Upgrading my 8.5x42 EL from 2008 (1 Viewer)

etc · Mar 22, 2018

I got this EL 8.5x42 pair in 2008, so it's 10 years old now.
Nothing really wrong with it other than I wish it had a bit more overdrive past infinity, when I use it without any vision correction hardware, the dial is at the very limit. Other than that, the optical quality is A1.

Now questions - what advances have the EL line made in the last 10 years? I understand there is a revised model and how does it differ from the 2007-2008 EL line? I've read many reviews but still don't get it. Is the post-2008 EL so breathtaking versus what I have?

I am contemplating jumping to the Zeiss 8x42 FL line circa 2014, which heavily borrows from the EL line, can someone given me an objective opinion pros/cons.

Here is a pic:

Vespobuteo · Mar 22, 2018

etc said:
I got this EL 8.5x42 pair in 2008, so it's 10 years old now.
Nothing really wrong with it other than I wish it had a bit more overdrive past infinity, when I use it without any vision correction hardware, the dial is at the very limit. Other than that, the optical quality is A1.

Now questions - what advances have the EL line made in the last 10 years? I understand there is a revised model and how does it differ from the 2007-2008 EL line? I've read many reviews but still don't get it. Is the post-2008 EL so breathtaking versus what I have?

I am contemplating jumping to the Zeiss 8x42 FL line circa 2014, which heavily borrows from the EL line, can someone given me an objective opinion pros/cons.

Here is a pic:

I suspect that you mean "jumping to the SF line"?
Zeiss SF:s are more similar to the latests Swaro Swarovision models (than FL:s to the old EL:s).

SF:s main pros are:
+ Wide FOV (148m)
+ edge to edge sharpness
+ Long eye relief
+ Low CA
+ Good balance and ergonomics
+ Low weight (<800 g)
+ Quick and smooth* focuser
+ High light transmission

- Somewhat plasticky eye cups
- A bit fiddly diopter setting
- Size, SF:s are a bit longer than competition

* At least the black Mk II model, early samples of the gray MK I model might be a bit more uneven in the focusing department, late samples might work as good as MK II.

Still see the old EL:s in the field sometimes. Seems to be a workhorse.
If it's worth to upgrade only you can decide.

https://www.allbinos.com/144-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_WB.html

https://www.allbinos.com/304-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_SF_10x42.html

John Frink · Mar 22, 2018

etc said:
I got this EL 8.5x42 pair in 2008, so it's 10 years old now. Now questions - what advances have the EL line made in the last 10 years? Is the post-2008 EL so breathtaking versus what I have?

Having owned both models, here's my very subjective impression of the differences between the 8.5 EL and SV -

SV has a flat field, sharp to the edge; EL has some field curvature, sharp almost all the way out
SV has no pincushion distortion but has AMD (i.e., globe effect) at the edge; EL has mild pincushion distortion, no globe effect
SV has a slightly wider field of view
SV has a shorter close-focus distance
SV has a quicker focus action

Swarovski upgraded my 2003 8.5 EL to the latest specs for that model (new focus mechanism, new objectives, etc.), and I like its viewing impression better than that of the SV; I sold the SV and kept the EL, but that's just my personal preference - the SV is technically a "better" instrument than the EL, but I prefer a bino with a slight field curvature to one with a completely flat field. You can't go wrong with either one. I hope this helps.

dries1 · Mar 22, 2018

It sounds like the diopter issue with or with out glasses is a major concern for you. Optically there are no significant differences, if it were me, from an upgrade stand point, I would stick with Swaro over the SF.

A.W.

Alexis Powell · Mar 22, 2018

I agree with John Frink's list, but here are some more differences between the old 8.5x42 EL and fairly recent production of the 8.5x42 Swarovision:

SV has less chromatic aberration (CA).
SV has much more accurate color (including better red tones).
SV has even longer eye-relief (relevant for use with glasses).
SV has much easier and smoother focus operation.
SV has narrower barrels, allowing for better access to a wrap-around grip. Feels a bit more compact overall.

I love the old EL and used it for a very many years, but I _much_ prefer the new SV to the old EL. I used to switch to different full-sized bins depending on conditions (esp. including Zeiss 7x42 BGATP, Leica 8x42 Ultravid), but the EL SV does everything I need a full-sized birding bin to do, and it works OK for butterflying in a pinch (but it would be _much_ better if it had variable ratio focus). I'm not bothered by rolling ball in the slightest, but I know what it is and have been bothered by it in other bins (esp. Nikon 10x42 Venturer LX/HG).

--AP

gunut · Mar 22, 2018

stick with what you have....not enough difference to bother with...not to mention the $$$ outlay....

etc · Mar 22, 2018

Of course I meant Zeiss SF.

I think I prefer 8x42 versus 8.5x42.

Wider FOV, less 'shake' effect. For the same reason some prefer 7x42.

Winterdune · Mar 25, 2018

John Frink said:
Swarovski upgraded my 2003 8.5 EL to the latest specs for that model (new focus mechanism, new objectives, etc.), and I like its viewing impression better than that of the SV; I sold the SV and kept the EL, but that's just my personal preference - the SV is technically a "better" instrument than the EL, but I prefer a bino with a slight field curvature to one with a completely flat field. You can't go wrong with either one. I hope this helps.

Do you mind me asking how much that upgrade cost? My ELs are about 17 years old...
Thanks
Sean

John Frink · Mar 25, 2018

seanofford said:
Do you mind me asking how much that upgrade cost? My ELs are about 17 years old...
Thanks
Sean

Swarovski did not charge me for the upgrade of my 2003 8.5 EL. I sent them in because I could see a faint thumbprint on the inner surface of one of the objective elements; Swarovski replaced the objectives, the focus mechanism, and the outer covering, at no cost. Pretty good service, if you ask me.

John

cycleguy · Mar 25, 2018

gunut said:
stick with what you have....not enough difference to bother with...not to mention the $$$ outlay....

:t: I've always thought the original EL 8.5x42 as the best of the best. Keep kicking myself for not purchasing one back in 2002 when it could be had around $1,350 from brick and mortar retailer. :-O Baby on the way... it changes priorities.

CG

dries1 · Mar 25, 2018

You could get more for $1350 in 2002 than you can today, that's for sure.

A.W.

etc · Mar 27, 2018

Looking on the Swaro web site, under 'technical data', they list the diopters at infinity.

https://www.swarovskioptik.com/birding/slc-56-c21010302/slc-15x56-p5068619

SLC 10x56 has 8 and that's important. EL 8x42 has 6 which is enough but barely.

Instead of jumping to the Zeiss 8x42 SF line (and selling my EL 8.5x42 pre-Swarovision at a loss), I might just add the 10x56 SLC to the collection. I just realized today I like my EL.

There is really nothing wrong with the pre-Swarovision EL. I like the view and I like the focus also. They are small and light. However, I want something optically stunning. I am not sure I can get that from any 8x42 configuration, period. 10x56 SLC seems worth looking at.

NDhunter · Mar 31, 2018

You have received lots of good advice so far. The late model Swarovski EL does offer a stunning view.
I know, and have compared it to the newer models.

Now it is up to you to decide, and good luck.

Buying optics is a personal decision.

Jerry

etc · Mar 31, 2018

I have the intermediate EL, it has some upgrades versus the earlier and original EL but not the latest-greatest EL I upgraded from Leica Trinovid and that was an optically stunning device - difficult to beat. EL is lighter, brighter, better ER, more diopters at infinity, better all around.

How does latest-greatest EL compare to the 2 generation of Zeiss SF?

Here is a great article but I wanted to get some more opinions:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

And another one. There it is: Swarovski EL has a higher resolution than Zeiss SF:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

2.3 Resolution: Contrast at the level of the smallest details the optics can differentiate. In practice not relevant, although a high resolution might be correlated with a high contrast at the resolution limit of the viewer´s eyes.

Resolution at open aperture:

1. Leica Ultravid, Swarovski Swarovision, Zeiss HT

For all three, resolution was 3.79 arcseconds at 8.56 m distance from the chart, and 4.06 arcseconds at 4 meters distance from the chart, surpassing the DIN ISO 1433-2 norm of 5.7 arcseconds by a good margin.

2. Swarovski Habicht, Swarovski SLC, Zeiss SF

For these two, resolution at 8.54 m distance was 4.26 arcseconds, and 4.56 arcseconds at 4m distance, surpassing the DIN ISO 1433-2 norm of 5.7 arcseconds by a good margin. The 30mm Habicht is at a disadvantage due to smaller objective size.

Resolution with objectives masked to 20mm (2.5mm exit pupil size) was 6.77 arcseconds at 8.56 meters distance and 6.44 arcseconds at 4 meters distance for all tested glasses.

Upgrading my 8.5x42 EL from 2008 (1 Viewer)

More options

etc

Well-known member

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

John Frink

Well-known member

dries1

Member

Alexis Powell

Natural history enthusiast

gunut

Registered Offender

etc

Well-known member

Winterdune

Well-known member

John Frink

Well-known member

cycleguy

Well-known member

dries1

Member

etc

Well-known member

NDhunter

Experienced observer

etc

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread