Similar Designs: Victory HT vs Swarovski SLC in 10x42's! (1 Viewer)

I've not yet had the opportunity to compare the New Swaro SLC's to the Zeiss HT's and was wondering if someone has any direct experience and testing between these two similar 10x42's? I know about the spec differences (SLC's 3 oz lighter, 1" shorter, $500 cheaper, maybe not as bright, etc.), but find the Really Wide Sweet Spot of the SLC's allow me to pan with No rolling ball effect (I'm real sensitive to that). Am curious if the HT's could better what I know the Swaros optically do real well?

Thanks for any help,

Ted

Search Findings

With no response to my above question (so far), performing a BF search, the below comments by member jnielsen seem to be generally reflective in other member observations:

The HT is slightly brighter on paper (not so much in the field) and has slightly better CA control, but the SLC has better ergonomics, a larger sweet spot, easier focus, more compact and a little cheaper.

Click to expand...

I have the funds for either, but am looking for reasons why "I should spend the extra" for the HT's over the SLC's?

Ted

Theo98 said:

With no response to my above question (so far), performing a BF search, the below comments by member jnielsen seem to be generally reflective in other member observations:



I have the funds for either, but am looking for reasons why "I should spend the extra" for the HT's over the SLC's?

Ted

Click to expand...

Ted:

This is an easy answer, only you will know which one you prefer.

Both are very good binoculars, and it is left up to personal choice.
Good luck in your search.

Jerry

Looks like you have done your research so you are probably aware of difference in close focus, but I did not see it mentioned. The close focus distance of the Zeiss HT is 6.2 feet and is 10.5 feet for the newest Swaro SLC.

The SLC 10X42 used to sell for about $2,179 but it went through a redesign the second half of 2013 and the price was dropped to the current $1,799. The explanation for the price drop was that Swaro simplified the focus mechanism by changing the close focus distance from about 6 feet to the current 10.5 feet. They also changed the styling of the armor and some think there may be a slight upgrade to the coatings. A Swaro Rep told me at the time the coatings were equivalent. The prior version is known as the SLC HD and the newest as SLC WB.

Per tests conducted by Dr. Gijs van Ginkel the transmission values for the SLC 10X42 HD is 87% at 500nm (night) and 90% at 555 nm (day). Zeiss states 95+% for both the 8X and 10X42 HT. Dr. Gijs van Ginkel tested 95.2 % 550nm for the 8X42HT so the Zeiss figure sounds reasonable. I have not seen transmission figures for the new Swaro WB model, but since the Swaro rep said the coatings are equivalent, I would expect the transmission figures to be about the same.

Which has better ergonomics is a matter personal preference. The Zeiss has the larger more forward focus wheel and users report good ergonomics for the Zeiss. I have looked through both, but not side by side, and liked both optically and ergonomic wise.

B & H Photo is selling the HT for $2,199 so the difference is $400. That extra amount gets you closer focus, and a little more brightness. Only you can tell which has the best ergonomics.

The Cabela's in my area stocks both. There is a Cablela's in Gonzales, LA. If that is near you, give them a call to see if they have them in stock to check out.

First of all, I only have experience with the 8x42 models, but I don't think the differences are big except for the magnification.
Long story short, I had bought the SLC instead of the HT, mainly due to one thing which made the biggest difference IMO. Sweet spot size. The sweet spot is a lot bigger in the SLC. But they are both mighty fine binos.

Resolution: Same
Contrast: SLC
Sweet spot size: SLC
Mechanics (focuser etc.): HT
Size: SLC
Ergonomics: HT (my opinion)
Apparent brightness: HT
Colors: SLC neutral, HT on the colder side
CA control: About the same
Glare control: HT
Close focus: HT
Looks: HT (my opinion)

Hope it helps a bit, it's just a matter of which one suits you best.:t:
I'm sure I would also have been very happy when I had picked the HT.

Best regards,

Gijs

Odd how everyone's eyes are so different.
My 10x42 HT's fov is clear to the very edge and have a wonderful "sweet spot".
Actually, if I try to concentrate on the edge of any binocular's fov, (even those with a flat field) it strains my eyes and makes them hurt.

I was a Swarovski man for 24 years but switched to the HT in 2013 because I felt the Schott HT glass in my Zeiss was overall superior to the Schott glass found in Swarovski SV's.
That said, I doubt, I would have cared less if I had went ahead and bought Swarovski again.
I went with the HT on looks, handling, focusing, light gathering, and the perceived ( by some) superiority of Abbe Konig prisms.
...and because the HT was the (at that time) new kid on the block and a great binocular for hunters. :t:

Thanks!

At this time, I'll have to search vendors that may have both in stock at the same time (Cabelas hasn't had HT's in stock for awhile).

I really appreciate everyone's experienced information and suggestions! As often stated, I too believe I'll need to handle and see with my own eyes (we're all different) to judge the best optics for my needs. Not sure if this journey will ever end (started with BX-2, BX-3, BX-4, Gold Rings, Nikon, Razors, Steigners, C. Euros, Meopta, Swaros, etc.), but I will post what I settled on and why.

Ted

1st Testing Complete!

Theo98 said:

At this time, I'll have to search vendors that may have both in stock at the same time...I will post what I settled on and why.

Ted

Click to expand...

Sport Optics in Hammond, La. (Jay) had in stock not only the Zeiss HT 10x42 and Swaro SLC 10x42 for direct comparison, but also the EL SV 8x32, the EL SV 10x42 and the Leica Ultravid HD+ 10x42 (other binos I'd consider)!

Please realize my observations stated below as "My Point of View (literally)" and "My Opinion"!! Even though Jay and I didn't always agree on optical quality differences, feature importance and overall ergonomics, he was very helpful and knowledgeable of all the Alpha optics they sell! Additionally, my time frame was limited and outside daylight viewing was my only option. Also, these optics will be used in mid to long range glassing, primarily for range and hunting sports and some general wildlife observation activities.

Those 2 hours took place around high noon under 80% sunny, 20% cloudy skies...not ideal, but haven't figured out yet how to control weather! The first hour of testing included only the SLC's vs EL's and Ultravid. I was able to definitively rule out the El line as both to my eyes (primarily the 10x42 SV), displayed RB effect. Color saturation, sharpness, resolution, FOV, DOF, clarity were excellent (just like the SLC's), however panning with the EL's was just too "Vertigo" for me. I had No SLC Issues panning with their very wide Sweet Spot that not only seems flat field (again to my eyes), but also presented as deep of a 3D sensation as I have ever experienced in roof prism binos.

The Ultravids HD+ was very similar in optics as the HT (nice) and physically as the SLC (nice)...continue on...

Next, I went straight to the main task at hand, the newest HT vs the newest SLC!! What I liked about the HT's: Excellent optical view and overall good looks. Panning did not give me a RB effect and their FOV and DOF were really good. Focus was smooth and they felt solid and substantial in hand. There wasn't much not to like. Both the HT and SLC's have Razor Sharp In Focus views, excellent resolution and small details are Extremely Clear. Both exhibit excellent flare and CA control with eye piece and IPD adjustments being precise and equally very good.

However, when I compared HT's to the SLC's...
Optically, To My Eyes, I preferred the SLC Wider sweet spot, Deeper in-focus 3D DOF, More accurate and cleaner color balance and an Overall superb edge-to-edge visual presentation, "As if you were Standing There, with Nothing To Detract from Your View...a Truly Seductive WOW Effect! The HT's FOV was excellent and very compelling, but to me, the SLC's made me forget I was looking through man made glass!!!
Ergonomically, The 10x42 HT's are longer, bigger and heavier than the 10x42 SLC's (prefer the smaller size and lighter weight balance of the SLC). I didn't really care for the HT rubbery armor skin, but prefer the grippe texture of the SLC (seems easier to keep clean). I found the HT focus control worked smoothly, but set too far forward so that when I balanced the binos, my middle fingers naturally fell into the controls, not my index fingers...the SLC's focus control was silky smooth and allowed for better control to get on focus faster, all with better rear ergonomic placement for my hand\finger positions. The HT rubbery diopter wheel was tight and difficult to adjust...the SLC diopter (pop out the focus knob) is very precise, easier and intuitive to adjust and once set, hidden from view and accidental adjustment. Overall, with their lighter weight and rearward balance, the SLC's just felt better in My hands.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to able to glass with these at dusk\dark this go-round. I have prior experience with the SLC's glassing 400yds away from forest darkness, with only a single dim street light 200yds from the edge of the woods (night sky, woods were pitch black to naked eye). The SLC's were able to effectively pick up clear details of tree trunks, branches and even some leaf patterns in this extremely low light (deer silhouettes no problem)...sure the HT's would at least be equal to the task!

The Zeiss HT's are an excellent culmination of design and performance and would suit my needs very well. However, due to the Optical and Ergonomic preferences I mentioned above, for "my eyes", the SLC's will probably be my choice for the sports I enjoy! No doubt, each BF member would see-call-state different point of views. I respect that and hope the experience I presented above will just be received as "food for thought" !

Ted

Theo98 said:

Sport Optics in Hammond, La. (Jay) had in stock not only the Zeiss HT 10x42 and Swaro SLC 10x42 for direct comparison, but also the EL SV 8x32, the EL SV 10x42 and the Leica Ultravid HD+ 10x42 (other binos I'd consider)!

Please realize my observations stated below as "My Point of View (literally)" and "My Opinion"!! Even though Jay and I didn't always agree on optical quality differences, feature importance and overall ergonomics, he was very helpful and knowledgeable of all the Alpha optics they sell! Additionally, my time frame was limited and outside daylight viewing was my only option. Also, these optics will be used in mid to long range glassing, primarily for range and hunting sports and some general wildlife observation activities.

Those 2 hours took place around high noon under 80% sunny, 20% cloudy skies...not ideal, but haven't figured out yet how to control weather! The first hour of testing included only the SLC's vs EL's and Ultravid. I was able to definitively rule out the El line as both to my eyes (primarily the 10x42 SV), displayed RB effect. Color saturation, sharpness, resolution, FOV, DOF, clarity were excellent (just like the SLC's), however panning with the EL's was just too "Vertigo" for me. I had No SLC Issues panning with their very wide Sweet Spot that not only seems flat field (again to my eyes), but also presented as deep of a 3D sensation as I have ever experienced in roof prism binos.

The Ultravids HD+ was very similar in optics as the HT (nice) and physically as the SLC (nice)...continue on...

Next, I went straight to the main task at hand, the newest HT vs the newest SLC!! What I liked about the HT's: Excellent optical view and overall good looks. Panning did not give me a RB effect and their FOV and DOF were really good. Focus was smooth and they felt solid and substantial in hand. There wasn't much not to like. Both the HT and SLC's have Razor Sharp In Focus views, excellent resolution and small details are Extremely Clear. Both exhibit excellent flare and CA control with eye piece and IPD adjustments being precise and equally very good.

However, when I compared HT's to the SLC's...
Optically, To My Eyes, I preferred the SLC Wider sweet spot, Deeper in-focus 3D DOF, More accurate and cleaner color balance and an Overall superb edge-to-edge visual presentation, "As if you were Standing There, with Nothing To Detract from Your View...a Truly Seductive WOW Effect! The HT's FOV was excellent and very compelling, but to me, the SLC's made me forget I was looking through man made glass!!!
Ergonomically, The 10x42 HT's are longer, bigger and heavier than the 10x42 SLC's (prefer the smaller size and lighter weight balance of the SLC). I didn't really care for the HT rubbery armor skin, but prefer the grippe texture of the SLC (seems easier to keep clean). I found the HT focus control worked smoothly, but set too far forward so that when I balanced the binos, my middle fingers naturally fell into the controls, not my index fingers...the SLC's focus control was silky smooth and allowed for better control to get on focus faster, all with better rear ergonomic placement for my hand\finger positions. The HT rubbery diopter wheel was tight and difficult to adjust...the SLC diopter (pop out the focus knob) is very precise, easier and intuitive to adjust and once set, hidden from view and accidental adjustment. Overall, with their lighter weight and reward balance, the SLC's just felt better in My hands.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to able to glass with these at dusk\dark this go-round. I have prior experience with the SLC's glassing 400yds away from forest darkness, with only a single dim street light 200yds from the edge of the woods (night sky, woods were pitch black to naked eye). The SLC's were able to effectively pick up clear details of tree trunks, branches and even some leaf patterns in this extremely low light (deer silhouettes no problem)...sure the HT's would at least be equal to the task!

The Zeiss HT's are an excellent culmination of design and performance and would suit my needs very well. However, due to the Optical and Ergonomic preferences I mentioned above, for "my eyes", the SLC's will probably be my choice for the sports I enjoy! No doubt, each BF member would see-call-state different point of views. I respect that and hope the experience I presented above will just be received as "food for thought" !

Ted

Click to expand...

Ted,

First off, sorry to hear you got the grippe. I thought they cured that, but perhaps it still exists down South.

That's a lot of high class glass you handled. You are officially the upteenth BF member to see RB in the SV EL. I was actually keeping a running tab on my old computer since there are certain people who think that seeing RB in an SV EL is rarer than finding a 4-leaf clover, but as it should be apparent by now, a lot of people see it, particularly in the 8.5x and 10x42 models, which as Holger showed with his distortion graph, have lower distortion than other models in the series. That's why the 10x42 seemed worse than the 8x32 in terms of RB.

Someone asked recently where Swaro could go with its next top of the line roof, add more pincushion would be the answer. Field flatteners and pincushion are not mutually exclusive as the Nikon SE and EDG series prove.

Okay, so the SV ELs are outta here. I was hoping you would have spent more time detailing your experience with the Ultravids HD+ vs. HT. Even though you found them similar, no doubt with careful observation you'd find the color balance different and perhaps the level of distortion (pincushion).

Apparently, you were too excited by the 10x42 SLC to notice or perhaps to care. Having tried the 10x42 SLC-HD (the original version), I can understand your excitement, they are excellent bins, one of the few pairs of 10x bins I could hold steady for long periods. Very good balance, and as you mentioned, the view is sharp almost to the very edge, so who needs field flatteners when you can make the sweet spot this wide w/out any mustache distortion?

Since I compared the 10x SLC to my Nikon SE Porro rather than other roofs, I didn't really sense a good 3-D sensation. The 8x42 would probably do better in that regard, but since I use 10x at medium to long range distance where the parallax effect of Porros is less noticeable, that would matter less to me with a 10x roof than it would with an 8x. Suffice it to say that I found the depth of focus acceptable, which I did not with the 10x42 LX/HG, which turned me into a Flatander. The LX also had loads of RB.

The distortion level in the 10x42 SLC seemed just right for me, not to much to bow straight lines at the edge severely but enough to keep the dreaded RB away. The "open hinge" design allowed my fingers to wrap around the barrels, something they can't do with an closed bridge roof.

My experience with the diopter was like yours, very easy to use, pop out, turn, pop back in. Much easier to use than the EDG's pop out the focuser and search for the narrow metal IPD band design. I also found the SLC's eyecups to be very comfortable.

The weight is just enough to keep those bad vibrations a' happenin' with her but not so heavy as to fatigue the muscles quickly and cause the shakes.

The focuser was a bit harder to turn in one direction than the other, but that's pretty common with Swaros, and I've tried a lot worse, so I could live with that.

I tried to induce CA with the 10x42 SLC and was surprised that I could not see it on-axis even under challenging conditions. That's really good for a 10x bin even with ED glass. I'd have to go way back to my Celestron/EO 10x50 Voyager ED to get that level of CA control in a 10x bin.

All and all, I think Swaro did a great job with the 10x42 SLC. I haven't tried the newer model but the only changes I'm aware of are the longer close focus and the different armoring. Optically, they are likely unchanged.

You didn't mention that you bought the SLC. Were you "window shopping" or do you intend to buy a pair when you have $1800 in disposable income?

Btw, if anyone else has disposable income they're seeking to get rid of (carrying all that cash in your wallet will cause back problems), please send me a PM, and I will give you an address of where you can dispose of it free of charge!

Brock

I have both a 8x42 HT and current SLC in 10x42.

The HT handles CA and stray light/flare better. I also prefer its handling over the SLC.

The HT will be brighter.

The SLC is more compact and has a larger sweet spot.

Both to my eyes have excellent contrast and neutral color transmission, DOF.

Both are excellent binoculars but I would recommend the HT over the SLC if one could afford the extra cost.

jnielsen said:

I have both a 8x42 HT and current SLC in 10x42.

The HT handles CA and stray light/flare better. I also prefer its handling over the SLC.

The HT will be brighter.

The SLC is more compact and has a larger sweet spot.

Both to my eyes have excellent contrast and neutral color transmission, DOF.

Both are excellent binoculars but I would recommend the HT over the SLC if one could afford the extra cost.

Click to expand...

This agrees closely with my impressions. I'd add that the HT has in my opinion a better focuser.

Hermann

Next time you come to Hammond

Theo, next time you come to Hammond stop by again. We just got in a pair of Victory SF's 8x42. I have to say I've always leaned toward Swarovski but these may change my mind. To me it has the most comfortable and fluid fast focus, they are balanced very well, the close focus is an amazing 4.92 feet and the widest field of view in its class coupled with 92% overall light transmission. Look forward to seeing you again.

it was nice meeting you

Ted,
It was really nice meeting you. I spend some much time on the computer in the office, when I get a chance to help a customer in person and get out and play with all the different optics, it's always lots of fun.

This is a prime example of why I always tell people, listen to opinions, but get behind the optics in person. everyone sees and we all perceive things differently. playing with everything, I prefer the Swarovision EL's to pretty much everything else, but i've been using them since they came out, so i might be a bit partial. in regards to the vertigo Mr. Ted was experiencing, I though about it after we finished evaluating everything and went back through my files. this issue did come up with another customer a couple years ago, but in the time since the El Swarovision binoculars came out, this is the second time it's come up. going back to what i said at the beginning, I don't know if it's a perception thing or something to do with certain eyes, but it was interesting to encounter it again. We called it globing back then.

like he said, it's wasn't the best time to evaluate optics for low light use, it was very bright, but we did have the good fortune to have a few birds come around while we were glassing. across the street there was a female red bird at one point, and some other small bird, a sparrow I think, but I couldn't identify it, nor can I remember it exactly to look it up. so there was some contrast and some interesting things to look at.


Here is my take on everything. both during the day and when i took them out that evening. both times, I didn't have any noticeable issues with CA, I did however find the edge to edge clarity and FOV differences in each. again this might be perception. I love an open bridge binocular, I like the way they balance, i like the way I can hold them by a single tube. I love my El's and i love the ergonomics. That said, the SLC's are very bright. after Mr. Ted came by, I took everything out that evening, and I didn't think the SLC's had an edge n brightness, particularly given the price point out of the given optics. On the leica HD plus ultra vids, they feel good, the optics are nice, although I didn't feel the FOV was as wide as the comparable El's. my only gripe about the leica is i personally am not a fan of the dual focus wheel and diopter adjustment, but thats mainly just a personal thing. the Ht's are nice binoculars, the focus wheel didn't tickle my fancy, but that might have just been my model, i'll have to check more in the future and report back. i personally prefer the eye cups on the EL's and the Zeiss Ht's, there seems to be a few more positions in the EL's and the Zeiss ht's I just find comfortable.

If anyone has any specific questions please ask, or if your close, come say hello and we'll take everything out.








_________________________________________________________________

Theo98 said:

Sport Optics in Hammond, La. (Jay) had in stock not only the Zeiss HT 10x42 and Swaro SLC 10x42 for direct comparison, but also the EL SV 8x32, the EL SV 10x42 and the Leica Ultravid HD+ 10x42 (other binos I'd consider)!

Please realize my observations stated below as "My Point of View (literally)" and "My Opinion"!! Even though Jay and I didn't always agree on optical quality differences, feature importance and overall ergonomics, he was very helpful and knowledgeable of all the Alpha optics they sell! Additionally, my time frame was limited and outside daylight viewing was my only option. Also, these optics will be used in mid to long range glassing, primarily for range and hunting sports and some general wildlife observation activities.

Those 2 hours took place around high noon under 80% sunny, 20% cloudy skies...not ideal, but haven't figured out yet how to control weather! The first hour of testing included only the SLC's vs EL's and Ultravid. I was able to definitively rule out the El line as both to my eyes (primarily the 10x42 SV), displayed RB effect. Color saturation, sharpness, resolution, FOV, DOF, clarity were excellent (just like the SLC's), however panning with the EL's was just too "Vertigo" for me. I had No SLC Issues panning with their very wide Sweet Spot that not only seems flat field (again to my eyes), but also presented as deep of a 3D sensation as I have ever experienced in roof prism binos.

The Ultravids HD+ was very similar in optics as the HT (nice) and physically as the SLC (nice)...continue on...

Next, I went straight to the main task at hand, the newest HT vs the newest SLC!! What I liked about the HT's: Excellent optical view and overall good looks. Panning did not give me a RB effect and their FOV and DOF were really good. Focus was smooth and they felt solid and substantial in hand. There wasn't much not to like. Both the HT and SLC's have Razor Sharp In Focus views, excellent resolution and small details are Extremely Clear. Both exhibit excellent flare and CA control with eye piece and IPD adjustments being precise and equally very good.

However, when I compared HT's to the SLC's...
Optically, To My Eyes, I preferred the SLC Wider sweet spot, Deeper in-focus 3D DOF, More accurate and cleaner color balance and an Overall superb edge-to-edge visual presentation, "As if you were Standing There, with Nothing To Detract from Your View...a Truly Seductive WOW Effect! The HT's FOV was excellent and very compelling, but to me, the SLC's made me forget I was looking through man made glass!!!
Ergonomically, The 10x42 HT's are longer, bigger and heavier than the 10x42 SLC's (prefer the smaller size and lighter weight balance of the SLC). I didn't really care for the HT rubbery armor skin, but prefer the grippe texture of the SLC (seems easier to keep clean). I found the HT focus control worked smoothly, but set too far forward so that when I balanced the binos, my middle fingers naturally fell into the controls, not my index fingers...the SLC's focus control was silky smooth and allowed for better control to get on focus faster, all with better rear ergonomic placement for my hand\finger positions. The HT rubbery diopter wheel was tight and difficult to adjust...the SLC diopter (pop out the focus knob) is very precise, easier and intuitive to adjust and once set, hidden from view and accidental adjustment. Overall, with their lighter weight and rearward balance, the SLC's just felt better in My hands.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to able to glass with these at dusk\dark this go-round. I have prior experience with the SLC's glassing 400yds away from forest darkness, with only a single dim street light 200yds from the edge of the woods (night sky, woods were pitch black to naked eye). The SLC's were able to effectively pick up clear details of tree trunks, branches and even some leaf patterns in this extremely low light (deer silhouettes no problem)...sure the HT's would at least be equal to the task!

The Zeiss HT's are an excellent culmination of design and performance and would suit my needs very well. However, due to the Optical and Ergonomic preferences I mentioned above, for "my eyes", the SLC's will probably be my choice for the sports I enjoy! No doubt, each BF member would see-call-state different point of views. I respect that and hope the experience I presented above will just be received as "food for thought" !

Ted

Click to expand...