EL Range TA 8X42 - Layman Review (1 Viewer)

[dwever]

Yesterday I received the EL Range TA (Tracking Assistant) I ordered over the weekend and except for the price ($3,599) I am overwhelmingly pleased. Optically it is everything I had hoped for, really the optical equal of the EL 8.5x42. Maybe barely not quite as bright as the NL and certainly not the FOV, but everything you want in Alaska including the ability to read the temperature (the Zeiss RF's also read temperature but don't read it out), atmospheric pressure, and angle gently displayed in at 6:00 in the right barrel. There is an electronic compass for a tracking feature I'm unlikely to use. The pair on the far left are mine, the other pics of the EL RF bins are lifted from the internet.

Leading Binoculars With Glasses: When I was out this afternoon I noticed quickly these are the easiest binoculars to use with glasses I have ever used - very nice and pleasing surprise. I typically put contacts in if I’m going out to do some glassing.

No loss of light: I also noticed there was not a loss of light transmission in the electronic version of the EL's. Used to be in earlier generations, there was a light loss hooking up an internal integrated RF.

Focus is different but robust and effective: wow it is a long long turn from one end of the focus or to the other. And, going counter-clockwise is just slightly more resistance than focusing clockwise, but otherwise very smooth with zero slop. They do not snap to focus like an NL.

Everything I wanted for viewing nature which is it's number one job: Today at Lake Lucille, Wasilla we glassed wood ducks and a couple loons, just optically superb. No rolling ball for me, everything under control on the highly reflective water with clear skies in the sun directly overhead.

Dusk and Shadows: Sunset tonight at 11:46 PM in Big Lake, Alaska using the EL Range until 12:35 am into the extended dusk, and I confirmed perfectly bright for dusk shadow penetration. The natural image through the EL's was great. I'm also loving being able to hit the left thumb switch to take it to atmospheric data mode, and quickly see temperature (or barometric pressure).

My personal alpha journey and resulting frame-of-reference: I've read with awe the subject matter expertise some of the reviewers write with on this site. I'm just a user who know the image and detail I'm looking for. Warm colors and big FOV's are a bonus.

Background: I started with a pair of Zeiss Mariner 7X50 (pictured in my state police car) years ago; then I entered my Leica phase with 7x42 and 8x42 UVHD+ (pictured) for a safari (7X42's by far my favorite), Akugera, Rwanda National Park, and 8X42 Noctivids (pictured) which were great in Alaska but focus gummed up in the Alaska brutal cold; finally Swarovski NL Pure (pictured) 8X42 (optically breathtaking but would've liked a more robust build), and these. The EL Range stands toe to toe optically with anything I've had with the exception of the NL Pure which might have just a little more pleasing image with the FOV, warm colors, and a hair more transmission.

Perhaps the EL Range are the most robust civilian alphas since the Zeiss Marine 7X50's. For me being far more robust in their construction maybe on par with the indestructible Mariners, followed in build by the Noctivids and then the rest.

A word about the electronics:
First, most often I will use these as primary optics without any electronics except maybe to check in on the temperature. These are an awesome way to know during the day that your temperature is now -10 in the late afternoon instead of +15 when you got out there at noon. That information can be critical in Alaska.

Second, as primarily optics and not electronic instrument, water fowl, raptors, marine life, finding animals in the mountains for viewing with a scope are the primary purpose. These EL Range as strictly optics are fully up to the alpha game.

Third With the distance measurement going accurately out past a mile in yards, I would OMG love to have a reticle in the lens which would allow me to calculate size accurately from a female bald eagle to a gray whale. However, by slicing your FOV into fourths with exact distance from subject, you can still with some training do some decent size estimation, but hardly exact that a reticle would allow.

Fourth, in Swarovski's latest generation of RF's, they've done a wonderful job of having plenty of data displayed when needed, but completely turned off otherwise, but which springs back to life with the push of a button where your finger naturally lays. Beyond that, the electronics won't even be part of my equation unless I'm just checking in on the cold or using the angle indicator to help judge avalanche conditions. All the atmospheric and angle metrics are on board to predict bullet flight and give solutions for placing a bullet in an exact location, capabilities that I've not used as I've used RF's for over the years.

Fifth, The only thing left to report on is the binocular's electronic compass' tracking assistant and to what extent that might be helpful in navigation, but that report likely won't come from me.

A great set of optics.

Pictures: New EL Range TA; Internet picture; Internet picture with NL Pure and EL Range; Zeiss 7X50 in State Police car; Leica 8X42 UVHD+; Noctivids 8X42; NL Pure 8X42; Sea Lions on an island near the Southern Tip of Admirality Island, Alaska; Bird Rescue, Houston, Alaska near me; Six Wheeler Expedition (can-am 1,000's) interior; Gray Whale Resurrection Bay, Alaska; Flying from Admiralty Island to Sitka; Snow Noctivids;

 

[Ratal]

Marine binoculars make for excellent surveillance kit. Great choice for the dash! As for the EL Range, I have to agree that it is a stunning binocular and well worthy of a top tier place.

 

[dwever]

Marine binoculars make for excellent surveillance kit. Great choice for the dash! As for the EL Range, I have to agree that it is a stunning binocular and well worthy of a top tier place.

I still have the Marines, and they are optically the same as ever. I can't tell you how many times those went flying across the car with hard turns or plunging to the floor boards under hard braking. My first pair were a pair of Steiner police models that I destroyed in a little more than a year and were comparatively sorry.

 

[Gdavis248]

Yesterday I received the EL Range I ordered over the weekend and except for the price ($3,599) I am overwhelmingly pleased. Optically it is everything I had hoped for, really the optical equal of the EL 8.5x42. Maybe barely not quite as bright as the NL and certainly not the FOV, but everything you want in Alaska including the ability to read the temperature which the Zeiss RF's also sense but don't read out, atmospheric pressure, and angle gently displayed in at 6:00 in the right barrel. There is an electronic compass for a tracking feature I'm unlikely to use. The pair on the far left are mine, the other pics of the EL RF bins are lifted from the internet.

When I was out this afternoon I noticed quickly these are the easiest binoculars to use with glasses I have ever used - very nice and pleasing surprise. I typically put contacts in if I’m going out to do some glassing. Secondly, focus is fine, but wow it is a long long turn from one end of the focus or to the other. And, going counter-clockwise is just slightly more resistance than focusing clockwise, but otherwise very smooth with zero slop. They do not snap to focus like an NL.

Today at Lake Lucille, Wasilla we glassed wood ducks and a couple loons, just optically superb. No rolling ball for me, everything under control on the highly reflective water with clear skies in the sun directly overhead.

I'll update the review tonight. Background: I started with a pair of Zeiss Mariner 7X50 (pictured in my state police car) years ago; then my Leica phase with 7x42 and 8x42 UVHD+ (pictured) for a safari (7X42's by far my favorite), Akugera, Rwanda National Park, and 8X42 Noctivids (pictured) which were great in Alaska but focus gummed up in the Alaska brutal cold; finally Swarovski NL Pure (pictured) 8X42 (optically breathtaking but would've liked a more robust build), and these. The EL Range stands toe to toe optically with anything I've had with the exception of the NL Pure which might have just a little more pleasing image with the FOV, warm colors, and a hair more transmission. But the EL RF's close the gap for me being far more robust in their construction maybe on par with the indestructible Mariners, followed in build by the Noctivids and then the rest.

That sweet sweet eye relief and comfort were the first thing I noticed with my new EL’s (8.5x42)! I also wear glasses and would sometimes get really frustrated with other cheaper bins. Always searching around for that perfect placement, sometimes not getting the full FOV, eyes getting tired, feeling annoyed about the whole binocular.

With these EL’s I throw them up to my glasses and boom, perfect view and I can see the full FOV. I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything with these!

And although I don’t have the binocular library you have, I can definitely tell these optics are truly legit!

 

[w220]

Great review and I agree 100%. These are some truly special binoculars.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi DW,

The TA's flyer states that it has Swarovision technology:
'Uncompromising Edge Definition
Field flattener lenses deliver an almost flat, completely distortion-free image - right up to the edges'

On the Swarovision styled EL SV and NL, the FOV is notably both:
a) flat, in the sense that everything the same distance from the viewer is in focus, and;
b) distortion free, so that an object has the same shape regardless of where it is in the FOV

Can you comment on what these are like with the TA?


John

 

[dwever]

The TA's flyer states that it has Swarovision technology:
'Uncompromising Edge Definition
Field flattener lenses deliver an almost flat, completely distortion-free image - right up to the edges'
On the Swarovision styled EL SV and NL, the FOV is notably both:
a) flat, in the sense that everything the same distance from the viewer is in focus, and;
b) distortion free, so that an object has the same shape regardless of where it is in the FOV

Can you comment on what these are like with the TA?

I don't have a significant background with the Swarovision EL line since around 2008 with an 8.5, but I do with the NL. So from my limited frame-of-reference I would say that the EL Range has been sharp and distortion free to the edges, but flat more like an NL. I would also say that the color temperature is more in the neighborhood of the NL, as the older 8.5X42 was cooler for sure, don't know if that changed in later iterations. Perhaps newer coatings account for the warmth, but not quite as warm as an NL or Noctivid.

 

[dwever]

For my final comment having now used the EL Range TA 8X42 for three days, I'll say these EL TA's have better fit and finish than the NL Pure. There's not a single rough edge or line or fitment, which was not the case with my NL 8X42's, particularly with the well documented glue-seams, and perhaps in some cases a more delicate focusing assembly. The EL Range TA give a sense of top tier industrial engineering, fit, finish I've not experienced since using someone's EL 10X50 around 2017. Like the Zeiss Marines, the EL Range TA's give you the same sense of bank-vault toughness.

So I've ended up with wonderful optics, but a slight compromise in weight, size, and FOV from the NL's. Build, fit, finish, and apparent toughness arguably close those slight gaps. It is 54 f this morning. The Swarovskis told me so. The electronics are a bonus.

I'll be back in a year with an update.

 

[henry link]

Hi DW,

The TA's flyer states that it has Swarovision technology:
'Uncompromising Edge Definition
Field flattener lenses deliver an almost flat, completely distortion-free image - right up to the edges'

On the Swarovision styled EL SV and NL, the FOV is notably both:
a) flat, in the sense that everything the same distance from the viewer is in focus, and;
b) distortion free, so that an object has the same shape regardless of where it is in the FOV

Can you comment on what these are like with the TA?


John

Hi John and dwever,

I don't know why Swarovski continues to make claims of "distortion free" binoculars since they're just not true and are easily disproved by simple observations. No binocular can be distortion free since angular magnification distortion increases as pincushion distortion decreases, both cannot be zero at the same time.

The distortion pattern in the SV and NL models is a compound "mustache" distortion consisting of a moderate amount of normal pincushion reaching a peak at about 70-75% of the distance between the field center and the edge. At that point the pincushion begins to decrease and angular magnification distortion begins to increase until the pincushion is essentially gone near the field edge, but thanks to the build up of AMD near the edge, shapes are radially compressed, squares becoming rectangles and circles becoming ovals. It should be easy enough to see if the EL TA follows the same pattern by simply moving a small circular target that subtends about 2-3º of apparent field from the field center out to 3:00 on the field edge and watch what happens to its shape.

The left photo at the bottom of the post below shows how AMD in the outer part of the field distorts a circular shape in the 8x32 EL SV.

Distortion and Glare in the Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision

This post is not a complete review. I borrowed a friend’s Swarivski 8x32 EL SV for the narrow purpose of objectively testing two characteristics that have been much discussed here: distortion and glare resistance. To evaluate distortion I photographed a series of five circles through three...

www.birdforum.net

Henry

 

[tenex]

Presumably this complex "mustache" distortion is a side effect of the way field curvature (and astigmatism?) are managed by the field flattener, but how much optical theory would one need to understand to see the connection between the two?

 

[henry link]

Presumably this complex "mustache" distortion is a side effect of the way field curvature (and astigmatism?) are managed by the field flattener, but how much optical theory would one need to understand to see the connection between the two?

There is no connection. Correction of field curvature and off-axis astigmatism can be successfully combined with any sort of rectilinear distortion from barrel to pincushion and whatever amount of AMD inevitably results.

 

[henry link]

"Layman review". I'm in awe of Henry's post, but my understanding of it is not distortion free. ". . . but how much optical theory would one need to understand . . . ?"

If the little circle changes shape toward the field edge the binocular is not free of angular magnification distortion. It's as simple as that, no optical theory needed.

 

[tenex]

There is no connection. Correction of field curvature and off-axis astigmatism can be successfully combined with any sort of rectilinear distortion from barrel to pincushion and whatever amount of AMD inevitably results.

I've heard that many times and it makes sense in principle. But I thiink one reason you have to keep repeating it is that it's hard to see why anyone would actually want this mustache distortion profile instead of a uniform one (of whatever amount), if it's a completely independent choice.

 

[tenex]

I've heard that many times and it makes sense in principle. But I think one reason you have to keep repeating it is that it's hard to see why anyone would actually want this mustache distortion profile instead of a uniform one (of whatever amount), if it's a completely independent choice.

Perhaps I should have ended this with a question mark, since it was intended as one. Complex "mustache" distortion really looks like a less than ideal consequence of some other design choice, like field flattening. Why would it be chosen independently and deliberately?

 

[henry link]

I can see how Swarovski and Zeiss might think this is the best solution for distortion, since it combines the advantages of moderate pincushion over the inside 70% of the field combined with a decreasing pincushion and delay of the onset of AMD until the outer part of the field where they think it may be less disturbing

The other solutions used by Canon, Fujinon and Nikon and probably others are just variations on low pincushion, which results in somewhat higher AMD closer to the field center.

I've seen flat field eyepieces with everything from mild barrel distortion to such high pincushion that it causes reversed AMD.

 

[GrampaTom]

So Henry and Tenex,
Is the Mustache distortion profile, your way Henry, of describing the things Swaro does to achieve the so-called flat field or is it something else, as I read it, inferred by Tenex in #14?

 

[henry link]

The Mustache distortion profile is not my way of "describing the things Swaro does to achieve a so-called flat field". The field IS flat or nearly so because off-axis astigmatism and field curvature are well corrected. The same corrections are accomplished with other distortion profiles in other binocular and telescope eyepieces.

 

[james holdsworth]

I now own a flat field bino, I assume achieving this in much the same way Henry describes and, to my thinking, a lot of extra glass, complexity and expense (as well as adding new aberrations!) goes into cleaning up that outer 20% of the FOV…and IMO in many ways the image was better before flattening!

 

[tenex]

I can see how Swarovski and Zeiss might think this is the best solution for distortion, since it combines the advantages of moderate pincushion over the inside 70% of the field combined with a decreasing pincushion and delay of the onset of AMD until the outer part of the field where they think it may be less disturbing

Thanks, I'm trying to parse this but just not seeing it yet... how would this seem superior to simply having moderate pincushion? Why decrease it in the outer field, in order to keep straight lines from bending so much near the edge? And wouldn't that accelerate rather than "delay" onset of AMD?

And I suppose all this is independent of the "Absam ring" of softness, which really is part of the field flattening?

I start to have the same reaction to this as when I consider what goes on in Schmidt-Pechan prisms... a simpler solution would just have to be better.

 

[henry link]

Hi tenex,

Like you, I don't think mustache distortion is superior to a small amount of pincushion that keeps both pincushion and AMD at acceptably low levels everywhere in the field, but complete correction of AMD over a large part of the field and corrected pincushion near the edge must be seen by the Swarovski designers as a better alternative.

Notice how the distortion pattern is misrepresented in the Swarovski marketing image below. In the image there is no build up of AMD toward the edge, which in a real binocular would cause the spaces between the vertical lines to compress as the lines approach the edge.

Also, notice that the pincushion side of the image has mistakenly mixed the pincushion of the white vertical lines with barrel distortion applied to the reed the dragonflies are using for a perch in the photo.