine instrument and I've heard some say that they didn't think it was in any way optically inferior to the EL, but I don't recall anyone claiming it was better than the EL. The wider FOV and MUCH closer focus of the EL are important to me.

As for the EL focus ratio--the 8x32 model was never manufactured with the slower focus.

As for the new water-shedding coating, I was quite surprised to see the serial number information because it means that my 8x32 EL has the coatings even though I bought them before those coatings were advertised (and mine had no label indicating their presence. Yesterday, I poured distilled water on the objectives of my Leica 8x32 BA and Swaro 8x32 EL. I found that water poured off (beaded up and rolled off) both in similar fashion, but after rubbing it into the objective with my finger, it wiped off the EL more easily. Both fog similarly from my breath. I'm not sure how big a practical difference these coatings make, but it is interesting to see that Swarovski does indeed introduce improvements to models before it advertises them.

I test drive is the safest way to compare, but if you order the EL and love everything about them, then be happy and enjoy!

--AP

PS. I own the Leica 8x32 BA, Zeiss 8x32 FL and Swarovski 8x32 and love them all, though for overall birding I prefer 8x42 for the easier view (especially, the ability to look around the FOV and not get blackout because of their larger exit pupil) and their ergonomics. If I were buying an 8x32 as my only "large" binocular, I'd get the EL, and then get a Leica 8x20 Ultravid BL to complement it. If I were getting an 8x32 to complement a full sized x42 binocular, or an 8x32 as my only binocular, I'd get the Leica 8x32 HD because it is as beautifully constructed as the Swarovski, has superb optics, and is amazingly small yet fits my large hands wonderfully.

 

[Dialyt]

Fl-el

Interesting. Very interesting.

And finally:

Swarovski FL-EL - sounds good. But = increased cost and uncertainty as to when they will be released. I want a binocular this spring - I don't want to hang around waiting and wondering when Swarovski are going to release their FL models at, I'm guessing, exorbitant prices which I can't afford.

Anyone got any views/comments on this? Is it worth waiting for?

 

[Marley]

As noted earlier, personal testing is what is required to understand what is best for you.

Others on this forum have found the EL to be perhaps less sharp than either the Ultravid or the FL (seach on 8.32 EL)

Alula also found them to be slightly less sharp than (in this case) the Nikon offering.

http://www.alula.fi/GB/index.htm

I also owned a pair for several months and found the following (IMHO):

World-class fit and finish, the best balance and ergonomics, by far the easiest view (no blackouts or finicky holding required), the smoothest focus and best customer service in the industry.

I enjoyed them every time I used them until that fateful day when I started to compare them with other bins that I owned for sharpness.

Darn it! I should have just left well enough alone! To me, they just fell noticeably short in this area. Once I had seen it for myself, I just couldn't get past it and ended up selling my ELs.

If I could own only one pair, it would be the ELs as to me, they represent the best overall 8x32 platform. If, however, you are a stickler for the sharpness (at least in the center), both the Leica Ultravid and Zeiss FL are better options (just my opinion).

Now this was a few years ago and perhaps Swaro has tuned up their offerings, but I have not seen anything that would lead me to beleive there has been a change. If so, I may be ready to check them out again. They really would be the only bin that I would need if they were just a bit sharper.

Once again, test each model and determine what is best for you!

Rgds,

Steffan

 

[Dialyt]

Nikon HG 8x32... poor design?

The trouble with the Nikon HG 8x32 though, is, as far as I can see, an awful design, with intrusive 'hand position enforcement moldings'. No, it's not the latest Home Office approved scheme to raise revenue, it's where manufacturers decide how we should hold our binoculars and force us to do so with a clever abuse of rubber armouring. Sadly I have no way of checking this out: I know of no dealer in N. Ireland which stocks the Nikon so I can only go by the pictures I have seen online or in brochures. If anyone can refute this, I would welcome their input.

Take a look at the picture below: I'm getting flashbacks of the Leica Ultravid 42BR 'thumb horns'. *shudder*

 

[Dialyt]

2 last questions

My final queries are thus:

Would an FL-EL Swaro 8x32 be much of an improvement to the existing model in terms of sharpness, since doubts have been raised about the EL's sharpness?

and:

Are the Swaro 8x32EL as sharp as the old Leica Trinovid 8x32BA?

 

[Bubbs]

The trouble with the Nikon HG 8x32 though, is, as far as I can see, an awful design, with intrusive 'hand position enforcement moldings'. No, it's not the latest Home Office approved scheme to raise revenue, it's where manufacturers decide how we should hold our binoculars and force us to do so with a clever abuse of rubber armouring. Sadly I have no way of checking this out: I know of no dealer in N. Ireland which stocks the Nikon so I can only go by the pictures I have seen online or in brochures. If anyone can refute this, I would welcome their input.

Take a look at the picture below: I'm getting flashbacks of the Leica Ultravid 42BR 'thumb horns'. *shudder*

Believe me, these are one of the best pair of binoculars around today and if you get a pair hang on to them. The focussing system is the Rolls Royce of bins...Swarovski and Leica take note!

No doubt someone will disagree.

 

[jacquot]

I never had that forced handling feeling with the Nikons, they fit my hands well. I can also easily hold them with one hand and focus, more easily than with my x32 FLs. The Nikons do hang a little funny from a neck strap, angled in too much. The ELs were not a good fit for my hands, interestingly. They will both exhibit CA more than the FL. I have had no problem with the FL armoring although the diopter malfunctioned after about 6 months use. A full summer in Germany and they came back rejuvenated. I agree that you should order from a shop that will let you try them out for a week or two.

 

[Swissboy]

.....Having discounted the Leica Ultravid 8x32BR due to eye relief issues, and the unavailability of Leica Trinovid 8x32BNs, ......

The Trinovid would be equally problematical in this respect. Leica used the same basic optics design for both.

 

[Dialyt]

The Trinovid would be equally problematical in this respect. Leica used the same basic optics design for both.

I used a pair of Leica Trinovid 8x32BAs for 5 years happily.

I tried either the Ultravid 10x32 or 8x32 (not sure which) and didn't get on with them at all, due to vignetting. I couldn't use them and certainly wouldn't buy them. Besides, the Ultravid HDs are ridiculously priced.

Anyway, I feel it's time for a break from Leica, so I am faced with the Zeiss 8x32FL or the two Swaro 8x30 and 8x32 models.

If someone can address my concerns in post #126 above, I'd be most grateful.

 

[ceasar]

The trouble with the Nikon HG 8x32 though, is, as far as I can see, an awful design, with intrusive 'hand position enforcement moldings'. ...................... If anyone can refute this, I would welcome their input.

Take a look at the picture below: I'm getting flashbacks of the Leica Ultravid 42BR 'thumb horns'. *shudder*

I'm looking at mine now. What you are talking about are the "lugs" where the neck strap is attached. They are an integral part of the rubber covering over the body. Unless you like to place your index fingers up around the eye cups it shouldn't bother you. Of course that would make it awkward to work the focus wheel.
Cordially,
Bob

 

[jacquot]

They do make for a ridge across the lower body, and like Bob says, if you want to have your thumbs really near your face, you won't like the design. I just picked mine up to check. I never had an issue with this at all, the balance is right and placement for focusing, etc. I think that support is one reason they are so easy to one hand. My only issue with the HGs ever was CA, but I've gotten so I rarely notice it. They have a sharp, flat view with good contrast and color.

 

[NoSpringChicken]

I was at Minsmere RSPB reserve today and wandered over to the optics section. The guy behind the counter asked me if there was anything I would like to have a look at, with no obligation, and he let me take a pair of Swaro 8x32 ELs outside for about 10 minutes.

My first impressions based on this quick hands experience are:
Superb build quality and engineering, with everything working very smoothly and precisely, especially the focusing and eyecups.
Excellent feel in the hands and nicely balanced. Very good diopter adjustment system.

However, when I raised them to my eyes I expected to be blown away but, hand on heart, I could not see a great deal of difference between them and my Swift HHS roofs. They both seemed equally bright and sharp. I couldn't notice any CA with either of them. The field of view was a bit better on the ELs but the eye relief was better on the Swifts (my other half preferred her Opticron Discovery binoculars from this point of view!) The ELs are slightly smaller and lighter than the Swifts.

I am obviously not a binocular connoisseur and it is possible that I would grow to appreciate the Swaros more with time. However, bearing in mind that the ELs are about three and a half times the price of the Swifts, I don't think they are worth the difference in price for me at the moment.

I am a bit disappointed that there was no 'wow' factor for me with the ELs but, no doubt, many people with more experience than me will really appreciate them. They are certainly beautifully crafted, durable gem like objects which will be sought after for years to come but at the moment I am not sure they are a good buy for me.

Ron

 

[Dialyt]

What one person may find perfect another will hate. I don't like thumb placement devices, especially aggressive thumb placement devices (such as those on the Ultravid 42BR), as opposed to passive thumb placement devices (such as those on Swaro 32EL). Some people love the Leica Ultravid 42BR thumb horns, I however detested them. Looking at the Nikon HG 8x32, I suspect I would not get along with them at all, despite the attractive price, as they look similar to the Leica 42BR in terms of employing rubber devices to force one to place one's thumbs in a certain way.

Anyway, this is a subject that really grinds me so can we please not talk about it?! :brains:

 

[Robert / Seattle]

Come on,
you're not serious about this statement, are you?
It's very strong, and it does not impartially reflect reality "in my eyes" (when they are behind an SLCneu).

Thomas

Thomas .........

Really now. Does the SLC have the equivalent of ED/FL/ or EL glass, AND
does it have the equivalent of "aquaphobic" coatings?

If "no" to either of the above, it may still be a fine instrument, but not, alas (argh (pirate talk)), of the current generation of optical offerings.

Is SLC strong optically?, yes. Is it the last of, albeit a hallmark of a truly fine, generation? - I dare say "yup", as well. And also a member of the last optical and build generation by definition of the above? -- Also "yup". (Hey, no worries. I like high quality old things). But still -- last generation it is.

Sinking in Seattle,
Robert

 

[ceasar]

Actually, before today, I never gave their design a thought. But after fooling around with them for a while, I can see their merit. The web between one's thumb and index finger rests comfortably up against the "lugs" adding support and steadiness while at the same time minimizing the use of the fingers and thumbs to hold the binocular. It's very comfortable and as Jacquot pointed out makes it easier to use one handed if needed. It is certainly more comfortable to hold than my 7 x 42 Trinovid BN.
Bob

 

[Alexis Powell]

Would an FL-EL Swaro 8x32 be much of an improvement to the existing model in terms of sharpness, since doubts have been raised about the EL's sharpness?
Are the Swaro 8x32EL as sharp as the old Leica Trinovid 8x32BA?

I don't think you should be concerned about the sharpness of the 8x32 EL. I've read all the reviews/posts relating to this issue and I'm no fan of binos with substandard sharpness (my corrected vision is ~20/12), but I find the 8x32 EL plenty sharp. I don't know how to explain why some have found them lacking--perhaps they've been tweaked over the years. Reducing chromatic aberration is always a good thing, so I would consider an EL with lower CA to be a significant improvement.

Are they as sharp as the Leica 8x32 BA? Absolutely. They also have a wider field, closer focus, better eye relief, much closer to neutral color, and are MUCH brighter. I absolutely ADORE my 8x32 BA by the way. "Sharpness" is a tricky beast that involves resolution, contrast and other factors. Sometimes my Zeiss FL don't seem very sharp (most of the time they seem superb and even superior to any of my other roof prism binos). Generally, this is when looking through haze. The very neutral FL transmits blue so well that it shows haze in all its glory. In these circumstances, my slightly yellow/green biased Leica BA will appear noticeably sharper. The 8x32 EL seem to offer the same impressive brightness and neutrality of the Zeiss FL but without the down sides of its blue light transmission.

--AP

 

[ThoLa]

Thomas .........

Really now. Does the SLC have the equivalent of ED/FL/ or EL glass, AND
does it have the equivalent of "aquaphobic" coatings?

If "no" to either of the above, it may still be a fine instrument, but not, alas (argh (pirate talk)), of the current generation of optical offerings.

Is SLC strong optically?, yes. Is it the last of, albeit a hallmark of a truly fine, generation? - I dare say "yup", as well. And also a member of the last optical and build generation by definition of the above? -- Also "yup". (Hey, no worries. I like high quality old things). But still -- last generation it is.

Sinking in Seattle,
Robert

Hello Robert!

Let me start by conceding that you have more practical experience with current and past optical offerings and spent more hours using them. It is appreciated.

I think we can settle the dispute if me meet tomorrow morning 5 am at the old oak tree at the crossing from which the most desolate, dusty lane to nowhere runs towards Dead Photographer's Creek. Let's see how fast you can draw your new HD!


As regards the SLCs:
Is there ED, Fl, ... glass in them?
Fluoride-doted glass - probably not. Given the current fashion, Swarovski would let us know, I think.
But I'd be highly surprised if there wasn't any extra-low dispersion or glass with anomalous dispersion in them. Most, if not all, high class manufacturers had it for several years.
I wondered what would have happened if Zeiss had not decided to include the flouride-doted glass into their top line's brand name?!
If they just added a line to the description in the catalogue.

Just a few years back BaK4 glass was the fashion of the day. Practically every manufacturer touted it. Not mentioned anymore.
And what was the hype about? Before BaK4 they had used lead-doted glass. It still has the highest refractive index of any type of glass.
In the beginning BaK was advertised as being lighter, therefore better (even at a slightly reduced optical performance).
Some clever marketing guys are riding the wave of concern about the environment and now hype "eco-friendly", lead-free glass. Why should anyone be concerned about it in prisms?

Anyway: I suspect there is some sort of ED glass in the SLCs. if it is FL or something else I could not care about. What counts is the result.
As far as I understand the applied physics of optical design, which I frankly admit is quite likely to be a rather short distance, abberations can be corrected in different ways. So in principle it ought to be possible to correct CA by additional lens elements, even without FL glass. It would just make the construction heavier and more complicated. And more expensive still.

Someone else - I think it was Arthur Pinewood or Elkcub - pointed out that including it is all fine and well but it has to fit into the overall design.

Some have said (guess who) that the change to HD in the Ultravids makes an ever so tiny effect. Should we therefore be utterly concerned with the question whether an SLC has FL glass? Peep and decide.

The 8x30 SLC is actually lighter than the EL 8x32.

Does it have aquaphobic coating? yes. All SLCneu models have EasyClean since last year#s summer.

Apart from a deliberately set longer minimal focussing difference and a slightly smaller field of view I cannot see all that much optical difference between SLCs and ELs. Maybe I am too blind.
Ergonomics and price, yes.

If that's last generation, I wonder what you'd call me, a biological design from a long forgotten era when the Beatles were still on tour?! |=(|

I for one am happy that Swarovski offers last generation models for those of us (i.e. poor old Tommy) who'd have to sell a couple of their internal organs to afford the optical, 14 cm equivalent of a well maintained used car, i.e. a current generation model.
Mind: this year#s current generation will be next year's last generation.


A relic from primeaval Earth,
Thomasosaurus ex

 

[ThoLa]

What one person may find perfect another will hate.

Absolutely!


"One man's meat is the other man's lousy luck
One man's meat is someone's empty well
One man's meat is some guy's aching butt
One man's meat is another man's living hell."

Deep Purple (The battle rages on, 1993)

 

[Robert / Seattle]

Hello Robert!

Let me start by conceding that you have more practical experience with current and past optical offerings and spent more hours using them. It is appreciated.

I think we can settle the dispute if me meet tomorrow morning 5 am at the old oak tree at the crossing from which the most desolate, dusty lane to nowhere runs towards Dead Photographer's Creek. Let's see how fast you can draw your new HD!


As regards the SLCs:
... Anyway: I suspect there is some sort of ED glass in the SLCs. if it is FL or something else I could not care about. What counts is the result.

... Does it have aquaphobic coating? yes. All SLCneu models have EasyClean since last year#s summer.

... A relic from primeaval Earth,
Thomasosaurus ex

5 AM is way too early to meet you at the old oak tree, especially after staying up all night to read your SLCneu Novella. Also, the dusty lane will leave an unsightly layer of grime on my new HDs (they're intended for show, Thomas, not actual field use. How else would one treat a fine optical trophy?).

Anyway, Mssr. rex, your isolated comments above provide adequate testimony to satisfy the minimal requirements for "current generation" technology (too bad, and with some irony, as I have always been a fan of traditional and classic design).

Renewed challenge, sir... After light snacks and a few cordials, say 4 ish, balmy weather permiting, I suggest that he among us who can unleash the quicker volley of bon mots, in the general direction of the more confused patrons, shall be considered the victor. Of course, the ever-chivalrous victor picks up the tab.

Bobby the Kid