The new 8x30 CLl's (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

"If that 91% light transmission figure is correct, the CL beats even the legendary Nikon 8x32 SE, according to Allbinos' measurement:"
Swarovski list the 91% in their little brochure that comes with the binoculars so I really don't know how accurate it is. I do know they are very bright for a 30mm. They are especially good at picking up detail in shadows which I have not seen in other sub 32mm binoculars. Usually I am dissapointed with 32mm binoculars in low light. Not these. Anyway they are great little binoculars.

Just got time to evaluate them lately. Been kind of busy. Try them though you will like them. They are very nice. If they come down a little in price they will be a good compact buy. They really fit my hands nice. Best thing about them is their brightness. They are as bright as alot of 42mm binoculars. I am not sure how they accomplish that. Must be coatings.

 

[ceasar]

I will wait until Henry compares them with his 8 x 32 SE which has been "analyzed to death!" Then we will know.

Bob

PS: Has it been compared head to head with the discontinued 8 x 30 SLC?

Personally I have doubts about whether it is as good as the Nikon 8 x 30 EII which is the standard for all 8 x 30's.

 

[Kammerdiner]

Dennis

If you've had these 8x30 CL's for weeks now, I guess I am curious why you asked the following question in a post 4 days ago ???? Actually in post #129 of this thread. Hmmmm! How long have you had these CL's??

Posted by [email protected] on 7/30/11
"Has anybody really compared the Swarovski 8x30 CL's to the Leica 8x32 BN's. I would be curious as to how they stack up against an older alpha. I know they would be lighter and more compact and it seems some have said the Swarovski's are brighter but overall which one be superior. The dealers don't have the Swarovski CL yet so you can't try them."

Tom

Well, Dennis may tell some "stretchers" once in a while (as Huck Finn would say). I mean since when has not having the binocular in hand stopped him from comparing it?? But he means well and I for one am glad to have his input.

Mark

PS: Dennis, you evidently sold your BN's last Sunday. Did you get to "compare them [CL's] to my Leica 8x32 BN's" or is this another comparison from memory. It's OK either way, I guess, but at least be upfront about it. At this level of optics I think it makes a difference.

A couple other questions: what does everyone think of the sand/tan color for the CL's? I can't decide whether it would look good or not.

Also, everyone has discounted the 32mm EL's by $300. Just a sale or is the 32mm SV in the offing?

 

[ronh]

Dennis,
The comparison with the BN is useful, as it is still a good and popular model, and you had it in your hands to compare. But the BN is not state of the art.

Come on, tell us how it compares with the 8x32 SE and FL, which have both been your favorites. (Of course that was a long, long time ago, in a kingdom by the sea. Wow, maybe three of four or months!)

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

Well, Dennis may tell some "stretchers" once in a while (as Huck Finn would say). I mean since when has not having the binocular in hand stopped him from comparing it?? But he means well and I for one am glad to have his input.

Mark

PS: Dennis, you evidently sold your BN's last Sunday. Did you get to "compare them [CL's] to my Leica 8x32 BN's" or is this another comparison from memory. It's OK either way, I guess, but at least be upfront about it. At this level of optics I think it makes a difference.

A couple other questions: what does everyone think of the sand/tan color for the CL's? I can't decide whether it would look good or not.

Also, everyone has discounted the 32mm EL's by $300. Just a sale or is the 32mm SV in the offing?

I bought the BN's for $600.00 and sold them for $700.00 so I only have $100.00 difference in the CL's and I think they are worth the difference. The tan color CL's I here are he slowest sellers and the green are the most in demand because I think green is the Swarovski color and in an anal retentive I way wanted the CL's to match my green SV's. They look so cute together like father and son. I haven't heard anything about a possible 32mm SV but since they came out with the CL it makes you wonder if they would bother. I really don't think a 32mm SV could be that much better. The CL optically is really pretty close to the SV and I think they have hit the sweet spot for size and compactness.

 

[brocknroller]

I will wait until Henry compares them with his 8 x 32 SE which has been "analyzed to death!" Then we will know.

Bob

PS: Has it been compared head to head with the discontinued 8 x 30 SLC?

Personally I have doubts about whether it is as good as the Nikon 8 x 30 EII which is the standard for all 8 x 30's.

I agree that the 8x30 EII is the reference standard to beat or compare with the CL. It's the sharpest, brightest, and most color saturated 8x30 (or 8x32) I've tried.

Obviously, the CL can't compete with the wide 8.8* FOV. Or is that Extra Wide? Where does "wide" stop and "extra wide" begin?

The sweet spot is at least 70%, same as the CL, according to a recent star test, a bit larger in my "cherry" sample EII. So the "zone of critical sharpness" (to use Ingraham's term) in the EII is 6.16* vs. 4.9* for the CL. When you compare it that way, they don't seem as divergent.

Since the EII's price has now climbed near the $500 mark, we're talking about a $400 difference, maybe less if you hire Dennis or Bill Shatner to negotiate a lower price.

It's hard to believe that Swaro would put its latest technology into the CL and make it optically subpar with the 8x30 SLCNeu. The better close focus and EP end focuser alone make it a better birding binocular. The 8x30 SLCNeu was designed for hunters, not birders. As someone mentioned, it's hard to achieve fine focus with the ring finger focuser on the SLC. I found the same thing, particularly at close distances where focus is more critical.

All this talk about the CL can't be good for the price, with supply and demand. Given that the CL is much more affordable than the SV EL, which was "selling like hotcakes," the CLs should get gobbled quickly as a bag of Lay's potato chips.

I truthfully don't have much interest in roofs, despite the fact that even roofs in the entry- to mid-price-range give pretty good images these days (the Monarch 8x42 ATB, though the view was a bit cramped, was sharp, bright, and contrasty, and so was the Hawk 8x42 Frontier). But I still don't like the feel of them in my hands or the lesser depth perception and 3-D effect.

Even if Swaro got everything right with the CL, if it doesn't have reasonably good depth perception and 3-D representation, I wouldn't be interested. IOW, if it's like the 2-D 8x32 HG.

Everything else I've heard so far sounds appealing. What I've always wanted was a compact sized, internal focus bin with superb optics that I could hold steady, unlike real compacts roofs. A "go anywhere, anytime" bin.

My ultimate litmus test is to see if Dennis holds on to his CL for a year. If he does, then it's "sponge worthy," pending a "Gorilla hands" fitting.


Brock

 

[[email protected]]

I agree that the 8x30 EII is the reference standard to beat or compare with the CL. It's the sharpest, brightest, and most color saturated 8x30 (or 8x32) I've tried.

Obviously, the CL can't compete with the wide 8.8* FOV. Or is that Extra Wide? Where does "wide" stop and "extra wide" begin?

The sweet spot is at least 70%, same as the CL, according to a recent star test, a bit larger in my "cherry" sample EII. So the "zone of critical sharpness" (to use Ingraham's term) in the EII is 6.16* vs. 4.9* for the CL. When you compare it that way, they don't seem as divergent.

Since the EII's price has now climbed near the $500 mark, we're talking about a $400 difference, maybe less if you hire Dennis or Bill Shatner to negotiate a lower price.

It's hard to believe that Swaro would put its latest technology into the CL and make it optically subpar with the 8x30 SLCNeu. The better close focus and EP end focuser alone make it a better birding binocular. The 8x30 SLCNeu was designed for hunters, not birders. As someone mentioned, it's hard to achieve fine focus with the ring finger focuser on the SLC. I found the same thing, particularly at close distances where focus is more critical.

All this talk about the CL can't be good for the price, with supply and demand. Given that the CL is much more affordable than the SV EL, which was "selling like hotcakes," the CLs should get gobbled quickly as a bag of Lay's potato chips.

I truthfully don't have much interest in roofs, despite the fact that even roofs in the entry- to mid-price-range give pretty good images these days (the Monarch 8x42 ATB, though the view was a bit cramped, was sharp, bright, and contrasty, and so was the Hawk 8x42 Frontier). But I still don't like the feel of them in my hands or the lesser depth perception and 3-D effect.

Even if Swaro got everything right with the CL, if it doesn't have reasonably good depth perception and 3-D representation, I wouldn't be interested. IOW, if it's like the 2-D 8x32 HG.

Everything else I've heard so far sounds appealing. What I've always wanted was a compact sized, internal focus bin with superb optics that I could hold steady, unlike real compacts roofs. A "go anywhere, anytime" bin.

My ultimate litmus test is to see if Dennis holds on to his CL for a year. If he does, then it's "sponge worthy," pending a "Gorilla hands" fitting.


Brock

"All this talk about the CL can't be good for the price, with supply and demand. Given that the CL is much more affordable than the SV EL, which was "selling like hotcakes," the CLs should get gobbled quickly as a bag of Lay's potato chips."
The CL's are selling well. All the colors except the tan are on backorder right now. You can't even get a green one. They really marketed these well and I think there was a pent up demand before they even hit the shelves.

 

[mooreorless]

Quote"It's hard to believe that Swaro would put its latest technology into the CL and make it optically subpar with the 8x30 SLCNeu. The better close focus and EP end focuser alone make it a better birding binocular. The 8x30 SLCNeu was designed for hunters, not birders. As someone mentioned, it's hard to achieve fine focus with the ring finger focuser on the SLC. I found the same thing, particularly at close distances where focus is more critical."

Says who? I can focus my 8x30 SLC neu one handed no problem, I have medium-small hands. Wear a hat with a bill and see what a difference this focuser on the wrong end makes. You should be wearing a hat with a bill anyway, blocks out the glare from sunlight, you can see better. Oh that is right you wear a NY hat.

 

[John Russell]

The sweet spot is at least 70%, same as the CL, according to a recent star test, a bit larger in my "cherry" sample. So the "zone of critical sharpness" (to use Ingraham's term) in the EII is 6.16* vs. 4.9* for the CL. When you compare it that way, they don't seem as divergent.

Brock,

I doubt that edge sharpness is subject to sample variation.

If the (progressive) fall-off is predominantly caused by field curvature rather than astigmatism, its perception will be affected by the individual's own accommodation. Bright lighting conditions, where pupil diameters are smaller than the bin's exit pupils would also favour the perception of edge sharpness.

As an old f**t with accommodation approaching zero, in overcast Germany, I find it hard to relate to your hundredth of a degree sweet spot assessments. ;-)

John

 

[elkcub]

PS: ... Has it been compared head to head with the discontinued 8 x 30 SLC?

Bob,

Same question I asked in post #134, and a critical one. How does it compare with the model it replaced?

Since I've owned an 8x SLC for 18 yrs, which has recently been upgraded under warranty to SWAROBRIGHT, etc., the advantages of its size and weight are well known. So, I'm trying to figure out if the CL is a step up, down, or sideways. (Incidentally, the competitor for the 8x30 SLC was the 8x32 BN, back in the day, and I chose the former and never regretted it. Nuf said.)

Based on the specs alone, I would probably be unhappy in the narrower FOV of the CL, and loss of front focusing. On the other hand, a 3 ft. improvement in short focus and 3 oz. weight reduction would be welcome. The SLC fits beautifully in my hand and on my FISMO (FInn Stick MOnopod); the CL would not do the latter. I don't figure the size difference would make much difference, and the lack of additional eye relief would be a sore disappointment: it was not increased from 15mm to compensate the loss in FOV. So, I assume the tradeoff was for CA suppression, which the SLC does very well. As for brightness I'd have to take a look, but the SLC is excellent.

===========================

8x30 SLC

FOV = 408'
AFOV 62.29 deg/
ER = 15mm
Short focus = 13' (4m)
L = 5.55
W = 4.33
H = 2.52

Weight = 20.8 oz.

Forward Focus
SWAROBRIGHT +
Center diopter
Twist up eyecups
Focusing objective
Titanium? alloy

===========================

8x30 CL

FOV = 372'
AFOV = 56.79 deg/
ER = 15mm
Short focus = 9.8' (3m)

L = 4.7"
W = 4.5"
Weight = 17.6

Rear focus
SWAROBRIGHT +
Right eye diopter
Twist up eyecups
Focusing lens
Polycarbonate and aluminum

===========================

PS. Missed your post, Steve. But we agree. :t:

 

[james holdsworth]

This forum has become the virtual pulpit for the pump and dump.

 

[brocknroller]

Quote"It's hard to believe that Swaro would put its latest technology into the CL and make it optically subpar with the 8x30 SLCNeu. The better close focus and EP end focuser alone make it a better birding binocular. The 8x30 SLCNeu was designed for hunters, not birders. As someone mentioned, it's hard to achieve fine focus with the ring finger focuser on the SLC. I found the same thing, particularly at close distances where focus is more critical."

Says who? I can focus my 8x30 SLC neu one handed no problem, I have medium-small hands. Wear a hat with a bill and see what a difference this focuser on the wrong end makes. You should be wearing a hat with a bill anyway, blocks out the glare from sunlight, you can see better. Oh that is right you wear a NY hat.

Forgot a "Y". That's a NY YANKEES hat! Don't think they make those in Dayglo orange.

Says who? Says Brock "Gorilla" Monsoon!

Somebody else on BF said the same thing I did about the focuser being hard to achieve fine focus with, so I am no longer a minority of one in that regard, and there's been several members who stated their dislike with the focuser position on the 8x30 SLC. Not everybody has short foreheads!

Had the SLC's focuser been buttery smooth in both directions like the 8x32 HG (and I know you think that the HG is better in that regard, having owned both bins), then maybe it would have been more suitable for birding, to a degree... the close focus is almost 15 ft. for my eyes, and even many ChinBins costing half to a quarter of the price of the SLCs close focus better than that. Same difference with the 7x42 SLC's long close focus. Ironically, the 10x42 SLC is the best of the lot in that regard.

These 7x and 8x SLCs were not designed for birding close in but for looking at game from a good distance. And for years, SLCs had a yellow tint to the image, which was made for hunters, not birders.

And you've been on enough hunting forums to know that the SLCs are the darlings of hunters. Many more posts and threads about them on Optics Talk and 24hrcampfire than on BF. Didn't you buy your 7x30 SLC based on John Barsness's recommendation in is book "Hunting Optics"?

Granted, the latter day SLCs are more color neutral than they used to be, but until the SLC-HD, Swaro was not really marketing the SLCs to birders. The ELs caught fire with the birding community rather than the SLCs, though you will find some birders with SLCs. Their lower price (pre-HD) was probably no small factor.

Steve Ingraham seemed to like the 8x SLC's "pinky" focuser, but I'm surprised he didn't mention the long close focus, which he dissed some other bins for having.

Ingraham said of the redesigned 8x30 SLC (Neu?): "The covering is better, the eyecups are better, the focus on the front is easier to get at once you get used to it."

Maybe I needed another month to get used to it.

The eyecups are fabulous, I'll give him that, best I've tried for my facial features, the rubber armoring is also very nice [forget to mention that the diopter adjustment is the easiest set up I've tried, push in and turn. Doesn't get easier than that! Great design. -ed.]

I also liked the image quality. Ingraham measured the 8x SLC's resolution @ 4 arcseconds. They don't seem quite as sharp as the 8x SE to my eyes, but I didn't do a resolution test. You have the 8x SE, have you done a side by side resolution test?

I liked the SLC's optics overall, but the landscape was somewhat compressed, not 2-D like the HG but not as 3-D as the 8x32 EL... somewhere in between. The ergos were pretty good, as closed bridge roofs go, but I prefer the open bridge design in roofs.

Now that the 8x32 EL is discounted by $300, maybe I should jump on them?

Here are Ingraham's comments on the SLC in context:

http://www.betterviewdesired.com/Swarovski-SLC-8X30.php

I think it's a safe bet at this point from reading all the mini-reviews that the CL is at least as good in image quality as the SLC, we'll know moore when you buy one in 2029, and we finally get a side by side review. I should explain the "inside joke" - Steve had his 7x30 SLC for 20 years before trading it in on the 8x30 SLCNeu in 2009. A good testimony to the SLC's lasting value!

The price btwn the two is very close too. So "other factors" will determine if buyers chooses one over the other, and that includes the SLC's objective side focuser, it's longer close focus, it's larger size (which could swing either way, depending on the user's hands).

But let's face it, at this point, the "panache" and marketing goes to the CL.

If Swaro continues making the 8x30 SLC, I think it will continue to appeal to hunters, while the CLs might have a broader appeal to both communities.

Brock "Gorilla" Monsoon

 

[Kammerdiner]

This forum has become the virtual pulpit for the pump and dump.

You may be right, at least to some extent. I remember when Dennis was "pumping" the 8x56 FL and someone caught him "dumping" them on eBay. At the time he claimed he had two pair. LOL.

Still, as near as I can tell he's got a good eye.

And if he can make a living flippin' bins, well, who am I to complain. Frankly, I don't want to work that hard and I generally need a bit more intellectual stimulation than I can get sitting on eBay and driving to the Post Office.

Anyway, you have to admit he's a good contributor. His enthusiasm alone is worth it.

Dennis: :t:. But remember we weren't born yesterday.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

You may be right, at least to some extent. I remember when Dennis was "pumping" the 8x56 FL and someone caught him "dumping" them on eBay. At the time he claimed he had two pair. LOL.

Still, as near as I can tell he's got a good eye.

And if he can make a living flippin' bins, well, who am I to complain. Frankly, I don't want to work that hard and I generally need a bit more intellectual stimulation than I can get sitting on eBay and driving to the Post Office.

Anyway, you have to admit he's a good contributor. His enthusiasm alone is worth it.

Dennis: :t:. But remember we weren't born yesterday.

Mark

That's funny Mark. Pump and Dump. Hmmmm. I like that.

 

[ronh]

More intellectual stimulation than Ebay!? Heavy hallucinogens? Near death experiences?

Dennis, you can't have forgotten the 8x32 SE and FL already. I'm betting either beats the CL. Go ahead and admit it.
Ron

 

[[email protected]]

More intellectual stimulation than Ebay!? Heavy hallucinogens? Near death experiences?

Dennis, you can't have forgotten the 8x32 SE and FL already. I'm betting either beats the CL. Go ahead and admit it.
Ron

No, I don't think so. I need waterproof and the CL is smaller and fits my hands better than the FL. From memory it is just as good if not better optically than the FL or SE. Except for a slightly smaller FOV it is close to my SV. In fact I would call it a baby SV.

 

[ceasar]

No, I don't think so. I need waterproof and the CL is smaller and fits my hands better than the FL. From memory it is just as good if not better optically than the FL or SE. Except for a slightly smaller FOV it is close to my SV. In fact I would call it a baby SV.

"Memories,
From the corners of my mind,
Misty, CA colored memories
Of the Bins I've left behind!"

:flyaway:

 

[David Swain]

"Memories,
From the corners of my mind,
Misty, CA colored memories
Of the Bins I've left behind!"

:flyaway:

:clap:

 

[Sancho]

"Memories,
From the corners of my mind,
Misty, CA colored memories
Of the Bins I've left behind!"

:flyaway:

I've always had an intense dislike for Barbara Streisand. Now I can never buy the Swaro CL's, 'cos every time I'd take them out, I'd think of this song. Thanks, Ceasar, you've saved me about a thousand euro!:t:

 

[apbarr]

I've always had an intense dislike for Barbara Streisand. Now I can never buy the Swaro CL's, 'cos every time I'd take them out, I'd think of this song. Thanks, Ceasar, you've saved me about a thousand euro!:t:

Me too although I have to say my first crush was Sandie Shaw a couple of decades earlier than Suzi Quatro. This thread has had little to do with the CLs for quite a while so can't say it will prey on my mind when (not if) I buy them