Has anyone had a chance to do a side-by-side of the FL vs the SLC? If so, can you see a $700 difference? The specs look comparable, but as we know, that doesn't tell the whole story. I've got a 7x42FL which is the first glass I've used that is at least the = of the SE's and the 820's, so am wondering if the big 10x is as good. (My experience with the SLC's I've tried has been very positive. Normally, I'd just drive on down to Astronomics/Christophers-only about 30 miles from me-and do a little test.....but they dropped Swaro about 2yrs ago and only special order any of the 56mm Zeiss, so....I hafta depend on the Forum for info....thx).
-
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 10x56fl vs swaro 10x50 neu (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spyglass2
- Start date
The Kerreran
Has hat, will stand in the rain
Ok, I'll bite! 
I've looked through neither in x56, but generally speaking, I'd choose FL over SLC. Lighter, brighter, and a nicer image.
I've looked through neither in x56, but generally speaking, I'd choose FL over SLC. Lighter, brighter, and a nicer image.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
At least people are reading.
Most people don't use large aperture bins. Even more most people haven't used two different Top 4 large aperture bins. And even few have actually taken the time to AB them.
It seems about average for the course.
It is a tough order to find both of these heavyweights stocked at a single accessible location anymore. And many will offer the alternative of a 10x40/42, and for most uses that is a good choice. But after a lifetime of being a critical optics junkie (much more in the last 10yrs or so), I'm convinced that the bigger the objective, particularly 10x and over, the more capable the bino, most especially at 250+ meters and in lower light.
I've read Steve's NEED test results and think his conclusions correct, except that all tests were done at relatively short distances (20-30ft or so). I've developed my own set of criteria that have a minimum distance of about 25 meters, out to about 500 (set up with a laser rangefinder). In testing roughly 75 glasses in the last 6 or 7 yrs, my results give an edge to larger objectives, all else being roughly equal.....ergo I'm looking at the 50-56mm units (even tho I have a 10x42SE....and a 12x50SE....and an 820....I guess I'm a little over the side, but what other definition fits a true junkie?).
So, if no one's had much experience with either, maybe the only option is to order both from, like, Adorama, etc, with the stipulation that one will be sent back....
I've read Steve's NEED test results and think his conclusions correct, except that all tests were done at relatively short distances (20-30ft or so). I've developed my own set of criteria that have a minimum distance of about 25 meters, out to about 500 (set up with a laser rangefinder). In testing roughly 75 glasses in the last 6 or 7 yrs, my results give an edge to larger objectives, all else being roughly equal.....ergo I'm looking at the 50-56mm units (even tho I have a 10x42SE....and a 12x50SE....and an 820....I guess I'm a little over the side, but what other definition fits a true junkie?).
So, if no one's had much experience with either, maybe the only option is to order both from, like, Adorama, etc, with the stipulation that one will be sent back....
henry link
Well-known member
spyglass2;1496420 ...So said:
Chris Ellison
Active member
Spyglass2 -
There is one criterion where the Swarovski MAY prove to be superior to the Zeiss…
This binocular is a STELLAR performer mounted upon a tripod. For poring over expansive sea or landscapes for periods of four to six hours or more, the Swarovski truly shines. The superb adapter supplied by Swarovski is well worth the investment! I was a bit underwhelmed by the contraption marketed by Zeiss, a considerably more cumbersome strap assembly that could stand some improvement. The Swarovski adapter snaps into place on the SLC’s front hinge with admirable speed and precision.
I have owned an 8x56 FL Victory for nearly a year and half, and have found that the color rendition of the entire Zeiss FL Victory series compared to the Swarovski SLC series is more neutral than that of the Swarovski. In certain hazy, overcast, or foggy conditions, the Swarovski creeps ahead of the Zeiss by an extremely slim margin, due to the scarcely detectable “yellow” bias of Swarovski’s proprietary coatings.
CE
There is one criterion where the Swarovski MAY prove to be superior to the Zeiss…
This binocular is a STELLAR performer mounted upon a tripod. For poring over expansive sea or landscapes for periods of four to six hours or more, the Swarovski truly shines. The superb adapter supplied by Swarovski is well worth the investment! I was a bit underwhelmed by the contraption marketed by Zeiss, a considerably more cumbersome strap assembly that could stand some improvement. The Swarovski adapter snaps into place on the SLC’s front hinge with admirable speed and precision.
I have owned an 8x56 FL Victory for nearly a year and half, and have found that the color rendition of the entire Zeiss FL Victory series compared to the Swarovski SLC series is more neutral than that of the Swarovski. In certain hazy, overcast, or foggy conditions, the Swarovski creeps ahead of the Zeiss by an extremely slim margin, due to the scarcely detectable “yellow” bias of Swarovski’s proprietary coatings.
CE
Yeah, I've noticed that slight yellowish cast in the SLC's I've used (once had an 8x30 SLC, others tried at Astronomics and on-site swaps with other birders). In hazy, overcast weather, it's a plus, much the same as yellow shooting glasses sharpen the sight/target picture at the range.
Well, I took the plunge and ordered 1 of each, will give them a try and keep the "winner". I guess the big ? will be, if the FL is better, is it $hundreds better....
Well, I took the plunge and ordered 1 of each, will give them a try and keep the "winner". I guess the big ? will be, if the FL is better, is it $hundreds better....
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I must say the first time I though about mounting my Zeiss bins on a tripod I was rather flummoxed trying to figureout how to get the tripod screw cover off them (this was a Victory 8x40) until I realized that isn't a Zeiss feature.
Very odd. I'd always assumed to that point they would have a 1/4' UNC threaded hole.
Chris Ellison
Active member
Addenda - Ergonomics and Ease of Use:
I found the eye relief of the Swarovski 10x50 SLC to be slightly more accommodating than that of the Zeiss. Swarovski lists an eye relief figure of 17mm in the product manual, a conservative figure in my estimation. I’m convinced that the SLC’s construction method creates shallower angles between the very edges of the eyecups and the actual ocular lens surfaces than the manufacturing processes of the Zeiss FL series. In my experience, this facilitates easier viewing with eyeglasses. Extending and retracting the SLC’s eyecups was a slightly smoother process than performing the same actions with the Zeiss 10x56 FL.
Swarovski’s present 10x50 SLC series focusing mechanism, while considerably smoother than its early 90’s predecessors, is noticeably stiffer than that of the Zeiss 10x56 FL and the current offerings from other premium manufacturers. I found the Zeiss 10x56 FL focusing mechanism to be significantly smoother and more responsive than that of the 10x50 SLC. This advantage nicely complements the Zeiss 10x56 FL’s slight edge in close focusing ability.
CE
I found the eye relief of the Swarovski 10x50 SLC to be slightly more accommodating than that of the Zeiss. Swarovski lists an eye relief figure of 17mm in the product manual, a conservative figure in my estimation. I’m convinced that the SLC’s construction method creates shallower angles between the very edges of the eyecups and the actual ocular lens surfaces than the manufacturing processes of the Zeiss FL series. In my experience, this facilitates easier viewing with eyeglasses. Extending and retracting the SLC’s eyecups was a slightly smoother process than performing the same actions with the Zeiss 10x56 FL.
Swarovski’s present 10x50 SLC series focusing mechanism, while considerably smoother than its early 90’s predecessors, is noticeably stiffer than that of the Zeiss 10x56 FL and the current offerings from other premium manufacturers. I found the Zeiss 10x56 FL focusing mechanism to be significantly smoother and more responsive than that of the 10x50 SLC. This advantage nicely complements the Zeiss 10x56 FL’s slight edge in close focusing ability.
CE
well, they shd arrive Monday (if the USPS tracking info is right) and hopefully nxt week will be somewhat temperature-stable, at least for a few hrs each day, so I can do some serious long range side-by-side. Thx again for everyone's input...I'll post when I've given them a good exam.
OK, after 2+ days in fairly dense woods, vast expanses of open meadow, time at 2 airports and just general fooling around with these 2 heavywts....doing all my little tests, luggin' em around a park on the strap, doing a little cosmos scanning, etc, I've elected to keep the FL's, but it was no easy task decidin'. (I almost resorted to a coin toss). In the end, it just seemed the Zeiss had an ever so slight edge in brightness, contrast and definition. The SLC felt a little better in the mitts and is a negligible 3oz lighter, and eye relief and fov were virtually equal. Both are excellent instruments and it can't really be said one is "better" than the other, it comes down to preference. Even tho' the FL is almost 30% more $, in the long run, I believe I'd be a little more satisfied. So the Swaro goes back, albeit reluctantly, 'cause it was kinda fun doing the comparo (hadn't done a comprehensive one for a while). Maybe in about 6mo I'll do a followup.....
henry link
Well-known member
Congratulations on the new bins. I'm not surprised that the contest was close and I'm not surprised that you chose the Zeiss for just the reasons you gave.
