• 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.

Eye relief in 10x42 SLC and EL? (1 Viewer)

I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
A popular vendor lists them as 16mm for the SLC and 20mm for the EL.

Can any of you experienced users confirm that this a valid real world difference and not just a way of gently pushing the SLC down into the "lesser" level while promoting the EL flagship image?

We all know that sometimes specs have little validity and are just another form of advertising.

I may be in the market for a new 10x42...but my bincoular enjoyment has diminished since I started wearing glasses.
 
From Roger Vine over on ScopeViews:

SLC 10x42:
"For once, eye relief, as measured from the rim of the eye cup, measures at spot on the claimed 16mm. This means that I can see most, but not all, of the field with my chunky specs on."

EL 10x42:
"Swarovski originally claimed 20mm for the SWAROVISIONTM ELs, but have now dropped that figure to 17.3mm for the 10x model (the 8x model has 2mm more). According to my measurements it’s actually a bit less than that, more like 15-16mm. That’s enough – just – but not the super-generous eye relief that the original sales literature suggested. It’s also (oddly, I thought) less than the 10x50mm ELs and new 10x56mm SLC HDs."

Hope this helps!
 
Samolot has already given a comprehensive answer, but I have the 10x42 EL SV and the user's manual states that "exit pupil distance" is 20mm. I've always understood this to mean eye relief.
 
Thank you, All. Maybe I would be best served by the 8x42 SLC since it has more eye relief than the 10x42 and it seems that the SLC line actually has more eye relief than the ELs.

Getting the eye relief to where I don't have to take my glasses off to the see the whole field of view is currently more of a priority than fussing over magnification, the latest coatings, or flat fields.

Ps...I have a 7x42 HD+ for trade.
 
Inquisitor said:
Thank you, All. Maybe I would be best served by the 8x42 SLC since it has more eye relief than the 10x42 and it seems that the SLC line actually has more eye relief than the ELs.

Getting the eye relief to where I don't have to take my glasses off to the see the whole field of view is currently more of a priority than fussing over magnification, the latest coatings, or flat fields.

Ps...I have a 7x42 HD+ for trade.
Click to expand...

If you have problems with eye relief on the 7x42 HD+ (great bin btw), I don't think the 8x42 SLC or 10x42 SV will be much better, probably worse (they are for me). But you will need to try to see what works.
 
Vespobuteo said:
If you have problems with eye relief on the 7x42 HD+ (great bin btw), I don't think the 8x42 SLC or 10x42 SV will be much better, probably worse (they are for me). But you will need to try to see what works.
Click to expand...

They work, and that is why I got them to begin with. Yet over time I have come to realize I am not really a fan of "that" low of magnification and smallish apparent viewing angle. I simply looking for something of reasonable quality with a bit more in these two areas that also works with my face/glasses.

It is discouraging that you report that the two SLCs are not as good in the eye relief/glasses department as what I already have. Thanks for the heads up. I will proceed with extreme caution before letting them go.
 
Inquisitor said:
I simply looking for something of reasonable quality with a bit more in these two areas that also works with my face/glasses.
Click to expand...

I just compared the eye relief on my 7x42 HD+ and 8x42 HD, and they're identical, at least they are with my facial geometry and my eyeglasses. So if happens that you like everything about your your 7x42's except the magnification and angle of view, you might take a look at the 8x42.
 
John Frink said:
I just compared the eye relief on my 7x42 HD+ and 8x42 HD, and they're identical, at least they are with my facial geometry and my eyeglasses. So if happens that you like everything about your your 7x42's except the magnification and angle of view, you might take a look at the 8x42.
Click to expand...
Leica lists the 7X42 at 17.0mm; the 8X42 at 15.5mm
I purchased the 7X42 because the eye relief worked (just barely) for my eyeglasses. The 8X42 was uncomfortable (just barely).

PS
With prescription sunglasses I lose even more eye relief with all my bins.
 
Leica Uvid HD+ 7x42 has a field of view area 16% bigger than the 8x. Thats 16% more hillside, sky, lake, sea, seashore or marsh every time you lift them up to your eye. Zeiss's SF 8x42 has a viewing area 30% bigger than the Ultravid HD+ 8x. Field of view isn't everything of course but it is a tangible and useful asset.

Lee
 
Last edited:
The (original) 8x42 SLC-HD has 18.5mm eye relief. The 10x42 SLC-HD has 16mm. Believe me, it's accurate.

Ed

Attachment from a review article.
 

Attachments

  • PG 10 Specs.pdf
    89.1 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
Samolot said:
From Roger Vine over on ScopeViews:

SLC 10x42:
"For once, eye relief, as measured from the rim of the eye cup, measures at spot on the claimed 16mm. This means that I can see most, but not all, of the field with my chunky specs on."

EL 10x42:
"Swarovski originally claimed 20mm for the SWAROVISIONTM ELs, but have now dropped that figure to 17.3mm for the 10x model (the 8x model has 2mm more). According to my measurements it’s actually a bit less than that, more like 15-16mm. That’s enough – just – but not the super-generous eye relief that the original sales literature suggested. It’s also (oddly, I thought) less than the 10x50mm ELs and new 10x56mm SLC HDs."

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...

i don't believe that the EL has only 17,3mm and i never hear that swarovski has changed that ?? or like roger say only 15-16mm,
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen
The concept of eye relief is an optical one which does not take into account the eyecup and is the distance from the crown of the top eyepiece lens to the exit pupil. I know someone who used to work at Swarovski and says that Swarovski used this traditional definition of eye relief at the time. Could Swaro have abandoned this traditional definition? Anything is possible in this world but I doubt it.

Lee
 
I think you can only tell so much by looking at the numbers. In my experience, and as a glasses wearer, you need to bring the things up to your eyes and look through them in a variety of conditions so see whether you "get on" with the whole eye relief/exit pupil relationship of a given binocular. The actual results you may experience aren't necessarily what you'd expect from the numbers alone.
 
Inquisitor said:
A popular vendor lists them as 16mm for the SLC and 20mm for the EL.

Can any of you experienced users confirm that this a valid real world difference and not just a way of gently pushing the SLC down into the "lesser" level while promoting the EL flagship image?

We all know that sometimes specs have little validity and are just another form of advertising.

I may be in the market for a new 10x42...but my bincoular enjoyment has diminished since I started wearing glasses.
Click to expand...

Inquisitor said:
Thank you, All. Maybe I would be best served by the 8x42 SLC since it has more eye relief than the 10x42 and it seems that the SLC line actually has more eye relief than the ELs.

Getting the eye relief to where I don't have to take my glasses off to the see the whole field of view is currently more of a priority than fussing over magnification, the latest coatings, or flat fields.

Ps...I have a 7x42 HD+ for trade.
Click to expand...

I don't have the SLC 10X42....I have the SV 10X42 though... ER distance would probably be something like UVHD+ 7X42>SV 8.5X42>SV 10X42. Difference is small...I would think only about 1-2mm. For me, they are all about perfect with the eyecup all the way down. SOMETIMES I would like an o-ring under the eyecup, sometimes not. Sounds like you need more ER than that. The binoculars I have that feature MARKEDLY more ER are either magnification Noctivid OR the Meopta B.1 7X42.
 
SLC was certainly lowered a notch in rank behind the EL when it comes to close focus distance. It is now listed as over 3 metres compared with EL's less than 2 metres.

Lee
 
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.

Similar threads

dwever
EL Range TA 8X42 - Layman Review
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
GrampaTom
G
W
Swarovski twilight glass
Replies
12
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
G
My Swarovski EL 8.5x42 Review
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
15K
Captain Dave
C
S
Swarovski Optik EL 42 8.5x42 or something else?
Replies
5
Views
3K
NDhunter
NDhunter
Gray C
Swarovski EL v SLC v Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
Replies
13
Views
4K
SeldomPerched
S

Users who are viewing this thread

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