• 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.

Swarovski EL 8.5x42 review, and updated SLC 8x42 W B review (1 Viewer)

Nice review. Now, try to get your hands on a 10X50 Swarovision. It's amazing.

Agreed. Interestingly there's apparently some sort of correlation between the size of the objective lenses and the (perceived) quality of the binoculars: 8x25 < 8x32 < 8.5x42 < 10x50. I've seen similar results with regard to binoculars from other manufacturers, e.g. Zeiss.

That's something I'd quite like to understand better.

Hermann
 
Agreed. Interestingly there's apparently some sort of correlation between the size of the objective lenses and the (perceived) quality of the binoculars: 8x25 < 8x32 < 8.5x42 < 10x50. I've seen similar results with regard to binoculars from other manufacturers, e.g. Zeiss.

That's something I'd quite like to understand better.

Hermann

What about the 12x50 then? ;)
 
Yes, after four+ years the 8.5 SV is my "workhorse," the one I grab more than any other, the one I don't even think about, just grab it and go.

I don't see a dramatic difference between the 8.5 and the 8x32, except in terms of some quirky glare issues in the 32mm. Weight, magnification, and size of course are different.

And I'm so glad I ignored the "rollingballers," and the "Achille's heelers." Yuck. ;)

Mark
 
Thanks, Tobias, for a very nice review and a good read.

You manage to bring together enthusiasm and comprehensive objectivity nicely, which is all too uncommon in reviews.

Your impressions on the 8.5x SV are very much a match with mine when I had one recent sample on loan earlier this winter to use as a comparison for the 8x SF. Since my memories are still fresh (and I have notes, of course), I'll comment on a couple of points.

I do think the color balance of the SV is tiny bit on the cool, blue-emphasized side. Not that it matters much or would be a problem. In comparisons with the SF (which looked a bit greenish-yellow) the difference was quite obvious as the slight biases of these are towards opposite sides of neutral. In between (thus a bit closer to neutral) was my 10x42 Canon.

It had been quite a while since I had reviewed the SV's, so I was expecting more pronounced rolling ball effects in its view, but like you, what I saw was quite minimal and did not disturb me. The SF had much more, but it does have a wider subjective field of view of course. That would also be a difference to the 8x32 SV, and may explain part of the differences in RB and distortion behavior. I was looking at angular magnification distortion behavior towards the field edges with various square, rectangular or round objects, assessing their change of shape as they would be panned towards or from the field edge, and judged that this happened much less with the SV than with the SF. The Canon is pretty similar to the 8.5x SV in this regard, so it is possible that as I'm used to the Canon view it helps me with the SV view. Nevertheless, I also thought that what I saw did not correspond with my memories (or, indeed, with what I wrote about in my review) of the 8.5x42 SV.

Fortunately, the shop here still has the original demo sample of the SV, so I could compare the new and the early models directly. To my surprise, in an admittedly short back-and-forth session outside the store, I couldn't see any reliably clear differences. If there were any, they were too slight to repeatably notice, and then one would also have to consider sample variation possibilities.

I can also support your statements about contrast transfer and sharpness, as they really were quite outstanding. I have never seen blacker blacks in a binocular image than with this SV. It also did very well on both naked eye and boosted resolution tests.

The one part where I differ a bit with your assessments is the comparison with 8x42 SLC. I did not directly compare the two now, but when I have tested the SLC, I have had samples that resolution-wise equaled this SV and also had superb contrast, although with a slightly warmer color balance the contrast would look different subjectively. So I'd dare guess that as you have seen a clear difference between the two in sharpness, the SLC sample you had might not have been quite the luckiest draw from the deck.

Kimmo
 
Thanks, Tobias, for a very nice review and a good read.

You manage to bring together enthusiasm and comprehensive objectivity nicely, which is all too uncommon in reviews.

Your impressions on the 8.5x SV are very much a match with mine when I had one recent sample on loan earlier this winter to use as a comparison for the 8x SF. Since my memories are still fresh (and I have notes, of course), I'll comment on a couple of points.

I do think the color balance of the SV is tiny bit on the cool, blue-emphasized side. Not that it matters much or would be a problem. In comparisons with the SF (which looked a bit greenish-yellow) the difference was quite obvious as the slight biases of these are towards opposite sides of neutral. In between (thus a bit closer to neutral) was my 10x42 Canon.

It had been quite a while since I had reviewed the SV's, so I was expecting more pronounced rolling ball effects in its view, but like you, what I saw was quite minimal and did not disturb me. The SF had much more, but it does have a wider subjective field of view of course. That would also be a difference to the 8x32 SV, and may explain part of the differences in RB and distortion behavior. I was looking at angular magnification distortion behavior towards the field edges with various square, rectangular or round objects, assessing their change of shape as they would be panned towards or from the field edge, and judged that this happened much less with the SV than with the SF. The Canon is pretty similar to the 8.5x SV in this regard, so it is possible that as I'm used to the Canon view it helps me with the SV view. Nevertheless, I also thought that what I saw did not correspond with my memories (or, indeed, with what I wrote about in my review) of the 8.5x42 SV.

Fortunately, the shop here still has the original demo sample of the SV, so I could compare the new and the early models directly. To my surprise, in an admittedly short back-and-forth session outside the store, I couldn't see any reliably clear differences. If there were any, they were too slight to repeatably notice, and then one would also have to consider sample variation possibilities.

I can also support your statements about contrast transfer and sharpness, as they really were quite outstanding. I have never seen blacker blacks in a binocular image than with this SV. It also did very well on both naked eye and boosted resolution tests.

The one part where I differ a bit with your assessments is the comparison with 8x42 SLC. I did not directly compare the two now, but when I have tested the SLC, I have had samples that resolution-wise equaled this SV and also had superb contrast, although with a slightly warmer color balance the contrast would look different subjectively. So I'd dare guess that as you have seen a clear difference between the two in sharpness, the SLC sample you had might not have been quite the luckiest draw from the deck.

Kimmo

Dear Kimmo, great to read about similar findings. I sure want to check that SF and I do miss my Canon 10x42... About the SLC, it´s from the Swarovski test pool. I notice with this glass what in a lens I would judge as spherical aberration. I see this softness clearly with the booster on real objects below 10m, not charts. Resolution wise SLC and SV are similar, but that tells not much about the contrast transfer which yields the impression of "sharpness". The SV seems much crisper due to this extra "headroom" (high contrast even at fine details at the resolution limit). Yes the color of the SV is a bit cool.

Do you mean the 8x32 has more RG because of a wider subjective field of view? Anyway I see that the "Absam ring" is very narrow but with a pronounced loss of contrast in the 8x32 whereas it looks wider with smaller decrease in contrast in the 8.5x42. A much softer transition in field flattening and distortion in the bigger glass I guess. RG in the 8x32 was not acceptable for me but is not an issue in the 8.5x. Hope I´ll get an opportunity to check that out in direct comparison.
 
What about the 12x50 then? ;)

I bought recently the 12x50 EL SV /no.8448xxx/ and do not how to say it,
it does not provide much better on axis resolution by eyes than Meostar HD 10x42 /and there is 2x magnification difference/, but when I took picture via phone through both, the ELSV is better. Do not know, if my EL is bad sample, or I am not adapted on it, or simply it is due less DOF, but OTOH the ELSV controls CA pretty good for 12x, slightly better than 8,5x42 I had. I will try to focus on that, anyway do someone meet with that phenomena?
 
Last edited:
The 12x50 is an exacting taskmaster, as to steadying the magnification, focusing the narrow DOF, and pointing the narrow FOV. Also, high magnifications never seem to look as sharp to me as lower. So your findings don't surprise me, nor necessarily cast aspersion on your 12x50 EL SV. I think 12x50 is getting into the region of diminishing return.

Nevertheless, I greatly enjoy my 12x50, even though it is an old Trinovid BN, and as such, although wonderfully well built, would benefit greatly from the modern glasses and coatings in your EL SV. Such high magnification strikes me a rather fantastic, transforming a scene into a different reality where things unseen by eye are now not merely detected but shown in detail, and sparrows become huge monsters. Also I enjoy the challenges that 12x50 present, made easier by my old Leica's superb ergonomics and super wide view. This is of course beyond the rational concern of birdwatching utility, and getting into bino-sicko space.

So in the end since I haven't used those models I can't actually answer your question, just wanted to share some 12x50 thoughts, and love.

Ron
 
Very good review, Tobias.

Interestingly, for me at least, is that I can not see the slightest trace of RB in my 8X32 SV's which I bought new last September. I could see it in a slightly older pair of 10x32 SV's I looked through and also to a greater degree in a pair of 8.5x42 SV's that I finally managed to look through last weekend. The latter pair were about two years old, so it's possible that Swarovski has changed the optical design of the latest 8.5x42 SV and 8x32 SV.
 
Using spectacles?

Tobias,

Nice review!

If you use spectacles when looking through the bins in your reviews, what ER do you need to get a good image, and what kind of visual correction do your spectacles give ?

/ Anders
 
Tobias:

A great review, and you have tested things very well. I have also been enjoying the 8.5x42 SV
for 4 years. Swarovski has called the 8.5x42 EL the Universal distance viewer, and I agree with
that. I have several binoculars in the 8X and 10 X sizes, and the 8.5 has much going for this
compromise.

I see you have the Nikon 8x32 SE in the picture at the top of your review. I also like this one,
have you compared them ?

Jerry
 
Nice write up. When it came down to keeping a pair of 8.5x42 or my 8x42 SLC-HD, I have landed with the SLC for my carry. I thought the sweet spot of the SLC was very sharp, merely missing some edge sharpness of the SV(as expected).

However, my keeper SV's are a pair of 10x50. As mentioned above, I think these have a wow factor that is hard to beat... by other SV's or other brands.
 
I got so carried away with my little 12x50 rant that I forgot to thank your for your thorough and enjoyable review, Tobias. The 8.5 SV in our house is my wife's but of course I try it every chance I get. I pretty much agree with all your findings. Switching to the SV mere seconds after using a binocular with pincushion like a Zeiss FL, the rolling ball is disturbing at first, but in a little while I become accustomed to it. Also I agree that flare, hardly terrible, is its weak point. Everything else is excellent. It is a great pleasure to use.

Ron
 
Tobias:

A great review, and you have tested things very well. I have also been enjoying the 8.5x42 SV
for 4 years. Swarovski has called the 8.5x42 EL the Universal distance viewer, and I agree with
that. I have several binoculars in the 8X and 10 X sizes, and the 8.5 has much going for this
compromise.

I see you have the Nikon 8x32 SE in the picture at the top of your review. I also like this one,
have you compared them ?

Jerry

Jerry, my Nikon 8x32 SE review is here: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/nikon/nikon8x32se/Nikon8x32se.html

I finally parted with the SE simply because the Habicht 8x30 for me were the nicer and better binos and even a bit sharper on axis in fine details. I also found the Swarovision 8x32 sample I had not to be sharper than the SE. As the 8.5x42 SV beats even my reference Habicht I dare say it is sharper than the SE (talking about my samples...).
 
Nice write up. When it came down to keeping a pair of 8.5x42 or my 8x42 SLC-HD, I have landed with the SLC for my carry. I thought the sweet spot of the SLC was very sharp, merely missing some edge sharpness of the SV(as expected).

However, my keeper SV's are a pair of 10x50. As mentioned above, I think these have a wow factor that is hard to beat... by other SV's or other brands.

Maybe it is more the wow factor of cherry samples than a difference between models/types? Sample variance is a big issue. On the other hand, looking through the 8.5x42 I get a taste of what is possible with a very precise manufacturing and that the difference to cheaper binos is clearly visible.
 
Very good review, Tobias.

Interestingly, for me at least, is that I can not see the slightest trace of RB in my 8X32 SV's which I bought new last September. I could see it in a slightly older pair of 10x32 SV's I looked through and also to a greater degree in a pair of 8.5x42 SV's that I finally managed to look through last weekend. The latter pair were about two years old, so it's possible that Swarovski has changed the optical design of the latest 8.5x42 SV and 8x32 SV.

Yes I really have this idea too, that Swarovski might have optimized the Swarovisions with respect to RB but not being open about it. Maybe it is mainly in the field flattening lens so pretty easy to implement... Maybe I should ask directly. They´d be doing all future buyers a big favor in being open about it.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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