• 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.

Question about 10x42 or 10x50 (1 Viewer)

Apochromat

ZEISS VICTORY SF 8x42 SWAROVSKI EL 8.5x42 WB NL Pu
Hello,
I am looking for a 10x bin with an objective diameter of 42 or 50. I would like to know the differences in image quality between the Swarovski 10x42 and 50 compared to the SV EL 8.5x42 which I rate highest. Also comments about the LEICA NOCTIVID 10x42 are welcome (which I recently looked at for a few hours only).
The 10x42 or 50 Swaro´s I did not look through so far. I own the SV EL 10x32 WB FP and the 8.5x42.
The ZEISS SF 10x42 I am very familiar with as well.

I would make my buying decision mainly on image quality and tolerance against viewing issues.

Thanks
Michael
 
I would say say the 50mm is always going to have the aperture advantage but you have to decide if you need it. Do you bird or observe in lower light or use your binoculars for astronomy? If you do the 10x50's are preferred. If you just bird in daylight the 10x42's would work better for you and they are lighter and smaller if you do a lot of hiking. I have had them both and the AFOV of the 10x50's are a little bigger than the 10x42 so they have a little more wow factor and the 10x50's have slightly easier eye placement because of the bigger exit pupils. I would say the 10x50 is more versatile in every condition and will do everything the 10x42 will and more in low light if you don't mind the extra weight.
 
Last edited:
I would make my buying decision mainly on image quality and tolerance against viewing issues.

What do you mean when you say "image quality" ?
Resolution, brightness, transmission, chromatic aberrations, Rolling Ball?

If you already have the 8.5x42, I don't really see the point of getting a 10x42. Get a 10x50, you will notice a REAL difference regarding the Brightness of the image.
 
What do you mean when you say "image quality" ?
Resolution, brightness, transmission, chromatic aberrations, Rolling Ball?

If you already have the 8.5x42, I don't really see the point of getting a 10x42. Get a 10x50, you will notice a REAL difference regarding the Brightness of the image.

Dear Rob,

I like a strong contrast of fine details and the absence of chromatic aberration. I am not sensitive for rolling ball etc. Edge sharpness is not that much important as I wear ZEISS varifocal eyeglasses, although I am not harmed by that. I have yet not looked through a 10x50. Funny. The ZEISS SF 10x42 is high on my list but I will consider the SV EL 10x50 and the HT 10x54. I do not know if I can hold 1000 grams steadily.

Thanks
Michael
 
Last edited:
Dear Rob,

I like a strong contrast of fine details and the absence of chromatic aberration. I am not sensitive for rolling ball etc. Edge sharpness is not that much inportant as I wear ZEISS varifocal eyeglasses. I have yet not looked through a 10x50. Funny. The ZEISS SF 10x42 is high on my list but I will consider the SV EL 10x50 and the HT 10x54. I do not know if I can hold 1000 grams steadily.

Thanks
Michael

For sure I believe a 10X42 will do most things a 10X50 will do. In fact your 10X32 will do most things either will do. Some report less CA with a 10X50 than a 10X42. I haven't been able to tell much difference. I'd say the image quality between the 10X42 and 10X50 SVs is for the most part insignificant in day to day use. The 10X32 shows a LITTLE glare for me but in most situations it's of no significance. I used the SV 8.5X42 all this morning birding. VERY overcast and misting rain. I was impressed CA was never an issue whatsoever. Really I'm always impressed by the view of the 8.5X42 when I do use it. As this trip was more open, grassy prairie and such I stuck the SV 10X42 AND 10X50 in the car. They never left the car. I never use 10X as much as I think I will.

In your case since for the most part you have Swarovski pretty much covered, I'd probably go the Zeiss route. Either of the two you mentioned are good choices. If the binocular is being used more for birding I'd probably go the SF route. If low light performance is your desire the HT probably has no peer other than the 56mm SLC.
 
Dear Chuck,

thanks a lot that helps me. I need some more thinking before I will "strike". The binocular is for birding only. Because I have two places, one part of my bins is in place A the other half in place B.

Thanks
Michael
 
Dear Chuck,

thanks a lot that helps me. I need some more thinking before I will "strike". The binocular is for birding only. Because I have two places, one part of my bins is in place A the other half in place B.

Thanks
Michael

With birding as your primary use for your binocular, I might lean toward the SF 10X42.
 
There is a functional difference with the 10x50 binoculars that weigh a half pound more although providing 53% gain in light transmission over the 10x42 binoculars. it is like comparing a 8x42 with a 8x30 binocular in terms of the difference in light transmission and the twilight factor.
 
I can't remember his name but there was a famous ornithologist working in the Virginia tidewater counties who birded for decades with the same aged 10x50 Porro Prism binocular. He was featured here along with photographs of his binocular. It was quite beaten up.

Somebody will come up his name and with the thread I am sure.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that John. Mr Robbins united his avocation and his vocation!

Bob
We should all be so lucky!
When I retired I became a day laborer at my home. Now that I've aged a bit I demoted myself to half-day laborer. As always, a full-time birder!
John
 
There is a functional difference with the 10x50 binoculars that weigh a half pound more although providing 53% gain in light transmission over the 10x42 binoculars. it is like comparing a 8x42 with a 8x30 binocular in terms of the difference in light transmission and the twilight factor.

You are correct, there are differences in these 2 sizes, but the difference in brightness, is only apparent in low light, and it is not 53%, not sure where you got that number.

As far as what size is more popular, the 10x42 outsells the 10x50 models overall, by about 10:1, that includes all companies.

They both have their advantages.

Jerry
 
I found the level of CA in the 10X50 SV a bit off putting, fabulous binoculars for sure, but I would buy the 10X42 counterpart. I ended up buying the second pair of 10X42 SF I tried, I found them superior to both pair of SV. This is just an opinion, one you might not agree with if you could see them all first hand. You really need to demo all of them to be sure, I know it’s a nuisance to get that done, but worth it in the long run.
 

Attachments

  • 0EE9875D-5F7D-4E5D-A2C0-E1AA88AA0960.jpg
    0EE9875D-5F7D-4E5D-A2C0-E1AA88AA0960.jpg
    143.5 KB · Views: 132
I own both the Swaro 8.5x42EL and 10x42EL both the new Field Pro models. I purchased the 10x42 first and then was considering the 8.5's so I called SONA and talked to customer service about the 8.5's and I was told that both the 8.5x42's and the 10x42's would be equal in sharpness, just different in brightness. For me, I found that to be true. Equal sharpness in both. The view thru both does not disappoint.

Jason
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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