• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Alpha-class binocs? (2 Viewers)

phiba

Active member
United States
This is my first post, hopefully it will go well.

I use my binoculars to observe birds and other wildlife, both on land and at sea. I am also an avid amateur photographer.

Until yesterday, my binocular collection consisted of a Leitz Trinovid 7x35B, 7x42BA, 10x40 (subsequently lost or misplaced), and a Nikon 7x21 7.1 deg. Having recently retired, and spending more time outdoors, I decided it was time to treat my aging eyes to modern alpha-level glass.

After agonizing between the Zeiss SF 8x32 (smaller, lighter, wider FOV) and the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 (larger, heavier, brighter, slightly higher magnification), I finally landed on the Swaro.

I also considered the Zeiss SFL 8x40, which seems to be an excellent blend of compromises.

Important critera to me included magnification, wanting more than 8x but less than 10x, and eye relief (I wear glasses). Low light performance was less important, but still a factor. Smaller size and weight were desirable, but not deal breakers, since I already have smaller, lighter binocs for when I go on longer hikes.

Close focus distance was not a factor for me. I don’t think I’ve ever used binoculars to look at something less than 10 ft away. Nor is the lack of a carry case. I have more than I can count in my closet.

One key deciding factor was the price for buying a new one. I feel that having strong warranty support is important, given the reported problems with the Swaro armored covering. I always take very good care of my toys. If I bought used in order to save a few hundred dollars, especially an older model, there would be a risk in getting full warranty coverage. Also, buying new from a reputable dealer gives me the option of returning it if I really don’t like it. The nearest store that carries even a limited selection of alpha-class binocs is several hours drive away.

The lowest new price I found for the Zeuss SF 8x32 was $2200, the SFL 8x40 $1800, and the Swaro $2000. I didn’t see any other new alpha-class model in this size range that was even close, everything being closer to $2500-$3000, which was outside my budget.

The reasons I finally chose the Swaro were that I am already well-covered for small, lightweight binocs, and wanted something that would give the best achievable quality, even if that meant going to a full-size model. Plus, it was $200 less than the Zeuss SF 8x32, and $500-$1000 less than comparable models. Exchanging close focus distance and a carry case for a lower price is a no-brainer for me. I also read some excellent reviews for the EL, like the one on Allbino, which said that it was one of the few binocs they inspected that had no dust inside the body. That indicates to me that assembly and QC are priorities.

I do have a semantics question. Being that the common thinking here seems to be that alpha binocs should cost over $2000, and the EL is no longer Swaro’s top-of-the-line model (that being NL Pure), does that mean that the EL is no longer considered an alpha-class binoc? Or is it an exception to the rule, perhaps only temporary if import tariffs go into effect?

Anyway, I expect to be receiving the Swaros later this week. After I have a chance to give them a good workout, I’ll report back, almost certainly with some more questions.
 
Last edited:
Have not yet handled the NL Pures, but having owned the earlier Swarovski I can posit that the Swarovsion-equipped ELs (2010 on?) are simply stunning. Fabulous optics. Hard to imagine them not considered 'alpha' in any realm. The 8x in any objective are especially amazing!
 
@phiba : One shouldn't really worry about all that 'alpha' jabbering. Those guys are the ones who as boys tried to impress the other boys with the horsepower of their father's car without even understanding what a hp actually is.
I daresay in at least the last 20 years there have been no major advances in binocular technology that would make an older binocular optically obsolete, or even remove an earlier top-of-the-line one from the premier ranks.
Rest assured that your Swarovski EL 8.5x42 is still playing in the first league, and will continue to do so for at least another decade.
 
This is my first post, hopefully it will go well.

I use my binoculars to observe birds and other wildlife, both on land and at sea. I am also an avid amateur photographer.

Until yesterday, my binocular collection consisted of a Leitz Trinovid 7x35B, 7x42BA, 10x40 (subsequently lost or misplaced), and a Nikon 7x21 7.1 deg. Having recently retired, and spending more time outdoors, I decided it was time to treat my aging eyes to modern alpha-level glass.

After agonizing between the Zeiss SF 8x32 (smaller, lighter, wider FOV) and the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 (larger, heavier, brighter, slightly higher magnification), I finally landed on the Swaro.

I also considered the Zeiss SFL 8x40, which seems to be an excellent blend of compromises.

Important critera to me included magnification, wanting more than 8x but less than 10x, and eye relief (I wear glasses). Low light performance was less important, but still a factor. Smaller size and weight were desirable, but not deal breakers, since I already have smaller, lighter binocs for when I go on longer hikes.

Close focus distance was not a factor for me. I don’t think I’ve ever used binoculars to look at something less than 10 ft away. Nor is the lack of a carry case. I have more than I can count in my closet.

One key deciding factor was the price for buying a new one. I feel that having strong warranty support is important, given the reported problems with the Swaro armored covering. I always take very good care of my toys. If I bought used in order to save a few hundred dollars, especially an older model, there would be a risk in getting full warranty coverage. Also, buying new from a reputable dealer gives me the option of returning it if I really don’t like it. The nearest store that carries even a limited selection of alpha-class binocs is several hours drive away.

The lowest new price I found for the Zeuss SF 8x32 was $2200, the SFL 8x40 $1800, and the Swaro $2000. I didn’t see any other new alpha-class model in this size range that was even close, everything being closer to $2500-$3000, which was outside my budget.

The reasons I finally chose the Swaro were that I am already well-covered for small, lightweight binocs, and wanted something that would give the best achievable quality, even if that meant going to a full-size model. Plus, it was $200 less than the Zeuss SF 8x32, and $500-$1000 less than comparable models. Exchanging close focus distance and a carry case for a lower price is a no-brainer for me. I also read some excellent reviews for the EL, like the one on Allbino, which said that it was one of the few binocs they inspected that had no dust inside the body. That indicates to me that assembly and QC are priorities.

I do have a semantics question. Being that the common thinking here seems to be that alpha binocs should cost over $2000, and the EL is no longer Swaro’s top-of-the-line model (that being NL Pure), does that mean that the EL is no longer considered an alpha-class binoc? Or is it an exception to the rule, perhaps only temporary if import tariffs go into effect?

Anyway, I expect to be receiving the Swaros later this week. After I have a chance to give them a good workout, I’ll report back, almost certainly with some more I can

This is my first post, hopefully it will go well.

I use my binoculars to observe birds and other wildlife, both on land and at sea. I am also an avid amateur photographer.

Until yesterday, my binocular collection consisted of a Leitz Trinovid 7x35B, 7x42BA, 10x40 (subsequently lost or misplaced), and a Nikon 7x21 7.1 deg. Having recently retired, and spending more time outdoors, I decided it was time to treat my aging eyes to modern alpha-level glass.

After agonizing between the Zeiss SF 8x32 (smaller, lighter, wider FOV) and the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 (larger, heavier, brighter, slightly higher magnification), I finally landed on the Swaro.

I also considered the Zeiss SFL 8x40, which seems to be an excellent blend of compromises.

Important critera to me included magnification, wanting more than 8x but less than 10x, and eye relief (I wear glasses). Low light performance was less important, but still a factor. Smaller size and weight were desirable, but not deal breakers, since I already have smaller, lighter binocs for when I go on longer hikes.

Close focus distance was not a factor for me. I don’t think I’ve ever used binoculars to look at something less than 10 ft away. Nor is the lack of a carry case. I have more than I can count in my closet.

One key deciding factor was the price for buying a new one. I feel that having strong warranty support is important, given the reported problems with the Swaro armored covering. I always take very good care of my toys. If I bought used in order to save a few hundred dollars, especially an older model, there would be a risk in getting full warranty coverage. Also, buying new from a reputable dealer gives me the option of returning it if I really don’t like it. The nearest store that carries even a limited selection of alpha-class binocs is several hours drive away.

The lowest new price I found for the Zeuss SF 8x32 was $2200, the SFL 8x40 $1800, and the Swaro $2000. I didn’t see any other new alpha-class model in this size range that was even close, everything being closer to $2500-$3000, which was outside my budget.

The reasons I finally chose the Swaro were that I am already well-covered for small, lightweight binocs, and wanted something that would give the best achievable quality, even if that meant going to a full-size model. Plus, it was $200 less than the Zeuss SF 8x32, and $500-$1000 less than comparable models. Exchanging close focus distance and a carry case for a lower price is a no-brainer for me. I also read some excellent reviews for the EL, like the one on Allbino, which said that it was one of the few binocs they inspected that had no dust inside the body. That indicates to me that assembly and QC are priorities.

I do have a semantics question. Being that the common thinking here seems to be that alpha binocs should cost over $2000, and the EL is no longer Swaro’s top-of-the-line model (that being NL Pure), does that mean that the EL is no longer considered an alpha-class binoc? Or is it an exception to the rule, perhaps only temporary if import tariffs go into effect?

Anyway, I expect to be receiving the Swaros later this week. After I have a chance to give them a good workout, I’ll report back, almost certainly with some more questions.
Very good choice. I do think that EL’s are still the best all-round for nature out there in many respects as SF’s and NL’s push the boundaries but aren’t for everyone. I wish you a long retirement with wonderful memories and photos of the natural (wherever you are in the) world!
 
Being that the common thinking here seems to be that alpha binocs should cost over $2000, and the EL is no longer Swaro’s top-of-the-line model (that being NL Pure), does that mean that the EL is no longer considered an alpha-class binoc? Or is it an exception to the rule, perhaps only temporary if import tariffs go into effect?
Forget about labels - I'd have thought if you're retired you should have arrived at enough maturity to know how meaningless they can be? - and just focus (excuse the pun) on enjoying what certainly ought to be a very significant upgrade to your old Leitzes and (for what it's worth) I think are an exceptional binocular. The "Legend" series EL 8.5x42 from what I've seen - comparing them side by side at Birdfair 2024 etc - is comparable to my brother's late model Fieldpro version (one of the best binoculars I've ever used) in image quality.
 
I don’t recall seeing anyone say anything about an alpha glass having to cost $2,000 or more.

Alpha is determined by optical and mechanical excellence. Price follows.

I think you are confusing the cart and the horse.
 
Before you spend $2000 on the Swarovski EL 8.5x42, compare it to the Nikon MHG 8x42 at $1000. You might be surprised! The Nikon has a bigger 8.3 degree FOV compared to the 7.6 degree FOV of the Swarovski, and the Nikon is 6 oz. lighter at 24 oz. versus 30 oz. for the Swarovski. The Swarovski has sharper edges, but the Nikon has less glare. Swarovski's are famous for glare, so if you bird over a lake or in a sunny area where you have a lot of reflections, it could be a consideration. Also, the Nikon does not have the irritating Field Pro lugs for the strap attachment. I compared my Swarovski NL 8x32 to my Nikon HG 8x42 and kept the Nikon and sold the Swarovski. The Nikon was just as light, way brighter in low light, and didn't have the irritating glare that the NL had 70% of the time in the bottom of the FOV. You might save yourself a $1000 and be happier.
 
I do have a semantics question. Being that the common thinking here seems to be that alpha binocs should cost over $2000, and the EL is no longer Swaro’s top-of-the-line model (that being NL Pure), does that mean that the EL is no longer considered an alpha-class binoc?
Yes, that's correct. "alpha" means the most expensive binocular. EL is sub-alpha now.

If you want more power than 8x but less than 10x than the EL is pretty much your only choice. The Maven 9x45 would be another, and I believe GSO makes an 8.5x as well, that's about it. The optics in those aren't as good as the Swaro.
 
Before you spend $2000 on the Swarovski EL 8.5x42, compare it to the Nikon MHG 8x42 at $1000. You might be surprised!
I bought Nikon M7 8x42s for our 2 daughters, and they like them a lot, so I did consider the MHG. One thing that drew me to the Zeiss SF 8x32 and SV EL 8.5x42 was their longer eye relief, 19 and 20 mm per spec, respectively, and 16 and 17 mm usable. The MHG has ER of 18 spec, 15 usable, which may be good enough, but I’d want to try it first. Still, saving $1000 probably makes it worth the drive. (Local stores like REI only carry the M7.)
 
If you want more power than 8x but less than 10x than the EL is pretty much your only choice. The Maven 9x45 would be another, and I believe GSO makes an 8.5x as well
Yes, I did consider the Mavens in 8x42 and 9x45. Their lifetime warranty is very attractive.
 
Last edited:
I bought Nikon M7 8x42s for our 2 daughters, and they like them a lot, so I did consider the MHG. One thing that drew me to the Zeiss SF 8x32 and SV EL 8.5x42 was their longer eye relief, 19 and 20 mm per spec, respectively, and 16 and 17 mm usable. The MHG has ER of 18 spec, 15 usable, which may be good enough, but I’d want to try it first. Still, saving $1000 probably makes it worth the drive. (Local stores like REI only carry the M7.)
Hello,

That is always a good idea when possible. Oddly, I could not find a shop in New York City with a demo 8x32SF, trying three well known vendors. I did rely on an excellent return policy and on correspondence with Troubadour, centering on the ergonomics of that rather large 8x32.. Lee was a very discerning and a reliable source of advice.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur
 
Forget about labels - I'd have thought if you're retired you should have arrived at enough maturity to know how meaningless they can be?
Hahaha, I was told this group was a fun bunch! Now that you mention it, I suppose it is true that my question was a bit tongue-in-cheek. To be honest, I hadn’t been aware of the terms “alpha” and “sub-alpha” applied to binoculars until I started looking for some new ones.
 
Last edited:
I bought Nikon M7 8x42s for our 2 daughters, and they like them a lot, so I did consider the MHG. One thing that drew me to the Zeiss SF 8x32 and SV EL 8.5x42 was their longer eye relief, 19 and 20 mm per spec, respectively, and 16 and 17 mm usable. The MHG has ER of 18 spec, 15 usable, which may be good enough, but I’d want to try it first. Still, saving $1000 probably makes it worth the drive. (Local stores like REI only carry the M7.)
Here are some glare tests done by jackjack comparing the CHD 8x32, SFL 8x30 and the EL 8x32. Notice how the Swarovski EL 8x32 is a glare monster. Swarovski's in general are more glare prone compared to other binoculars.

9. Glare suppression

CHD 8x32

1000285478.jpg


SFL 8x30
1000285479.jpg


EL 8x32
1000285480.jpg


"Yes, 8x32mm Swaro is a glare monster. It can be really distracting while seeing birds against bright light. EL is the longest and narrowest bino between the three, but it does have a frustrating result on glare suppression. CHD is significantly better than EL, but SFL is a gem of glare suppression considering the small size. Between SFL 8x30and Leica UVHD+ 8x32, the Leica has best glare suppression for its compact size but SFL appeared to be close to its performance"
 

Attachments

  • 1736876884039.gif
    1736876884039.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 11
  • 1736876884055.gif
    1736876884055.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 8
  • 1736876883970.gif
    1736876883970.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 6
  • 1736876884096.gif
    1736876884096.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 5
  • 1736876884158.gif
    1736876884158.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 5
  • 1736876884127.gif
    1736876884127.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 6
  • 1736876884143.gif
    1736876884143.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 6
Last edited:
Here are some glare tests done by jackjack comparing the CHD 8x32, SFL 8x30 and the EL 8x32. Notice how the Swarovski EL 8x32 is a glare monster. Swarovski's in general are more glare prone compared to other binoculars.
Thank you! I have heard about this, and it is a concern. I also read that it can be mitigated by adjusting the angle and position of the binoculars with respect to your face and eyes. Wearing my glasses when viewing might make it worse. It is one of the first things I will experiment with.
 
Last edited:
Price reflects manufacturers cost. When the manufacturer spends more money, you get better materials, construction, and design.

Surely no sane person believes that if two manufacturers each make a $1,000 binocular, that one of them will sell it for $3,000.

The big contention here is whether a $3,000 glass is “worth the difference” or “three times as good as” the $1,000 one.

No one here has been able to define or measure “three times as good as” (or “three times better than”)
 
Last edited:
Price reflects manufacturers cost. When the manufacturer spends more money, you get better materials, construction, and design.

Surely no sane person believes that if two manufacturers each make a $1,000 binocular, that one of them will sell it for $3,000.

The big contention here is whether a $3,000 glass is “worth the difference” or “three times as good as” the $1,000 one.

No one has been able to define “three times as good as”
Having worked for varying manufacturers there is is often an extra charged made for very strong brands. You may be able to sell them for
more based on a very similar specification product if you can get them to appreciate the brand value.

With heritage brands this can add more due to the ‘story’ that you can buy into. You aren’t just buying the product but the ‘history and lifestyle’ that it represents.

There are the extra costs, R&D, Warranty, Spares, higher production costs etc. What seems more of a concern is there seems to be a restricted ‘free market’ on some brands to be a ‘dealer’ (but that’s probably another story) so you don’t see much direct competition?!

You also do see some Chinese and Japanese binoculars that are the same but released under different brands and they charge more if there is a perceived value associated with their brand.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top