-
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.
Swarovski EL vs Leupold Gold rings (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter seaward
- Start date
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
seaward said:
Well, in store in fluorescent light, and at a glance, you may not see a difference. But i assure you that there is enough difference to put the Swaro in a different class, above of course.
Pretty much everything is better in the EL compared to the Golden Ring: colors and color finging, contrast, stray light, handling, weight, size. Whether the "better" is worth an extra $700, it's up to you.
Luca said:
Never had my hands on the new Gold Rings, but have been sorely dissapointed in the three EL's I've owned. I think Swarovski has a pretty good corner on the market when it comes to snob appeal, because they surely don't make it based solely on optical quality.
IMHO, every level of Leica, including the Trinovids, and the Nikon Venturer/LX's are heads and shoulders above the EL's, so I don't see much difficulty in the Gold Rings besting them. In fact, the biggest dissapointment I've seen in a long time is the 8x32 EL's. In comparing them directly to an 8x30 SLC, the SLC was clearly better in every category, and even it lags behind the likes of the Nikon 8x32 Venturer or SE....YMMV
BMR said:
I bought the first pair of 10x42's for $850.00 and sold them after a while because they didn't impress me when compared to my Leicas and Nikons. Bought the second pair at a discount also and was hoping the first was a bad sample, but it wasn't the case. Bought a pair of 8x32's off this board for a great price with the intent of comparing them to other 8/30-32mm binos and possibly giving them to my dad for Father's Day, but they fell short and he'll be getting 8x30 SLC's...
It's not that the EL's are bad binos, just that there's better choices for less money. IMHO they're fantastic when it comes to ergonomics, but that's about it. Swarovski does a great job oft marketing and has a lot of people convinced that if they buy the most expensive, they're getting the best product, which I simply don't think is the case.
seaward said:
the "better view desired" website just recently posted a review of the Gold Rings in which they give grand praise for their optics, though not their styling. The review basically claims that the Gold Rings are as good or better than anything in the $1000+ range. It might be worth a read....
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Interesting how the reviewer did not like the looks of the GR's. I bought them because i liked their looks and their color. I have the 10x42.
Here are my gripes with them:
the eyecups are too large in diameter and will not fit comfortably my eyesockets. Combine that with long ER, and you get a "not so easy" not quite "walk in view". It takes me seconds to try to see well with them.
Weight. Leupold says they could not find where to shave some weight off. They should look again. The GR are way too heavy. 27 ounces for the 8x32? Give me a break.
No, i did not find the views through the 10x42 GR quite as pleasing as the competition. The outer edges of the field of view show clear color fringing, and the middle of the field of view is not as constrasty as other top brands.
The 8x42 are closer than the 10x42 to the $1500 competition, i could see myself using them (If they make them 27 ounces and redesign those horrible oversized eyecups. )
Buster, i appreciate your remarks. I am quite happy being a snob.
Here are my gripes with them:
the eyecups are too large in diameter and will not fit comfortably my eyesockets. Combine that with long ER, and you get a "not so easy" not quite "walk in view". It takes me seconds to try to see well with them.
Weight. Leupold says they could not find where to shave some weight off. They should look again. The GR are way too heavy. 27 ounces for the 8x32? Give me a break.
No, i did not find the views through the 10x42 GR quite as pleasing as the competition. The outer edges of the field of view show clear color fringing, and the middle of the field of view is not as constrasty as other top brands.
The 8x42 are closer than the 10x42 to the $1500 competition, i could see myself using them (If they make them 27 ounces and redesign those horrible oversized eyecups. )
Buster, i appreciate your remarks. I am quite happy being a snob.
Buster and all,
I smell the opportunity here to raise the sample variation issue yet again, but with a slight twist. Since binocular users (especially the kind who spend 1000$ or more on their gear) are very picky, the units that end up being offered second-hand are probably much more likely to be lemons than your average "fresh-from-an-unopened-box." Of course, there can be other reasons for people selling a relatively new premium binocular, but most people buy such instruments to use and to keep, and if they end up selling soon thereafter, it is usually because they were not satisfied with the view. Judging by the prices, the ones you bought may have been client returns also if they weren't outright second-hand units. I happen to share the sentiment that the 8x32 EL is not quite as good as it should be, but I hold the 10x42 and 8.5x42 EL's in rather high regard.
Kimmo
I smell the opportunity here to raise the sample variation issue yet again, but with a slight twist. Since binocular users (especially the kind who spend 1000$ or more on their gear) are very picky, the units that end up being offered second-hand are probably much more likely to be lemons than your average "fresh-from-an-unopened-box." Of course, there can be other reasons for people selling a relatively new premium binocular, but most people buy such instruments to use and to keep, and if they end up selling soon thereafter, it is usually because they were not satisfied with the view. Judging by the prices, the ones you bought may have been client returns also if they weren't outright second-hand units. I happen to share the sentiment that the 8x32 EL is not quite as good as it should be, but I hold the 10x42 and 8.5x42 EL's in rather high regard.
Kimmo
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Here is another thought, a Zeiss rep said in that German haughty manner that "he could not understand why Swarovski sold so many ELs as they use a lower grade of glass than Zeiss" one grade lower is how he put it and he should know as Swarovski buy from schot glass which is owned by Zeiss. I have always thought Swarovski should stick to making glass trinkets and leave binocular making to the experts.kabsetz said:
......................................................fiddler.
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
In English please.foxbo said:
.......................................fiddler
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
FIDDLER said:
Hogwash.
That's English.
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Another word for Swarovski is it?Luca said:
.........................................................Fiddler.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
FIDDLER said:
Just think how much more talented and skilled they are if they can turn out a superior binocular with lower grade glass.
When i pick up a Zeiss i can't but marvel at their engineering, and i keep telling to myself "this must be the best binocular in the world", and i spend minutes admiring the technical ingenuity and the superior craftsmanship.
When i pick up an EL i instantly become happy and go birdwatching without ever thinking about binoculars.
Fiddler, did it ever occur to you that peoples' tastes differ?
Back to the question at hand
Am trying to find a location for head to head with these two and Nikon LX Ls, Leica Trinovids/Ultravids, and B &L Elites, but not likely to be able to do that. Was able to compare the 8.5 ELs to the 8 GRs at Bass Pro Shop today. Found both to be excellent optically, with the edge to the ELs for brightness, particularly in dark/shaded viewing, and with better eye relief for my glasses. As a photographer, was particularly critical of color and distortion, and found very little to mention, including no noticable CA in either. (I'm very adverse to the latter.) While I've been concerned about the yellow color cast of the SCs, I found none of it in the ELs, and they seemed to be very slightly better in neutral color rendition to the GRs, which had a little more green emphasis, particularly in the yellows and browns. Also, must have been using an older manufactured date pair of ELs as the focus ring took "many" turns to adjust from one extreme to the other. But was very smooth otherwise.
As others have mentioned, the real problem I have with the Gold Rings is ergonomics and weight. The Swarovskis are a pleasure to handle, from the wide spacing of the barrels to the thumb indents. The eyepiece ajustments are easier to use as well. However, are they worth the price premium? From my perspective, I'm inclined toward the other three mentioned above, with the Nikon and Leica tied for first, and the B&L second on my list, mainly for the lighter weight. Even though I'm used to hauling around 5 pounds or more of camera/lens combo all the time, I'd like to slack off and relax while just viewing. Hope this helps some with the issue. Good Luck!
Am trying to find a location for head to head with these two and Nikon LX Ls, Leica Trinovids/Ultravids, and B &L Elites, but not likely to be able to do that. Was able to compare the 8.5 ELs to the 8 GRs at Bass Pro Shop today. Found both to be excellent optically, with the edge to the ELs for brightness, particularly in dark/shaded viewing, and with better eye relief for my glasses. As a photographer, was particularly critical of color and distortion, and found very little to mention, including no noticable CA in either. (I'm very adverse to the latter.) While I've been concerned about the yellow color cast of the SCs, I found none of it in the ELs, and they seemed to be very slightly better in neutral color rendition to the GRs, which had a little more green emphasis, particularly in the yellows and browns. Also, must have been using an older manufactured date pair of ELs as the focus ring took "many" turns to adjust from one extreme to the other. But was very smooth otherwise.
As others have mentioned, the real problem I have with the Gold Rings is ergonomics and weight. The Swarovskis are a pleasure to handle, from the wide spacing of the barrels to the thumb indents. The eyepiece ajustments are easier to use as well. However, are they worth the price premium? From my perspective, I'm inclined toward the other three mentioned above, with the Nikon and Leica tied for first, and the B&L second on my list, mainly for the lighter weight. Even though I'm used to hauling around 5 pounds or more of camera/lens combo all the time, I'd like to slack off and relax while just viewing. Hope this helps some with the issue. Good Luck!
Had a chance to compare these two again today at Gander Mountain in 10x42 along with a pair of $280 Nikon Monarchs and a pair of $800 Steiners. Was a more distinct difference this time. Although the Gold Rings had a nice clear view in bright light, they were VERY poor in low light, unlike the prior pair's experience. Only mechanical issue I could determine that might have impacted the optical performance was the necessity of diopter adjustment to the extreme + to be able to achieve appropriate focus from both barrels. The Swarovski's and Nikon's adjustment was -0- or neutral and the Steiners was +1. And the Nikon Monarchs were much better than the Gold Rings in the low light viewing as well. Perhaps colimnation problems?
The Steiners were decent, but not as good as the Nikons or Swarovskis in low light either. Also compared a pair of Swarovski SLCs at the beginning, but eliminated them immediately because of insufficient eye relief for my eyeglasses. The customer service rep helping me also wore eyeglasses, and he had the same problem with the SLCs. And in spite of his muscular build, he also complained about the weight of the Gold Rings. His experience in hunting from a tree stand or blind with constant binocular use for many hours gave the Gold Ring's weight a substantial negative. While he needed the 42mm objective for low light observing, he also valued the lighter weight of the other manufacturer's more recent designs for his extended use.
All in all, it was a most useful comparison, again verifying the superb optics and handling of the ELs. The surprise of the session was the performance of the Nikon Monarchs! For less than 1/5th the price, they provided a very nice view! Decent color rendering, sharp focus, good low light performance and comfortable ergonomics in an inexpensive package. While not up to the overall acuity of the ELs, and lacking their excellent contrast, they look to be a real value.
The Steiners were decent, but not as good as the Nikons or Swarovskis in low light either. Also compared a pair of Swarovski SLCs at the beginning, but eliminated them immediately because of insufficient eye relief for my eyeglasses. The customer service rep helping me also wore eyeglasses, and he had the same problem with the SLCs. And in spite of his muscular build, he also complained about the weight of the Gold Rings. His experience in hunting from a tree stand or blind with constant binocular use for many hours gave the Gold Ring's weight a substantial negative. While he needed the 42mm objective for low light observing, he also valued the lighter weight of the other manufacturer's more recent designs for his extended use.
All in all, it was a most useful comparison, again verifying the superb optics and handling of the ELs. The surprise of the session was the performance of the Nikon Monarchs! For less than 1/5th the price, they provided a very nice view! Decent color rendering, sharp focus, good low light performance and comfortable ergonomics in an inexpensive package. While not up to the overall acuity of the ELs, and lacking their excellent contrast, they look to be a real value.
Similar threads
