• 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.

Your pick btw 8x32, 8x42, 8.5x42? (1 Viewer)

Looking good!

What do you think so far??

I had the Zeiss Conquest and find the Sw 8x32 brighter and especially for not being a 42 and so close in brightness.
To get my perfect no kidney bean by putting the eyecups all the way out with proper distance btw my eyes and it's amazing.
I tried the 7AM sun to my back and got a small violet color glare disk by itself.
But at other angles this discussed issue dose not apply
I love the sweet size and how easy it it to take with you.
Not going to give up my 10x but this is some nice glass
 
Ok, this may surprise some, and I may get some stick, but here goes............

I got to spend a few days with an 8x32 SVFP and apart from some veiling glare issues really liked them, actually preferring them over the new CL in almost all areas, and seeing as I have the 8.5x for days when glare may be a problem decided to sell the CL and buy another 32mm SVFP.

I`ll be more able to comment how the 32 and 42 compare in future.

Still a massive fan of the new CL, but damn that 32 SV is sweet.
 
Ok, this may surprise some, and I may get some stick, but here goes............

I got to spend a few days with an 8x32 SVFP and apart from some veiling glare issues really liked them, actually preferring them over the new CL in almost all areas, and seeing as I have the 8.5x for days when glare may be a problem decided to sell the CL and buy another 32mm SVFP.

I`ll be more able to comment how the 32 and 42 compare in future.

Still a massive fan of the new CL, but damn that 32 SV is sweet.

Can you expound on what you mean by?
and seeing as I have the 8.5x for days when glare may be a problem
 
PlanetMaker..............I`ll try............I found with my non FP pair veiling glare manifested itself on dull overcast days when light levels needed my pupils to dilate to the 4mm EP or beyond, and on dull days I`ll almost certainly reach for the 42`s anyway.

I am feeling the FP may be a little better with VG anyway.
 
Is there any difference in optical properties between the EL SV and EL SV FP? I did't think there was, perhaps with the original EL.

Andy W.
 
PlanetMaker..............I`ll try............I found with my non FP pair veiling glare manifested itself on dull overcast days when light levels needed my pupils to dilate to the 4mm EP or beyond, and on dull days I`ll almost certainly reach for the 42`s anyway.

I am feeling the FP may be a little better with VG anyway.

Sorry still code to me, I know there are evolution's in coatings over the years but I don't know what "non FP pair" means? coating?
Thanks
 
Ok, this may surprise some, and I may get some stick, but here goes............

I got to spend a few days with an 8x32 SVFP and apart from some veiling glare issues really liked them, actually preferring them over the new CL in almost all areas, and seeing as I have the 8.5x for days when glare may be a problem decided to sell the CL and buy another 32mm SVFP.

I`ll be more able to comment how the 32 and 42 compare in future.

Still a massive fan of the new CL, but damn that 32 SV is sweet.

Yup. After 6 years using the 32 SV i have reached the same conclusion. That and the 8.5 SV is all I routinely use.

Mark
 
Ok, this may surprise some, and I may get some stick, but here goes............

I got to spend a few days with an 8x32 SVFP and apart from some veiling glare issues really liked them, actually preferring them over the new CL in almost all areas, and seeing as I have the 8.5x for days when glare may be a problem decided to sell the CL and buy another 32mm SVFP.

I`ll be more able to comment how the 32 and 42 compare in future.

Still a massive fan of the new CL, but damn that 32 SV is sweet.

I couldn't agree more! :t:

Is there any difference in optical properties between the EL SV and EL SV FP? I did't think there was, perhaps with the original EL.

Andy W.

AFAIK....no. Swarovski DOES always claim there can be small, continuous improvements/changes in coatings, etc from time to time.
 
I just got a pair of secondhand 8.5x42 EL Fpro for about the same price as the SLCs. So, it was a no-brainer for me. Pretty much same weight, slightly worse FoV, but much better min distance, and the EL's rendering is fantastic. The min distance is important to me, as I'm sometimes looking at plants or insects.

I can only compare to my zeiss 10x42 HTs. The zeiss are a bit bulkier, and although only 1.2oz heaver feel heavier. The ELs view in daylight is better. I haven't had a chance to compare them in the evening yet (off to do that now!). I think the ELs feel a bit better in the hand and are a little easier to 1-handed focus, but that's very subjective.
 
Chuck,

Thanks for the clarification. My 8.5X42s are in for a service, bought secondhand, pristine optics as everything else except the focus was slower on the right tube, slippage perhaps (minor), Looking forward to their return for the fall migration. They are a really nice glass, very similar to my 8X42 EDGs.

Andy W.

Andy W.
 
Interesting thread. I'm tossing up between the SLC and EL8x32.

My preference is smaller so that is a big plus to the EL. But it has the "glare" problems and that is a big dislike on my current bin. I do imagine it should be a lot better than a Monarch 7 so likely I wouldn't be bothered too much, if it was a problem for me at all.

The SLC sounds great optically. Having looked through a 10x and compared it with a low-mid class bin in store the brightness difference was amazing. Now my concern with the SLC, apart from weight, is focus speed. Read it is a fair bit slower than the EL and one review even said it could be a bit slow in getting on BIFs. This is probably a bigger deal breaker than occasional glare.

Thoughts?
 
The EL 32 has a close focus of just under 2 metres whereas the SLC is over 3 metres now that Swaro changed it. It means if you want a Swaro with a decent close focus then you have to go the EL route.

If you are a birder and nothing but a birder then this difference may be unimportant but there is so much pleasure to be had from observing nearby objects through binos it is a shame to not get every scrap of enjoyment out of your binos and 3 metres + is just not good enough. Dragonflies and butterflies and much more including life under water can be observed through binos.

If speed of focus is important to you then Zeiss's SF is noticeably faster than Swaro's EL and both Zeiss's FL 8x32 and Conquest HD 8x32 are twice as fast as the SF.

Lee
 
The EL 32 has a close focus of just under 2 metres whereas the SLC is over 3 metres now that Swaro changed it. It means if you want a Swaro with a decent close focus then you have to go the EL route.

If you are a birder and nothing but a birder then this difference may be unimportant but there is so much pleasure to be had from observing nearby objects through binos it is a shame to not get every scrap of enjoyment out of your binos and 3 metres + is just not good enough. Dragonflies and butterflies and much more including life under water can be observed through binos.

If speed of focus is important to you then Zeiss's SF is noticeably faster than Swaro's EL and both Zeiss's FL 8x32 and Conquest HD 8x32 are twice as fast as the SF.

Lee

Thanks Lee.

The Conquest HD 8x32 is actually probably the third bino on the list, at less than half the price of the SV 8x32. It does seem to have a lot of fans.
 
The EL 32 has a close focus of just under 2 metres whereas the SLC is over 3 metres now that Swaro changed it. It means if you want a Swaro with a decent close focus then you have to go the EL route.

If you are a birder and nothing but a birder then this difference may be unimportant but there is so much pleasure to be had from observing nearby objects through binos it is a shame to not get every scrap of enjoyment out of your binos and 3 metres + is just not good enough. Dragonflies and butterflies and much more including life under water can be observed through binos.

If speed of focus is important to you then Zeiss's SF is noticeably faster than Swaro's EL and both Zeiss's FL 8x32 and Conquest HD 8x32 are twice as fast as the SF.

Lee


Im not sure if this is commonly known, but if you are short-sighted, and are observing something close by, removing your eyeglasses will shorten the effective close focus distance of your bins. The Zeiss SF also has a much shorter focusing distance (1.5m)
 
The EL 32 has a close focus of just under 2 metres whereas the SLC is over 3 metres now that Swaro changed it. It means if you want a Swaro with a decent close focus then you have to go the EL route.

If you are a birder and nothing but a birder then this difference may be unimportant but there is so much pleasure to be had from observing nearby objects through binos it is a shame to not get every scrap of enjoyment out of your binos and 3 metres + is just not good enough. Dragonflies and butterflies and much more including life under water can be observed through binos.

If speed of focus is important to you then Zeiss's SF is noticeably faster than Swaro's EL and both Zeiss's FL 8x32 and Conquest HD 8x32 are twice as fast as the SF.

Lee

Yes, I ended up with the Zeiss 8x42 SF after having the Swaro 8x32 that was not bright enough and had the famous back glare
The Zeiss 8x42 SF also has amazing close focus
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0407.JPG
    IMG_0407.JPG
    144.9 KB · Views: 59
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top