This winter I felt an urge to buy a 7x42 binocular to complement my long-time favourite (Nikon 8x32 SE). With time to kill, and cost not a factor, I went into Cley Spy one day to look at a Leica Ultravid HD+. While I was there, the very helpful staff member put a couple of Zeiss models, Nikons, a used 8x42 SLC HD, a new 8x42 SLC, new 8x32 EL-SW, and a new 8x42.5 EL-SW. After almost an hour standing by the door, constantly swapping models, I came to the conclusion that the best binocular of the lot was the used SLC HD. Better than its newer model; better even than the 8x42.5 EL about which I'd read so many amazing reviews. I didn't really like any of the EL models, truth be told, but every time I put the SLC HD to my eye, it instantly snapped into place with an astonishingly bright and sharp image, perfectly even across the whole, wide field. They were in mint condition, boxed with all accessories, and cost me £900. But if they'd been the same price as the most expensive of all the models put in front of me, I'd still have bought them. They're by far the best, easiest-to-use binoculars I've ever tried. Wonderful glass.
-
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.
8X42 Slc hd (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AJB123
- Start date
Agree with most that has been written and covered above ( with slight exception as to actual quality characteristics of the newest model of the 8x42 SLC WB).
I have had both models of the SLC 8x42's; I sold the original HD ( should have kept it), and now own the newest 8x42 SLC WB. Both of these are very fine binoculars.
The SLC HD model was made for roughly (2) + years 2010-2012. I am not sure there are any out there with a 83 (2013) serial #. It was and is a fantastic binocular. For one main reason ( that has been confirmed to me by more than one Swaro SONA tech ) Swarovski discontinued it and came out with the newest version of the 8x42 SLC. That reason being to create more of price difference between the SLC HD and the SV. There was only about $200 difference in price at the time. Apparently either the SLC was not selling at the price, or it affected the SV sales. Do not know which was the case. But Swarovski made the interesting decision to lower the price on the SLC by changing the close focus and changing the armor. Really according to the tech I spoke with the only cost savings was in the redesign of the eyepiece; as the armor change does not save cost. One tech that I spoke to said that even though there was savings to the eyepiece design by changing the close focus, he did not think that it saved as much as the price drop. He thought that the new version was a very good value. My thoughts on this was that since the goal was to separate price from the SV; that Swarovski lowered the price on the SLC even more than the cost savings of making the binocular. Which makes sense that their whole goal was to have a bigger cost difference between the SLC and the SV. The price of the older SLC HD 8x42 was about $2129 and the new version when it came out was about $1729 ( now $1749). IMO, Swarovski did not save $400 by just changing the close focus design. Tech told me that there was significant savings there, but I am not sure if it is $400 in real cost to them.
BTW- interesting that a company would make a change to one of its own lines just to make a price difference to other part of its offerings. But many companies do the same sorts of things. Auto market etc.
I have been told more than once, that the optics and glass is the same as the original SLC- HD- except for close focus difference. In owning both and testing both, I would tend to agree with that.
I had the original SLC-HD, sold it, regretted it a year later; and then looked for another. When I had trouble looking for one, I bought a newer version 8x42 SLC WB. Actually it is my second go around with one of these, but I am now sticking with this one.
Basic difference is the close focus ( 6 ft, vs 10.5 ft in the new one) - which matters a hill of beans to me in a full size bin. It makes no field difference to me in the least. The new model is 1 oz less, which is not much, but something I actually appreciate. New model has a less aesthetically appealing appearance than the older model. But it's much maligned "bumpy" exterior actually has a nice functional use. I found that it really is quite "grippy" in use in the very wet climate that I live in. So for me in field use the new armor may be a wash as to which I prefer.
New model that I have (made 2014) has a very smooth focus mechanism, is extremely sharp; is bright and a pleasure to use. Plus I bought it for a very appealing price. It makes a nice compliment to my 10x42 Leupold Cascade Porro binocular; and to my 8x32 Leupold Mojave.
So anyone that is interested in one of the 8x42 SLC models, I would not hesitate to buy one of the new models, and not look back. After all, they do not make the old ones anymore, so choices of finding one are not easy. And this is the new design choice in all the SLC models. Even the 56mm models have the same armor look.
Optically the new ones are very, very good. Recently when they were closing out the old model SV 8.5x42 at the local Cabelas I picked a demo model up to check out. I was wondering if I would like it better than my 8x42 SLC. I spent the better part of 2 weeks putting both through numerous testing in all conditions. Also tested them with a buddy who has a 10x42 SV; who BTW just assumed that the SV's must be the better line. Well, my 8x42 SLC more than held its own. In fact regardless of cost, I preferred it to the SV. But then again, that was based on my personal preferences of what I want in a binocular. And my buddy was quite surprised at how good the 8x42 SLC really is. He had a pre conceived bias towards both the SV and 10x bins in general. But after a couple of hours looking through all (3) mounted on tripods and testing them at a variety of distances, he came away quite impressed with the nice crisp wide view that the 8x42 SLC provides. He also liked quite well how fast and easier the tripod mount is on the Swaro SLC.
So, the 8.5 SV was returned for someone else to enjoy, and I am quite happy with my 8x42 SLC. Maybe even more so, after all the detailed side by side testing.
Apologize for the long winded post.
I have had both models of the SLC 8x42's; I sold the original HD ( should have kept it), and now own the newest 8x42 SLC WB. Both of these are very fine binoculars.
The SLC HD model was made for roughly (2) + years 2010-2012. I am not sure there are any out there with a 83 (2013) serial #. It was and is a fantastic binocular. For one main reason ( that has been confirmed to me by more than one Swaro SONA tech ) Swarovski discontinued it and came out with the newest version of the 8x42 SLC. That reason being to create more of price difference between the SLC HD and the SV. There was only about $200 difference in price at the time. Apparently either the SLC was not selling at the price, or it affected the SV sales. Do not know which was the case. But Swarovski made the interesting decision to lower the price on the SLC by changing the close focus and changing the armor. Really according to the tech I spoke with the only cost savings was in the redesign of the eyepiece; as the armor change does not save cost. One tech that I spoke to said that even though there was savings to the eyepiece design by changing the close focus, he did not think that it saved as much as the price drop. He thought that the new version was a very good value. My thoughts on this was that since the goal was to separate price from the SV; that Swarovski lowered the price on the SLC even more than the cost savings of making the binocular. Which makes sense that their whole goal was to have a bigger cost difference between the SLC and the SV. The price of the older SLC HD 8x42 was about $2129 and the new version when it came out was about $1729 ( now $1749). IMO, Swarovski did not save $400 by just changing the close focus design. Tech told me that there was significant savings there, but I am not sure if it is $400 in real cost to them.
BTW- interesting that a company would make a change to one of its own lines just to make a price difference to other part of its offerings. But many companies do the same sorts of things. Auto market etc.
I have been told more than once, that the optics and glass is the same as the original SLC- HD- except for close focus difference. In owning both and testing both, I would tend to agree with that.
I had the original SLC-HD, sold it, regretted it a year later; and then looked for another. When I had trouble looking for one, I bought a newer version 8x42 SLC WB. Actually it is my second go around with one of these, but I am now sticking with this one.
Basic difference is the close focus ( 6 ft, vs 10.5 ft in the new one) - which matters a hill of beans to me in a full size bin. It makes no field difference to me in the least. The new model is 1 oz less, which is not much, but something I actually appreciate. New model has a less aesthetically appealing appearance than the older model. But it's much maligned "bumpy" exterior actually has a nice functional use. I found that it really is quite "grippy" in use in the very wet climate that I live in. So for me in field use the new armor may be a wash as to which I prefer.
New model that I have (made 2014) has a very smooth focus mechanism, is extremely sharp; is bright and a pleasure to use. Plus I bought it for a very appealing price. It makes a nice compliment to my 10x42 Leupold Cascade Porro binocular; and to my 8x32 Leupold Mojave.
So anyone that is interested in one of the 8x42 SLC models, I would not hesitate to buy one of the new models, and not look back. After all, they do not make the old ones anymore, so choices of finding one are not easy. And this is the new design choice in all the SLC models. Even the 56mm models have the same armor look.
Optically the new ones are very, very good. Recently when they were closing out the old model SV 8.5x42 at the local Cabelas I picked a demo model up to check out. I was wondering if I would like it better than my 8x42 SLC. I spent the better part of 2 weeks putting both through numerous testing in all conditions. Also tested them with a buddy who has a 10x42 SV; who BTW just assumed that the SV's must be the better line. Well, my 8x42 SLC more than held its own. In fact regardless of cost, I preferred it to the SV. But then again, that was based on my personal preferences of what I want in a binocular. And my buddy was quite surprised at how good the 8x42 SLC really is. He had a pre conceived bias towards both the SV and 10x bins in general. But after a couple of hours looking through all (3) mounted on tripods and testing them at a variety of distances, he came away quite impressed with the nice crisp wide view that the 8x42 SLC provides. He also liked quite well how fast and easier the tripod mount is on the Swaro SLC.
So, the 8.5 SV was returned for someone else to enjoy, and I am quite happy with my 8x42 SLC. Maybe even more so, after all the detailed side by side testing.
Apologize for the long winded post.
Last edited:
kestrel1
Well-known member
Good evening,
today very rare "session" occured here in midwest Slovakia... Me and one man meet to test the one of greatest binocular on today market, even the low light test condition was reviewed. The samples we tested were:
Zeiss HT 8x42, SLC HD 8x42, EL SV 8,5x42, UV HD+ 7x42, EDG 7x42.
What to say shortly, the stunning image in every sample...
Field Sharpness: 1. ELSV, 2.) EDG, 3.) SLC HD 4.) UV HD+, 5.) HT
Low light: 1.) HT & UVHD+ 2.) SLC HD 3.) ELSV & EDG
What to say,
the UVHD+ in 7x42 is really nice binocular, lightweight and relaxed in hands, negligible shakeness, great sharpness, impressive low light performance...
HT still king of the hill in terms of low light performance...
SLC HD has the best wow effect...
ELSV - best optical system, but it is not good to test it with binoculars with pincushion, due you will notice RB when switching binos...
EDG - flat field without RB, great for nature watching, best eye relief and fluidy focusser...
Result of review: if you will be forced to take only one from the binocular, you will spend day and cannot came to conclusion... But if you are open to compromise, then SLC HD will be winner :king:
Thats the reason why I posted it into this thread :t:
today very rare "session" occured here in midwest Slovakia... Me and one man meet to test the one of greatest binocular on today market, even the low light test condition was reviewed. The samples we tested were:
Zeiss HT 8x42, SLC HD 8x42, EL SV 8,5x42, UV HD+ 7x42, EDG 7x42.
What to say shortly, the stunning image in every sample...
Field Sharpness: 1. ELSV, 2.) EDG, 3.) SLC HD 4.) UV HD+, 5.) HT
Low light: 1.) HT & UVHD+ 2.) SLC HD 3.) ELSV & EDG
What to say,
the UVHD+ in 7x42 is really nice binocular, lightweight and relaxed in hands, negligible shakeness, great sharpness, impressive low light performance...
HT still king of the hill in terms of low light performance...
SLC HD has the best wow effect...
ELSV - best optical system, but it is not good to test it with binoculars with pincushion, due you will notice RB when switching binos...
EDG - flat field without RB, great for nature watching, best eye relief and fluidy focusser...
Result of review: if you will be forced to take only one from the binocular, you will spend day and cannot came to conclusion... But if you are open to compromise, then SLC HD will be winner :king:
Thats the reason why I posted it into this thread :t:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Must have been a joy to test all those nice bins.
I agree in most of the ranking.
The SV might not appear to be the brightest in low light (and also has the smallest exit pupil), but still, it has great contrast and works quite well in reasonable low light IMO, though not as good as my 7x42 FL for instance.
When it comes to the SLC (latest one) no doubt it's a great bin to a good price.
Build quality is not on the same level of the other alphas though, IMO.
What do you think about the differences in color rendition between the models?
Last edited:
Interesting you found the build quality of the SLC at a lower level than the rest. What makes you say that? They seemed marketed to hunters and the ones I've tried feel quite robust and never have the coarse focusing action I've gotten from some samples of the EL series I've handled.
kestrel1
Well-known member
Hi again,
regarding the brightness, the binoculars were gradually stepped, even the SV and EDG were performing very good, "just a lil bit" darker, but with good detail perception... Simply it is hard for them to match the transmission of binocular without FF and with HT glass (BTW I wish to see SLC with HT glass in future...)
From color rendition, it is red-brown cast of Nikon EDG what makes it not so good twilight performer in reality, than it looks on paper, despite differences of exit pupils. Simply, when the test object has green to blue color cast, the "cold transmitting" HT will show it brightest....
All of the binoculars has durable housing, the SLC to me looks as very solid piece of equipment. But of course, it is good to pay special attention when switching between binoculars over concrete road during low light test 3
regarding the brightness, the binoculars were gradually stepped, even the SV and EDG were performing very good, "just a lil bit" darker, but with good detail perception... Simply it is hard for them to match the transmission of binocular without FF and with HT glass (BTW I wish to see SLC with HT glass in future...)
From color rendition, it is red-brown cast of Nikon EDG what makes it not so good twilight performer in reality, than it looks on paper, despite differences of exit pupils. Simply, when the test object has green to blue color cast, the "cold transmitting" HT will show it brightest....
All of the binoculars has durable housing, the SLC to me looks as very solid piece of equipment. But of course, it is good to pay special attention when switching between binoculars over concrete road during low light test 3
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Looks like it sold for the full amount of the listing. Goes to show how little I know. :eek!: However, it makes me feel that much better about the one I bought. :t: Bottom line is that it is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay. They got a great binocular for the same price as the new model but have the closer focus. I guess that is a fair deal!
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
For me build quality and durability is not the same thing.
Durability is hard to judge from just looking briefly at a pair of bins.
You need to do drop tests and sink them in water etc. like allbinos did.
And who would have thought that those fine Leicas couldn't keep the water out?
Even more relevant would be using them in harsh conditions for many years.
And I'm sure the durability of the SLC:s are as good as any.
There are anecdotes about bad focusers from all alphas i suppose.
One guy returned a pair of SLC:s due to a squeaky focuser I recall.
Even put a sound recording up here on bird forum on it.
Build quality is perhaps not that clearly defined, and the definition varies over countries and product type. To me it includes the choice of external materials,
hinges, eye cups, focuser feel and positioning, weight, the feel in the hands of the bins, balance. But to some extent also the visual impression, color, proportions and the general industrial design work. Is the design well thought out and well executed? A high end product also should appeal to the eye not just function IMO. To me the SLC:s are not quite up to the best* when it comes to look and feel but it's my subjective view of course.
*Leica Ultravid HD, Swaro EL SV (pre field-pro), Zeiss HT
Last edited:
Another false test http://www.optyczne.pl/303-Test_lornetki-Test_Swarovski_SLC_10x42_W_B.html
I don't know which measurement instruments use the Polish optical specialists for measuring characteristics of binoculars, but it's a false test. Old model Swarovski SLC 10x42 WB HD poor than new model Swarovski SLC 10x42 W B, it's probably a joke.
Gijs, please to make Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016 clear and to put different Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016 right and to clarify about Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016. Thanks.
I don't know which measurement instruments use the Polish optical specialists for measuring characteristics of binoculars, but it's a false test. Old model Swarovski SLC 10x42 WB HD poor than new model Swarovski SLC 10x42 W B, it's probably a joke.
Gijs, please to make Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016 clear and to put different Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016 right and to clarify about Swar SLC from 2011 to 2016. Thanks.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Alexbino, post 30,
Test reports of the "old"SLC and the "new" one are published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can not find them please PM me and give your e-mail address and I can send you the tests dirctly to your personal e-mail.
Do not beleive fairy tales that the new one is not built well and does not perform well, since the old and the new ones are almost identical optically except for the difference in close focus.
Gijs van Ginkel
Test reports of the "old"SLC and the "new" one are published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can not find them please PM me and give your e-mail address and I can send you the tests dirctly to your personal e-mail.
Do not beleive fairy tales that the new one is not built well and does not perform well, since the old and the new ones are almost identical optically except for the difference in close focus.
Gijs van Ginkel
^^^ This! I fully concur from my own individual observations having owned both models.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Stephen b, post post 32,
Yes and thouroughly tested as well in comparison with similar binoculars from other brands.
Gijs van Ginkel
Yes and thouroughly tested as well in comparison with similar binoculars from other brands.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs, I read your test report about "old" SLC and the "new" SLC on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
I fully agree with your tests "old" SLC and the "new" SLC because I am using SLC HD 8x42 and 10x42.
Please send me the tests directly to my personal e-mail. Thank you. Have a nice evening.
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Alexbino and Ed, posts 34 and 35,
It is no problem to send you the tests, but they are identical to the ones published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you want to have them directly from me you have to PM me your personal e-mail addresses.
Gijs van Ginkel
It is no problem to send you the tests, but they are identical to the ones published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you want to have them directly from me you have to PM me your personal e-mail addresses.
Gijs van Ginkel
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
True, by .059%.
Here are the three total scores they produced over the years:
The good news is that my old SLC Neu is as good as it got.
I just love objective measurements, don't you?
Ed
PS. The difference between the HD and current model is within rounding error, so there is no difference. :smoke:
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Looking at your tests, to me it seems that the current SLC have a slightly flatter transmission curve than the SLC HD from 2010. But a flatter curve means that the peak value also will decrease. It seems that Swaro added a few layers of AR coatings to flatten the curve and get a slightly more neutral color to the cost of slightly lower peak transmission.
Last edited:
Similar threads
