Swarovski 8x25 CL-P best compact binocular? (1 Viewer)

Annabeth2 said:

I noticed the same with my CL. Isn't it the case (in bins with no field flatteners) that bins with narrow
FOV will be sharper out towards the edges than bins with wide FOV
due to the ocular design differences between the two? I thought I read about this
here on the forum recently.

Click to expand...

A lot of binoculars have field flatteners. You can easily tell if they do or not. That is how they achieve a flat sharp field edge to edge. My point is the 8x25 CL-P has sharper edges than the 8x30 CL. I had the 8x30 CL's for at least 6 months so I had plenty of time to evaluate them. They show more glare than the 8x25 CL-P's also. Saying "Shut-Up" is a childish way to get out of an argument that you are losing. HaHa! It is like the kid on the playground saying "Shut-up,Shut-up....". Here is what Binomania thought about the CL-P's and field flatness.

"Curvature of field and distortion angular

CL The Swarovski Pocket 10 × 25 probably does not have all the technology products SWAROVISION:, nevertheless possesses a characteristic and is a field definitely paved. In practical images are enjoyable to the very edges of the field. Do you notice any appreciable difference between center and edge. At this juncture I think it is the best compact binoculars currently available. Also thanks to the modest apparent field I have not noticed the effect rolling ball during panning.
binoculars I found it a very comfortable and natural to use, a feature that is usually found in binoculars from a larger diameter."

Annabeth2 said:

I noticed the same with my CL. Isn't it the case (in bins with no field flatteners) that bins with narrow
FOV will be sharper out towards the edges than bins with wide FOV
due to the ocular design differences between the two? I thought I read about this
here on the forum recently.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The Swarovision has a huge FOV but sharp edges too. It takes a more complicated eyepiece design(read expensive) to achieve that. Think Nagler $$$$ eyepieces in the astronomy world.

[email protected] said:

Not necessarily. The Swarovision has a huge FOV but sharp edges too. It takes a more complicated eyepiece design(read expensive) to achieve that. Think Nagler $$$$ eyepieces in the astronomy world.

Click to expand...

Yes but doesn't the SV have field flatteners? My question was about
bins with no flatteners. I thought I read a post not too long ago which
stated (in general) that wider fov can have fuzzier edges while a narrower fov can appear
to be sharper going farther out towards the edges. I have a terrible
memory, so I could have confused two different things or simply forgot
the full details.

[email protected] said:

A lot of binoculars have field flatteners. You can easily tell if they do or not. That is how they achieve a flat sharp field edge to edge. My point is the 8x25 CL-P has sharper edges than the 8x30 CL. I had the 8x30 CL's for at least 6 months so I had plenty of time to evaluate them. They show more glare than the 8x25 CL-P's also. Saying "Shut-Up" is a childish way to get out of an argument that you are losing. HaHa! It is like the kid on the playground saying "Shut-up,Shut-up....". Here is what Binomania thought about the CL-P's and field flatness.

"Curvature of field and distortion angular

CL The Swarovski Pocket 10 × 25 probably does not have all the technology products SWAROVISION:, nevertheless possesses a characteristic and is a field definitely paved. In practical images are enjoyable to the very edges of the field. Do you notice any appreciable difference between center and edge. At this juncture I think it is the best compact binoculars currently available. Also thanks to the modest apparent field I have not noticed the effect rolling ball during panning.
binoculars I found it a very comfortable and natural to use, a feature that is usually found in binoculars from a larger diameter."

Click to expand...

Dennis,

I'm not going to argue optics with you or Binomania who admits in your quote above that the Swarovski 10x 25 "probably does not have all the technology products SWAROVISION:, nevertheless possesses a characteristic and is a flat field definitely paved." ..........

What on earth is he talking about?

And I'm not telling you to shut up. I'm telling you to find proof that the CL has a "flat field" or shut up and you are not going to do that because if one CL has a "flat field" all of them do including the 8x30 CL Companion and there goes your analysis of the 8x30 CL Companion out the door!

Since the CLs do not have flat fields all you are doing is giving your opinion of what you, personally, saw when comparing the two binoculars. Your argument that the 8x25 CL Pocket is better is simply your opinion and has no factual basis and in that respect you are no better than any other member of this forum in rating these 2 binoculars.

Like myself, for instance. I find that the 8x30CL Companion is brighter, has better glare control and has edges every bit as good as the 8x25CL Pocket. Ergonomically is it more comfortable to use, it has larger and much more comfortable eye cups. It feels better in the hand. It's focus wheel is much better.

I like the 8x25CL Pocket and have it with me more often than the 8x30CL because along with being very good it is very portable and fits into my shirt pockets. But it is harder to use. I'm willing to make that compromise.

Binoculars are tools. Unlike human beings they cannot compromise. Smart people find ways to work around a binocular's faults when other options are not available.

Bob

Your right. Binoculars with a smaller FOV will usually have sharper edges than wide angle binoculars. The SV does have field flatteners in the eyepiece so it is more complex.

[email protected] said:

You don't need binoculars for two years to tell they are not for you. How long does Frank keep his budget busters? I don't think he even owns his Bresser Everest's 8x42 ED anymore. I had two pairs of the Bresser's and the eyecups fell off on one and I sold the other pair and the buyer e-mailed me that the optics were all screwed up and he had to send them into the factory and they exchanged them. Enough aggravation for me. I do have the Vanguard Endeavor 8x42 HD for my car binocular and they have held up better than any of Franks "Baby's" and the focus is easy unlike his Blue Sky II 8x32 and the optics are better on them. I would recommend them for a cheap binocular. The Swaro 8x32 Swarovision is still the "Best All Around Birding Binocular" made and the Swaro 8x25 CL-P is the best compact made. I have them both.

Click to expand...

I'm not to certain you have ever found a binocular you like. When someone comes into something that works for them, they keep it. This doesn't appear to be you. I don't believe you like either the 8x32 or 8x25.

CG

Annabeth2 said:

Yes but doesn't the SV have field flatteners? My question was about
bins with no flatteners. I thought I read a post not too long ago which
stated (in general) that wider fov can have fuzzier edges while a narrower fov can appear
to be sharper going farther out towards the edges. I have a terrible
memory, so I could have confused two different things or simply forgot
the full details.

Click to expand...

Your right in both cases. The narrower FOV binocular will have sharper edges than a wide FOV without a Field Flattener lens. The SV does have a Field Flattener lens. The Field Flattener lens lowers distortion and gives you sharper edges. I would wager the Swaro 8x25 CL-P does have a Field Flattener lens in it's optical system because it does have such low distortion and such sharp edges. But I guess it is true that I am just guessing.

cycleguy said:

I'm not to certain you have ever found a binocular you like. When someone comes into something that works for them, they keep it. This doesn't appear to be you. I don't believe you like either the 8x32 or 8x25.

CG

Click to expand...

Sure I have. But I only keep it till something better comes along. It makes no sense to keep a binocular for even 5 years when the technology is progressing so rapidly. Nowdays and older alpha will not perform , as well as, the newer Chinese ED stuff. I do like my Swaro 8x32 Swarovision and my Swaro CL-P 8x25 because I feel they are the best binoculars on the market now for birding. But if something better comes a long I will certainly look at it.

ceasar said:

Dennis,

I'm not going to argue optics with you or Binomania who admits in your quote above that the Swarovski 10x 25 "probably does not have all the technology products SWAROVISION:, nevertheless possesses a characteristic and is a flat field definitely paved." ..........

What on earth is he talking about?

And I'm not telling you to shut up. I'm telling you to find proof that the CL has a "flat field" or shut up and you are not going to do that because if one CL has a "flat field" all of them do including the 8x30 CL Companion and there goes your analysis of the 8x30 CL Companion out the door!

Since the CLs do not have flat fields all you are doing is giving your opinion of what you, personally, saw when comparing the two binoculars. Your argument that the 8x25 CL Pocket is better is simply your opinion and has no factual basis and in that respect you are no better than any other member of this forum in rating these 2 binoculars.

Like myself, for instance. I find that the 8x30CL Companion is brighter, has better glare control and has edges every bit as good as the 8x25CL Pocket. Ergonomically is it more comfortable to use, it has larger and much more comfortable eye cups. It feels better in the hand. It's focus wheel is much better.

I like the 8x25CL Pocket and have it with me more often than the 8x30CL because along with being very good it is very portable and fits into my shirt pockets. But it is harder to use. I'm willing to make that compromise.

Binoculars are tools. Unlike human beings they cannot compromise. Smart people find ways to work around a binocular's faults when other options are not available.

Bob

Click to expand...

My point is the Swaro CL-P 8x25 is superior optically in some areas to the 8x30 CL. We disagree on the glare control and the edges. Overall I still maintain the CL-P is the best pocketable binocular you can buy right now. The 8x30 CL is a good binocular but I am not sure it is good for birders.

ceasar said:

I find that the 8x30CL Companion is brighter, has better glare control and has edges every bit as good as the 8x25CL Pocket. Ergonomically is it more comfortable to use, it has larger and much more comfortable eye cups. It feels better in the hand. It's focus wheel is much better.

I like the 8x25CL Pocket and have it with me more often than the 8x30CL because along with being very good it is very portable and fits into my shirt pockets. But it is harder to use. I'm willing to make that compromise.

Binoculars are tools. Unlike human beings they cannot compromise. Smart people find ways to work around a binocular's faults when other options are not available.

Bob

Click to expand...

Thank you for that short and precise summary, now this thread was worth reading. Since I have used the 8x30CL and didnt like it, I now know that I probably wont bother with the CL-P 8x25.

oetzi said:

Thank you for that short and precise summary, now this thread was worth reading. Since I have used the 8x30CL and didnt like it, I now know that I probably wont bother with the CL-P 8x25.

Click to expand...

If you need or like a pocket binocular and can tolerate the fact that they are not quite as comfortable to use as a full size binocular the Swaro CL-P 8x25 is about the best that is available right now. You are probably right in your conclusion though. If you didn't like the Swaro 8x30 CL because it was not as comfortable to use as a 32mm or 42mm then you won't like the 8x25 CL-P. As aperture goes down so does exit aperture and so does comfort. HaHa! This is a very interesting comparison though between these two great binoculars. The Swaro 8x25 CL-P and the 8x30 CL. Which one is best for you. It is a hard decision. If you can afford it it is nice to have all three. The 8x25 CL-P, 8x30 CL and the 8x32 Swarovision.

oetzi said:

Thank you for that short and precise summary, now this thread was worth reading. Since I have used the 8x30CL and didnt like it, I now know that I probably wont bother with the CL-P 8x25.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't make a decision on the 8x25 CL based on this thread. It's all over the place. Compacts tend to polarize folks--either you like 'em or you don't. I like them because I do a lot of walking/hiking/backpacking in which the primary aim may not be birding--but then I'm always birding so I like to have something.

I passed on the 8x30 CL because it's only 2.2 ounces lighter than the 8x32 FL and only 2.9 ounces less than the 8x32 SV. I can live without that one, although it is pretty nice.

But the 8x25 CL is 7.6 and 8.3 ounces lighter respectively, plus it folds up nice and small. Now I'm interested.

Of course it's also 3.7 ounces heavier than my 8x20 Ultravid. But that 20mm format is on the edge of usable for me. Kind of fiddly and I can say I've missed some birds because of it.

So the 7x26/8x25 can be a nice compromise. I've used 3 or 4 of those.

My 8x25 CL arrives Tuesday. Guess I'll find out if I like it.

Off to find a Snowy!

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

I wouldn't make a decision on the 8x25 CL based on this thread. It's all over the place. Compacts tend to polarize folks--either you like 'em or you don't. I like them because I do a lot of walking/hiking/backpacking in which the primary aim may not be birding--but then I'm always birding so I like to have something.

I passed on the 8x30 CL because it's only 2.2 ounces lighter than the 8x32 FL and only 2.9 ounces less than the 8x32 SV. I can live without that one, although it is pretty nice.

But the 8x25 CL is 7.6 and 8.3 ounces lighter respectively, plus it folds up nice and small. Now I'm interested.

Of course it's also 3.7 ounces heavier than my 8x20 Ultravid. But that 20mm format is on the edge of usable for me. Kind of fiddly and I can say I've missed some birds because of it.

So the 7x26/8x25 can be a nice compromise. I've used 3 or 4 of those.

My 8x25 CL arrives Tuesday. Guess I'll find out if I like it.

Off to find a Snowy!

Mark

Click to expand...

That is is kind of the decision making process you have to go through. The 8x30 CL is very nice. Let us know if you like the 8x25 Cl-P when you get it. It is a pretty good compromise. You might find like I have that you can do a lot of your birding with it.

ceasar said:

Dennis,

They are all sharp close enough to their edges for me and you will note that I did not say any of them have flat fields. You will also note that I still have mine and did not dump them after using them for a week like you do so I am not commenting from memory.

Now, where in Swarovski's literature does it say that the CLs have "flat fields?" I'm not going to look it up to see if they do say that. This is your problem because you are the one stating it has a "flat field" like the Swarovisons do. The CL Pocket is a CL just like the CL Companion is one. The 8x30 CL Companion has a FOV of 7.2º and the 8x25 CL Pocket has a FOV of 6.8º.

It's time for you to put up or shut up on this matter. Just because it looks to you like it has a flat field does not mean it has one.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob:

I agree with you on your thoughts here.

Remember you are dealing with a child.

Jerry

Thanks Daddy! HaHa! I e-mailed Swarovski and asked them if either the 8x25 CL-P or the 8x30 CL uses a field flattener lens. I will post when I get an answer.

[email protected] said:

Thanks Daddy! HaHa! I e-mailed Swarovski and asked them if either the 8x25 CL-P or the 8x30 CL uses a field flattener lens. I will post when I get an answer.

Click to expand...

If either one or both of them do use FF lenses it will be both interesting and informative because of their respective prices. Their prices are not very far apart.

Read into that what you like because if Swarovski admits they have FFs it will tell us a lot about the costs of putting them in binoculars.

Bob

Because of this silly thread, on Thursday when I was in a shop that carries the 8x25 CL-P, I took it out and specifically checked the edges to see if it has a flat field. I can do this very well since my eyes no longer accommodate too much.

The 8x25 CL-P does not have a flat field.

What is has is a field that has moderate field curvature towards the edges, but no astigmatism to speak of. Very much like the SLC (HD) series, but since it has a narrower true field, there is room for less field curvature before the field stop. Therefore, it is very well possible that a young user whose eyes still accommodate can see a "sharp-to-the-edge" image if they optimize the focus setting to allow for maximum accommodation. But it is not a Swarovision, with which even people whose eyes do not accommodate will see a sharp edge without having to re-focus.

Kimmo

I had a chance to test the 8x30 CL I received last week, and long story short, I am going to exchange it for an 8x25 CL. This is why:

1) The 8x30 CL is almost exactly the same size as my 10x32 Ultravid. It's a fraction of an inch taller with the eye cups extended. It feels much lighter than the few ounces difference in weight would suggest, but it still duplicates a size I already have. If I only had a 42mm binocular my decision might have been different.

2) The focus knob was a little harder to turn than I remembered when testing it. I would have preferred a slightly lighter touch. This was not a deal breaker, just something I thought I'd mention. It might loosen up over time, it might not. This somewhat mitigated the advantage of the large focus knob. However, it did focus very predictably from near to far. I hope the 8x25 is as good in that respect.

3) Annabeth's remark about selling her 30mm CL because of it's 10' near focus reminded me of all the times I had to back up to look at butterflies and dragonflies when I had my Trinovid 8x32 BA, which also had a 10' near focus (not that I'm putting any blame on Annabeth!). I thought I wouldn't mind, but not being able to focus on the clock in my living room brought those memories back.

4) Glare was an issue, at least with the pair I had. My test for that is to focus on the area below the lamp above my kitchen sink. The CL showed arcs of glare where my Ultravid showed none. The glare was well controlled in the sense that the entire image was not washed out, like in some less expensive binoculars. The arcs were fairly well defined, but still, they were there. Interestingly, the Ultravid showed glare in the eyepiece from the lamp that sits beside and slightly behind me, whereas the CL showed none.

5) I did not test for field flatness because I did not want to put the binocular on a mount if I might return it. The field seemed flat enough for me, and it panned comfortably enough as well. I have no idea if it meets the standards of Swarovision, because I don't know what those standards are.

6) The slightly narrow field of view did not bother me. One of the early reviews on this site described the view as like looking down a tube, but in comparison to the top of the line Swaros. I actually don't like a field of view that is too wide because my eye tends to roam to the field edge, and try to focus on things that aren't in focus, which leads to eye strain. It's the same reason I don't like to use a binocular too big for the occasion, like watching raptors fly overhead with 42mm binoculars on a clear day - the overly bright views give me a headache.

Eagle Optics has no problem with the exchange, and it's nice to deal with a company that doesn't try to lay a guilt trip on you if you are not satisfied. The CL line is attracting a lot of attention for obvious reasons. I am looking forward to comparing the 8x25 CL to my 8x20, 10x25 and 10x32 Ultravids.

kabsetz said:

Because of this silly thread, on Thursday when I was in a shop that carries the 8x25 CL-P, I took it out and specifically checked the edges to see if it has a flat field. I can do this very well since my eyes no longer accommodate too much.

The 8x25 CL-P does not have a flat field.

What is has is a field that has moderate field curvature towards the edges, but no astigmatism to speak of. Very much like the SLC (HD) series, but since it has a narrower true field, there is room for less field curvature before the field stop. Therefore, it is very well possible that a young user whose eyes still accommodate can see a "sharp-to-the-edge" image if they optimize the focus setting to allow for maximum accommodation. But it is not a Swarovision, with which even people whose eyes do not accommodate will see a sharp edge without having to re-focus.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

That's very interesting and I think you are right. I can see very mild field curvature at the edge but I think my eyes are accommodating more than yours giving me an almost sharp to the edge field but not quite as sharp as the Swarovision but very close.

ceasar said:

If either one or both of them do use FF lenses it will be both interesting and informative because of their respective prices. Their prices are not very far apart.

Read into that what you like because if Swarovski admits they have FFs it will tell us a lot about the costs of putting them in binoculars.

Bob

Click to expand...

I got a sneaky feeling that field flatteners are pretty expensive because they seem to just show up on the high dollar glass. Canon IS binoculars use them but they have to because of the IS system.