BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steve C" data-source="post: 3499272" data-attributes="member: 56622">I dunno about that Chuck  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />.  I had a Swarovski 10x42 SLC-HD, the SV in 8.5 and 10x42 and the SV in 10x50. I had those all in my ownership solely to determine what binocular was the best one for me and to determine if my initial impressions of the Maven were correct. I still have the Maven B2 and none of the Swarovski glass.  There is a reason, for me, for that choice. Rolling ball in the SV was the prime deterrent for me.  I think the SLC-HD is the best Swarovski, but it was for me no better than the Maven.  Money, at that point, was not particularly a consideration.  Realizing full well that users perceptions are predominate satisfaction determiners in binocular preferences, my take is just the opposite of yours...the Swarovski is no Maven B2.  Now I would say that the Swarovski is superior in some ways to the Maven and will not ever fully argue the Swarovski is not a legitimate contender for the title "Best Binocular Made".  However the statement that they are no Swarovision or SF, remember that is a personal and highly objective stance.So alpha (love or hate the term) ultimately comes down to the holistic balance of cost, optical performance, and ergonomics, which boils down to a purely subjective user choice.B <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification