• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

The new 8x30 CLl's (1 Viewer)

Thanks Henry for your informal evaluation of the 8x30 CL--it puts an experienced 'eye' onto the binos & gives an impartial result--I'm going to stick with my 8x30 SLC Neus!
 
Thanks Henry for that description of the CL's optics. After all the raves, your review might seem discouraging, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that the performance is (by my read) unexceptional given that nothing exceptional is claimed in the specs (slightly narrow FOV by current standards, no field flattener, no exotic glass, no special ocular design, conventional eye relief, slightly substandard close focus etc). Instead, we have what is probably a very nice birding glass, like most other top bins these days.

Any comments on the size and handling? One thing that I realized after my earlier post, in which I inquired as to what the CL's special talents were, is that for Swarovski it fills the niche for a true two-thirds sized roof in their product line. The 8x32 EL and 8x30 SLC are both substantially larger (especially longer) than competing products such as the Zeiss 8x32 FL, and especially the Leica 8x32 Ultravid, which is my candidate for the most capable birding optic in the smallest package. And then there is its price point niche in the Swarovski line.

--AP
 
Last edited:
Alexis Powell said:
Thanks Henry for that description of the CL's optics. After all the raves, your review might seem discouraging, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that the performance is (by my read) unexceptional given that nothing exceptional is claimed in the specs (slightly narrow FOV by current standards, no field flattener, no exotic glass, no special ocular design, conventional eye relief, slightly substandard close focus etc). Instead, we have what is probably a very nice birding glass, like most other top bins these days.

Any comments on the size and handling? One thing that I realized after my earlier post, in which I inquired as to what the CL's special talents were, is that for Swarovski it fills the niche for a true two-thirds sized roof in their product line. The 8x32 EL and 8x30 SLC are both substantially larger (especially longer) than competing products such as the Zeiss 8x32 FL, and especially the Leica 8x32 Ultravid, which is my candidate for the most capable birding optic in the smallest package. And then there is its price point niche in the Swarovski line.

--AP
Click to expand...

Alexis:

You have made a good summation of the CL. Henry has done a thorough test
and these do fit as a step below the top Swarovskis.
These are 30mm and not 32mm, and that size alone may place a limit on a comparision with the others, all 32mm, in the top class.

I have already made comments on the size and handling, and that is where
they excell, much to my liking. Compact, and light, great ergonomics with very good optics. That is important for those wanting a smaller top model, and priced much below the others.
Swarovski has done a nice job here. When they introduce the new 32mm SV,
the price will likely be more than double the CL, so we will see how that
works out.

Jerry
 
Alexis Powell said:
Thanks Henry for that description of the CL's optics. After all the raves, your review might seem discouraging, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that the performance is (by my read) unexceptional given that nothing exceptional is claimed in the specs (slightly narrow FOV by current standards, no field flattener, no exotic glass, no special ocular design, conventional eye relief, slightly substandard close focus etc). Instead, we have what is probably a very nice birding glass, like most other top bins these days.

Any comments on the size and handling? One thing that I realized after my earlier post, in which I inquired as to what the CL's special talents were, is that for Swarovski it fills the niche for a true two-thirds sized roof in their product line. The 8x32 EL and 8x30 SLC are both substantially larger (especially longer) than competing products such as the Zeiss 8x32 FL, and especially the Leica 8x32 Ultravid, which is my candidate for the most capable birding optic in the smallest package. And then there is its price point niche in the Swarovski line.

--AP
Click to expand...

Alexis,

Your first paragraph is exactly right. This isn't a bad binocular, just not a very ambitious one. I imagine if it carried a Pentax or Leupold badge it would be considered under-specced and overpriced at $500 and largely ignored.

I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to the handling. I mostly used it on a tripod.

Henry
 
henry link said:
Alexis,

Your first paragraph is exactly right. This isn't a bad binocular, just not a very ambitious one. I imagine if it carried a Pentax or Leupold badge it would be considered under-specced and overpriced at $500 and largely ignored.

I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to the handling. I mostly used it on a tripod.

Henry
Click to expand...

Or as some wise sage said earlier, they haven't "reinvented the wheel" for under $1,000. :)

Thanks for that reality check, Henry. I was beginning to wonder if the Wizards of Absam's "mo-jo" defied the laws of physics with reports of how bright the CLs were.

Of course, I think the same thing about the Mahōtsukai of NIHON, with how bright the 8x30 EII is for its configuration, noticeably brighter to my eyes than the theoretically 13% brighter 8x32 SE.

Also kudos for checking the distortion level for us "rollingballers".

Time to change the label again on my pig's feet jars!

Btw, don't expect to get a call from Swarovski asking if they could quote you in their CL ads. :)

Brock
 
brocknroller said:
Of course, I think the same thing about the Mahōtsukai of NIHON, with how bright the 8x30 EII is for its configuration, noticeably brighter to my eyes than the theoretically 13% brighter 8x32 SE.
Click to expand...

Mine are just the opposite. In sunlight they're similar when both are stopped down to 20mm or so, maybe the SE is a tad brighter, but once it's dark enough for my pupils to open to 4mm there's no contest.
 
james holdsworth said:
Dennis, please cancel my order.
Click to expand...

Don't believe everything Henry says he still thinks his Zeiss 8x56 FL's are better than SV's. He sold me on the beast FL's and mine are long gone now. Thank god. His review is almost all opinion and subjective just like all of ours. A store as I have found out is a hard place to truly judge a binocular. You have to get them outside in different lighting conditions to truly give them a good test. Try them yourself and see if you like them. His is the first negative review with most people giving the CL the thumbs up so I would take it with a grain of salt. The CL's combine alot of good things into one nice compact package. If they were lemons they wouldn't be selling so well.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Don't believe everything Henry says he still thinks his Zeiss 8x56 FL's are better than SV's. He sold me on the beast FL's and mine are long gone now. Thank god. His review is almost all opinion and subjective just like all of ours. A store as I have found out is a hard place to truly judge a binocular. You have to get them outside in different lighting conditions to truly give them a good test. Try them yourself and see if you like them. His is the first negative review with most people giving the CL the thumbs up so I would take it with a grain of salt. The CL's combine alot of good things into one nice compact package. If they were lemons they wouldn't be selling so well.
Click to expand...

I believe if I remember correctly that Henry said his 8x56 FL's were better in the center, and stated the reasons why, which you oft repeated after you got yours. And according to your observation and analysis over many weeks, you were touting these as the "ultimate" bino. But they seem to have soured quickly for the very reason most people don't buy them - just to darn big and heavy no matter how good the optics.

And after your pronouncements that the SV's must be made by aliens and the CL's are mini SV's, I think I'll put my faith in Henry's analysis which pretty much confirms my suspicions.

Tom
 
[email protected] said:
Don't believe everything Henry says he still thinks his Zeiss 8x56 FL's are better than SV's. He sold me on the beast FL's and mine are long gone now. Thank god. His review is almost all opinion and subjective just like all of ours. A store as I have found out is a hard place to truly judge a binocular. You have to get them outside in different lighting conditions to truly give them a good test. Try them yourself and see if you like them. His is the first negative review with most people giving the CL the thumbs up so I would take it with a grain of salt. The CL's combine alot of good things into one nice compact package. If they were lemons they wouldn't be selling so well.
Click to expand...

Well, let's hold on there, Dennis. Henry never "sold" anyone on the monster FL's. I pretty much knew from the get go I was not about to lug them around. Never even gave them a thought.

Which brings up a second point: Henry basically bench tests binoculars--a very useful thing, but so is actually using them. That's Dennis' style (mine too). No one is ever going to bird with the CL's mounted on a tripod. What they do in the field matters more to me. I suppose an FL wouldn't star test too well either, at least at the edges, but get them in the field and something else happens. They work! Peakbirder said he might sell his FL's and keep the CL's. If you're out there Peak, any long-term thoughts?

As for Brock, he lucks out again. Here's another bin he can go on and on about without ever bothering to look at it (wait for it: "the CL's have rollingball!" It's coming). Oy. I should adopt that strategy.;)

Mark
 
lilcrazy2 said:
I believe if I remember correctly that Henry said his 8x56 FL's were better in the center, and stated the reasons why, which you oft repeated after you got yours. And according to your observation and analysis over many weeks, you were touting these as the "ultimate" bino. But they seem to have soured quickly for the very reason most people don't buy them - just to darn big and heavy no matter how good the optics.

And after your pronouncements that the SV's must be made by aliens and the CL's are mini SV's, I think I'll put my faith in Henry's analysis which pretty much confirms my suspicions.

Tom
Click to expand...

That's fine but if it causes you not to try them I think you are missing out on a nice little quality binocular. The CL's are a great compact binocular which will serve alot of people very well. A great all arounder for traveling, birding, sports, and concerts. The 17 oz. just feels feather light compared to even the Zeiss 8x32 FL or a Leica 8x32 BN. You can hold it all day with no strain. The CL's do mimic the optics of the SV. Not quite as good. But pretty darn close. I try mine back and forth and I say to myself these SV's aren't that much better and I sure do like holding thoses CL's alot better.
 
henry link said:
I spent some time with an 8x30 CL at a store today. I was able to measure the eye relief, get a good look at distortion, do a quick star test at 64x and compare the view through the CL to some other binoculars, including the 8x32 EL, 8.5x42SV, 8x42 SLC HD and Nikon 8x32 SE.

The light transmission of the CL made the most positive impression. All the Swarovskis appear to use very similar coatings, so in sunlight it was impossible for me to decide for certain if one was any brighter than the others. This is the one area in which the CL appears to be fully as good as the best Swarovskis. Of the binoculars handy in the store only the Zeiss 8x42 FL looked brighter than the Swarovskis (but with the slight gray/green color bias I see in current FLs).

The CL produced an "average" sort of high magnification star test. There was plenty of longitudinal CA and spherical aberration, about what I expect from a typical binocular with a fast achromat. I use the Nikon 8x32 SE as a reference standard for star tests. It shows about the same amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration as the CL but considerably less spherical aberration. The only other noteworthy defect was coma in the left barrel (most likely caused when the binocular was collimated), which displaced the bright central spot about 1/3 of the distance from the center to the edge in an out of focus diffraction disk. None of this should have much effect on the 8x axial image.

I thought the off-axis sharpness was no better than adequate, certainly not close to the SV or other binoculars with field flatteners like the Nikon SE. There is both field curvature and astigmatism. And the field itself is not very wide. Swarovski's spec for an apparent field of 55 degrees appears to be an accurate measurement rather than a calculation.

Rectilinear distortion is very mild, possibly all pincushion or there may be a reversal near the edge. The distortion is so low it's hard to tell, but in any case the pincushion is not enough to completely eliminate angular magnification distortion at the very edge, so objects slightly compress as they approach the edge. This is very similar to the mild rectilinear and angular magnification distortions in the Nikon SE, so it's not likely to disturb anyone, even Brock.

Lateral CA falls into the "normal" average range where most binoculars fit. It's not unusually bad or good.

I measured eye relief at 13mm from the rim of the eyecup in its collapsed position and around 15mm from the glass. Swarovski's spec of 15mm is optically correct, but since clearance behind the eyecup is only 13 mm some eyeglass wearers may have trouble seeing the entire field.

Overall I would rate the CL as a fairly average performer except in the area of light transmission, where it's excellent. I would add, however, that reports of this particular 8x30 having some sort of special low light mo-jo are highly exaggerated. Any 8x32 with modern coatings will be at least a little brighter in low light because the extra aperture by itself delivers about 13% more photons to the retina.
Click to expand...

Henry,

Very informative review, once again. You initially mentioned that an 8x42 SLC HD was available, but didn't say much more. I'm wondering how similar it is to the CL, being that it also doesn't use a field flattener (I think). What might be the reason for the CL's FOV being engineered so narrow, while not improving on the ho-hum 15mm eye relief? The 8x30 SLC, for example, has a larger 405' real field with the same eye relief. Does the CL use a simpler eyepiece?

Thanks,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Ed,

I didn't spend much time directly comparing the SLC HD to the CL for edge sharpness yesterday, but I was impressed with the SLC HD edge performance when I compared it earlier to the SV and Nikon EDG. It gets very good results from a 5 element 3 group eyepiece with no field flattener, similar to what Zeiss and Leica use.

I suppose the narrow field of the CL allows for smaller, lighter prisms and eyepieces, but I haven't found a cutaway view of it, so I don't know what kind eyepiece is used. It certainly acts like a simple one. Even the eyepiece for the first EL was simple, only 4 elements in 3 groups.

I thought you might be interested in an old cutaway view of the SLC 8x30 MK II. That's probably the most complex eyepiece used in a Swarovski binocular until the SV.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1382.JPG
    DSC_1382.JPG
    207.9 KB · Views: 212
Last edited:
Henry,
Have they changed the eyepiece in the current version of the 8 x 30 SLC?

And I see the note in the illustration says that the 7 x 30B version had a wide angle eyepiece for eyeglass wearers.

Bob
 
ceasar said:
Henry,
Have they changed the eyepiece in the current version of the 8 x 30 SLC?

And I see the note in the illustration says that the 7 x 30B version had a wide angle eyepiece for eyeglass wearers.

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob,

I think that's a misstatement about the 7x30 having a wide angle eyepiece. I don't know for sure if the current 8x30 SLC uses this eyepiece, but I think it probably does.

Here's a cutaway of a 7x30 SLC MK I showing its simpler eyepiece. I'm also noticing for the first time that the objective was changed between the MK i and MK II versions, from an air spaced doublet to a cemented one.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1383.jpg
    DSC_1383.jpg
    93.9 KB · Views: 176
Well look at that, glass reinforced polycarbonate in the SL. I thought the Zeiss FL was first. A historical point for Swarovski here.
Ron
 
ronh said:
Well look at that, glass reinforced polycarbonate in the SL. I thought the Zeiss FL was first. A historical point for Swarovski here.
Ron
Click to expand...

As far as I remember Zeiss did introduce this or something similar (fiberglass?) back at the end of the sixties with some of their small bins (8x20, 8x30 roof?). Not that I could afford these back then...

Steve
 
Last edited:
While we're on the subject of the 8x30 SLC, I should point out there's a "used once" 8x30 SLCNeu for sale on Amart for $600.

If it weren't for the difficulty I have using the "pinky focuser," I would scoop these up myself, but like the seller, I prefer the 8x32 EL. Unlike the seller, I can't afford one.

The retail price for this model is now $1,100, though a few stores are still selling them for $899. Good buy for somebody.

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=743158

Brock
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

M
Versions of 8x30 CL
Replies
2
Views
775
Gijs van Ginkel
G
laurencejackson
Urgent Help! possible Swarovski 8x30 SLC WB Neu purchase...but is it genuine?
Replies
4
Views
481
laurencejackson
laurencejackson
I
How to differentiate 8x30 CL-B from previous models?
Replies
3
Views
751
John A Roberts
John A Roberts
S
Sawovski and Vortex Diamondback’s
Replies
9
Views
1K
claves_10
C
T
First Love Rekindled
Replies
8
Views
870
Tringa45
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top