A quick review of Swarovski 12x50 EL versus Zeiss 10x54 HT (1 Viewer)

[etc]

Just got the 2017-vintage 12x50 EL and here are the first impressions. In the context of exclusively using 10x54 HT for the last few years.

The 12x50 EL does not look much bigger than the 8.5x42 EL I've had for a decade. Which felt like a featherweight. It is however noticeably heavier. Which is OK. Still, the 12x50 is a very compact package. Definitely small enough to take anywhere. I never understood trying to go smaller than 8x42 or 10x50. These are not huge binoculars.

Now to the crux of the matter: The picture quality can only be described as exquisite. I like the image quality more than that of Zeiss 10x54. Which is not to say HT is in any way deficient. OptikaExotika did a review of EL (though not 12x50) and I mirror his findings. The picture pops, it's like being there. And the 12x resolves more than 10x. 12x is absolutely hand-holdable. No problem at all. Not any harder than the bigger HT, I suspect due to smaller size and weight. 10x54 is not bad either. I can hand-hold either one of them.

Two things I did not like about EL. The focus wheel is more sticky, while the HT focus is perfect. Not a big deal. The second is the focus speed is a bit too fast for my taste. It's faster than the HT. I am trying to get used to it. I get why. If you are into action things, like birding, you want focus to shift quickly. I would prefer a bit slower and a bit more precision.

Not sure if the 2017 era EL uses field flatteners or not .

The fact that the field of view in EL is inferior to that of HT is irrelevant because when you are looking at an object, you don't care. You want to see that object exclusively. I never really understood the benefits of a huge FOV. EL is sharp edge to edge, the HT is a bit less but again, I never really cared about FOV that much. It's not a deal breaker. I want whatever I am looking at to be perfect in the center. And EL is perfect across the entire image.

Now DOF is also a bit inferior in EL which means you have to use the focus wheel more often, and it's not as smooth as that of HT (maybe I just lost the lottery here, because I recall my 8.5x42 EL was perfect). But not horrible and totally usable. Maybe I will send them for maintenance.

For those of us who are blind as a bat, both the 12x50 EL and the 10x54 HT provide plenty of overdrive past infinity. EL I up to -7D and the same for HT. It feels like EL has more overdrive than HT. I at at -5.25D and need at least -6D of focus past infinity and the EL delivers.

Significantly and strangely, the 10x50 EL does not have that much focus past infinity, it only goes up to -5D.

Ideally, I would prefer a 10x50 and a 12x54 but that configuration is not available.

Did some birding today. The 12x is more fun. Tonight will test-drive the EL on astronomy if the sky allows it. It is a very impressive optical device.

 

[Scott98]

Congrats on the purchase! For me the 50mm EL's and the 56mm SLC's are some of the best astronomy binos ever made, I'd love to get a pair of 10x50 EL someday. The new price on them is a bit scary and pushed me into getting 10x56 SLC instead. They're even better for astronomy, but too big to reasonably use for a birding bino during the day. 12x50 will outperform the others under light pollution because of the smaller exit pupil.

 

[etc]

I faced the choice between 10x56 SLC and 10x54 HT. Got the latter but think I would have been perfectly happy with the SLC.

Compared to the 54/56mm, the 12x50 feels compact.

Test drove both exemplars in deep twilight and the HT, not surprisingly pulled slightly ahead of the EL. It made things that were difficult to see, visible. Swaro 12x50 was also pretty good but just slightly behind. 12x power cannot override the fact that the area of the 54mm lense is 23 sq sm while 50mm is shy of 20 sq sm. The difference is not huge but it's there. A bigger area pulls in more light. I only got a 54mm HT because they don't make a 60mm. Oh wait, they do. But you need a load-bearing vest to carry the huge bino. (Joke).

For comparison, a 42mm objective anything has a sq cm area of only 14 (rounded off). Which is consistent with my findings in the field. That a 50mm+ is much better than a 42mm. And despite what the Twilight Index formula says, IMO a higher power does nothing to improve the picture quality or make it brighter.

 

[etc]

A month ago I began my search for a higher powered compliment to my Noctivid 8X42's for our place in Wasilla, Alaska.

Today I finally found a Cabella's, pictured below, that had both the Swarovski 15x56 SLC ($2,299) and 12X50 EL50 ($2,859) in their display case. Perfect!

I was certain the 15X56 would be my choice as I already have an Alpha 8X and the SLC's would almost double my magnification. After using both pair along with the Nocitivids for close to forty minutes it was a surprising but easy decision. The 12X50 EL50 were my choice in every way, industrial design, exterior finish, focus smoothness (among the best I've experienced period), but the biggest difference of all was the image. Wow. Even though I wanted the extra 3X of the 15X56 to move well past my 8x42's, the EL's's were so crystal clear in a way that was right with my Noctivids, and the SLC was just slightly out of it's league compared to either in doors and out, supported and free hand. Throw in design, build, mechanics, and the slightly awkward center of gravity of the SLC's, and the disparity becomes greater, enough to convincingly justify the extra $560 for the EL's.

Would I have been happy with the SLC's had I never tried the EL's? Clearly so. But man.

So I got the Cabela's Visa in order to score a 10% discount (which was promptly mostly eaten up by tax), and I am exceedingly pleased; really beyond anything I thought I could experience at this magnification.

An old thread, I know but wanted to cite this as this is exactly how I felt about EL. A stunning image, more vibrant than that of HT.
It's like my old 8.5x42mm Swaro except the 12x50 resolves more, the picture is even brighter - not due to coatings but due to larger objective, the old 8.5x42EL is only 60% as large as the bigger 50mm objective and thus gathers more light.

 

[etc]

I love Optica Exotica's reviews, this review is of a 10x42mm but it equally applies to EL50:

Did some astronomy today, full moon. The moon looked much sharper with 12x EL versus 10X HT. The trick was stabilizing the EL50. However in my experience every binocular, even 7x needs stabilization for optimum performance in the astronomy field.

 

[[email protected]]

Just got the 2017-vintage 12x50 EL and here are the first impressions. In the context of exclusively using 10x54 HT for the last few years.

The 12x50 EL does not look much bigger than the 8.5x42 EL I've had for a decade. Which felt like a featherweight. It is however noticeably heavier. Which is OK. Still, the 12x50 is a very compact package. Definitely small enough to take anywhere. I never understood trying to go smaller than 8x42 or 10x50. These are not huge binoculars.

Now to the crux of the matter: The picture quality can only be described as exquisite. I like the image quality more than that of Zeiss 10x54. Which is not to say HT is in any way deficient. OptikaExotika did a review of EL (though not 12x50) and I mirror his findings. The picture pops, it's like being there. And the 12x resolves more than 10x. 12x is absolutely hand-holdable. No problem at all. Not any harder than the bigger HT, I suspect due to smaller size and weight. 10x54 is not bad either. I can hand-hold either one of them.

Two things I did not like about EL. The focus wheel is more sticky, while the HT focus is perfect. Not a big deal. The second is the focus speed is a bit too fast for my taste. It's faster than the HT. I am trying to get used to it. I get why. If you are into action things, like birding, you want focus to shift quickly. I would prefer a bit slower and a bit more precision.

Not sure if the 2017 era EL uses field flatteners or not .

The fact that the field of view in EL is inferior to that of HT is irrelevant because when you are looking at an object, you don't care. You want to see that object exclusively. I never really understood the benefits of a huge FOV. EL is sharp edge to edge, the HT is a bit less but again, I never really cared about FOV that much. It's not a deal breaker. I want whatever I am looking at to be perfect in the center. And EL is perfect across the entire image.

Now DOF is also a bit inferior in EL which means you have to use the focus wheel more often, and it's not as smooth as that of HT (maybe I just lost the lottery here, because I recall my 8.5x42 EL was perfect). But not horrible and totally usable. Maybe I will send them for maintenance.

For those of us who are blind as a bat, both the 12x50 EL and the 10x54 HT provide plenty of overdrive past infinity. EL I up to -7D and the same for HT. It feels like EL has more overdrive than HT. I at at -5.25D and need at least -6D of focus past infinity and the EL delivers.

Significantly and strangely, the 10x50 EL does not have that much focus past infinity, it only goes up to -5D.

Ideally, I would prefer a 10x50 and a 12x54 but that configuration is not available.

Did some birding today. The 12x is more fun. Tonight will test-drive the EL on astronomy if the sky allows it. It is a very impressive optical device.

A larger FOV helps you find the object you are looking for, though without as much panning. It depends on the type of birding you are doing, but under a lot of trees and trying to follow fast moving birds, a bigger FOV and better DOF are extremely helpful.

Higher magnification is nice for more long range or sea birding, where the additional magnification is helpful in seeing detail. Interesting that you can hold 12x steady. Most people can't. Swarovski makes an EL 10x50 Swarovsion and it is excellent. How was the armor on your 12x50 EL. Just asking because there have been some issues reported with Swarovski armor.

 

[Scott98]

Test drove both exemplars in deep twilight and the HT, not surprisingly pulled slightly ahead of the EL. It made things that were difficult to see, visible. Swaro 12x50 was also pretty good but just slightly behind. 12x power cannot override the fact that the area of the 54mm lense is 23 sq sm while 50mm is shy of 20 sq sm. The difference is not huge but it's there. A bigger area pulls in more light. I only got a 54mm HT because they don't make a 60mm. Oh wait, they do. But you need a load-bearing vest to carry the huge bino. (Joke).

These premium 54mm and 56mm binos are marketed at hunters but they're ideal for us astronomers! The extra aperture is a no-brainer. The excellent optics make them competitive with cheap 60 and 70mm astonomy binos at a smaller size & weight.

I still feel like I stole something, getting the 10x56 SLC for $700 less than the 10x50 EL

 

[etc]

A larger FOV helps you find the object you are looking for, though without as much panning. It depends on the type of birding you are doing, but under a lot of trees and trying to follow fast moving birds, a bigger FOV and better DOF are extremely helpful.

Higher magnification is nice for more long range or sea birding, where the additional magnification is helpful in seeing detail. Interesting that you can hold 12x steady. Most people can't. Swarovski makes an EL 10x50 Swarovsion and it is excellent. How was the armor on your 12x50 EL. Just asking because there have been some issues reported with Swarovski armor.

For about a decade I thought that giving up power to gain FOV was a favorable gain. In the last few years, I reversed my thinking and realized I like more power, more resolution, more crispness at the expense of FOV. Because I like the thing that I am looking at to appear as crisp and fine as possible.
This is especially true of extraterrestrial bodies.

I realized I like 8.5x42 more than a 8x, and 10x more than either one, now I am playing around with 12x...
However there is nothing at all wrong with a 10x as an all-purpose bino. Nothing at all. Like 10x50 EL.

 

[etc]

These premium 54mm and 56mm binos are marketed at hunters but they're ideal for us astronomers! The extra aperture is a no-brainer. The excellent optics make them competitive with cheap 60 and 70mm astonomy binos at a smaller size & weight.

I still feel like I stole something, getting the 10x56 SLC for $700 less than the 10x50 EL

The full moon here in the mid-atlantic area looked fantastic through 12x. The 12x EL resolved noticeably more than the 10x HT. Both required steady support. My favorite improvised object is a vehicle one can rest one's elbows on. Of course 12x needs support to look at ET objects in the sky. But this doesn't imply that others don't. Even 8x needs support. All powers shake equally, it's just that the shake becomes a lot more apparent with 10x, 12x, etc. because they magnify the error that much more.

In my opinion, getting a higher power like 10x and 12x is well worth the added shake, because the bino can be stabilized and the image made almost perfect. Going from 10x to12x is a huge jump astronomy-wise. I don't think 12 is an ideal astro bino, it's just a one-size-fits-all (or none) device. I don't do astro full time therefore for occasional use, it's perfect.

Anyway, the 12x EL performed very nicely, what a delicious image.

 

[etc]

The Swarovski SLC 15x56 WB is on my list to get, eventually, for astronomy purposes. But only because I already have 10x and 12x general purposes Zeiss and Swaro. 15x is getting more specialized. It's so hard to get a good sky. I think SLC 15x56 can also be useful in terrestrial usage.

 

[ReinierB]

12x50 will outperform the others under light pollution because of the smaller exit pupil.

Can you clarify this? How can this happen?

 

[Scott98]

Can you clarify this? How can this happen?

The best thing to do would be take you binoculars and do some astronomy on a dark clear night and you'll see it! The Orion Nebula (M42) will be around soon, it's beautiful and a great way to enjoy the power of binoculars for astronomy. M45, the Pleaides star cluster is nearby, so is the Hyades, these are all easy to see with the naked eye and then you just point your binos at them. All of these are in the southern sky during winter.

Light pollution turns the dark sky from black to grey - it washes out the details in faint objects. With the same aperture, higher power has the effect of darkening the background sky while doing astronomy. So the galaxy, nebula, or star cluster being viewed shows more detail because the fainter details are not lost in the background sky glow. This is the same with telescopes and binoculars.

Low power doesn't work very well under light pollution basically. In truly dark skies with no light pollution, there isn't such an advantage with high power.