• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

My Review of a 8x32 EL; 8x30 SLC NEU and a 8x30 CL (all brand new bino's) (2 Viewers)

I think some people on Bird Forum take a review as fact. You can see it in their responses. Well Henry or somebody else said the CL wasn't any good so now I don't have to try them. I think your review was well written but I disagree with your findings and I just want to remind people not to make a decision based on one or two persons reviews. I feel your review was tainted a little by the placebo effect. Because of the price differences in the binoculars you tested you had an expectation that the more expensive binoculars would be better hence they were. If it was a blind test and you didn't know which binocular was which I don't think the results would have been the same. I personally feel any review by one person is totally worthless. You should have a sampling of at least ten people trying and comparing each binocular then I would tend to believe it more.


Wow- Dennis, your love really did grow cold! Just in post #14 on 8/19 you wrote this:

That is the best review I have ever read on Bird Forum! Nice. That is just the type of review I like. Nice pictures also. Beautiful country. I agree with your FOV opinion but not necessarily everything else about these three excellent binoculars but that is a matter of opinion.............
Great review though.

And now my review is : "by one person is totally worthless"; and " review was tainted a little by the placebo effect";

Sounds like someone took my "personal" review a little too personally!

Oh well, I'll get over the hurt in time - B :)

______________________

As I said in the beginning here, my review was and I re quote here: "a personal review that is based on my personal empirical observations using my eyes and my hands" - as in one, Uno- 1 person.

But, one thing I can for sure tell you is - it was not based on any placebo effect favoring which binocular was the most expensive. I spent a lot of time carefully going back and forth over 3 days and have looked at them some more since then. As far as price- the CL's were the 2nd most expensive at the current prices that I reviewed. And I put it at last place of the 3 Swaro 30 and 32 mm current ones. I also had it behind -by a good bit my 8x32 Pentax DCF ED (which I put at 2nd overall BTW) and also I put the CL behind my 1999 Swaro 7x30 SLC.

So, this was a personal review and much of color, contrast etc is personal observations. And your part about- if I was blind folded and not knowing which bino was which, and having my test results turn out different- I do not buy at all. Because I went back and forth quite a bit, for hours, and looked very carefully.

In fact I think possibly you may be the one that is a bit biased and affected by the "tainted placebo" effect;- in fact if you have a new flavor of the month bino- it is now the best, but when a bino is "old news" - then Adios- not really much good any more. ;) Eg- "the CL is better than the Nikon SE, E II, Zeiss FL, in fact it is a little baby SV"

Here is a quote that I posted concerning my review of the bino's in the other thread on these CL's regarding what I thought of the colors and contrast- etc.:

When you have all 3 of the 30 and 32 mm Swaro's in front to you- you can see differences in more than just FOV.

For one- when you just look at the external coatings on the 8x32 EL and the 8x30 SLC NEU, next to the 8x30 CL, it is apparent that there is a definite color hue difference to the coatings. The EL and the SLC looked absolutely identical, and both of them were darker than the CL. When you look down the obj. barrels- there is also a different baffle thing going on in the lining with the CL. Now Swarovski says they all have the same coatings- but to what degree? and how are the optic designs different.

For an example of the above- supposedly Swarovski has said for a long time that the coatings and lenses on the EL and the SLC were the same; and from the outside that looks to be the case. But... even though the SLC is nice, in almost all side by side tests done by independent testers and reviews- the EL comes out on top in the resolution department.

And for me- As far as the FOV influencing or affecting my other findings in relation to my review of colors; contrast, or resolution detail/ clarity- that was not the case. My findings in those things was based just on what I saw in center axis and just looking straight down the middle.

Between the CL and the EL- there was no comparison (or lets just say the CL fell a noticeable step behind) in the resolution, colors, and contrast etc.
Now when comparing the SLC NEU to the CL- ; irregardless of the FOV- there was a noted difference in the colors and contrast. Resolution is sometimes more difficult to define/describe.

I will try and describe the color/ contrast difference between them briefly. The SLC NEU's colors and contrast were more vivid and defined . The CL's looked to be more muted, or faded in comparison- just did not "pop" the same. A good illustration that came to mind for me was a Optometric/ Ophthalmology exam. When I get my eyes tested and they are doing that comparison test of going back forth and asking which ones looks clearer, or sharper etc- I thought of these 2 in that manner. If you put one after the other and back and forth and was asked which one has a nicer center view ( regardless of which ones FOV was better) based on colors, vividness, or just which one as a more pleasant view? It was way obvious each time I looked at them in that manner- the SLC NEU was better in that category. If you just put the binoculars up to my eyes like an eye Doctor with out me seeing the binos and even blocked out the outer field- so I only could see the center axis- it would be clear which one was better. Like I said the SLC just "popped" more in color, contrast- more vivid.

This would be a good way for people to do independent testing- just hook up bino's to a eye exam type station and start going through and having the DR./tester say "Now which one looks more clear, has a nicer view, now how about this one, and now this one, which one is better- # 1 or # 2"; # 1, now # 2 again? etc. etc.

Well Dennis, - Cheers, I still love Ya babe.

And to others, I will try to discipline myself to stop responding here in this point counter point with my friend here. It is just so hard sometimes ;)
 
Last edited:
I find most positive binocular reviews work very much like positive reviews of other things like movies. Many uncritical reviews use lots of superlatives without explicit comparison to anything specific (Ideally, that being something superb, so as to provide a calibration point for interpreting the reviewer's ratings), or else make claims that a bin is 95% as good as the best and since it is so much cheaper blah blah blah. I find those sort of reviews nearly worthless because no matter how many of them there are, they seem to provide no predictive power as to whether I will like a binocular, or a movie. Critical reviews are far more useful, especially those that make astute side by side comparisons to models that I'm familiar with. Also good are those that provide quasi-measurements or explicit comments about important characteristics, like field curvature and astigmatism. The best reviewers are consistent from movie to movie or bin to bin, and they do a good job of flagging the features of the movie/bin around which opinions divide. When I read these reviews, especially when I've gotten to know the reviewer from past reviews, I can tell with impressive accuracy whether or what I'm going to like about the movie/bin, regardless of whether the reviewer liked it or not.

I have a feeling that Henry Link and stephen b's reviews are going to stand the test of time, at least for me.

--AP
 
There is a now lucrative "review" industry with growing legions of folks seeking to pimp product reviews, some real but more often fake, all over the net in exchange for small payments and/or freebies and swag. Moreover, companies are now encouraging these quasi-reviews and seeking out "opinion leaders" with large advertising budgets for this kind of product placement.

I suspect more than a few regulars here have been contacted by optics OEM/retail reps asking to write "something nice" about their stuff. Fortunately I don't need the gig as creative writing has never been my forte. Buy me a beer at my local pub though and I'll give you the 411 on sports optics!8-P
 
( I switched the order here in relationship to my order of answering)

STEPHEN- Thanks for that thorough and enjoyable comparative review. I wonder if Mark hadn't challenged you on your "armchair" comments, if you would still have gone ahead and bought them? ........


________

After trying the 8x30 SLCNeu and 8x32 EL, my opinions of the two bins matched his almost perfectly except for his preference for the 8x30's "pinky" focuser, though he agreed that it's a bit hard to achieve fine focus with, an issue for birding, but not for hunting.

Brock

Brock,

In regards to your ? about whether the "armchair" challenge that was somewhat put toward me affected whether I would have bought these binoculars and done the review?? I would have to say probably not, if not for that challenge. I thought to myself, "You know, that is a very good point and I need to check these out for myself and see what they are truly all about".

_____________

As to your comment above regarding my preference for the "pinky" focuser of the 7x30/8x30 SLC's and also the possible challenge of fine focus based on that location.

I do have to clarify that preference with a caveat- I do like the position if the focus is very smooth; which is my experience with my 7x30 SLC and the other older 8x30 SLC's (pre -NEU) that I have tried. Because all of them that I have experience with were smooth enough to operate easily with even the pinky finger and effortlessly achieve fine focus. Because whatever I am using a binocular for- whether it be hunting, birding or any other use- easily achieving a fine focus is very important to me!

But.... I do have to say that the (3) 8x30 NEU's that I have tried have been a little stiff for my taste, and were not as easy to operate with even the ring finger,- let alone the "pinky".
I do not know if that would be a deal breaker for me; and maybe they would eventually loosen over time. I have to say it was a definite difference from both what I was use to and something that I never looked at as being a problem before. Based on the stiffness of the 8x30 NEU's that I have tried, I now see why people do not like that location of the focuser. Where before, I just thought to myself "What is the big deal, it is not a major problem at all".


-Stephen
 
There is a now lucrative "review" industry with growing legions of folks seeking to pimp product reviews, some real but more often fake, all over the net in exchange for small payments and/or freebies and swag. Moreover, companies are now encouraging these quasi-reviews and seeking out "opinion leaders" with large advertising budgets for this kind of product placement.

I suspect more than a few regulars here have been contacted by optics OEM/retail reps asking to write "something nice" about their stuff. Fortunately I don't need the gig as creative writing has never been my forte. Buy me a beer at my local pub though and I'll give you the 411 on sports optics!8-P

Now you tell me, -I had no idea! I should have negotiated and held out for some coin, or some freebies |=(|
and maybe even some "swag"- that is what I need.

Oh well, I am with you regarding that beer- I am easy.

Does anyone want to buy me a beer? B :)
 
Now you tell me, -I had no idea! I should have negotiated and held out for some coin, or some freebies |=(|
and maybe even some "swag"- that is what I need.

Well to pour salt on your wound, you don't even "own" your review anymore. Everything you post in a forum becomes the copywrited property of the forum owners to with and monetize as they see fit!
 
Well to pour salt on your wound, you don't even "own" your review anymore. Everything you post in a forum becomes the copywrited property of the forum owners to with and monetize as they see fit!

Could we blackmail them to share their profits if we threaten to write junk?

Hm?:smoke:

Bob
 
Bob, I suspect any/all content we users provide is welcome as it rings the BF cash register as long it increases the user base and/or page hit count.

It's no secret in the internet commerce world that starting/owning a few popular enthusiast forums can make for a nice and easy living. All your content is free and all of the employee's needed to maintain/police it, i.e. moderators, are volunteers. Meanwhile all the technology that drives the site gets cheaper everyday.
 
Last edited:
Jerry,

No worries at all- I was just pointing it how the mechanism was designed.

I am not trying to overly alarm people; but, I think others are aware that if something is not locked- it can move. Since I will not be keeping the CL's, I personally will not have any problems with the diopter.

-Stephen

I have had my CL's and used them for several weeks now and I can guarantee you the diopter does not move and works great. In fact I think I prefer the simplicity of having it on the eyepiece.
 
Looked through a pair of the new cls. They feel cheap and have a limited field of view. If on a budget better options. If not save up and buy something better.

The FOV on the CL is quite good for the class of binoculars they are in. "Feel cheap". I don't think so! They are one of the highest quality binoculars I have seen!
 
Wow- Dennis, your love really did grow cold! Just in post #14 on 8/19 you wrote this:



And now my review is : "by one person is totally worthless"; and " review was tainted a little by the placebo effect";

Sounds like someone took my "personal" review a little too personally!

Oh well, I'll get over the hurt in time - B :)

______________________

As I said in the beginning here, my review was and I re quote here: "a personal review that is based on my personal empirical observations using my eyes and my hands" - as in one, Uno- 1 person.

But, one thing I can for sure tell you is - it was not based on any placebo effect favoring which binocular was the most expensive. I spent a lot of time carefully going back and forth over 3 days and have looked at them some more since then. As far as price- the CL's were the 2nd most expensive at the current prices that I reviewed. And I put it at last place of the 3 Swaro 30 and 32 mm current ones. I also had it behind -by a good bit my 8x32 Pentax DCF ED (which I put at 2nd overall BTW) and also I put the CL behind my 1999 Swaro 7x30 SLC.

So, this was a personal review and much of color, contrast etc is personal observations. And your part about- if I was blind folded and not knowing which bino was which, and having my test results turn out different- I do not buy at all. Because I went back and forth quite a bit, for hours, and looked very carefully.

In fact I think possibly you may be the one that is a bit biased and affected by the "tainted placebo" effect;- in fact if you have a new flavor of the month bino- it is now the best, but when a bino is "old news" - then Adios- not really much good any more. ;) Eg- "the CL is better than the Nikon SE, E II, Zeiss FL, in fact it is a little baby SV"

Here is a quote that I posted concerning my review of the bino's in the other thread on these CL's regarding what I thought of the colors and contrast- etc.:



Well Dennis, - Cheers, I still love Ya babe.

And to others, I will try to discipline myself to stop responding here in this point counter point with my friend here. It is just so hard sometimes ;)

All three of these Swarovski's probably have the same or similar coatings,glass and optical designs and saying one has better contrast and one has better resolution is BS. They are probably all resolving at the limit of your eyes anyway. The optical engineers at Swarovski are probably laughing at your review knowing they are all the same but yet this guy can see all these differences.
 
I dunno? If Steve can see the difference in the colors of the coatings on their lenses then it is logical to assume that he might see differences in their views and in fact that there may indeed be differences. Then there were his comments on his examination of the optical tubes and the differences in the baffling which also could have an influence on their views.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I dunno? If Steve can see the difference in the colors of the coatings on their lenses then it is logical to assume that he might see differences in their views and in fact that there may indeed be differences. Then there were his comments on his examination of the optical tubes and the differences in the baffling which also could have an influence on their views.

Bob

Looking in to a binocular at the objective sides will oftentimes show reflections of various colours - dependent on the spectral reflectance/performance of the coatings on those specific lenses. This says very little about the performance of the entire system. As a rough test of the colour fidelity of a system, look through the binoculars from the objective lens side at a piece of white paper held a little in front of the oculars. You can then view the white paper both directly through the optical system and alongside it.

To state the obvious, optical coating systems can be incredibly complicated. Swarotop (the main Swarovski anti-reflexion coating) represents a technological system and not something like a paint that is applied equally to all lenses. This technology system approach is then used to individually create unique coatings for each and every lens-air surface within the optical system according to myriad factors including the optical requirements of the system and the glass types used in each lens. This means that the apparent colour of the coatings as seen from the objective lens side may say something about the coatings on these lenses (though interpretable without an insight into the complex optical choices made within the system), but does not say much about the performance of the entire system.

There are many ways to control stray light within an optical system. Baffling is just one of them and says nothing other than that an effort has been made to control stray light (which is what one would expect anyway).

I generally try to avoid getting involved with product-related debates for various personal reasons, but I figured some might find this interesting.

Happy birding,
Dale
 
I had a chance to compare the EL SV and the CL at Birdfair last week. Sorry Dennis, in my opinion, even under very bright conditions the CL is not close to the EL SV on resolution. Something I truly found surprising. In fact I tried another set of CLs and SVs to be sure. The difference was much more than could be accounted for on magnification. Doubting my own eyes, I picked out a target on a permanent hide about 600yds away and checked out some Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Kowas which were all much closer to the EL on resolution than the CL on the same target. The killer was finding a 6.5x32 Viking on the next stand to Swarovski that still beat the CL. A detail I checked twice with different pairs. I have little doubt that the Swarovski engineers are laughing, just not for the reasons you suppose.

It's still very pretty, nice to use and has an excellent warranty!

David
 
Last edited:
Brock,

In regards to your ? about whether the "armchair" challenge that was somewhat put toward me affected whether I would have bought these binoculars and done the review?? I would have to say probably not, if not for that challenge. I thought to myself, "You know, that is a very good point and I need to check these out for myself and see what they are truly all about".

_____________

As to your comment above regarding my preference for the "pinky" focuser of the 7x30/8x30 SLC's and also the possible challenge of fine focus based on that location.

I do have to clarify that preference with a caveat- I do like the position if the focus is very smooth; which is my experience with my 7x30 SLC and the other older 8x30 SLC's (pre -NEU) that I have tried. Because all of them that I have experience with were smooth enough to operate easily with even the pinky finger and effortlessly achieve fine focus. Because whatever I am using a binocular for- whether it be hunting, birding or any other use- easily achieving a fine focus is very important to me!

But.... I do have to say that the (3) 8x30 NEU's that I have tried have been a little stiff for my taste, and were not as easy to operate with even the ring finger,- let alone the "pinky".
I do not know if that would be a deal breaker for me; and maybe they would eventually loosen over time. I have to say it was a definite difference from both what I was use to and something that I never looked at as being a problem before. Based on the stiffness of the 8x30 NEU's that I have tried, I now see why people do not like that location of the focuser. Where before, I just thought to myself "What is the big deal, it is not a major problem at all".


-Stephen

Stephen,

I was wondering if when you compared the 3 binoculars whether you noticed any difference in the diameters of their ocular lenses? I would think it unusual if they shared oculars like the Nikon SE's and EII's do.

Bob
 
I also had it behind -by a good bit my 8x32 Pentax DCF ED (which I put at 2nd overall BTW) and also I put the CL behind my 1999 Swaro 7x30 SLC.

That's saying something. I sold my Pentax 8x32 ED only because my 8x32 FL was a bit less weight. The Pentax view was immaculate. Thumbs up from me on the Pentax. Thanks stephen b. Your opinions are indeed valued.

As a hopeless "empiricist" I will probably have to reserve judgment on the CL's till I see them myself--Cape May, October.

Nonetheless, a general, a posteriori consensus appears to be taking shape. Thanks to all who took the time and effort to look at the CL's. As for the a priori reviewers, thanks for not quite so much.;)

Mark
 
Well, I am not an optical engineer, but I can make observations with my eyes. I stated this in my review. And I did say-"What this means, I do not know- but it was apparent."

**** a thing I did notice when comparing all 3- the coatings on the outside of the EL and the SLC NEU looked identical. The CL's were not as dark, or were not the same green color. What this means, I do not know- but it was apparent. Also looking down on the inside of all 3 barrels, one thing stood out. The CL's had a much different baffling rings that surrounded the inside and were prominent when looking inside the barrels. This was not the case when looking down the SLC's or the EL's. What this means, again I am not sure.



And I did state this on the other CL thread which I quoted again here in post # 41:

For one- when you just look at the external coatings on the 8x32 EL and the 8x30 SLC NEU, next to the 8x30 CL, it is apparent that there is a definite color hue difference to the coatings. The EL and the SLC looked absolutely identical, and both of them were darker than the CL. When you look down the obj. barrels- there is also a different baffle thing going on in the lining with the CL. Now Swarovski says they all have the same coatings- but to what degree? and how are the optic designs different.

For an example of the above- supposedly Swarovski has said for a long time that the coatings and lenses on the EL and the SLC were the same; and from the outside that looks to be the case. But... even though the SLC is nice, in almost all side by side tests done by independent testers and reviews- the EL comes out on top in the resolution department.


And then Dale posts this here: (thanks for the post BTW)

Looking in to a binocular at the objective sides will oftentimes show reflections of various colours - dependent on the spectral reflectance/performance of the coatings on those specific lenses. This says very little about the performance of the entire system. As a rough test of the colour fidelity of a system, look through the binoculars from the objective lens side at a piece of white paper held a little in front of the oculars. You can then view the white paper both directly through the optical system and alongside it.

To state the obvious, optical coating systems can be incredibly complicated. Swarotop (the main Swarovski anti-reflexion coating) represents a technological system and not something like a paint that is applied equally to all lenses. This technology system approach is then used to individually create unique coatings for each and every lens-air surface within the optical system according to myriad factors including the optical requirements of the system and the glass types used in each lens. This means that the apparent colour of the coatings as seen from the objective lens side may say something about the coatings on these lenses (though interpretable without an insight into the complex optical choices made within the system), but does not say much about the performance of the entire system.

There are many ways to control stray light within an optical system. Baffling is just one of them and says nothing other than that an effort has been made to control stray light (which is what one would expect anyway).

I generally try to avoid getting involved with product-related debates for various personal reasons, but I figured some might find this interesting.

Happy birding,
Dale

So Obviously there are different coating-percentages going on on different surfaces and obviously the optical design requirements are different and built different. So to also state the obvious- the actual optical design of each Swarovski instrument is also different- even if they are all having the same type of coatings applied (given the certain manufacture time frames; ie- in the same yrs)

So they are all different optical designs and different end products. Otherwise why would we pay $2400 for a Swaro SV- when we could just get a CL for $929 and have them be the same. We would really be nuts if that was the case- especially if they all looked the same to our own eyes and we just thought the more expensive one must be better. Truly a case then of the Emperor wearing no clothes; or us having no brain ;)

Or as Dennis put it:

Dennis:

"All three of these Swarovski's probably have the same or similar coatings,glass and optical designs and saying one has better contrast and one has better resolution is BS. They are probably all resolving at the limit of your eyes anyway. The optical engineers at Swarovski are probably laughing at your review knowing they are all the same but yet this guy can see all these differences."

I guess if they are all the same (CL, SLC, EL, SV) - but different prices; I would say it would be the marketing "engineers" that are the ones that are the ones that would be really laughing at us- right along side the optical engineers.

They would probably be in the Austrian pubs- just laughing and having a good old time B :)

Cheers,

Stephen
 
..... And Dennis:

As I recall, several forum contributors dissed the EL 8x32 when it came out, claiming it had a small sweet spot, wasn't all that sharp, etc. I am sure I remember Leif panning it. Their opinions influenced me, and of course I saw the same problems when I finally got my hands on one. Then one day in 2007 I spent hours in a shop comparing it to other alpha 8x32s. I bought it that day. Obviously we are splitting hairs when we find differences between the SE and the alpha 8x32s, but I wouldn't trade my EL for another 8x32.

Actually, Dennis was the one who started the thread I think you are referring to about the 8x32 EL vs. 8x32 FL. One of Dennis' first BF posts, the moderator welcomed him to BF.

Here are some choice comments from that thread about the baby EL's optics (everybody loved the ergos).

"I tried the Swarovski 8x32 EL against my Nikon 8x32 SE and was somewhat disappointed by the noticeably lower contrast and dimmer image." -- Leif

"I'm a Zeiss FL fan myself, although a 10x user. I really don't think you can better them in the current market. As far as the Swaros are concerned, I rate the 8.5x42 EL's very highly, but like Leif, I found the 8x32EL's 'dull' in comparison." --Grousemore

"I've seen the 8x32 EL a number of times and always been unimpressed. Most recently comparing binoculars in a store a few days ago found the 8x32 EL to be dimmer, lower contrast, less sharp and less color neutral not only vs. the Zeiss 8x42 FL but also the 8x32 FL, the Nikon 8x32 SE and (believe it or not) the $300 Nikon 8x30 EII."
-- Henry

Here's the thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37963

The 2001 8.5x EL looked "dull" to me too compared to the 2009 8x30 SCLNeu. I think the difference in coatings played a major part in that. Not sure if that was also what was going on with the baby EL's above.

I compared the 2009 8x32 EL to my 2002/2003? 8x32 SE and thought it held up quite well against the SE. Not that I had time to do any serious "tests" but just eyeball to eyeball, I was pleased with what I saw, and if they weren't so damned expensive would have replaced the SE with the EL since they were just as comfortable to hold, had a larger focuser, which turned smoothly in both directions (must have been a "cherry"), and had good depth perception for a midsized roof. But most importantly, the eyecups were much more comfortable!

Not a fan of the pull out knob, but looking from close by shoreline to the mountain ridge across the lake, I did the "blink test" and found that the diopter setting was still okay! That was a surprise because that wasn't the case with its big brother 8.5x EL.

My only dislike with the baby EL was that I experienced some image blackouts like I did with the 8x SLCNeu. Like the 8x SE, eye placement seemed finicky on both midsized Swaros but not enough to be a deal killer.

The views through the baby EL didn't seem "dull" but bright, contrasty, and color saturated and a bit sharper than the 8x30 SLCNeu. Not a dramatic difference in those qualities but noticeable since I had just finished using the 8x30 SLCNeu for about a month.

Wish I had my 8x30 EII with me, that would have been tougher competition for the baby EL. If an alpha can't equal or at least come very close to the image quality of the EII, it's not "sponge worthy," IMO.

Brock
 
Actually, Dennis was the one who started the thread I think you are referring to about the 8x32 EL vs. 8x32 FL. One of Dennis' first BF posts, the moderator welcomed him to BF.

Here are some choice comments from that thread about the baby EL's optics (everybody loved the ergos).

"I tried the Swarovski 8x32 EL against my Nikon 8x32 SE and was somewhat disappointed by the noticeably lower contrast and dimmer image." -- Leif

"I'm a Zeiss FL fan myself, although a 10x user. I really don't think you can better them in the current market. As far as the Swaros are concerned, I rate the 8.5x42 EL's very highly, but like Leif, I found the 8x32EL's 'dull' in comparison." --Grousemore

"I've seen the 8x32 EL a number of times and always been unimpressed. Most recently comparing binoculars in a store a few days ago found the 8x32 EL to be dimmer, lower contrast, less sharp and less color neutral not only vs. the Zeiss 8x42 FL but also the 8x32 FL, the Nikon 8x32 SE and (believe it or not) the $300 Nikon 8x30 EII."
-- Henry

Here's the thread:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37963

The 2001 8.5x EL looked "dull" to me too compared to the 2009 8x30 SCLNeu. I think the difference in coatings played a major part in that. Not sure if that was also what was going on with the baby EL's above.

I compared the 2009 8x32 EL to my 2002/2003? 8x32 SE and thought it held up quite well against the SE. Not that I had time to do any serious "tests" but just eyeball to eyeball, I was pleased with what I saw, and if they weren't so damned expensive would have replaced the SE with the EL since they were just as comfortable to hold, had a larger focuser, which turned smoothly in both directions (must have been a "cherry"), and had good depth perception for a midsized roof. But most importantly, the eyecups were much more comfortable!

Not a fan of the pull out knob, but looking from close by shoreline to the mountain ridge across the lake, I did the "blink test" and found that the diopter setting was still okay! That was a surprise because that wasn't the case with its big brother 8.5x EL.

My only dislike with the baby EL was that I experienced some image blackouts like I did with the 8x SLCNeu. Like the 8x SE, eye placement seemed finicky on both midsized Swaros but not enough to be a deal killer.

The views through the baby EL didn't seem "dull" but bright, contrasty, and color saturated and a bit sharper than the 8x30 SLCNeu. Not a dramatic difference in those qualities but noticeable since I had just finished using the 8x30 SLCNeu for about a month.

Wish I had my 8x30 EII with me, that would have been tougher competition for the baby EL. If an alpha can't equal or at least come very close to the image quality of the EII, it's not "sponge worthy," IMO.

Brock

Brock,

I have spent quite a bit of time doing the A-B-C routine with 8x32 EL, 8x32 SE, and 8x30 EII. The EL and EII are so close IMHO that I can't state a preference, except that I wouldn't use the EII in the rain. Their resolution and brightness are practically identical, and their contrast is close, whereas the SE is obviously brighter than both of the others and seems (to my eyes) to have more contrast--certainly more than the EL and possibly a hair more than the EII. To me, any difference in color rendition is so slight while using these bins in the field--rather than doing the A-B-C routine--that I simply don't notice it.

Comparing EL to the two greatest 8-power, 30/32mm-objective, porro-prism bins ever made, its optics are damned good, but not perfect. Comparing EL to all of the alpha 8x32 roof-prism bins, EL matched my needs better than the others.

Which bin is the best value for the money? That would be the EII. Which bin is the best optically (for me)? That would be the SE. Which one is the best for birding in a mountain hailstorm, where the temperature drops 40 degrees in a minute? That would be the EL.

I'm not sure if it is a good thing that the EL stands up to the EII or vice versa, but I'm sure you are relieved to know that the EL does not unseat the EII from its exalted position.

JB
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top