I know I am beginning to grow tired though I think I am going to have to rest and get charged up again.
Last edited:
-
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.
My Review of a 8x32 EL; 8x30 SLC NEU and a 8x30 CL (all brand new bino's) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stephen b
- Start date
I know I am beginning to grow tired though I think I am going to have to rest and get charged up again.
I am not really saying that. Sorry if it sounded that way. What I mean is that Swarovski came out with a new line of binoculars the CL's. Since they are new and a total redesign I think it is possibile that they could make a pair of binoculars that represented a better value than the EL's. Not necessarily better than the EL's but a better value for the money. Let's say a better price performance ratio. The same way a car manufacturer can make a better car for less money now because the technology in manufacturing has improved. The EL's and SLC's were good binoculars for their time but they are getting kind of long in the tooth so to say. The Dakota Elite 8x32 sounds like a good Chinese binocular to throw in the mix. It definitely would be disadvantaged quality wise but it's optics might surprise. I don't really feel the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 although a good binocular since I had one is in the same class as the CL although I could be wrong. Heh, I think the CL is an exciting binocular for birders and Swarovski.Here is a good quality binocular backed a good company with exceptional customer service for $900.00. Like they say it is putting a Swarovski within the reach of all birders.
Last edited:
My point is that the CL is not the best binocular optically. I have that the SV. But it combines alot of good qualities into one nice compact package. It has very good optics, very good ergonomics, very good build quality, it is very compact and it is backed by very good warranty from a company that has very good customer service. It is probably not the BEST in ANY area but it is the fact that it has no major weaknesses that make it a good bargain. What I like about the CL is it's versatility. It's a do anything take it with you in any kind of weather throw in your suitcase worry free little compact binocular.
KorHaan
Well-known member
Bob,
It is funny you should mention that. I want to compare the little Dakota Elite 8x32 to the Swaro CL. Yeah, you read that right. I want to compare an inexpensive Chinese bin to a high-performance European model. Do I expect it to compete? No, certainly not....at least not in all areas. I do expect it to compete in handling, size and centerfield performance.
Why am I even considering it? Well, I recently showed the little Dakota Elite, the Pro Optic 8x42 and the Zen Ray ED3 to a birder and optics aficionado whose opinion on optics I trust. His first comment was something along the lines of "Geez, the centerfield performance on these little Elites is as good as the other two..." Judging by Henry's comments on quality control, a cherry unit of the little Elites might actually compete a bit with some of the higher priced models assuming that the quality control level was good and assuming internal baffling issues were not prominently displayed.
It should prove fun. I can't wait.
Frank,
I'm taking the liberty to break in here, and I apologize to all other readers for doing so, but I've just done that: I compared an inexpensive Chinese bin to several high-performance European models. Eden XP against Zeiss Victory I, Zeiss Victory FL and Leica Trinovid BA.
I would kindly like to ask you - and others - to take a look at my freshly posted thread, in the " Others " -section, named: "New Eden Quality XP 8x42: Feast of Eden!"
I know your knowledge of Chinese binoculars is far greater than mine, and I would like to know if you would recognize some of your own experience in my impressions.
I hardly dare to say it here, I fear the scorn of the god of binoculars aka the on-and-on-going bunny, but it's....it's... a one-man's subjective review.... :eek!: There! I've said it!
Kind regards,
Ronald
Last edited:
Oh my! A "one-man's subjective review..." You heathen! :-@
I hope you fully repent, or.... the wrath of billions of locusts that sting like scorpions will be sent upon you.
*** And I know from experience- they sting hard
brocknroller
porromaniac
Is the CL Thread Dead?
I was about to post this parody title, but then I saw that Dennis is just in need of a recharge! Sometimes Steve's terse one liners are precious! Glad to see Dennis took it in good humor.
I wanted to address a point in one of Dennis' posts above and make some final thoughts since this thread seems to have hit a low (lull?), but will hopefully be revived when binomania, allbinos and others weigh in with their reviews.
That point is that I would not be so worried about people's opinions on this thread or the other on the CLs influencing buyers "purchasing decisions". Yes, the posts are going out there into cyberspace and Giggle picks up the "conversations," sorted by key marketing words, frighteningly fast.
But there are so many things wrong with that remark.
First, if someone is impressionable enough to base their almost $1,000 purchase decision on one person's comments (be they amateur or expert - think the Zeiss 8x56 FL!), then they get what they deserve because they were too lazy or too impulsive or have too much money to spend the time wadding through the sideshows on this thread and others to weed out the facts (admittedly, not an easy thing to do at this point with a newly minted bin), but for those who don't have deep pockets, and don't live close to a Cabela's or another store that carries top optics, but who never-the-less want to make an informed decision with his/her tight dollars, that's what he or she must do.
As I mentioned earlier, if you made a pro and con list, I think you'd find (and I'm trying to do this by copying every post and then weeding out the marketing and sideshows - not that I consider those are "chaff" - they are interesting in themselves - to see how people react to marketing and brand loyalty, etc.), but just to get to the bare bones of the review comments. I bet when I do, I will find there is a consensus of opinion about this bin despite some extreme views one way or the other. Put those together with the professional reviews to come later, and I think you will have a pretty good idea of whether or not "the spirit moves you" enough to try or buy.
From what I have read so far, the CL is pretty much as I expected it to be. No real surprises except perhaps that I thought the edge performance would be as good as the 8x30 SLCNeu since it has a more conservative FOV, but then I had to remind myself that even though the CL's might inadvertently compete with the SCLNeu (I think they will for hunters) or perhaps even replace them, the second tier market including the aforementioned Zeiss Conquest line is really what the CL was made to compete against.
So those second tier A/Bs will be more telling in terms of the market segment they are aimed at than the the baby ELs and SLCNeus, though I certainly enjoyed reading Stephen's comparisons and others who compared the CLs with other Swaros or other brand alphas, because people who have used or owned other Swaros or other alphas, and who are not looking to enter the "Swaro family of optics," might base their expectations on those prior experiences.
Unless this thread kills off the CLasaurus, which is about as likely as you being hit by a meteoroid (not impossible, but a very tiny chance), the CL's will be around for quite awhile. All one needs is patience and to do his/her homework and then after as much secondhand information as he can stand to read," after weighing in the reviews, both amateur and professional, if the CL still seems "sponge worthy, then to try one for yourself at a store or order one by credit card from a store with a liberal return policy (if you can do either one of those things, not everybody can, and others may not want to).
There's no rush to go out and buy CL now, Swaro isn't GNC (buy one now and get the second half price!).
Birding season will be winding down as the migration season approaches (except for the "polar bear birders" who bird through the winter).
Hunters, OTOH, who are contemplating trading in their old 7x30 SLCs (or whatever they have) for a new hunting bin for this coming hunting season have a bit more time to think about them.
From what I've seen first hand with friends and neighbors who hunt and from reading hunting optics forums, most hunters are not as prone to be "trendy" as some birders are because bins are not an end unto themselves, and in general, they tend to hold on to their bins a lot longer than birders.
Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if the timing of the release of the CLs considered the slower buying habits in the hunting community.
Now my two cents. As a porro lover, so far, the CL has failed to woo me into the Swaro family of optics. I found the link that Jay posted to Brin Best's review of 8x30 porros including the Swaro 8x30 Habicht on Dennis' "Are Porro's [sic] Dead?" thread more intriguing:
http://www.brinbest.com/id38.html
Peace,
Brock
I was about to post this parody title, but then I saw that Dennis is just in need of a recharge!
Sometimes Steve's terse one liners are precious! Glad to see Dennis took it in good humor. I wanted to address a point in one of Dennis' posts above and make some final thoughts since this thread seems to have hit a low (lull?), but will hopefully be revived when binomania, allbinos and others weigh in with their reviews.
That point is that I would not be so worried about people's opinions on this thread or the other on the CLs influencing buyers "purchasing decisions". Yes, the posts are going out there into cyberspace and Giggle picks up the "conversations," sorted by key marketing words, frighteningly fast.
But there are so many things wrong with that remark.
First, if someone is impressionable enough to base their almost $1,000 purchase decision on one person's comments (be they amateur or expert - think the Zeiss 8x56 FL!), then they get what they deserve because they were too lazy or too impulsive or have too much money to spend the time wadding through the sideshows on this thread and others to weed out the facts (admittedly, not an easy thing to do at this point with a newly minted bin), but for those who don't have deep pockets, and don't live close to a Cabela's or another store that carries top optics, but who never-the-less want to make an informed decision with his/her tight dollars, that's what he or she must do.
As I mentioned earlier, if you made a pro and con list, I think you'd find (and I'm trying to do this by copying every post and then weeding out the marketing and sideshows - not that I consider those are "chaff" - they are interesting in themselves - to see how people react to marketing and brand loyalty, etc.), but just to get to the bare bones of the review comments. I bet when I do, I will find there is a consensus of opinion about this bin despite some extreme views one way or the other. Put those together with the professional reviews to come later, and I think you will have a pretty good idea of whether or not "the spirit moves you" enough to try or buy.
From what I have read so far, the CL is pretty much as I expected it to be. No real surprises except perhaps that I thought the edge performance would be as good as the 8x30 SLCNeu since it has a more conservative FOV, but then I had to remind myself that even though the CL's might inadvertently compete with the SCLNeu (I think they will for hunters) or perhaps even replace them, the second tier market including the aforementioned Zeiss Conquest line is really what the CL was made to compete against.
So those second tier A/Bs will be more telling in terms of the market segment they are aimed at than the the baby ELs and SLCNeus, though I certainly enjoyed reading Stephen's comparisons and others who compared the CLs with other Swaros or other brand alphas, because people who have used or owned other Swaros or other alphas, and who are not looking to enter the "Swaro family of optics," might base their expectations on those prior experiences.
Unless this thread kills off the CLasaurus, which is about as likely as you being hit by a meteoroid (not impossible, but a very tiny chance), the CL's will be around for quite awhile. All one needs is patience and to do his/her homework and then after as much secondhand information as he can stand to read," after weighing in the reviews, both amateur and professional, if the CL still seems "sponge worthy, then to try one for yourself at a store or order one by credit card from a store with a liberal return policy (if you can do either one of those things, not everybody can, and others may not want to).
There's no rush to go out and buy CL now, Swaro isn't GNC (buy one now and get the second half price!).
Birding season will be winding down as the migration season approaches (except for the "polar bear birders" who bird through the winter).
Hunters, OTOH, who are contemplating trading in their old 7x30 SLCs (or whatever they have) for a new hunting bin for this coming hunting season have a bit more time to think about them.
From what I've seen first hand with friends and neighbors who hunt and from reading hunting optics forums, most hunters are not as prone to be "trendy" as some birders are because bins are not an end unto themselves, and in general, they tend to hold on to their bins a lot longer than birders.
Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if the timing of the release of the CLs considered the slower buying habits in the hunting community.
Now my two cents. As a porro lover, so far, the CL has failed to woo me into the Swaro family of optics. I found the link that Jay posted to Brin Best's review of 8x30 porros including the Swaro 8x30 Habicht on Dennis' "Are Porro's [sic] Dead?" thread more intriguing:
http://www.brinbest.com/id38.html
Peace,
Brock
David Swain
Well-known member
The search engines will harvest those 6 "very"s and the emphatic BEST and ANY and surely keep their resale up for when yours eventually go on E*ay. It is very American of you to keep consumer confidence high. I'm sure those who can't afford them wouldn't appreciate them, anyway. :-C
But reading between the superlatives, you've now reached the usual point on the arc of your many enamourments where you qualify things enough that some might agree. Now you make them sound like high-end Monarchs, which indeed might be Swaro's goal, like it or not. I look forward to comparing them to my EIIs.
respectfully,
David
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Dennis,
David Swain's analysis of your reply to my queries is spot on.
Read what you wrote here:
Now consider: Where do the reviews that you are objecting to (e.g. those of Henry Link and stephen b) make any claims contrary to your characterization of the CL in this post? From my read, they don't. The CL is a nice little bin, nobody has said otherwise. But everything you've said about the CL is also true about, for example, the Leica HD (one qualification: I've personally had only good customer service experiences from Leica but I do agree Swarovski beats them in speed and generosity), and then some.
--AP
David Swain's analysis of your reply to my queries is spot on.
Read what you wrote here:
Now consider: Where do the reviews that you are objecting to (e.g. those of Henry Link and stephen b) make any claims contrary to your characterization of the CL in this post? From my read, they don't. The CL is a nice little bin, nobody has said otherwise. But everything you've said about the CL is also true about, for example, the Leica HD (one qualification: I've personally had only good customer service experiences from Leica but I do agree Swarovski beats them in speed and generosity), and then some.
--AP
Different binoculars can have the same resolving power and still show us the details in different way.
A way better indicator is the transfer contrast at different spatial frequency (MTF).
What this mean ?
For example two binoculars can resolve the same detail but with a different amount of informations and with "informations" i mean the portion of the incoming light that preserve the same "features" as the original.
To put it simple, you can see the same resolved detail with a different contrast against the background so you can pick it up with differents difficulty even if the resolution is the same.
greets,
Ivan
henry link
Well-known member
Ivan,
One of the forum members here (Surveyor) has generated MTF curves for some binoculars. You might be interested in the discussion of the subject that begins on page 3 of this thread:
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=187490&page=3
Henry
One of the forum members here (Surveyor) has generated MTF curves for some binoculars. You might be interested in the discussion of the subject that begins on page 3 of this thread:
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=187490&page=3
Henry
I agree with most all of the info posted in these posts that I have quoted above. And as the OP (the Original Poster or the "one person" reviewer) in this review thread I would like to make a couple comments about what I said about the review both- in the review in the beginning of the thread- and since then.
_____________________________________________
** I said in the beginning that-: This a personal review that is based on my personal empirical observations using my eyes and my hands. No specialized instruments were used -other than a tripod/-viewing platform.
** I also said in the review and since concerning the quality of the CL:
-First of all- these are Swarovski's- so they are all well built.
- CL's lacking in FOV;
-The CL was a definite step behind the EL- that was apparent right away. It was also a step behind the SLC. The colors were not as quite as sharp and especially the clearness and resolution of detail. The contrast was not as good either.
-coatings on the CL's were not as dark or were not the same color as the EL and the SLC NEU; and the The CL's had a different baffling on the inside when looking inside the barrels. What this means, I do not know- but it was apparent
-The CL was to me not as good with clarity and fine detail (ie- to my eyes the ability to resolve detail) when compared to the others. The CL's had nice color and were bright, but they lagged behind the others in the vivid colors and contrast. The CL's in comparison- just did not "pop" the same.
-CL is a nice lightweight bin from a great quality company and they will sell a lot of them.
- CL represents a new binocular line/model that will allow someone to get a quality binocular from Swarovski at a lower price point than their upper tier more expensive models.
I ended my review with this quote concerning the CL's:
So where does this leave the CL?- To me, exactly where Swarovski had targeted and planned for them to be. A lightweight sub-midsized, lower tier (for them) bino compared to their HD's and The SV. These allow someone to get into the Swaro line at a lower tier/ price point than their other ever increasing higher priced top tier ones. These will compete with other mid level binos and will give someone the ability to have a Swaro bino without spending close to 2K.
Quote From Swarovski's website video:
" This is a great introductory binocular for the consumer who hasn't had the chance to kind of jump into the Swarovki family, so to speak"... "so for those people who have, you know, never stepped into the Swarovski family"....
_____________________________________________
So from the above- where was I dismissing the CL as being a quality built binocular from a great optic company? I did a review of the CL in comparison to the other most recent quality 30 and 32 mm offerings from Swarovski. To me that made a logical comparison to do it from the same company for reference point purposes; and since others who are familiar with those classic offerings from Swarovski.
It is possible that the better comparison of this bin may be and will be to the other mid-sized mid priced binoculars that are now close in price to the Swaro CL - (Meopta Meostar, Pentax ED, Leupold HD, Vortex, Minox, Nikon Premier, Kowa genesis, Zeiss Conquest, Zen Ray ED and others)
Because I certainly do not think Swarovski made this binocular (CL) to compete with its own line of upper tier binoculars, nor even to the recent SLC NEU since that production is done. They certainly did not want us to think that the CL was just as good as the upper tier from them, since the upper line from Swaro's now in production all start at retail prices that are 2x as much as the CL.
And I really do not think that Swarovski made this CL to realistically compete with the top alpha optic offerings from the other top tier makers that are also priced at about 2x as much ( Leica HD, Zeiss FL, and even Nikon EDG). Even Swarovski had to know that is a stretch.
But I guess my review ruffled some feathers, since I did not have them all (the Swarovski's) as equals. Well to my eyes they were not, and I did my very best to call them as I saw them. I do not know how it would seem to be far fetched to see a difference in colors, contrast and even ability of one binocular to resolve better detail/resolution than another- even from the same company. And this business with resolution- I used it in my review to describe a difference in detail in the image. I described it in the review as: B. Resolution of detail (using my eyes) What I mean is the ability that my eyes had through the binocular to pick out the fine details. I know that I did not use a USAF resolution chart and the tech. people may say that all 8x binos will resolve all the detail that the eye can see. But.....to my eyes I just can not buy (I know that they don't) all 8x binoculars from the same or different companies will allow you to see the same detail. I know from hunting experience and other nature viewing, that is just not the case.
And as far as colors and contrast goes- I know (and we all know this to be true) that different binoculars from different companies and even the same company are different in this regard; some better, some not as good-period.
So that my review attempted to describe any difference that I saw between the binoculars that I reviewed. And I did the best job that I could to both do this and describe it.
I now see that the other poster that has the second most posts in this thread (just second to me- the OP/ reviewer ), and who has countered most all of my (the OP) conclusions and comments- who I will from here on out refer to as the "counter- other poster", or "COP" for short. I see from the "COP"'s recent posts- has had a bit of a reality check and maybe lowered the stratosphere slightly of the CL and realized that maybe it is not the "best" (in COP's opinion-SV) and the possibility of even being "wrong" about whether another bino in this of class could equal it.
So if that is the case, I do not see how the "COP" could not realize that someone could possibly see any difference between the 30 and 32 mm Swarovski offerings in the detail of image, color, and contrast. Or even heaven for bid - maybe the CL might not come out as best in testing with other mid-priced offerings currently available from other optic companies. In the end that may, or should I say will be the real test for the CL- how it does in the current offerings from those companies. I know that the "COP" has stated that he did think the comparison was even now relevant between the CL and SLC NEU and EL; because since they (SLC & EL) are either out of production or soon to be- they are "dead" to him. Well, I thought it was relevant.
I asked someone else about their personal thoughts about the 8x30 CL in relation to the 8x30 SLC NEU. It was a salesperson from one of the big optic selling companies. This person owns a 8x32 EL, and a 8x SV and has owed a 8x30 SLC in the past- so to me they knew good optics. They stated to me that they did not think the CL was quite as good optically as the SLC NEU. Said it was close- but not quite as good. This person did not have any thing to gain by saying this- since the company at that time not longer had any 8x30 SLC's to sell. So he would have been better from a salespersons stand point to say the CL was as good or better- since they could sell me one of those. They did say that they thought the CL would be a good/ big seller though and it was a nice little bin from a great company.
But, probably according to the "COP"- that is not relevant info, since it is just "one person's opinion", they may be "fabricating info", and are probably "full of BS". And even yet another strike against the opinion- it is coming from a "salesperson" and they are only interested in up selling me.
As I said before, me and the "COP" are now broken up (and no, can't have the house) but, I may yet have to get a restraining order to protect me and others from hyperbole and insulting statements. :scribe:
It is possible that the better comparison of this bin may be and will be to the other mid-sized mid priced binoculars that are now close in price to the Swaro CL - (Meopta Meostar, Pentax ED, Leupold HD, Vortex, Minox, Nikon Premier, Kowa genesis, Zeiss Conquest, Zen Ray ED and others)
Because I certainly do not think Swarovski made this binocular (CL) to compete with its own line of upper tier binoculars, nor even to the recent SLC NEU since that production is done. They certainly did not want us to think that the CL was just as good as the upper tier from them, since the upper line from Swaro's now in production all start at retail prices that are 2x as much as the CL.
And I really do not think that Swarovski made this CL to realistically compete with the top alpha optic offerings from the other top tier makers that are also priced at about 2x as much ( Leica HD, Zeiss FL, and even Nikon EDG). Even Swarovski had to know that is a stretch.
But I guess my review ruffled some feathers, since I did not have them all (the Swarovski's) as equals. Well to my eyes they were not, and I did my very best to call them as I saw them. I do not know how it would seem to be far fetched to see a difference in colors, contrast and even ability of one binocular to resolve better detail/resolution than another- even from the same company. And this business with resolution- I used it in my review to describe a difference in detail in the image. I described it in the review as: B. Resolution of detail (using my eyes) What I mean is the ability that my eyes had through the binocular to pick out the fine details. I know that I did not use a USAF resolution chart and the tech. people may say that all 8x binos will resolve all the detail that the eye can see. But.....to my eyes I just can not buy (I know that they don't) all 8x binoculars from the same or different companies will allow you to see the same detail. I know from hunting experience and other nature viewing, that is just not the case.
And as far as colors and contrast goes- I know (and we all know this to be true) that different binoculars from different companies and even the same company are different in this regard; some better, some not as good-period.
So that my review attempted to describe any difference that I saw between the binoculars that I reviewed. And I did the best job that I could to both do this and describe it.
I now see that the other poster that has the second most posts in this thread (just second to me- the OP/ reviewer ), and who has countered most all of my (the OP) conclusions and comments- who I will from here on out refer to as the "counter- other poster", or "COP" for short. I see from the "COP"'s recent posts- has had a bit of a reality check and maybe lowered the stratosphere slightly of the CL and realized that maybe it is not the "best" (in COP's opinion-SV) and the possibility of even being "wrong" about whether another bino in this of class could equal it.
So if that is the case, I do not see how the "COP" could not realize that someone could possibly see any difference between the 30 and 32 mm Swarovski offerings in the detail of image, color, and contrast. Or even heaven for bid - maybe the CL might not come out as best in testing with other mid-priced offerings currently available from other optic companies. In the end that may, or should I say will be the real test for the CL- how it does in the current offerings from those companies. I know that the "COP" has stated that he did think the comparison was even now relevant between the CL and SLC NEU and EL; because since they (SLC & EL) are either out of production or soon to be- they are "dead" to him. Well, I thought it was relevant.
I asked someone else about their personal thoughts about the 8x30 CL in relation to the 8x30 SLC NEU. It was a salesperson from one of the big optic selling companies. This person owns a 8x32 EL, and a 8x SV and has owed a 8x30 SLC in the past- so to me they knew good optics. They stated to me that they did not think the CL was quite as good optically as the SLC NEU. Said it was close- but not quite as good. This person did not have any thing to gain by saying this- since the company at that time not longer had any 8x30 SLC's to sell. So he would have been better from a salespersons stand point to say the CL was as good or better- since they could sell me one of those. They did say that they thought the CL would be a good/ big seller though and it was a nice little bin from a great company.
But, probably according to the "COP"- that is not relevant info, since it is just "one person's opinion", they may be "fabricating info", and are probably "full of BS". And even yet another strike against the opinion- it is coming from a "salesperson" and they are only interested in up selling me.
As I said before, me and the "COP" are now broken up (and no, can't have the house) but, I may yet have to get a restraining order to protect me and others from hyperbole and insulting statements. :scribe:
Maybe the Counter Other Poster should start an Other User Thread
Well the reviews are running about half in favor and half against the new Swarovski CL. One person said they thought the CL was better than the Zeiss FL and then other reviewers thought they were a distant third to the Swarovski EL and SLC. I think I will wait until the objective reviews from Albinos and others come in before I decide to dump the CL's. I haven't been able to pump them very succesfully. If they say there just so-so I will have them on E-bay. I can't stand owning a binocular that get's bad reviews. It's like owning a loser. So watch E-bay carefully you might pick up a CL for cheap. Let's see what should I get for a more compact binocular to complement my SV? It is between the Swarovski 8x32 EL or the Zeiss 8x32 FL. According to Abino's the FL is better especially in CA control but the EL would match my SV with it's green color. What do you think? The EL is dead and the FL is still alive. Hmmm.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Go backa and take another look and this time take out the extreme likes and extreme dislikes. Almost every review of the CL - except a couple including your initial review that characterized the CL as a mini-EL -- highlights good points and not so good points of the CL, I don't see a split down the middle.
As Stephen and others who have tried the bin have said, the CL is right where it's supposed to be -- in the second tier. What makes it stand out from the crowd at that level is its compact size.
As far as one person saying the CL was better than the FL, you said the Monarch ATB was better than your 10x42 FL!
"I would just like to add that I have the Nikon Monarch's in the 8x42mm and I think I like them better than my Zeiss FL 10x42mm." - Dennis
Here's the thread (post # 15):
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=29561
Geez, I better take advantage of that $50 rebate on the Monarchs plus my $10 off coupon. I could save myself $1,800 off a new 10x42 FL!
R U SERIOUS about letting what the allbino boyz write or the binomaniacs write about the CL determine whether or not you are going to dump them??????????????????????????????????????? *add 100x more ?s.
What if George Constanza looked at your wife and said, you could do better, Dennis? Are you going to dump her? You have a mind of your own, use it!
If you really like the CLs and think they compliment your SV EL nicely, that's all that matters, not what others say on BF or what the "experts" pronounce. It's almost like with your posts that you are trying to convince yourself by trying to convince others of your opinions.
If everybody purchased bins based on what the experts say, we'd all be using the same bin, but much more goes into using a bin and liking a bin than a "bench test," as you, yourself, have said.
If you like the CLs, for God's sake, hold on to 'em! Don't keep switching bins based on whichever way the wind blows just because a new bin comes out that is supposed to be the "latest and greatest".
"Love the one you're with". Dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit!
The EL isn't dead. The only thing that is dead is this thread!
Let me get the medical examiner to make an official pronouncement.
Attachments
Last edited:
Go backa and take another look and this time take out the extreme likes and extreme dislikes. Almost every review of the CL - except a couple including your initial review that characterized the CL as a mini-EL -- highlights good points and not so good points of the CL, I don't see a split down the middle.
As Stephen and others who have tried the bin have said, the CL is right where it's supposed to be -- in the second tier. What makes it stand out from the crowd at that level is its compact size.
As far as one person saying the CL was better than the FL, you said the Monarch ATB was better than your 10x42 FL!
"I would just like to add that I have the Nikon Monarch's in the 8x42mm and I think I like them better than my Zeiss FL 10x42mm." - Dennis
Here's the thread (post # 15):
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=29561
Geez, I better take advantage of that $50 rebate on the Monarchs plus my $10 off coupon. I could save myself $1,800 off a new 10x42 FL!
R U SERIOUS about letting what the allbino boyz write or the binomaniacs write about the CL determine whether or not you are going to dump them??????????????????????????????????????? *add 100x more ?s.
What if George Constanza looked at your wife and said, you could do better, Dennis? Are you going to dump her? You have a mind of your own, use it!
If you really like the CLs and think they compliment your SV EL nicely, that's all that matters, not what others say on BF or what the "experts" pronounce. It's almost like with your posts that you are trying to convince yourself by trying to convince others of your opinions.
If everybody purchased bins based on what the experts say, we'd all be using the same bin, but much more goes into using a bin and liking a bin than a "bench test," as you, yourself, have said.
If you like the CLs, for God's sake, hold on to 'em! Don't keep switching bins based on whichever way the wind blows just because a new bin comes out that is supposed to be the "latest and greatest".
"Love the one you're with". Dit dit dit dit dit dit dit dit!
The EL isn't dead. The only thing that is dead is this thread!
Let me get the medical examiner to make an official pronouncement.
"in the second tier". That's it! That's the final insult. I don't want anything that is in the second tier. Second tier, I even hate the sound of that word. Ugh. I am listing my second tier CL's right now. Did I really say I liked the Monarch's better than the FL's. I must have been insane! Second tier. Oh, I just hate that. Off to E-bay.
Mine too. Second Tier! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! I don't want second in anything.
Boy- the "COP" puts down his weapon and drops the charges fairly quick.
Must have realized that the accusation charges that he had-were "baloney"- lacked substantial evidential weight; that maybe they were based on mere "fabrication" and were all quite possibly "full of BS". :eat:
Must have realized that the accusation charges that he had-were "baloney"- lacked substantial evidential weight; that maybe they were based on mere "fabrication" and were all quite possibly "full of BS". :eat:
Last edited:
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
Just signed on to Henry's Ignore List of one.
Similar threads
