• 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.

Swaro CL Pocket 8x25 vs. 10x25 ??? (1 Viewer)

Z

ZDHart

Well-known member
United States
I just received a pair of 8x25 CL Pocket bins and I love them!

But what I'm wondering is whether I might like the 10x25 CL Pockets even more?

I know that I like the 10x magnification (prefer my Conquest HD 10x24 to my Conquest HD 8x32), and from that I'm thinking I may prefer the 10x25's over the 8x25's.

I live in Arizona and my use is almost always under bright sun conditions.

Can anyone offer some input comparing the 8x25 CL P to the 10x25 CL P.

I know that they are about the same size and very close in weight. Is it likely that I would find the 10x25 noticeably dimmer than the 8x25 or less easy to acquire a good image than the 8x25?
 
ZDHart said:
I know that they are about the same size and very close in weight. Is it likely that I would find the 10x25 noticeably dimmer than the 8x25 or less easy to acquire a good image than the 8x25?
Click to expand...

I had a chance to fool around with the 10x25 for a quarter of an hour. Nice optics, but I didn't see any reason to get one as I've already got a Nikon 10x25 HGL. The 8x25 is in many ways the "more interesting" bin, at least as far as i'm concerned. With the 10x25 you'd lose one of the main advantages of the 8x25: The (compared to 8x20s) slightly larger exit pupil of the 8x25, and that *does* make quite a difference in actual use.

In other words: I wouldn't bother.

Hermann
 
ZDHart said:
I just received a pair of 8x25 CL Pocket bins and I love them!

But what I'm wondering is whether I might like the 10x25 CL Pockets even more?

I know that I like the 10x magnification (prefer my Conquest HD 10x24 to my Conquest HD 8x32), and from that I'm thinking I may prefer the 10x25's over the 8x25's.

I live in Arizona and my use is almost always under bright sun conditions.

Can anyone offer some input comparing the 8x25 CL P to the 10x25 CL P.

I know that they are about the same size and very close in weight. Is it likely that I would find the 10x25 noticeably dimmer than the 8x25 or less easy to acquire a good image than the 8x25?
Click to expand...
Compare the 8x25 CL pockets to the CL 8x30's also. I decided I liked the CL 8x30's better. Little bigger but easier to use with the bigger EA and a lot brighter.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Compare the 8x25 CL pockets to the CL 8x30's also. I decided I liked the CL 8x30's better. Little bigger but easier to use with the bigger EA and a lot brighter.
Click to expand...

But then bigger objectives are (nearly) always better, provided the bins are of comparable quality. Get an 8x42 and it's going to eat your 8x30. And an 8x50 will eat your 8x42 ...

Hermann
 
Hermann said:
But then bigger objectives are (nearly) always better, provided the bins are of comparable quality. Get an 8x42 and it's going to eat your 8x30. And an 8x50 will eat your 8x42 ...

Hermann
Click to expand...

And Godzilla will eat them all!

Coming to a Blue Carpet Theater near you

Between the smaller exit pupil, which makes eye placement more critical, and 10x, which is harder to steady, particularly in a lightweight compact bin, you'd be the exception to the rule if you preferred the 10x25 over the 8x25 even in sunny AZ.

But we do have some Birdforum members who prefer 10x25 compacts for their better resolution and larger aperture (that is, compared to the usual 8x20). The 8x25 CL obviates that advantage.

<B>
 
Given where you live and your preference for 10x, I would bet that you would indeed like the 10x Pocket a bit more. I live in TX, where it is much like AZ in the fact that it is very bright for much of the year, and in the western parts at least, the viewing distances can be quite long. When hiking in the sate parks, I often choose my Leica 10x25 Ultravid HD over my 8x25 CL Pocket when light levels are high. So I would say that *if* the optics are as good, that it would be worth your time to investigate.

Of course, there is that big "if". I've seen some cases where a 10x version of a particular model is not as good as the 8x version. I have no idea if the 10x Pocket performs as well against other 10x25's as does the 8x against other 8x25's. I think you should get a 10x CL Pocket, and then come back here and let everyone know how well it works. Or doesn't work.......
 
Last edited:
For all the above reasons, it was the 8x25 that won me over. For what it's worth, the 8x25's leave our shop at about 3 to 1 over the 10x25s.
 
Hermann said:
But then bigger objectives are (nearly) always better, provided the bins are of comparable quality. Get an 8x42 and it's going to eat your 8x30. And an 8x50 will eat your 8x42 ...

Hermann
Click to expand...
True. But the binocular gets bigger too. The CL 8x25 is a fine compact and I would think most people would prefer it over the 10x25 CL for the bigger FOV and easier eye placement. But the CL 8x30 is a little easier to use if you don't need the pocketable size of the 8x25. Those two are really hard to decide between. I had them both for quite a while and I kept the CL 8x30 in the end. The CL 8x30 gives me the same type of view as my SV and is a lot easier to carry. It is just a little more finicky. Hard decision though. Both really sweet binoculars for birding. I love using my CL 8x30. I grab it most of the time over the SV strap it on my belt and away I go.
 
Last edited:
ZDHart said:
...But what I'm wondering is whether I might like the 10x25 CL Pockets even more?...
Click to expand...

You certainly might like 10x better. But given that the CL is no smaller than its competition, I'd test it against the Leica 10x25 Ultravid BL (or BR) and other top 10x pocket roofs before committing.

--AP
 
I ordered a pair of 10x25 CL Pockets to compare with my 8x25 CL Pockets. I've been comparing them for a week or so now and have decided I will keep them both.

When my wife and I travel, we can take the two CL Pockets, and each have a pair to use at the same time, if desired. They are considerably lighter and more compact than the Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42's that we also have, and... big surprise, when heading to sit out on the back porch and observe nature in the desert behind the house, I find myself reaching more for the Swaro Pockets than I do the Conquest HDs. I think they are comparably sharp. In fact, the 8x25 CL Pockets may be a hair sharper than them all.

Comparing the 8x25 and 10x25 CL Pockets, the 8x25's may be just a tiny bit crisper than the 10x25's, although that impression may be influenced by the larger exit pupil. I find I can grab either pair and enjoy a comparably wonderful magnified view of nature without feeling a lacking as compared to the other pair.

The small and lightweight CL Pockets make them an especially easy choice when you just want to pick up a pair of bins for a bit of looking around. I can see how some people may even consider them to be a reasonable choice for one-and-only bins. They offer a great viewing experience and are small and light enough to always have at hand, whether at home or traveling.

That said, I have no intention of giving up my Conquest HD's... they are awesome bins when the size and weight is not a factor. My favorite pair of bins is usually the pair I happen to have in my hand at the moment, but for stationary viewing from my porch, the Conquest HD 10x42's are awesome.

With five pair of bins now:

Conquest HD 10x42
Conquest HD 8x32
Swaro 10x25 CL P
Swaro 8x25 CL P
Alpen Wings HD 10x42

it's almost an embarassment of choices among wonderful offerings.

In today's marketplace, we are fortunate, indeed, to have so many great bins to choose from.
 
Last edited:
ZDHart said:
I ordered a pair of 10x25 CL Pockets to compare with my 8x25 CL Pockets. I've been comparing them for a week or so now and have decided I will keep them both.

When my wife and I travel, we can take the two CL Pockets, and each have a pair to use at the same time, if desired. They are considerably lighter and more compact than the Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42's that we also have, and... big surprise, when heading to sit out on the back porch and observe nature in the desert behind the house, I find myself reaching more for the Swaro Pockets than I do the Conquest HDs. I think they are comparably sharp. In fact, the 8x25 CL Pockets may be a hair sharper than them all.

Comparing the 8x25 and 10x25 CL Pockets, the 8x25's may be just a tiny bit crisper than the 10x25's, although that impression may be influenced by the larger exit pupil. I find I can grab either pair and enjoy a comparably wonderful magnified view of nature without feeling a lacking as compared to the other pair.

The small and lightweight CL Pockets make them an especially easy choice when you just want to pick up a pair of bins for a bit of looking around. I can see how some people may even consider them to be a reasonable choice for one-and-only bins. They offer a great viewing experience and are small and light enough to always have at hand, whether at home or traveling.

That said, I have no intention of giving up my Conquest HD's... they are awesome bins when the size and weight is not a factor. My favorite pair of bins is usually the pair I happen to have in my hand at the moment, but for stationary viewing from my porch, the Conquest HD 10x42's are awesome.

With five pair of bins now:

Conquest HD 10x42
Conquest HD 8x32
Swaro 10x25 CL P
Swaro 8x25 CL P
Alpen Wings HD 10x42

it's almost an embarassment of choices among wonderful offerings.

In today's marketplace, we are fortunate, indeed, to have so many great bins to choose from.
Click to expand...
You concluded about the same thing I did. The Conquest's 8x32HD were too big and bulky for me most of the time and the little Swaro's give about the same view. Only difference is I went up to the CL 8x30 for a little more comfort and brightness but I know where you are coming from. When you can get 95% of the view with the smaller binocular the size and weight become more important. Those CL-P's are sweet binoculars. You still have your Conquest's if you want to get that last bit of resolution like I do my Swaro 8x32 Swarovision's but like you I find myself grabbing the smaller binoculars most of the time. Interesting result keeping the 10x also.
 
denco... yes, the Conquest HD 8x32's are sweet bins, but neither compact nor light weight. Great for having around, though.

I don't even want to look at the Swaro 8x30... or perhaps I should, while I'm still in honeymoon phase with the two pair of CL Pockets?
 
I like the 8x30 CL better. Primarily because it has much larger eye cups than my 8x25 CL P does and it fits my eyes better. I also like it's focus wheel better. It is larger and somewhat stiffer than the focus wheel on the 8x25 CL P which is almost too loose for my taste. It's double hinge construction makes it quite small when fully closed.

The CL P is much more compact and convenient so I find myself using it more than the 8x30 CL. It will fit into the front pockets of my flannel shirts and I usually carry it around with me when I run errands and drive somewhere. It's very handy and it has excellent optics.

The CL is a small binocular but it's not compact. It will fit into the pockets of a Safari Jacket and the pockets of casual jackets. It's light weight but size wise it isn't too much smaller than the smallest 8x32s.

Bob
 
ZDHart (and other CL-P owners), I'm curious, do you find the colour of the 8x25 CL-P to be particularly warm, or particularly cool? I have been trying out a pair for the past week, and have been finding the colour rendition to be subtly yet noticeably different from my 8x42 Talons.
 
Sam42 said:
ZDHart (and other CL-P owners), I'm curious, do you find the colour of the 8x25 CL-P to be particularly warm, or particularly cool? I have been trying out a pair for the past week, and have been finding the colour rendition to be subtly yet noticeably different from my 8x42 Talons.
Click to expand...


I found the Talons to have a prominent yellowish/warmish cast. I think my CL-P has a fairly neutral view. So I would agree that the view is noticeably different.
 
ZDHart said:
denco... yes, the Conquest HD 8x32's are sweet bins, but neither compact nor light weight. Great for having around, though.

I don't even want to look at the Swaro 8x30... or perhaps I should, while I'm still in honeymoon phase with the two pair of CL Pockets?
Click to expand...
Maybe you shouldn't. But logically the CL30 is going to be a little better optically and easier to use. It is all in how small do you want.
 
Sam42 said:
ZDHart (and other CL-P owners), I'm curious, do you find the colour of the 8x25 CL-P to be particularly warm, or particularly cool? I have been trying out a pair for the past week, and have been finding the colour rendition to be subtly yet noticeably different from my 8x42 Talons.
Click to expand...
The CL-P is neutral like most Swaro's which I personally like.
 
I bought a Zeiss 8x20 years ago but I always wondered why no alpha makers made an 8x25 and guessed it was because the image would be too close to an 8x30. And the view through the CL is so great they are better than many 8x30's. I'd be more tempted to sell the Zeiss if they weren't so small they could fit in my pants pocket. I have my target set on the CL's but will probably keep those sharp, light little Zeiss for times when carrying something larger doesn't make sense.
 
Sam... I find the 8x25 CL P and 10x25 CL P to be relatively neutral in color quality.

A-B ing the two, I think the 8x25's may be just a hair crisper, but same in color quality. I think the "crisper' may be mostly associated with having a slightly larger exit pupil, but I don't know for sure.

When I'm using either pair, on its own, and not busily A-B-ing them, I don't find myself "wanting" for the other for any reason, except, perhaps, when I want to see a little more "up close" detail by going with the 10x vs. the 8x. Where I live and spend most of my time, conditions are quite "bright" and I don't experience situations where I wish the 10x25's were appreciably brighter.
 
Last edited:
I'm about to buy one of the little CL's but can't decide on 8's or 10's. Normally the 8's would be a no brainer except I have a pair of 8x20 victory, 8X30 Conquests, 8x32 Fl's and some Chinese 8x42's. The hole that needs filling is another 10. I like the reach anyway and have no trouble steadying them but now I will be losing my advantage of a bigger exit pupil than every other alpha pocket 10.

I think I'm going to the store to test out the Swaro 8's and 10's and the Zeiss 10x25. What I'm really interested in knowing is, is Swaro 10x considerably better than the smaller but same spec Zeiss 10x. I always wanted an alpha 8x25 but I also always wanted a small pair of 10's.

I'm leaning towards the 10's because I can always buy the 8's later when I've ebayed my excellent condition conquest 8x30's and 12x45's both with lenses that look brand new out of the box. Does this forum have a section for selling?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

R
8x20 in possession. Which one to add?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Rg548
R
G
Uncomfortable Pocket CL 8x25..really?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Elkhornsun
E
D
Curio 7x21 vs. CL 8x25 pocket
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
10K
Dyrlege
D
C
CL 8x25 due an upgrade?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Swedpat
S
R
Curio 7x21 vs Leica trinovid 8x20
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Swedpat
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top