• 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.

OK folks help! - Swarovski or Zeiss?? (1 Viewer)

Are you looking at binoculars, or are you reading specs?

You need to look at the binoculars themselves.

Of course you do. The comment is about the option of carrying a lighter, smaller binocular when one is carrying a scope. Thusly, if the op is considering that, then he might want to look at that binocular.
I own the SF and the Swaro, and use them both. That you can knock almost a half pound off the weight, still get a flat, wide, fov, with generous eye relief and IPD is why I would recommend it. I consider both of those binoculars 'user friendly' from my perspective. I did look up the spec, so I could quote it.

-Bill
 
Last edited:
I have a pair of Zeiss Victory HT 8x42. Then a screw came loose and was rattling inside. I sent it to Zeiss for warranty service, but got tired of waiting and got the EL SV 8.5x42. In the end it took Zeiss 12 weeks to fix a very minor issue (I lived in the US back then). Needless to say I am not impressed with Zeiss' quality control or their support. The HT have been relegated to car trunk duty.
 
When I had the funds to upgrade to an excellent binocular, I spent about a year looking. The reason it took so long was that I was determined to try every binocular on my "list," and it was larger than yours. Previous experience showed the importance of fit and feel in my hands. I'd encountered some higher recommended models that just weren't right for me.

That's a long way of saying "Try before you buy, if at all possible." If not, and I know it's increasingly hard to find stores with wide selections, make sure to buy from a place with a generous return policy.

Of your choices, I'd lean toward the 8x42 Zeiss Victory FL and the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL. The close focus is pretty much a draw, but I'd find the wider field of the Zeiss enticing. Since I wear glasses I'd want to try a pair. The claimed 18mm eye relief may be fine, but I've seen binox with 16.9mm eye relief where I can't see the entire field yet a pair advertised as 15mm was fine.

Clear skies, Alan
 
I have the EL FPro 8.5x42 and HT 10x42. I bought both used (I could describe that more if you're interested). I have not used the SF. I really prefer the EL view to the HT, if I had to pick between the two. Yes, I can see some things better with the 10x vs 8.5x in some conditions, but there's something about the overall look that is much more pleasant to my eyes in the EL. This is, to some extent, splitting hairs, as they are both great and I have no plans on replacing the HTs.

I mostly use 10x for shore birds or when I'm out in large fields and do not want to bring a 32x scope (Opticron MM4/60). For closer things, I notice little difference between 10x and 8.5x.

I do like a closer focus binocular, as I often look out my breakfast window to insects on the flowers that can be 3' - 8' away.
 
I have a pair of Zeiss Victory HT 8x42. Then a screw came loose and was rattling inside. I sent it to Zeiss for warranty service, but got tired of waiting and got the EL SV 8.5x42. In the end it took Zeiss 12 weeks to fix a very minor issue (I lived in the US back then). Needless to say I am not impressed with Zeiss' quality control or their support. The HT have been relegated to car trunk duty.
I'm not a fan of Zeiss, especially for many new millennium products. But it is always a displeasure for me to read that a company of that caliber, which still has a high power of inventiveness and quality, now lowers the levels so much and in such a short time. I do not like the choice made by the new managers for which reliability has immediately failed, with a consequent negative image.
Too bad, because the Victory HT is most likely the best ergonomic design among the roof binoculars ever produced and the optical quality could also be at the same height (especially in the 10x42 format).


I really prefer the EL view to the HT, if I had to pick between the two ... there's something about the overall look that is much more pleasant to my eyes in the EL.
I tried Swaro EL and I know that view, but not Zeiss HT. And since I think HT 10x42 is an interesting binocular, I would be curious if you can deepen what you see, as difference. Thank you.
 
I'm not a fan of Zeiss, especially for many new millennium products. But it is always a displeasure for me to read that a company of that caliber, which still has a high power of inventiveness and quality, now lowers the levels so much and in such a short time. I do not like the choice made by the new managers for which reliability has immediately failed, with a consequent negative image.
Too bad, because the Victory HT is most likely the best ergonomic design among the roof binoculars ever produced and the optical quality could also be at the same height (especially in the 10x42 format).

Well, I also have the 8x25 Victory Pocket, that I absolutely love, but they are made in Japan, presumably by Kamakura Koki, and thus not "real" Zeiss (in this case, apparently that's a feature).

I also much prefer the HT design to the open-bridge of the EL SV or SF.
 
I'd find the wider field of the Zeiss enticing. Since I wear glasses I'd want to try a pair. The claimed 18mm eye relief may be fine, but I've seen binox with 16.9mm eye relief where I can't see the entire field yet a pair advertised as 15mm was fine.
It is never useful to evaluate eye relief as an absolute measure, because it is a measure that must always be proportionate to the apparent vision width of the eyepiece.
Therefore, it is possible to see the entire field of view with glasses even in binoculars with an ER of 11mm, or have field restrictions with an ER of 17mm.

I made calculation tables for this, using a fairly precise formula, which I had to calibrate with actual experiences (mine and those of others). In general it is possible to say that with an ER declared of 18mm or more, on 100% of binoculars it is possible to observe the whole field with glasses.
Of course, then it also depends on the glasses and prescriptions, but my tests were done with rather rounded sunglasses and therefore towards the maximum limit.

All these binoculars mentioned have an ER considered sufficient. But Victory HT, FL and SF are closest to the limit (respectively).

The test I did with EL (8x42) was positive even with my glasses. The vision is really fantastic for what concerns the wide field of view, clear up to the edge and it surprised me also for the general excellent geometric correction, without crushing the planes or absence of 3D. The quality of these binoculars is evident even only to the touch and they also offer an excellent adjustment of the eyecups (rare in other models).


I also much prefer the HT design to the open-bridge of the EL SV or SF.
I find it a pity that Zeiss has stopped the HT version, although it is possible to buy the 42mm RF series, but that is another binoculars, which weighs and costs too much and that has eaten almost all the intelligent ergonomics of the focus wheel, used in HT and SF.
 
Last edited:
With a scope a premium 8X32 will do almost as well, and be even less weight. Just a thought.

Andy W.

My first high end binocular was a 7x42. Realizing that I was carrying more aperture than I needed, at least on most days, and perhaps even on dreary, cloudy days due to my aging eyes, I bought a pair of 8x32s. (They had the same 8-degree field of view and better close focus, which helped sell me on them.)

But I have noticed that I can hold the heavier 7x42s steadier. I don't think the difference in entirely due to the lower magnification. (My even lighter 8x23s are so shaky I don't use them and trying some high end compact binoculars convinced me not to buy a pair.)

Clear skies, Alan
 
In general it is possible to say that with an ER declared of 18mm or more, on 100% of binoculars it is possible to observe the whole field with glasses.

Of course, then it also depends on the glasses and prescriptions, but my tests were done with rather rounded sunglasses and therefore towards the maximum limit.

.

Did you test any Opticron products? One of their recent 8x32 models claims 19mm of ER, and yet I cannot see the entire field with my glasses. On the other hand, I can see the entire field with a Leica, with claimed ER of 17mm.... (and yes, AFOV is certainly playing a role, imho)

-Bill
 
Hi Kerry,

probably the best advice (often repeated) is to test them out yourself -- you may be surprised at what you prefer is different to the opinions expressed here and by others.

I am more than super-happy with my Swarowski 8.5x42 EL FP. no regrets at all and contrary to my advice I didn't do much testing !!!!! They are so super clear and a pleasure to use.

The superb clarity actually makes me want something much much smaller for occasional use (e.g. that can fit in a work bag) so I then went out and compared 3 pocket binoculars -- the swarowski 8x25, Zeiss pocket victory 8x25, and the Leica ultravid 8x20. My personal testing of the three came up with quite different personal preferences than the body of opinion here and was very much based on "feel" rather than specific measurements. Haven't bought one yet though.
 
Last edited:
Did you test any Opticron products? One of their recent 8x32 models claims 19mm of ER, and yet I cannot see the entire field with my glasses.
Hi Bill, I have tested some Opticrons, but personally not 8x32.
If you refer to the "Traveller BGA ED 8x32" model, my formula indicates that there should be no problem, because now I imagine that the declaration is "slightly" overrated.
I tested the 10x32 version for which Opticron declares 17mm, but in reality I measured the exit pupil at 14.1mm from the outer glass of the eyepiece and for that distance, the formula still indicates the sufficiency.
So, with my domed glasses I can see the entire all field of view (or the entire observation window of the binoculars), but only if I perfectly center the pupils with the correct IPD.
In fact, it will always be possible in other situations, to have some degree of restriction (as in your case).

The "Traveller BGA ED" model is a good-excellent binoculars for the price and has an field of view average wide (eyepieces with 65 ° AFOV), so if the loss is only a few degrees, it always remains an good vision and it's still an excellent choice.
If, on the other hand, we want to be a little more rigorous, the Opticron guys should be scolded for this statement to the limit of acceptable.

The same can be said for all competing Traveller binoculars, such as the Kite Lynx, Nikon M7 and HG new, Maven B.3 or all other similar 8x-10x30, with ER subtracting up to 10% of the field of view (whit higher price).
In this case my formula immediately evaluates the ER of the eyepiece as "too short" for the glasses (insufficient). Here the statement is honest! (I have tested Lynx and M7 10x30)
And despite the fact that the AFOV is greater (69 °), the loss with glasses will be greater, and the same final vision will be equated (about 63 ° AFOV).

and yes, AFOV is certainly playing a role, imho
The math is not an opinion! AFOV is certainly and undoubtedly playing "the" role. :t:
 
Last edited:
That’s a good point for the 8x42s.. I too have been using 10x42, but now I’m really starting to think about weight... bins, scope and tripod, camera... and I would like to be able to avail myself of my bins without necessarily putting down my scope.

Keri,

You are getting lots of really good advice here. My thought based on what you have said: Since you are willing to spend top dollar for a dream binocular but you also want a reasonably small, light binocular, with wide FOV that you can use with one hand while carrying your scope and other gear, you might consider getting two bins as opposed to one. IMO, the new Kowa 6.5x32 would be a great practical everyday complement to a scope with its 525' FOV, great DOF, light weight, compact and rock steady image even with one hand. At $399 for the Kowa you could also buy the alpha binocular of your dreams without having to restrict your choice to a smaller lighter alpha that *best* complements your scope and carrying all your gear. This way, you could go with a 7, 8, 10, or even a 12 alpha to use with or without the scope depending on circumstances and your preferences.

If that doesn't appeal, then like many others here, I would vote for the SF 8x42 for its wider FOV and better balance in hand to use with your scope.

Good luck with your search and testing.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Hi,
You already got a lot of good advice, and I can only reiterate a couple of earlier recommendations.

If I were in your shoes, the choice would be between Zeiss SF 8x42, or Swarovski EL 8x32. Personally, I prefer 8 times magnification over 10 because of ease, depth and field of view, especially if you also have a scope. The view is more relaxed and it is easier to follow birds moving around in bushes etc. I very rarely miss higher magnification.

I own both and they are wonderful binoculars. Of the two, the Zeiss is slightly brighter in twilight and has a bigger field of view, but it is also a bit heavier and longer. In my view, that is the trade-off. Both are also fairly long compared to other 32’s and 42’s, but it does not bother me because they are not heavier than most others. Regardless, I do not think you can go wrong with any of the two. Good luck in the decision.
 
Decision

So I finally decided on the Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 bins... I like the Zeiss for better FOV, and I chose the 10s for a better reach...|8)||8)|
 
So I finally decided on the Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 bins... I like the Zeiss for better FOV, and I chose the 10s for a better reach...|8)||8)|

You chose wisely, I think it is one of the best available.

I love the photo of the snowy owl, but I did not see one this winter, we usually have one or two around here. What a wonderful bird.

Jerry
 
I can see I am late as you already placed your order and you made a good one. But for future birders who have the same decision to make:

Both excellent....optics superb...but there is a difference in the optics themselves so compare them if you can. Don't do this in a store but compare side by side in the field. I have a pair of Zeiss and excellent they are but more pin point focus and not as much field of view in terms of focus as the Swaro. The Zeiss has more light transmission when I compared side-by-side. If I was birding in a sunny area or time of the year (think when you bird the most), I would take the Swaro, if in a cloudy area or forest habitat, I would take the Zeiss..... just on that alone.

The other thing is the intangible part which really sold me. The Zeiss is just plain comfy in your hands. It feels good, the coating feels good, the ergonomics of the focus wheel etc etc... It was something I didn't want to put down. I wanted it up to my face all the time and in my hands. When I had the Swaro, frankly....it felt like I was holding a brick up to my face. Nothing appealing about it. Brick like...boring.

So...the intangible part clearly goes to the Zeiss....the field in focus goes to the Swaro, ....Sunny days belong to Swaro, while cloudy or rainforest type situation are Zeiss.

But get both pairs...order in thru 'B and H Photo' both pairs and do a field test side by side and 'you determine'. Listening to any one of us will give you 'our opinion' but it is YOUR $2000, not ours....B and H allows you to order and return free of charge as long as they are not used looking....so take advantage of that. Easy return policy.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Those Optolyths were what I used from 1983 to 1990. Even then 6 metres was considered long, but possibly the bins were not originally designed with birders in mind. Focusing was odd too: from near to far, you turned the wheel anticlockwise. Nor were they waterproof, or even very water-resistant. The optical quality was good for the price though, and for some years they appeared in the British Birds annual survey of optics favoured by by birdwatchers. The Optolyth 30x75 scope, which I used, was reviewed in Birding World by the eminent Peter Grant in 1983. He said that if only it were waterproof, it would be "the ideal birder's scope".

I got a pair of Optolyth Alpin 10x40 in 1980 and used nothing else for 20 years. Still have them and keep meaning to get them serviced out of sentimentality. Badly out of collimation and some water ingress - but boy I loved them back in the day!
 
Well, I also have the 8x25 Victory Pocket, that I absolutely love, but they are made in Japan, presumably by Kamakura Koki, and thus not "real" Zeiss (in this case, apparently that's a feature).

I also much prefer the HT design to the open-bridge of the EL SV or SF.

What happened to the HT 10x42 brand and why discontinued? ... Ergonomically they are the best set of bins I have had, ...and optically, although a smaller sweet spot in the middle, they are very sharp.... Funny how they came out with it and just dropped them a few years later. They went with the SF line-up to go along with the rest of the crowd I suppose. Too bad, the design they had was perfect and different. It set them a part.
 
What happened to the HT 10x42 brand and why discontinued? ... Ergonomically they are the best set of bins I have had, ...and optically, although a smaller sweet spot in the middle, they are very sharp.... Funny how they came out with it and just dropped them a few years later. They went with the SF line-up to go along with the rest of the crowd I suppose. Too bad, the design they had was perfect and different. It set them a part.
Flat field, big FOV and sharp edges is what sells.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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