Swarovski SLC 10x50 VS Leica Ultravid 10x50 (1 Viewer)

Hi, I want to buy 10x binoculars from the top shelf. Swarovski 10x42 was my top choice but they seemed a bit too small for my hands, plus the more light the better.

So I decided to chose from 10x50 only and am hesitating between Swarovski SLC 10x50 and Leica Ultravid 10x50. Based on the below comparison I lean towards Leica for the first time in my life...

Swarovski SLC 10x5
+ a bit higher eye relief (I rarely wear glasses though)
+ more ergonomic body shape
+ I give Swarovski a slight advantage for "brand image", mainly based on probably a bit better service and higher quality of service

Leica Ultravid 10x50
+ lower weight (Swaro is 20% heavier)
+ better field of view (angle 6.7 vs 6.3 at Swaro)
+ lower minimum focus distance (3.4m vs 5.0m at Swaro)
+ smaller (but still big enough to handle with comfort)

The fact thar Leica has no tripod socket does not bother me at all.

Would you like to add something to this comparison ?

P.S. Last but not least - they rank very similarly according to this ranking http://optyczne.pl/ranking_optyczne_pl-ranking_lornetek-10x50.html Although they used Trinovid there, I guess Ultravid is even better.

I had a chance to try those two side-by-side in a store recently. Both gave excellent views but 10x50 SL (new) was a little sharper out towards the edge of the field.

Nevertheless, I preferred the 10x50 Ultravids because of their lighter weight and I also felt that they were ergonomically more comfortable to hold in my hands. I already have the Swarovski 8.5x42 ELs and the Leica 12x50 Ultravids so I don't fell like I need either a 10x42 or a 10x50. However, if I was seriously in the market for a 10x50 on that day that I tried them I probably would have picked the Ultravids because overall I like them a little better.

John Finnan

i am also thinking of buying one of those, the leica new ultravid HD 10x50 or the svarowski 10x50, but i would go for the leica because of one factor , and that is the closest focussing distance, 5m for the swarowski !!!!!! and 3m,20 for the leica, so for general birding ,mostly in the woods is 5m to much !!!

I tested today a Swarovski SLC 10x50 ,Zeiss 8x42 FL , Steiner Merlin 8x42 and a Leupold Pinnacle 8x42 at my sporting goods store at a target and dark areas in the store,my conclusions and opinion is the Swarovski ,Zeiss,and Merlin are all the same optically There is NO Wow factor to my eyes all are the same bright except for the Leupold I can not tell ANY difference between the high end binoculars and the mid price except for the very high price tag the click stop eyepieces on the Zeiss are better than a Swarovski which does not have click stop eyepieces they float up to your setting and can easily be bumped and knocked down the diopter settings are in the center and are no better than the ring type on mid range binoculars these high ends do not light up a image like some people say the optics on swarovskis, Leica, and Zeiss are very good but not wow the Zeiss body armor is thin and seems like one piece of plastic cheap looking to me and feels it, very dissapointing for a binocular in the $1,500 up price range the FL Floride glass is good but it is no better than the Steiner Merlin I viewed I have excellent eyesight so that is not a problem I now know these high end binoculars are just hype and over hype and a overpriced rip off to the consumer and a status symbol I was going to buy a Zeiss 8x42FL but after viewing through the Zeiss and swarovski 10x50 I was NOT impressed except for the very high price these high ends are a waste of money Zeiss only warranties the mechanical part on their binoculars if you drop them and break them you must buy another pair, these binoculars should only cost $450-$700 MAX. not $1,500-$1,799 and up ! believe me try them out and compare them to some very good mid price binoculars in the $350- $700 range then decide it is all marketing and hype and you are paying for the name and import fees etc. there is no difference optically from a Swarovski 8x32 SLC and a Bushnell Legend 8x32 I viewed both side by side Please remember today the mid range optics technology has caught up with these high end binoculars but the prices are reasonable and yes the build is Excellent like my 8x32 Kowa the optics on my Kowa 8x32 will match any Swarovski I viewed I do not work for Kowa I praise them because they are Excellent optics and build quality the eyecups are tough and have click stops and do not fall like Leica Trinovids I viewed, you figure these high end would be top notch throughout but in reality they are not that is a fact you can buy a nice telescope for less than these overpriced Zeiss, Swarovskis and Leicas, after all the viewing and comparing of binoculars and thier optics the Mid priced Binoculars are the best and just as good as the high ends that are a total waste of money,you should compare Kowa 8x42s,Steiner Merlins, Nikon Monarchs,and Pentax DCF SPs,Brunton optics are very good too Especially the Eternas These binoculars match the high ends in every way all the high ends have poor eyepiece settings loose or weak click settings like the Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica all have cheap eyepieces too only the glass is good in the high ends and the mid price glass is just as good. After all my viewing and comparing I will NEVER buy a high end binocular they just are not worth that much money never ever the company CEOs will love you for it though, people be smart and compare before you buy.

I remember thinking much the same after comparing the original Bausch&Lomb 8x42 Elite to a modest porro prism of the day (in ~1988). I'd never heard of "$1000" binoculars before, nor could I fathom their existence or imagine who could justify spending that kind of money on binoculars. I extend a tardy but hearty welcome to Birdforum! Thanks for setting us straight.



--Alexis

The main difference between high end bino's and the rest , is not only glass , but also the way the glass is build in the housing of the binoculair and the housing itself , so building quality is better in high end binoculairs,you don't se that but its there.!!

black lark said:

The main difference between high end bino's and the rest , is not only glass , but also the way the glass is build in the housing of the binoculair and the housing itself , so building quality is better in high end binoculairs,you don't se that but its there.!!

Click to expand...

True but it is still not worth $1,500-$1,799 NEVER other binoculars are built tough too but the companies do not overprice them due to build quality or Glass quality you do not always get what you pay for the top ends are called top ends only because of thier high cost and name staus nothing else.

catmouse said:

the top ends are called top ends only because of thier high cost and name staus nothing else.

Click to expand...

If only this were true... If you're truly interested in the optical differences (in the roof-prism arena) between the top-end binos and what today qualifies as inexpensive and mid-priced, you'll need to compare them in more contrasty and complex lighting situations than you can find in your local sporting goods store. You've hardly even begun to experience and appreciate the optical qualities and personalities that markedly distinguish binoculars if you've only tested them inside a store. I'm not denying that you pay a premium for the Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski names, but you're quite mistaken if you think that you can find roof-prism binoculars of equal optical quality for less than ~$1000 (no, not even Meopta in my opinion). Consider the fact that the prices of the top-end models from Japanese makers such as Nikon (and now Kowa), that make binos of equal or superior optical quality (depending on the model and the criteria used for judging) cost only slightly less than euroglass even though these labels do not command the same status symbol premiums. It seems it's very expensive to produce roof prisms of this quality, no matter who you are.

Also, don't forget that much of the cost of these binos has increased to their current extraordinary levels only in the last few years due to the falling value of the dollar. It wasn't so long ago that the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL was available for ~$1250 (and the Leica and Zeiss models were less than $1000), which is about the same price as the Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis that you've set your sights on (according to your comments on another thread). The Kowa must be pretty outstanding if you think they're worth $1200 but think Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss are optically and mechanically no better to those in the $350-$700 range! I must admit that I have a perverse interest in cheaper than top-end binos, so I've looked through a lot (and bought a few) over the years, and I continue to do so, but alas, despite my hopes, none match the optical and mechanical quality of Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

If only this were true... If you're truly interested in the optical differences (in the roof-prism arena) between the top-end binos and what today qualifies as inexpensive and mid-priced, you'll need to compare them in more contrasty and complex lighting situations than you can find in your local sporting goods store. You've hardly even begun to experience and appreciate the optical qualities and personalities that markedly distinguish binoculars if you've only tested them inside a store. I'm not denying that you pay a premium for the Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski names, but you're quite mistaken if you think that you can find roof-prism binoculars of equal optical quality for less than ~$1000 (no, not even Meopta in my opinion). Consider the fact that the prices of the top-end models from Japanese makers such as Nikon (and now Kowa), that make binos of equal or superior optical quality (depending on the model and the criteria used for judging) cost only slightly less than euroglass even though these labels do not command the same status symbol premiums. It seems it's very expensive to produce roof prisms of this quality, no matter who you are.

Also, don't forget that much of the cost of these binos has increased to their current extraordinary levels only in the last few years due to the falling value of the dollar. It wasn't so long ago that the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL was available for ~$1250 (and the Leica and Zeiss models were less than $1000), which is about the same price as the Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis that you've set your sights on (according to your comments on another thread). The Kowa must be pretty outstanding if you think they're worth $1200 but think Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss are optically and mechanically no better to those in the $350-$700 range! I must admit that I have a perverse interest in cheaper than top-end binos, so I've looked through a lot (and bought a few) over the years, and I continue to do so, but alas, despite my hopes, none match the optical and mechanical quality of Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica.

--AP

Click to expand...

Have you looked through a Kowa 8.5x44 ? Try one out at dusk against a Swarovski 8.5x42 EL then let me know what you think, Also why would I want to buy a Swarovski for $1,799 when I can have the Kowa for $1,250 which is just as good optically for less it is like people would say a Mercedes is the best car I can buy , so what should I do save for that too ? I can NEVER afford a Mercedes I am not jealous you here on the forums can afford these high priced bins I just did not like The Swarovski and Zeiss and Leicas I viewed True I did not take them outside however if they were optically the same indoors they would be compatible outside the indoors were a bit darker and that is were the high ends should be brighter not true,indoors or out they should be noticably better and brighter all binoculars work great in daylight and sunlight they have animals in the sportsmans warehouse done by taxidermists so I looked at those too nothing special from the 3 high ends I do not look for sweet spots or nit pick on CA unless I am looking at the sun,and all binoculars have some CA I am looking only for a nice clean clear and bright overall view that is it , I HOPE I can save for the 8.5x44 Kowa if not my 32s will do the 3 high ends would have to really impress me in all aspects but they do not I have nothing against the top 3 bins but to my eyes thier build vs glass still do not justify the high price if you can notice the subtle 5% to 10 percent variations in optics that is good and if you like the top 3 that is fine too of course, they are just not for me I hope you enjoy your binoculars as I do mine and no hard feelings take care.

Dear Catmouse,

I don't think you read my post very carefully. If you had, you'd see that I don't question the quality of the Kowa 8.5x44 Genesis (my only complaints with it would be the slightly narrow FOV and somewhat high weight), but then it costs $1200, so it isn't an example of one of the $350-$700 binoculars that you say are as good as Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski. I DO disagree with you that ANY (full or 2/3 sized roof prism) binocular in that price range equals the performance of the top-end models from Z/L/S (or Nikon or Kowa's best). I'm familiar with the in-store lighting conditions you describe and I think you're grossly under estimating how different the performance of binoculars can be in the sorts of lighting that much birding occurs. You also seem to value performance under very low lighting. That's fine, but it isn't the ultimate (or for most birders most important) test of optical performance. As for a 5-10% difference in optical quality--that would be HUGE! I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to buy Z/L/S, but I do think that you might want to learn more about optics evaluation, or about the performance of various models in real world birding conditions, before you go around posting all over Birdforum (as you have) "advice" to others about whether the top-end glass distinguishes itself in any way.

--AP

Hi Alexis , Sorry you are taking my opinions so hard they are just my opinions What I should have said I would LIKE the Kowa Genesis it too is too expensive for me I am no expert as you seem to be but I judge my eyes and believe what I see that is me only and my opinions however I am also tired of all the high end binoculars praise as if they are some magic glass and binocular and a must have for everyone the Zeiss 8x42 FL I looked at was cheap looking and felt cheap in my hands the Swarovski SLC was nice build and heavy but I did not like the eyepieces there are mid price binoculars I do not like either like the Nikon Monarch 8x42 very poor build and very cheap eyepieces I own a Brunton Eterna 8x45 and took that to Rocky Mountain National park on a cloudy day and a snow storm was coming in I could see excellent detail of the storm and clouds set against the mountain ranges at 11,000 feet really nice view however the Kowa 8x32 image was dimmer and not as good as the 8x45 I think the Leica Ultravid 8x50 or Swarovski 8x50 or Steiner 8x50 would be better for dark cloudy days but I can not afford them and the Steiner has a small field of view 300 ft compared to the other 2 anyway I am set now with the 2 binoculars I have as far as me posting on bird forum I have the freedom of speech and my opinions I have read many other complaints about Swarovski and Leica focusers etc. I have read some people complaining about Kowa spotting scopes ,Fine that is their opinion everybody likes and dislikes something a Binocular a car and so on I am not a optics expert my eyes do know what looks good to me personally I look at animals,scenery,birds,I do not look for minor optical differences I am too busy having fun enjoying the views of nature,You like Swarovski,Leica and Zeiss that is fine I like Brunton,Kowa,Leupold- Gold ring HD 8x42s nothing wrong with that either just different opinions I like to compare all optics and brands before I buy, some of these yuppies on the forums brag that they have $8,000 -$10,000 worth of Leicas and Swarovskis must be nice to spend so easily on such expensive optics then put down people like me and others who are not worthy because we have a less expensive binocular I am standing up for the Regular American Joe and I say here on this forum to all who read this before you waste close to $2,000 on a binocular try the Kowa 8x32 BD and Kowa 8x42 BD $350- $560 the Kowa Genesis is still too expensive this is the Best mid range binocular for Quality build and optics I looked at all the better mid range bins and these have them all beat And Yes my Kowa 8x32 will match a Swarovski 8x30 SLC anyday in optics brightness and quality I viewed the 8x30 slc I did not like the front focuser it is odd but I see it would be good while wearing a hat interesting design but not for me the price of $999 not to bad but I have the same quality from my Kowa 32s at $350 it is my opinion only and my choice Long live freedom of choice and variety choose wisely and be happy with what you like.

Ah, well...I'm certainly not trying to deny your opinions, though I do appreciate it when equipment recommendations are based more on well-distilled long-term comparative experience and/or solid technical knowledge than the chatter of proclamations expressing people's latest (passing) fancies or notions that clutter some forums. Compared to what you've experienced, I guess we're fortunate here in the optics forums on Birdforum that there's exceedingly little bragging or putting down of others based on binocular ownership.

catmouse said:

You like Swarovski,Leica and Zeiss that is fine I like Brunton,Kowa,Leupold- Gold ring HD 8x42s

Click to expand...

Actually, I like good binoculars, and so I have no brand loyalties. As far as the optics buying plight of the little guy goes, I find it sad that the market is flooded with so many brands and models of optically mediocre binoculars that cost several hundred dollars but that a person can't buy a really premium optic for less than about $700. We know, from the existence of the recently departed $250 Nikon EII (with their top quality optics and reasonably solid build) that it doesn't have to be this way, but apparently there isn't enough of a niche market to support such binoculars.

Carry-on then, and best wishes,
Alexis

Holger Merlitz had a thought provoking graph of performance vs. price of several 8x32 binoculars, Porro and roof:
here
As it was written, two years, ago, the price of the Zeiss has moved a lot higher. The discontinued EII was rated an eight, the Nikon SE was rated a nine, and the Zeiss was rated ten. In Holger's analysis, that difference between the EII and the Zeiss FL, more than tripled the 2005 price, a clear example of diminishing returns. Since I am unfamiliar with the intermediate priced binoculars Catmouse likes, I would still guess that many perceive the marginal improvements, and a few are willing to pay for the difference.

Szybszy,

Try both the Leica and Swarovski and take the one which suits your hands and eyes. They are both well made products of great sophistication but each one encompasses different design biases and compromises. You are the best judge of which one meets your needs.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :scribe:
Happy bird watching,
Arthur

SLC has the "Neu" coating while pre-HD Ultravid does not, if I am not mistaken.

In my part of the world, $2,000. CAD buys a 2002 American-made vehicle with over 244,000 km/150,000 mi.

On Pelee Island in May, 2008, I compared a 10x32 Nikon LXL with a 10x32 Swarovski EL. There was a difference, and it wasn't looking at the outside.

Mike

Catmouse,

You aren't the first to (in effect) declare many of us fools because of your observations, and won't be the last. Even us who foolishly choose to buy the high priced spread understand the rule of diminishing return. You got off to a bad start initially after your department store review. A classic mistake.

Now I have to admit to not reading everything you've written on this thread, the lack of paragraphs makes it too painful, but
consider this though...
If you only have one or two pair of binoculars and use them a lot (virtually every day in my case) and have them for 15 or 20 years, then whatever the initial cost of them becomes insubstantial. If they bring a little bit more pleasure to your birding experience for any reason, well founded or not, then they're worth the added cost. Last, there are differences in the construction, materials, and the optical performance of these optics that aren't knowable by A-B testing at a counter.

There are many more (sometimes subtle) things to a bino that become apparent after experience in the field and though they are still a matter of opinion, cannot be determined sans time.

Mike Penfold said:

In my part of the world, $2,000. CAD buys a 2002 American-made vehicle with over 244,000 km/150,000 mi.

On Pelee Island in May, 2008, I compared a 10x32 Nikon LXL with a 10x32 Swarovski EL. There was a difference, and it wasn't looking at the outside.

Mike

Click to expand...

The 10 x 32 roof prism format is tough. I have 3. The 2 inexpensive (Under $500.00 both) ones are rather unimpressive and probably not worth the money except I got both of them at sale prices. I also recently bought a now discontinued Nikon 10 x 32 LX L ,aka HG L, at a closeout price from Eagle Optics. (They are still available at a great price; $699.00.) Now that is a Major League glass! It blows the 2 others mentioned above out of the water! I never tried the other top 3 brands 10 x 32's but I doubt if they are $800.00 to $1000.00 better. The Nikon 10 x 32 HG L is compared to the 10 x 32 EL in this review: http://www.alula.fi/gb/test_leica10xGB.html and does very well.
Cordially,
Bob

(Later P. S.) I would like to add that all three of my 10 x 32 roof prisms mentioned above are Japanese manufactured. The Nikon originally sold for $999.00 to $1099.00 in most places. It's not quite as good as my 2 10x Porro Nikons; the 10 x 35 EII and the 10 x 42 SE, but it is in the same neighborhood!

I must admit that I have a perverse interest in cheaper than top-end binos, so I've looked through a lot (and bought a few) over the years, and I continue to do so

Click to expand...

Alexis,

If this is still your stance on the issue I would like to hear a list of your experiences with some of these models. This range of binoculars intrigues me as well. I know when I pick up on of the big 3 or the Nikon that I am going to be fairly satisfied with the image. With the less expensive roofs I do not expect it so it is with a bit of a pleasant surprise that I find one which gives me a bit of the "wow experience".

Thanks.

Ceasar,

Kimmo Absetz's review is very clear, while the accompanying tables are somewhat more kind to the sample of the 10x32 Swarovski EL he had for testing.

The 10x32 Nikon LXL is an appealing bargain at Eagle Optics, which is partly why I suggested it to a Pelee birding colleague this spring, when he telephoned about upgrading from a Nikon compact he'd been using for a few years. He got Mike McDowell at Eagle Optics to pick him a good sample.

The focus on the Nikon was smooth, although very fast, which I'd cautioned him about. I looked about 100 m/yds. up the beach to a Purple Martin house, birds coming and going, and was surprised by the resolution, brightness and contrast -- they were OK, but nothing like the positive experience of Kimmo Absetz. On the other hand, the EL's view snapped into focus -- sharp, bright, with saturated colours -- spectacular.

The above is not the stuff of tripod-mounted testing, Zeiss 3x monoculars, arc seconds of resolution, or star testing, but hand-held, under open birding conditions, on one occasion, IMO this sample of 10x32 Swarovski EL's was clearly preferable, and worth it.

Last fall I gave my 10 year old 8x42 Bausch and Lomb Elites to the next generation.

Mike

Mike,
Realistically, most of us are not in a position to compare high end binoculars and we often have to rely on anecdotal evidence from others. I have no doubt that the 10 x 32 EL is outstanding and if I had been given the same opportunity to get one at the same cost savings that I got with the LX L I would have been just as happy with it. And I would also have cited Kimmo's review as a positive measure of it's quality.

Your comments on the LX L's fast focusing are accurate and it does take some time to get used to it.

You don't see bargain prices on top of the line 10 x 32's very often.

Thanks for the input.

Bob