etc
Well-known member
This is a very unofficial, "first impressions" type review without deep diving into any deep analysis.
I have had this 8.5x42 EL since 2008 and decided to finally upgrade to the first gen "gray-green" 8x42 Zeiss.
I was able to compare it directly with the 2008-vintage EL. First of all, I cannot see any difference at all in the picture quality. It's neither brighter nor has a different tint as far as I can tell. It just as sharp, but not sharper. In fact, the EL resolves more details due to the slightly higher power available. I was able to read the fine print with the EL that Zeiss was not able to resolve. But that data was cherry picked and right at the very edge of SF's abilities. But this is not an issue with Zeiss, it's the 8.5x vs 8x situation. Zeiss is sharp as a tack. So is EL.
I didn't like having 8.5x42, I always thought that 8x42 was the better all purpose choice and examining EL vs SF side by side made me realize 8.5x42 is a stronger choice due to the marginally more detail it picks up, this benefit is worth the price of increased shake, smaller FOV and depth of field. That is the conclusion I came to when I bench-rested each one carefully. When I switched to unsupported off-hand, I came to the opposite conclusion. SF is the better choice, a small sacrifice in how far it can punch or how tiny it can resolve is worth the slightly less shake and secondly a bit larger field of view.
Again, optically, both are at the top of the game. Neither one is better than the other in any optical terms that I can detect. EL is sharper because it's 8.5x, not because it's EL. But it's more difficult to actually realize that advantage off-hand, you have to find a stable platform to view from. 8.5x is not the best choice for off-hand viewing, IMO. Although I would not call it a bad choice and I could live with 8.5 for the rest of my life, if I had to. It's a niche choice.
Optically the EL picture quality is stunning. You only realize how good EL is when you compare it with other top dogs and none can exceed it, only match it at best. I only have the 2008 model to reference and supposedly the newer ones are even better. I get that there has been a gazillion EL incarnations. In any incarnation, EL is a hard target to beat. It came across to me, versus SF, as a bit warm, with the SF being a bit more natural perhaps but I could be mistaken.
The downside to EL, is that while it punched a bit farther and showed just a bit more detail versus 8x of SF, it was hard to actually realize this benefit, to actually use that edge. It has an increased shake proportional to the increase of magnification, effectively nullifying the benefit most of the time. The only time it's actually worth it is if you can find a steady platform to control the shake. Then one can take advantage of 0.5x power increase. I think that 8x42 SF is the better all purpose device while 8.5x EL might be a better birding binocular due to its ability to resolve very small things better. But I use optics for many reasons, birding being a minor footnote. I enjoy astronomy a lot more and 8x42 is a better astronomy device as well (less shake, greater FOV, more pleasant all in all). Unless you use a tripod with EL, but then that raises the question why use 8.5x and not 10x or 12x (or even 15x) if you have the luxury of steading it.
Things I like about EL: The armor is better, grippier and seems higher quality. SF feels kind of cheap. The build quality of EL is great. After 10+ years of usage, it looks mint. EL is heavier which to me suggests quality.
Things I don't like about EL that SF got right: The SF eyecups are a lot better. I think SF settings could be better defined, with a more solid click maybe, but it has a huge range of options and ER, which is better in SF due to exit pupil size. The one thing really surprised me about EL is that the eyecups which came with it weren't even adequate for the huge ER of the EL. Meaning the eyecups did not extend far enough to accommodate the huge eye relief of EL. And were downright unusable. If the eyecups don't raise far enough, you get blackouts due to too much eye relief. I had to install eyecups from a 15x SLC to make EL usable. Hard to believe Swaro had such a massive oversight. Totally unacceptable for an alpha brand. I don't know if latter versions of EL fixed it but the 2008 vintage had that bug. Secondly EL's eyecups have 2 positions, either up or down and the SLC eyecups I installed are a perfect fit in the up position. The SF I had to extend all the way to the top and then bring down a few notches for the perfect fit. I don't know if newer incarnations of EL resolved this but 2008 vintage is the only sample I got.
The case that came with EL is total junk. SF came with a much better quasy-hard case.
Things that are a draw: EL vs SF:
Optical quality. Both are stunning. EL always generates the wow feeling, every single time. So does SF. EL resolves more due to the 8.5 but it's also a bit more aggravating to the increased instability. If more power was always better, we would all have 25x, which is not the case. I think 7x or 8x is the better all around choice (for me).
Overdrive past infinity. I have myopia of about -5.25, in both eyes and it's a critical that the device can accommodate that. I hate using eyeglasses. That is one downfall of Leica, which only goes to -4D. That's a deal breaker. Swaro EL is at the end of its adjustment and so it SF. My best estimate is both have -6D of overdrive past infinity. I did not test the diopter settings in terms of difference between barrels, because I need none. So left it at zero. I was hoping that SF would have a bit more of range in overdrive past infinity but it appears to stop at -6D, which is enough but just barely. If my vision deteriorates past -5.25, I will have to get another brand with even more overdrive past infinity.
Focus wheels are adequate in both. I don't like fast focus and both have relatively fast focus, seemingly identical. I wish it was slower in both SF and EL. So one could dial in with more precision.
Areas where SF wins: Close focus distance, you can look up the exact specs but SF is able to focus closer than EL. Not important to me as I don't count microbes on a butterfly 6 feet away but FWIW.
Weight. SF is noticeably lighter. I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I like the way EL feels, like a solid optical device.
SF has 3 hinges, EL only two. I don't know how to check for collimation, both appear to be OK.
Conclusion: Either one is a very solid choice and comes down to preference. I prefer Zeiss SF for largely superficial reasons.
I have had this 8.5x42 EL since 2008 and decided to finally upgrade to the first gen "gray-green" 8x42 Zeiss.
I was able to compare it directly with the 2008-vintage EL. First of all, I cannot see any difference at all in the picture quality. It's neither brighter nor has a different tint as far as I can tell. It just as sharp, but not sharper. In fact, the EL resolves more details due to the slightly higher power available. I was able to read the fine print with the EL that Zeiss was not able to resolve. But that data was cherry picked and right at the very edge of SF's abilities. But this is not an issue with Zeiss, it's the 8.5x vs 8x situation. Zeiss is sharp as a tack. So is EL.
I didn't like having 8.5x42, I always thought that 8x42 was the better all purpose choice and examining EL vs SF side by side made me realize 8.5x42 is a stronger choice due to the marginally more detail it picks up, this benefit is worth the price of increased shake, smaller FOV and depth of field. That is the conclusion I came to when I bench-rested each one carefully. When I switched to unsupported off-hand, I came to the opposite conclusion. SF is the better choice, a small sacrifice in how far it can punch or how tiny it can resolve is worth the slightly less shake and secondly a bit larger field of view.
Again, optically, both are at the top of the game. Neither one is better than the other in any optical terms that I can detect. EL is sharper because it's 8.5x, not because it's EL. But it's more difficult to actually realize that advantage off-hand, you have to find a stable platform to view from. 8.5x is not the best choice for off-hand viewing, IMO. Although I would not call it a bad choice and I could live with 8.5 for the rest of my life, if I had to. It's a niche choice.
Optically the EL picture quality is stunning. You only realize how good EL is when you compare it with other top dogs and none can exceed it, only match it at best. I only have the 2008 model to reference and supposedly the newer ones are even better. I get that there has been a gazillion EL incarnations. In any incarnation, EL is a hard target to beat. It came across to me, versus SF, as a bit warm, with the SF being a bit more natural perhaps but I could be mistaken.
The downside to EL, is that while it punched a bit farther and showed just a bit more detail versus 8x of SF, it was hard to actually realize this benefit, to actually use that edge. It has an increased shake proportional to the increase of magnification, effectively nullifying the benefit most of the time. The only time it's actually worth it is if you can find a steady platform to control the shake. Then one can take advantage of 0.5x power increase. I think that 8x42 SF is the better all purpose device while 8.5x EL might be a better birding binocular due to its ability to resolve very small things better. But I use optics for many reasons, birding being a minor footnote. I enjoy astronomy a lot more and 8x42 is a better astronomy device as well (less shake, greater FOV, more pleasant all in all). Unless you use a tripod with EL, but then that raises the question why use 8.5x and not 10x or 12x (or even 15x) if you have the luxury of steading it.
Things I like about EL: The armor is better, grippier and seems higher quality. SF feels kind of cheap. The build quality of EL is great. After 10+ years of usage, it looks mint. EL is heavier which to me suggests quality.
Things I don't like about EL that SF got right: The SF eyecups are a lot better. I think SF settings could be better defined, with a more solid click maybe, but it has a huge range of options and ER, which is better in SF due to exit pupil size. The one thing really surprised me about EL is that the eyecups which came with it weren't even adequate for the huge ER of the EL. Meaning the eyecups did not extend far enough to accommodate the huge eye relief of EL. And were downright unusable. If the eyecups don't raise far enough, you get blackouts due to too much eye relief. I had to install eyecups from a 15x SLC to make EL usable. Hard to believe Swaro had such a massive oversight. Totally unacceptable for an alpha brand. I don't know if latter versions of EL fixed it but the 2008 vintage had that bug. Secondly EL's eyecups have 2 positions, either up or down and the SLC eyecups I installed are a perfect fit in the up position. The SF I had to extend all the way to the top and then bring down a few notches for the perfect fit. I don't know if newer incarnations of EL resolved this but 2008 vintage is the only sample I got.
The case that came with EL is total junk. SF came with a much better quasy-hard case.
Things that are a draw: EL vs SF:
Optical quality. Both are stunning. EL always generates the wow feeling, every single time. So does SF. EL resolves more due to the 8.5 but it's also a bit more aggravating to the increased instability. If more power was always better, we would all have 25x, which is not the case. I think 7x or 8x is the better all around choice (for me).
Overdrive past infinity. I have myopia of about -5.25, in both eyes and it's a critical that the device can accommodate that. I hate using eyeglasses. That is one downfall of Leica, which only goes to -4D. That's a deal breaker. Swaro EL is at the end of its adjustment and so it SF. My best estimate is both have -6D of overdrive past infinity. I did not test the diopter settings in terms of difference between barrels, because I need none. So left it at zero. I was hoping that SF would have a bit more of range in overdrive past infinity but it appears to stop at -6D, which is enough but just barely. If my vision deteriorates past -5.25, I will have to get another brand with even more overdrive past infinity.
Focus wheels are adequate in both. I don't like fast focus and both have relatively fast focus, seemingly identical. I wish it was slower in both SF and EL. So one could dial in with more precision.
Areas where SF wins: Close focus distance, you can look up the exact specs but SF is able to focus closer than EL. Not important to me as I don't count microbes on a butterfly 6 feet away but FWIW.
Weight. SF is noticeably lighter. I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I like the way EL feels, like a solid optical device.
SF has 3 hinges, EL only two. I don't know how to check for collimation, both appear to be OK.
Conclusion: Either one is a very solid choice and comes down to preference. I prefer Zeiss SF for largely superficial reasons.