• 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.

Reviews: premium 8x42s - Zeiss SF vs HT vs Leica Ultravid Plus vs Swarovision vs SLC (1 Viewer)

Tobias Mennle said:
Nick, as usual with CA, try to look for bare branches against a white sky or any dark bird silhouette. CA is IMO not troubling at all in the Ultravid, but it was definitely higher in my sample, about the same as I´m used to with my Habicht 8x30.
Click to expand...

Yes I have plenty of conditions that will show me CA. Upon receiving my Leica HD+ I used them quite heavily. I couldn't find any CA whatsoever.

I'll check again in sunny/cloudy weather but I haven't seen any noticeable CA in my retail sample.
 
stephen b said:
FWIW:

Straight from Swarovski tech:

Came out and said they deliberately tried to reduce price to distance previous SLC HD from the SV. That was the purpose. They only changed ( besides the Armor) the close focus distance. Which he said is a significant reduction in build cost. Other than that optics are the same. He did not know anything about focus speed change. But with a change in close focus distance, that may have changed the focus speed a bit- even if not intentional.

Also said that in the center field that the optics of the SV and the SLC's ( both current and predecessor ) are basically the same. Only difference is field flatner. Went on to say that the SLC was probably best value that they make considering it has same optic glass as the SV- just no FF.

This is the same info told to me from a couple respected optic reps from Eagle Optics. Also correlates well with what most people that have seen these optics have noted.
Click to expand...

yes, that was basically my idea, too - just increased focus distance. SLC is not well corrected for close, I´m sure about that, judging from my sample. What does cost money is your low tolerances in the whole manufacturing. Even the same set of lenses can be assembled meticulously or sloppily. I´d bet Swarovski has much higher tolerances for the SLC assemblage, that is reflected in the price, and in the consistency of quality, and that´s why some are happy and some are not.
 
cnick6 said:
Yes I have plenty of conditions that will show me CA. Upon receiving my Leica HD+ I used them quite heavily. I couldn't find any CA whatsoever.

I'll check again in sunny/cloudy weather but I haven't seen any noticeable CA in my retail sample.
Click to expand...

Do you see it in any other optics? Many people are completely immune to CA - I was for years until I learned what to look for. Now, it is hopelessly obvious in almost every binocular I try.....
 
james holdsworth said:
Do you see it in any other optics? Many people are completely immune to CA - I was for years until I learned what to look for. Now, it is hopelessly obvious in almost every binocular I try.....
Click to expand...

When I only had my cheap Bushnell Natureview and inherited 7x35 porro, I thought Chromatic Aberration was a.buzzword. Then I was working out at my Refuge one day and I got a chance to compare side by side with a pair of ED bins, and ever since I have seen CA in every pair of binos I've used or owned, including such strong CA controlling bins as the Kowa Genesis and Swarovision.

It is very unfortunate and causes a lot of annoyance now, and is typically the first quality I look at when considering a new pair of bins.
 
stephen b said:
Straight from Swarovski tech:...Also said that in the center field that the optics of the SV and the SLC's ( both current and predecessor ) are basically the same. Only difference is field flatner. Went on to say that the SLC was probably best value that they make considering it has same optic glass as the SV- just no FF.
Click to expand...

Steve C said:
My personal experience with the Swarovski SLC is that the 10x is a much better performer than the 8x. I had a 10x42 for a week and it really had no flaws I'd take great exception to. There have been a couple of 8x42 go through two local dealers here and I did not really like either one. Didn't dislike them, but they just did not say alpha either.
Click to expand...

(As per Stephen) - Several conversations I had with Swaro SONA techs also confirmed glass between SLC's and SV's were same (except for ocular FF), however SLC coatings were optimized for higher contrast and EL's coatings optimized for deeper color and clarity!

(As per Steve) - I've never glassed with the SLC 8x42's, but in five 10x42 configuration comparison sessions, at 3 different retailers over the past 6 months (various inside\outside lighting conditions), I picked the SLC's Over the UVHD+'s, SV's and even the HT's (SF's not stocked yet) every time! For my eyes, the SLC's had the most neutral color balance, expansive FOV, razor sharpness, flare control and superb immersive DOF (for a roof). Now, my perceptions have far inferior field\detailed reviewng quality of time as per the excellent reviews by Tobias.:t: However, the 10x42 SLC's always wowed me, still do, so I made my alpha purchase and didn't look back. That is till I got the big SV's in my hands...as they say, the rest is history!;)

Ted
 
Theo98 said:
(As per Stephen) - Several conversations I had with Swaro SONA techs also confirmed glass between SLC's and SV's were same (except for ocular FF), however SLC coatings were optimized for higher contrast and EL's coatings optimized for deeper color and clarity!

(As per Steve) - I've never glassed with the SLC 8x42's, but in five 10x42 configuration comparison sessions, at 3 different retailers over the past 6 months (various inside\outside lighting conditions), I picked the SLC's Over the UVHD+'s, SV's and even the HT's (SF's not stocked yet) every time! For my eyes, the SLC's had the most neutral color balance, expansive FOV, razor sharpness, flare control and superb immersive DOF (for a roof). Now, my perceptions have far inferior field\detailed reviewng quality of time as per the excellent reviews by Tobias.:t: However, the 10x42 SLC's always wowed me, still do, so I made my alpha purchase and didn't look back. That is till I got the big SV's in my hands...as they say, the rest is history!;)

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted,

I find my reaction somewhat puzzling as I am normally a staunch 8x user. I liked all of the SLC-HD binoculars, but the newer SLC-WB seem sort of different. I have heard the same thing...the optics are the same only the focus and armor was changed. Maybe my eyes have changed an I have not caught that yet, I really do not know. Anyway my reaction with the Swarovski SLC current iteration is that the 10x is the better performer. I agree that it seems no different than the SV except for the edges, which I've said before I could care less about having a sharp edge. A well done classic edge with minimal pincushion is my preference. I would certainly take the SLC over an SV and am kicking myself for going from the 10x42 SLC-HD I had to the 10x50 SV.

The Leica is pretty much out because the eye cup does not extend enough to work properly for me. As for expansive fov, I see zero difference in the half degree or so advantage of the SLC over the Leica.

At any rate, the die is cast and the next alpha that gets a serious workout for yours truly is the Victory HT. Until then there are no holes in the B2 performance. ;)
 
Thanks for review Tobias.
It is very fine, maybe the best in this year, as it includes top offering in Europe.

To me the HT sweetspot is quite big horizontally, but there is an area at bottom of field where astigmatism is presented, at least in my sample.
You hit the nail on head with the"sparkle". Its characteristic for HT.

Anyway, if Dath Vader will look for binocular, I am sure that HT will be his first choice 3:)
This binocular recalls him to me, at least by design and colour...
 
What would be the best way to mount the Victory HT to a tripod? I'm very interested in this model, currently have a SLC and using the Outdoorsmans bino adapter.
 
Tobias Mennle said:
brocknroller said:
Thanks for posting that comparative review. Interesting read, with some surprising results, some not so surprising. I would have liked for you to have included a recent model 8x30 Habicht in the mix, although I realize you were limiting yourself to the 8x42 configuration. Perhaps when you compare the mid-sized models.

Brock, sorry, you might want to read again. The Habicht 8x30 is an alltime favourite of me and I have it as a porro reference in this test. It´s an amazing binocular. Mine is from 2009 and a cherry from the Swaro demopool.

The surprise was how highly you ranked the HT and the low percentage of sweet spot you gave the HT, SLC and Ultravid (50%). I haven't tried the 8x42 model, but the 10x42 SLC-HD was sharp to about 90% out. Arek from allbinos ranked the 10x42 SLC at 95% sharp. That makes the 8x42 model quite different -- 50% sharp would not be to my liking, too much field curvature for my aging eyes.

Again, I disagree. Of course 50% is purely subjective, but I have always wondered why and how Arek ranks like he does. Ultravid, SLC and HT basically have 50%, maybe the SLC a couple of percent more. By the way Zeiss/Mr. Dobler claimed the SF is sharp about 80% of the field, as I found out when I reread Lees interview, very close to my 75% claim . 50% in the HT looks totally great to me because the image is so clean and flare free. It is really amazing, I never ever miss any sharpness there.

Chosun asked on another thread why you saw RB in the 8x SF and not the 8.5x SV EL, which has the least pincushion of all the SV EL models. The reason might be to your greater sensitivity to the distortion pattern (mix of AMD/pincushion) in the SF.

Again it´s in my reviews about the models in question. The 8.5 SV has a very different approach from the 8x32 SV, with the Absam ring rather being an Absam field in the 8.5, this is very well done IMO to reduce rolling ball. 8x32 SV is horrible, much worse than SF. The SF just drops sharpness from 75% and I don´t really see it would gain sharpness again towards the edge, at least not significantly.

The SV EL has a mustache distortion pattern where the pincushion/AMD increases and decreases in a wave pattern across the field of view. The SF's pattern is different, though I forgot the exact details Holger described.

To my eyes its not really mustache in the SV but decreasing from pincushion tin the center to less pincushion, so lines are almost straight at the edge.
Click to expand...

When you wrote "Swarovski Habicht - good old porro," I took that literally, I thought it was an older model with less advanced coatings.

Brock
Click to expand...
 
STS45 said:
What would be the best way to mount the Victory HT to a tripod? I'm very interested in this model, currently have a SLC and using the Outdoorsmans bino adapter.
Click to expand...

I really came to like the Leica Ultravid tripod adapter, strangely, it is much cheaper than the Swaro or Zeiss adapters in Europe, and - contrary to the Swarovision adapter - it uses a very soft rubber belt which is so easy to handle.
 
Tobias Mennle said:
this looks cool and extremely small, but will it be sturdy enough... is it a third party adapter?
Click to expand...

I don't know. It looks like you strap it on the binocular and put it on the tripod of your choice.

Zeiss shows another larger universal adaptor somewhat differently designed than Swarovskis; if you can find it on their very user unfriendly website. :C

I have Swarovski's universal tripod adaptor and it works good with my roof prism binoculars.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/swarovski.pl?page=swarovski_49181

Bob
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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

J
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 VS Leica UHD Plus 8x32 (in doubts)
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Scott98
S
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
J
Swarovski CL 8x25 vs Zeiss Terra ED 8x25: one more comparison
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Elkhornsun
E
etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
dorubird
Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
15K
Patudo
P

Users who are viewing this thread

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