Swarobright vs non-Swarobright (1 Viewer)

I found a mint pair of older Swarovski SLC 10x42. I believe they are the non-Swarobright because the glass has a purple hue. They want $800
The cheapest used Swarobright or NEU glasses that are mint (that I have found) are between $1150 -$1200.

Does the new coating really make that much difference for recreation/hunting? Is itrally worth the extra $400?

Thanks from a first time poster!

Welcome to the forum. I don't really know the answer concerning those models. But, I do have in the house binoculars of the same coating vintages that are concerning you, an 8x42 Leica Trinovid BA, with silver coated prisms, and an 8.5x42 Swaro EL, with the Swarobright, or dielectric prism coating.

In direct comparison, the dielectric coating is slightly, but obviously, brighter. The BA shows everything just as well as the Swaro, until perhaps the last ten minutes of barest daylight, I am talking seriously time to go home here, then the EL pulls ahead a bit. In very bright conditions, the BA's view is more comfortable. Of course this is an apples to oranges comparison in a way, but I'm trying to weed out the brightness effect by itself. So it depends on what you're used to, your own preferences, and what your use will be.

In my opinion, brightness, like edge of field sharpness, is one of those things that, just because it is so easy for anybody to see a small difference, is overly balyhooed. It takes some time to appreciate a fine binocular's more subtle and, to me, more important qualities.

Nobody can say what some feature or other is worth to you of course. But since you are in the used market, not obviously into throwing money away, I would say 6% more light is not worth 50% more money even if you are an owl expert or a boarhog bowhunter. Curiously, I paid $800 for my mint BA. Best $800 I ever spent.
Ron

Capp35 said:

I found a mint pair of older Swarovski SLC 10x42. I believe they are the non-Swarobright because the glass has a purple hue. They want $800
The cheapest used Swarobright or NEU glasses that are mint (that I have found) are between $1150 -$1200.

Does the new coating really make that much difference for recreation/hunting? Is itrally worth the extra $400?

Thanks from a first time poster!

Click to expand...

Hi,

I agree with Ron entirely, but, since I own four SLC models I may be able to add a little more perspective. There were several (four?) 10x42 SLC variants that preceded the Neu, starting from about 1993. The first two had pull-up eyecups, and the next twist-up. The coating and armor material also changed a little. The fourth variant had Swarobright, and the same coatings later used on the SLCNeu. That's the one I bought.

However, I really fell in love with the models before Swarobright, and regret not getting one. Somehow I feel that the product lost its wonderful mellowness with the addition of Swarobright. Fortunately, I still have the original 10x25, and 8x20 SLC compacts, which retain this quality.

So, ... if I were to make the choice I'd probably go for the pre-Swarobright model for $800. In fact, I know I would.

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic again.
Ed

Thanks for the replies.

I have always been fond of the craftsmanship and viewing of the Swarovski SLC since I first picked up a set in the mid 90s. They were the best viewing/quality that I had ever tried at the time. Finally thought I would treat myself to a set (always said one day I would own a pair), but $1399 is kind of hard to swallow for a set (new) when I can find some for half the price in new condition. I hardly ever see a used pair for sale, especially in mint condition. I guess people really hold on to these.

I wish I could take these and compare them to the NEU set or a standard Swarobright set, to see if they are really worth the extra cash.
Times are still hard and cash is short, to be throwing money away.

Never new there was a difference between old and new till I started reading this forum. I thought it was a change in the armor only. So I don't know whether ro thank you guys or curse you. LOL

If anyone else has true hands on experience between the two, please speak up. I don't think these glasses will last long as I saw several people ask to see them.

Thanks again

Capp35 said:

Does the new coating really make that much difference for recreation/hunting?

Click to expand...

The nonSwarobright SLC were certainly fine binoculars, but personally, I wouldn't be inclined towards them. If it were simply a matter of a difference in brightness (as seen in the Leica Trinovid to Ultravid transition, or the Zeiss Victory Compact update) I'd say no big deal, but when the SLC were updated to Swarobright, they also changed the coatings such that they improved the color balance to one that is very neutral. The pre-Swarobright SLC have a very pronounced (especially by current standards) yellow color cast which I don't like.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

The nonSwarobright SLC were certainly fine binoculars, but personally, I wouldn't be inclined towards them. If it were simply a matter of a difference in brightness (as seen in the Leica Trinovid to Ultravid transition, or the Zeiss Victory Compact update) I'd say no big deal, but when the SLC were updated to Swarobright, they also changed the coatings such that they improved the color balance to one that is very neutral. The pre-Swarobright SLC have a very pronounced (especially by current standards) yellow color cast which I don't like.

--AP

Click to expand...

Older Swaros, both roof and porro models, were afflicted by the same objectionable yellow color cast. I wonder if its use was intentional as an aid to hunters (Swaro's primary audience at the time) in overcast and otherwise gloomy lighting conditions.

chartwell99 said:

Older Swaros, both roof and porro models, were afflicted by the same objectionable yellow color cast. I wonder if its use was intentional as an aid to hunters (Swaro's primary audience at the time) in overcast and otherwise gloomy lighting conditions.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Tom and AP, but I really have to take issue with such undue criticism. It's just not fair to lump the warm view from phase-corrected, multicoated SLCs with the dreary older porro models (which would include the monster SL series). In fact, the early 10x42 and 8x30 SLCs were probably what propelled Swarovski into the US birding market, nip and tuck with the cold, and more expensive Leica BA/BN models of the day. Personally, I think Swarobright was a step in the wrong direction, — but I'm known to be a nostalgic kinda guy.

Best regards,
Ed

Ed,

The BA's image may emerge cold from the eyepiece, but since it is coherently coupled, it's not over, and it next passes through my yellowing eye lenses (great on gloomy mornings). Fixes it right up, YMMV.

Edit: On second thought retinting could be done to an incoherently coupled, or finally focused, image.
And despite some people's claim that EL gives increased blue transmission, it looks warmer than the BA to me.

Mostly incoherent,
Ron

Ed - I would agree that the older Swarovski porro models were a bit "dreary" but there is nothing dreary about the current porro 8x30 W model, at least optically. Why Swarovski has stuck with those miserable fold down rubber eye cups is a real mystery. Even cheap Nikons can come up with a better system. But the current 8x30W is a gem to look through. Very light and claimed to be waterproof. I find the view - to my eyes anyway - to be superior to the SLCs and equal to the best roofs. I also agree with Ron about the exaggerated concern about edge sharpness. Our own eyes are only sharp in the center. We move them laterally or move our heads to see what is at the edge. That is what people do with their binoculars. Perhaps FOV is important to someone watching a horse race, but for most use, wide field glasses are just plain bulky. John

elkcub said:

Sorry, Tom and AP, but I really have to take issue with such undue criticism. It's just not fair to lump the warm view from phase-corrected, multicoated SLCs with the dreary older porro models (which would include the monster SL series). In fact, the early 10x42 and 8x30 SLCs were probably what propelled Swarovski into the US birding market...

Click to expand...

I agree that the view through the pre-Swarobright SLC roofs is not as strong as some of the older Swarovski porros, so I agree that they don't belong in the same category. Still, I don't like that subtle yellow tint of the old Swarovski SLCs (and AT/ST scopes), just like I didn't like the (at that time) green tint of the Leica BA, or the orange tint of the original B&L waterproof Elite. I spent a lot of time comparing these and other models when I bought my first premium binos, and the winner for me (for a lot of reasons, not just color rendering) was the Zeiss 7x42 Classic. My second favorite was the Swarovski 7x42 SLC, despite the yellow tint (and weight, and stiffer focus, and ergonomics). Roofs, even cheap ones, have improved quite a bit since then w/respect to color neutrality.

--AP

John Dracon said:

Ed - I would agree that the older Swarovski porro models were a bit "dreary" but there is nothing dreary about the current porro 8x30 W model, at least optically. The current 8x30W is a gem to look through. Very light and claimed to be waterproof. I find the view - to my eyes anyway - to be superior to the SLCs and equal to the best roofs. John

Click to expand...

I concur entirely, John, regarding the current Swaro 8 x 30. It is indeed a gem. It was in fact the striking comparison between a current production Swaro "Traditional" 8 x 30W or whatever they now call their porros and an early 70's Swaro 10 x 40 Habicht which prompted my earlier observation that modern lens coatings would make older landmark porros (like the Carl Zeiss West 10 x 50) fully competitve with today's alpha glasses. I own both Swaro porro prism binoculars, BTW, and with all due deference to Ed, do not find the Swaro 10 x 40 "dreary". The yellow cast of the older Swaro porro is annoying for birding but actually works surprisingly well in heavy overcast and late twilight conditions. It was in fact this added "brightness" (similar to using yellow shooting glasses in like conditions) which made me wonder whether the effect was intentional for the benefit of Swaro's then primary audience of hunters.

Another thread in this forum said that the Swarobright started with the serial number begining with 68xxxxxx.
I have also been told to find the year of maufacturing add 30 to the first two numbers.
That would make those binouclars manufactured in 1998.

Did they really start the coating that long ago?
I knew they did it several years before the NEU (when it was improved again, supposedly), but I was thinking early 2000s.

Also thanks for all the feed back. I offered him the $800 but with no tax. ($66). I won't know till today if they except. It came with the box, strap, bag , ect. but I forgot to get the serial number (dumb).
I also called Swarovski and they said the warranty was transferable. I can sent they in for cleaning and adjustment/inspection. I talked to someone that did this recently and his pair came back with the updated armor and new eye cups. That would be cool!

I think the yellow tint was designed to accommodate the hunting market, at least that's what the Swarovski folks used to tell me when I would make one of my periodic complaints about it.

The traditional series Porros had an extremely yellow multi-coating called "Transmax", which was used from the mid 80's well into the 90's. I made my last effort to buy a non-yellow 8x30W about 1995, but the image was still too yellow for me. The SL series Porros used Swarotop multi-coating, just like the early SLC's. Swarotop was yellow in those days, but much more neutral than Transmax. Even the early production 8.5x42 EL still had a slight yellow tint (curiously the 10x42 was blue). Recent production looks neutral to me and tested neutral using the photo method I described a few months ago.

Edit: Swarobright was first used in 1998, but only on the EL series. It was sometime around 2002-2004 for the SLC. I'm sure someone will remember.

henry link said:

Swarobright was first used in 1998, but only on the EL series. It was sometime around 2002-2004 for the SLC. I'm sure someone will remember.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have my papers w/me to look it up, but I thought the SLC were updated to Swarobright very shortly after introduction of the EL (like 1-2 years later), or at least that Swarovski started advertising the update at that time. With Swarovski, that might mean actual release of the improvement came earlier. I bought my 8x32 EL about a year before the promotion of easy clean coatings or whatever Swarovski calls it, but based on serial number and their performance, mine have the new coating.

--AP

Ok, here is the scoop from Swarovski direct.

Swarobright was first introduced in mid 1999 for the SLC.
Any 10x42 SLC with serial numbers starting with D6908xxxxx will have it.

The add 30 rule for age, works for all of them except the 7x30.

ronh said:

Ed,

The BA's image may emerge cold from the eyepiece, but since it is coherently coupled, it's not over, and it next passes through my yellowing eye lenses (great on gloomy mornings). Fixes it right up, YMMV.

Ron

Click to expand...

I never thought of that ... the advantages of advancing age.

(Capp35) Another thread in this forum said that the Swarobright started with the serial number begining with 68xxxxxx.
I have also been told to find the year of maufacturing add 30 to the first two numbers.
That would make those binouclars manufactured in 1998.

Did they really start the coating that long ago?
I knew they did it several years before the NEU (when it was improved again, supposedly), but I was thinking early 2000s.

Also thanks for all the feed back. I offered him the $800 but with no tax. ($66). I won't know till today if they except. It came with the box, strap, bag , ect. but I forgot to get the serial number (dumb).
I also called Swarovski and they said the warranty was transferable. I can sent they in for cleaning and adjustment/inspection. I talked to someone that did this recently and his pair came back with the updated armor and new eye cups. That would be cool!
Capp35 is offline Report Post
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

Click to expand...

Thank you for the information. If the date code is correct, my 10x42 SLC with Swarobright was manufactured in 2002, although I didn't buy it until 2004.

The most important information (to my mind) is that Swaro says the warranty is "transferable." To my knowledge this was never officially stated, although they never questioned the origin of any binoculars I sent in for repair.

------------------------------
Henry, et al, do you know when Swarovski first used a twist-up eyecup on any roof model?

Ed

elkcub said:

I
The most important information (to my mind) is that Swaro says the warranty is "transferable." To my knowledge this was never officially stated, although they never questioned the origin of any binoculars I sent in for repair.
Ed

Click to expand...

They said it used to be courtesy, but now it is offical.

ronh said:

In my opinion, brightness, like edge of field sharpness, is one of those things that, just because it is so easy for anybody to see a small difference, is overly balyhooed. It takes some time to appreciate a fine binocular's more subtle and, to me, more important qualities.

Click to expand...

Though in the Vukobratovich paper on binocular design (which you I think you pointed me to!)

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/papers/Vukobratovich 1989.pdf

there are two parameters that effect the "efficiency" of detecting a given target: the magnification and the transmission. In both cases the bigger the better.

That's why manufacturers (and their designers) make the effort to improve transmission. Plus it's still something they can do: the arms race is such that to stay in the game (at the top level) you have to be very good.

The other effect (that doesn't appear in the Vukobratovich paper) but is important to birders is the brighter the image the better you see color especially small patches of color. I'm perhaps a bit more sensitive than this to most being red/green colorblind to some degree but it does make a difference.

(ronh)...In my opinion, brightness, like edge of field sharpness, is one of those things that, just because it is so easy for anybody to see a small difference, is overly balyhooed. It takes some time to appreciate a fine binocular's more subtle and, to me, more important qualities.

Click to expand...

Kevin, I pointed out the Vukobratovich paper on other threads.

Actually, your position and ronh's are not much in conflict.

I've attached a table showing the day/night efficiency values for an 8x42 configuration using the approximation formulas show in the article. The rows have a range of theoretical transmission from .60 to 1.0. Perfect efficiency corresponds to the magnification, which is 8. Note that as we go from T = .60 to T = .99, there is a substantial efficiency change from roughly 7 to 8 during the day, and from roughly 6 to 8 at night.

Laboratory psychophysics experiments suggest that the population jnd for brightness is 6%±. A 6% transmission increase, however, let's say from .93 to .99, yields a very small efficiency return during either the day or night.

So, yes, increasing transmission improves matters; but, no, small percentage increases have a rather tiny effect on efficiency (as least as these guys formulate the concept).

All in all, I tend to agree with ronh's emphasis on "more important qualities."

In general, you're correct that color sensitivity varies over the spectrum. That's why it's not just overall transmission that matters, but also which frequencies.

Ed

Ed,
Thanks for applying the formulas given by Vukobratovich and calculating a nice table.
I had done a couple of points, but its nice to have the whole picture laid out. It is surprising that one bino can be obviously brighter, but actually show practically no more. I can't blame people for choosing the brighter binocular if that's what they prefer, but it is more an aesthetic, than practical, issue. And in very bright light, sunglasses anyone? Just take your personal pick on brightness. It is real bright most of the time here in New Mexico.

I have experienced the things you have plotted, although complicated by magnification differences, with the 83% transmitting 8x42 Trinovid, the 89% 8.5x42 Swarovski EL, and the 95% Fujinon 7x50. It is a lovely thing, going out with binoculars to a beautiful natural spot at sunset and observing until dark, and then at last looking at the stars! I recommend this to everybody just to get in touch with the planet, optics comparisons aside. My official excuse for doing this is "owl spotting", but heck, it's just plain beautiful even with no owls, fortunately, because that is often the case. This kind of observing takes one essentially from day into night.

It is quite obvious to my eyes that in very low light, the 7x50 Fujinon presents the greatest surface brightness of the three, due to both its greater transmission and its 7.1mm exit pupil (my eyes go just over 6mm, so I can appreciate part of it). It has brightness advantages over the Leica of 14% (95/83 = 1.14) for transmission and another whopping 31% for the exit pupil ((6/5.25)**2), with a product of 49% advantage. Even with this, these two binoculars reveal equal detail in low light. The brightness difference is made up by the Leica's 14% greater magnification. So, it appears that at least in this range, magnification is roughly 49/14=3.5x as important as surface brightness.

But the Swarovski beats both! Clearly, compared to the Trinovid, its extra 6% in magnification greatly exceeds its 7% (.89/.93=1.07) transmission advantage in actual visiblity gain, but these effects combine to show a little more detail.

What is funny is that the Fujinon 10x50, which you might expect would slay all, is really no better in very low light than the 8.5x42! More power, better transmission, similar exit pupils, what gives? All I can figure is, 10x is over the line of diminishing hand held return, at least for me. Steadied, however, it is easily the best of the bunch on the sky.

These comparisons are fun, but for all this rant, the differences I'm talking about pale on an absolute scale. Any binocular will reveal so much on the earth near dark, and of the heavens after dark, it's scary.
Ron