• 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.

CL Companion vs Habitch (1 Viewer)

albatrosviajero

Well-known member
hello,
I like know if anyone have compared the CL Companion 8X30 model with the Habitch 8X30 W.. yours prices are very good in comparision with the recent models....
Thanks
 
Last year, at BirdFair, I tried out 4 copies of the CL and just one on the 8x30 Habitch. I'm sure others would disagree but the resolution on the CL did not match the price. I can't deny it was very nice in the hand. Optically the Habicht was certainly sharper, but I thought the contrast should have been better for the bright conditions. The ER was too short for glasses and the focus acceptable, but only just. I felt no urge to take either home.

David
 
Last edited:
When you stock both it's kind of like asking which one of your kids you like better. (OK, the older one.)

I agree-I have my favorites, both kids and binoculars

but

the favorite varies from day to day, minute to minute,
and it always averages out even --at least with kids,
but maybe not binoculars

edj
 
I haven`t tried the Habicht, but I have the CL, I agree with Typo, its overpriced, I actually found it hard to accept it had Swarovski on it.
 
They (8 x 30 CL) cost $929.00 at Eagle Optics. The 10 x 30 CL costs $999.00. There is only one review. (Of the 10 x 30) It gets 5 stars from a user who also owns a 10 x 42 EL.

Bob
 
Last edited:
They (8 x 30 CL) cost $929.00 at Eagle Optics. The 10 x 30 CL costs $999.00. There is only one review. (Of the 10 x 30) It gets 5 stars from a user who also owns a 10 x 42 EL.

Bob

A blast from the past... I remember dennis singing the CL's praises from the hilltops after he purchased one, saying it was almost as good as his SV EL and was an "alpha".

As more people got to try or buy the CLs, the tide of public opinion changed and we began to read posts from more naysayers, but dennis still persisted, even stronger, saying that the CL was almost as good as his 8.5x SV EL and an "alpha".

Then came the eureka moment. After the term "second tier" was attached to the CL by several members, dennis dropped the CLs like a hot potato, because he finally realized that they were not "the best" (trans. -- "not alphas").

Swarovski never claimed they were "the best," in fact, they pitched the CL as an affordable way to enter the "Swarovski family of optics" (if you can call $900 "affordable").

IOW, the CLs weren't designed to compete with alphas, but almost every person on BF who bought one either had a SV EL or another alpha. So they became lighter weight travel bins for people who could afford alphas rather than more affordable primary bins.

Not sure if that pattern held outside of BF, but that's how it went down here.

Within a month or so, dennis sold the SV too. The "rolling ball," which he told others was a "non-issue," became a deal killer. That and the rough focuser, which was also a "non issue" earlier.

Binophrenia. It affects 1 in 10,000 birdwatchers. Know the warning signs, read dennis' posts. :)

<B>
 
A blast from the past... I remember dennis singing the CL's praises from the hilltops after he purchased one, .................<B>

In Dennis's defense, he my have been suffering from hypoxia while on top of those high Colorado hilltops and his judgment was impaired. :-O

I must be one of the naysayers. I was loitering around the optics counter at Bass Pro about a week ago talking with another customer when he asked my opinion on a Swarovski CL and a Leica that he was considering. I looked at an elk head mount near a large glass window and the CL view had noticeable wash out where as the Leica did a much better job handling the sunlight coming in from the window. As I recall the Leicas were the Ultravid 10X32 so it was not an apples to apples comparison. However, I was expecting better from the CL. Maybe my expectations were too high because they had the Swarovski name on the side. Also, first impressions can sometimes be wrong, as pointed out in the Dennis example. In fairness, I would like to check them out again.

I suggested he take a look at Vortex 8X32 Viper HD ($559.99) and we both agreed it totally out preformed the CL in our limited testing. He was impressed by the Viper, but unfortunately for him, the Viper only came in an 8 power and he was insistent on a 10X32.
 
Last edited:
In Dennis's defense, he my have been suffering from hypoxia while on top of those high Colorado hilltops and his judgment was impaired. :-O

I must be one of the naysayers. I was loitering around the optics counter at Bass Pro about a week ago talking with another customer when he asked my opinion on a Swarovski CL and a Lieca that he was considering. I looked at an elk head mount near a large glass window and the CL view had noticeable wash out where as the Lieca did a much better job handling the sunlight coming in from the window. As I recall the Liecas were the Ultravid 10X32 so it was not an apples to apples comparison. However, I was expecting better from the CL. Maybe my expectations were too high because they had the Swarovski name on the side. Also, first impressions can sometimes be wrong, as pointed out in the Dennis example. In fairness, I would like to check them out again.

I suggested he take a look at Vortex 8X32 Viper HD ($559.99) and we both agreed it totally out preformed the CL in our limited testing. He was impressed by the Viper, but unfortunately for him, the Viper only came in an 8 power and he was insistent on a 10X32.

This was Swaro's first foray into the mid-tier segment (although I suppose you could include the 8x30 SLC when it was selling for $899). In fact, some members did a comparison btwn those two bins since ostensibly, the CL was made to replace the SLC.

At the time of the CL's release, there were only the old Conquests, the HGLs, and the Meopta competing in that segment.

But now that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is getting in on the mid-tier market and adding features such as dielectric coatings and ED glass, the CL has a lot more competition and so do the HGLs, as I mentioned on the Nikon forum.

However, that might not matter in the case of the CLs if comments from pleased CL owners on BF are typical. They like CLs because of their small size and light weight of the bin for traveling and carrying around their neck. But also because they are Swaros.

Now, I'm going out on a limb and hope that I don't get hung by my thumbs like Mussolini, but based on your expectations about what a Swaro should deliver, it occurred to me that the Swaro badge could just as easily sway the potential buyer in the other direction.

I'd like to see a "blind test" done where the CLs were disguised and bulked up to look like some other roofs, and then ask alpha owners who haven't tried the CL to look through them and say what they think of them compared to other midsized and full sized mid-tier models such as the Meopta 8x32 Meostar, the 8x and 10x Conquest HDs, 8x and 10x Trinovids, and 8x and 10x32 HGLs (also all disguised).

I have a hunch that w/out the "Swarovski" badge, they wouldn't rate the CLs as highly. Just as your expectations lead to disappointment, others' expectations might bolster their opinions of the bin.

A real "gear head" would know the difference, of course, but similarly if you disguised a Chevy Cruise (before its release) as a new compact Mercedes, with the all the usual interior and exterior Mercedes markings, would the upscale drivers of Lexus, Acura, and Infinity autos be able to tell the Chevy was not a Mercedes? Would the test drivers not rate the Cruise higher thinking it was a Mercedes than if they knew it was a common Chevy?

I think you can't exclude the "prestige factor" when judging bins made by Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski. The name alone carries expectations.

Except in the case of Zeiss wipes, which are made in China. :)

<B>
 
Brock is right to mention the prestige factor. I have noticed somewhat belatedly that Swarovski Binoculars are " By appointment" to HM the Queen.
What higher recommendation is there?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top