Comparing Zeiss and Swarovski 32 /30 models (2 Viewers)

[Swissboy]

This might have been discussed before, but with the relatively frequent updates by Swarovski, I have lost track. I'm trying to replace an older Leica 32 model, and in the end, I have narrowed my choice to the two Zeiss FLs 8x32 and 10x32 plus the four Swarovski CL Companion 8x30B and 10x30B and the EL 8x32 and 10x32.

For me, the problem already starts with the designations of the ELs: is a WB model the same as a SV?

For further discussions: I have all the relevant technical data, but an important part is also the direct comparison of things like glare, ease of view etc. Thus any input in these additional fields is what I'm looking for, particularly in a comparative way. At this point, I have a Zeiss FL 8x32 for testing at home. The bright picture actually blows my mind. But at times, it seems like I find it a bit difficult to get the center fully sharp. And then again, all is perfect. So in a way some feeling of things being variable. I don't think my Zeiss 8x42 FL has this problem. It's at Zeiss for repairs at the moment, thus the time for testing more compact models.

 

[dries1]

Personally, I have the FL 8X32 and an older swaro NEU 8X30, both are to me as compact as I need. If you are looking for one 8X32, also try the EL SV which is a flat field, the older ELs did not have (SV swarovision) flat fields, are not made anymore, so that purchase would be for a used one.
Take your time with the 8X32 FL, I use 8X42 more than the 8X32 format, so there is adjustment for the smaller exit pupil when stepping down.
The only plus side to me regarding the CL is that costs less than the EL SV or the FL.

Andy W.

 

[jremmons]

I've owned both the 8x32 Zeiss FL and the 8x32 Swarovsion (before the Field Pro changes, but SV = field flattener technology). I also owned the 10x42 non-Swarovision EL series and though a good binocular, I think the SV has many improvements relating to color and control of chromatic aberration, but potentially a fatal flaw.
Ultimately, I got rid of both but for different reasons. The 8x32 Swarovision has one of the easiest, most crystal clear views under good lightning, but under poor lightning conditions or at odd lighting angles, it was entirely unusable due to glare.
The 8x32 FL was great in all respects excluding ease of eye-placement due to off-center sharpness (and I'm not one to particularly care about this aspect). I would probably buy this model back in actuality, but I owned the version without the hydrophobic, Lotu-Tec coating and that is something I've found I need in many situations.

Justin

 

[Swissboy]

Decided to get a 8x32 FL

At my request, Zeiss Switzerland had also sent me their 10x32 FL, and that model immediately stunned me by its extremely fine saturated colors. I have never had binoculars to look through that gave me the impression "this one is it" before I even thoroughly compared it. Meanwhile, I have had ample testing time, and it will have to be the 8x model for the simple reason that I can't steady the 10x sufficiently any more. It's a shame as I really would have liked the 10x both for its superb contrast and saturation, plus for the larger magnification. It would be complementing my 8x42 FL ideally.

While Zeiss sent me their FLs directly for individual testing, I was able to look at the Swarovski EL 8x/10x32 at my local dealer's store. I took along the Zeiss models so I was able to compare all 4 models simultaneously outdoors.

Regarding steadying the binoculars, the Swarovskis were rather more of a problem for various reasons. A major irritation for me was the fact that the Swaros show somewhat of a "rollerball" effect. Thus any movement leads to larger distortions of the picture than in the Zeiss. In the ideal case of fixed binoculars, I would have preferred the Swaros for the finest view, sharp to the edge. But under practical field conditions, both Swaros lead to much more irritation and thus more tiring observing. The Swarovskis had some additional shortcomings for my liking. While glare was about equal to the FL, it somehow irritated me more. Also, the Swaros' new strap attachment is complete BS for me, it is right where I need to place my left hand. I recall Zeiss had a similarly stupid positioning on their first version of the first Victories (8x40 and 10x40). They soon changed it there. Also, I prefer the slightly more yellowish rendition of the Zeiss view. Swaros are too cold, though neutral, for my liking. But that is clearly a personal thing.

So all things considered, the ease of view in the Zeiss 8x32 FL is clearly the best for me, it provides the least irritating view when I handhold the glasses for an extended time.

I should add that the Swaros have the most generous eye relief and thus provide the best "full view" for me (I need to wear my eye-glasses all the time). But I can manage very well with the ER the Zeiss 8x32 FL offers. (It was a bit more critical for the 10x, but also not the deal breaker.)

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Robert,

I believe that the 8x32 FL has been on the market for fourteen years. So it is amazing that it still delivers a great view which is competitive with newer 32 mm models.
Use yours well.
Incidentally, I came to use the 8x32 FL after owning an 8x30 EII Nikon, a Nikon 8x32 SE and a Leica 8x32 BN.
The Leica probably has the best glare control; the EII has the most immersive view but poor eye relief.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Dennis Mau]

The FL is still probably the best non-flat field 32mm there is and probably the best at CA control. If you want a flat field 32mm you have either the SV or EDG with the SV being the extreme. The EDG is kind of in between the SV and FL in design. The SV has the sharpest edges with the EDG next and the FL third but if RB bothers you as it does Swissboy the SV will bother you the most and the FL the least with the EDG in the middle.

 

[paddy7]

I remember about 3 years back having the opportunity to sit with my FL 8x32 and a friend's Swaro 8x32, which i'm fairly sure was an EL. I'd had the Zeiss for a couple of years by then, so was very used to it. So, i'm running from memory here regarding overall impressions, or headlines. The first thing about the Swarovski was what i always think of as a 'paler' view, but i would imagine that wouldn't be an issue for most. What i remember most, however, was CA in the Swaro which is almost non-existent in the FL.
Another point (independent from the comparison above) is the Zeiss seems particularly good at cutting through heat haze and other manifestations of blue light - probably because it concentrates more on the green/yellow in terms of colour transmission. Again - something i like, and others won't.
I think from reading many posts, reviews and other opinions is that - with marks out of 10 - the Zeiss is likely to have one or two points knocked off here and there: perhaps some off-axis astigmatism, perhaps eye-placement (for some), others don't like the 'feel' or look of it. However, across the board, it is a top-performing, rugged, workhorse of a binocular, with many who wouldn't swap it for anything.
Like Arthur, i have a lot of time for the Nikon EII 8x30 simply for the pleasure of looking through it, but it's not the tool the Zeiss FL is for almost all occasions and circumstances.

 

[highlake]

Last year I supplemented my aging Leica Trinovid 8x32 BNs with the Zeiss FL 8x32s. While I still appreciate the BNs and continue to use them often, I find the FL 8x32s to be a superb upgrade. They are noticeably sharper and have better contrast than the BNs, and the ergonomics, particularly the low weight, make them a pleasure to use and carry for hours at a time. I’m not surprised that Zeiss is in no hurry to replace them.

 

[Troubador]

The FL is still probably the best non-flat field 32mm there is and probably the best at CA control. If you want a flat field 32mm you have either the SV or EDG with the SV being the extreme. The EDG is kind of in between the SV and FL in design. The SV has the sharpest edges with the EDG next and the FL third but if RB bothers you as it does Swissboy the SV will bother you the most and the FL the least with the EDG in the middle.

Interesting to note here that FL 10x32 does have a field flattener while the 8x does not.

Lee

 

[Swissboy]

Interesting to note here that FL 10x32 does have a field flattener while the 8x does not.

Lee

As I did not experience that rollerball feeling with the Zeiss 10x32, any field flattener must be much less extreme than what Swarovski is using. The Zeiss also does not have that extreme sharpness at the edge, so still some 3-D feeling.

At any rate, it's important to try before one buys. But it's difficult if dealers don't have a decent assortment. In my case, I had already known that the Zeiss FLs were what I wanted to compare anything else with. But if you simply go to a dealer, you tend to make a choice from what he has in stock, not even realizing what you might be missing.

 

[Swissboy]

……….. I’m not surprised that Zeiss is in no hurry to replace them.

I agree, but think that they could do some repackaging as their competitors do/did. That would assure that potential customers would not bypass the superb product simply because it's already 14 years old.

Leica, in their Ultravids, still has the old Trinovid optics and essentially retained the lousy ER in the 8x32s, simply packaged into some new clothes and given updated coating. They also did not manage to seal them completely, apparently. Swarovski rebadges the ELs every so often with mostly external (and thus visible) changes, even to the point of questionable features such as the new strap attachment. In German, we have a special word for such things: "Verschlimmbesserung", meaning a so-called improvement that actually makes things worse.
@Paddy7: I agree with the impression of a "paler" view.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Interesting to note here that FL 10x32 does have a field flattener while the 8x does not.

Lee

I thought it strange that the Zeiss 8x32 FL doesn't have a field flattener and the 10x32 FL does so I contacted Zeiss asking them if the Zeiss 10x32 FL had a field flattener and they said it doesn't. Here was their response. Don't mean to step on your toes, Lee.

"Hello,
No these do not employ a field flattener.
In fact they are known for their depth of field.
Only the Victory SF has one.

Best Regards,

Everett Sherman
Customer Care Representative
Zeiss Consumer Products

Carl Zeiss SBE, LLC
ZEISS Group
One Zeiss Drive
Thornwood, NY 10594, USA
[email protected]
www.zeiss.com/us/sports-optics "

 

[Troubador]

I thought it strange that the Zeiss 8x32 FL doesn't have a field flattener and the 10x32 FL does so I contacted Zeiss asking them if the Zeiss 10x32 FL had a field flattener and they said it doesn't. Here was their response. Don't mean to step on your toes, Lee.

"Hello,
No these do not employ a field flattener.
In fact they are known for their depth of field.
Only the Victory SF has one.

Best Regards,

Everett Sherman
Customer Care Representative
Zeiss Consumer Products

Carl Zeiss SBE, LLC
ZEISS Group
One Zeiss Drive
Thornwood, NY 10594, USA
[email protected]
www.zeiss.com/us/sports-optics "

Hya Dennis

My info came from a product development leader based at Zeiss, Germany so the response from your contact is surprising. His statement that FL10x32 are known for their depth of field (which depends on magnification and not any design magic, and has nothing to do with whether a field flattener is fitted or not) doesn't suggest he is technically adept.

Nevertheless I will look further into this and try to cast further light on the mystery! This may take until middle of next week as it is Easter this weekend and many folks will be on holiday over here both tomorrow and next Monday.

Lee

 

[henry link]

I think the question to ask Zeiss is whether the 10x32's increased magnification is accomplished by adding a Smyth or similar negative field lens ahead of the fieldstop of the 8x32 eyepiece. Decreased field curvature would be a happy byproduct of such an arrangement whether the lens is marketed as a "field flattener" or not. Looking at a cutaway of the 8x32 FL I can see there's plenty of empty space for another lens in front of the eyepiece fieldstop and I notice that the 10x32 weighs 10 grams more than the 8x32.

 

[james holdsworth]

Question to owners of a FL 10x32 - does it show better edge correction than the 8x32 or other FL models?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Question to owners of a FL 10x32 - does it show better edge correction than the 8x32 or other FL models?

Swissboy's observations on the Zeiss 10x32 FL kind of supports the no field flattener response from Zeiss.

"As I did not experience that rollerball feeling with the Zeiss 10x32, any field flattener must be much less extreme than what Swarovski is using. The Zeiss also does not have that extreme sharpness at the edge, so still some 3-D feeling."

 

[Tringa45]

Robert,

There is not necessarily a correlation between field flatness and rolling ball. The rolling ball effect is experienced by some users when a binocular has very little rectilinear distotion (i.e. constant magnification across the field) and is usually eliminated by some pincussion distortion (increased magnification towards the field edges).

Field curvature does not allow one (especially not those of our generation ) to achieve simultaneous sharpness across the whole field. If there is no astigmatism one can refocus and achieve edge sharpness at the expense of centre sharpness.

John

PS:- Barrel distotion would also induce rolling ball but is rare in binoculars.

 

[ronh]

Henry,

The 10x32 FL has less eye relief than the 8x32, so it probably doesn't have the 8x eyepiece plus a negative lens.

In using Barlow lenses, which work by the same principle you refer to but increase a telescope eyepieces's magnification by considerably more than 10/8, I never noticed any decrease in eye relief. In fact, that was what I liked best about them.

"Proof by anecdote", ha! Think it's right?

Ron

 

[Troubador]

I must say that when I was told that the FL 10x32 has a field flattener I was astounded as I have never seen this referred to in any Zeiss marketing materials. If Dennis's Zeiss US contact was relying on what he has read in such materials over the years there is no wonder he said 'no field flattener'. My contact is in a position to know these things and so I have no reason to doubt his assertion (which was made several months ago in a conversation about other matters) but I am doing some checking up via other sources.

Lee

 

[Dennis Mau]

I must say that when I was told that the FL 10x32 has a field flattener I was astounded as I have never seen this referred to in any Zeiss marketing materials. If Dennis's Zeiss US contact was relying on what he has read in such materials over the years there is no wonder he said 'no field flattener'. My contact is in a position to know these things and so I have no reason to doubt his assertion (which was made several months ago in a conversation about other matters) but I am doing some checking up via other sources.

Lee

That is why I checked it out with Zeiss. I have never heard of the FL line having field flatteners only the SF. If the 10x32 FL does I might try one. I like flat fields.