New Swarovski SLC 42 Binoculars (1 Viewer)

[elkcub]

Brock is right. The all have HD glass so the old segregation of HD and non-HD doesn't apply.

Tried the 8x42 SLC and compared it with the EL SV and I preferred the SLC which to my eyes had a livelier more dynamic view. Felt nice and balanced in the hand too.

I thought it was brighter than the EL too although not HT-bright. However the weather was lousy at the time and despite the presence of some Little Egrets it did not favour detailed comparisons.

Lee

I never regretted buying the SLC 8x42 HD (that's what's printed on the focus wheel) after comparing it with the SV model and other brands. Everything about it is perfect for me: ER, FOV, W&B, and IQ. I particularly like the absence of a field flattener and twin hinge design.

It seems that the only change in the newest release will be the absence of "HD" in the stencil, ... but then it makes no difference to me since there never was an SLC 8x42 without HD glass.

Ed

 

[henry link]

Thanks SEOW! I see the 8x56 has a little wider FOV and much longer eye relief compared to the 8x56 FL. Now, if the light transmission is comparable, the color bias more neutral and the sweet spot larger I think my bell has been rung!

Henry

 

[elkcub]

Henry,

What is the ER difference?

Ed

 

[elkcub]

Oh, it looks like 23mm? That's huge! And the FOV = 399'. Impressive.

 

[SEOW]

Huh. The specs for the 8x42 are exactly the same as for the 8x42 "HD" except that the close focus is 3.2 m. Strange (and disappointing, if that's correct).

 

[elkcub]

Any weighs a mere 28 oz.

 

[henry link]

Ed,

Yes, that is huge. Could be a problem if the eyecups are not properly designed. I just hope the 8x56 will be available in the US. I'm not keen to special order a pair, sight unseen.

Henry

 

[elkcub]

Henry,

Since EO sells the 8x56 SLC my bet is that they'll sell the new model as well.

Ed

 

[NDhunter]

Lee,

Are the 56mm models there to try? If so, can you find out if they all use Abbe-Konig prisms and what the FOV specs are?

Henry

Henry:

There has been no mention of AK prisms, so interesting you mention it.

I am thinking not, as that would require a total redesign.

Jerry

 

[henry link]

Jerry,

AK prisms are mentioned in the more complete description of the new 15x56 SLC model here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2799095&postcount=1

I'm not certain but it seems probable that they're used in the 8x56 and 10x56 as well. It looks like the new 56mm models are a total redesign.

Ed,

I hope you're right about EO, but notice that the Jan. 2014 US release date in the blog post is for the 15x56 only.

Henry

 

[karmantra]

I think it would be a smart move from Swarovski to loan an 8x56 prototype to Henry Link and have him do one of his thorough reviews, but I doubt that the SONA marketing guys would approve it!

 

[brocknroller]

Oh, my, oh, my, 7.6* FOV for an 8x56 and 23mm ER!!! I could actually use glasses to correct my astigmatism, which I need under low light and for stargazing. Even taking away 4-5mm for the eyecup height and lens recession still leaves 19-18mm useable ER. Oh joy! Rapture! I could also use my polarized sunglasses on bright, sunny days.

The new 8x56 SLC might match the centerfield resolution of the 8x56 FL, but w/out the astigmatism and bulky ribbed closed bridge body and with some much needed RED added ti the light spectrum. The only question is if the overall light transmission can match the FL. According to Arek, the 10x42 SLC-HD only achieves 85.6% whereas he rated the 10x42 FL 5% higher. The SLC-HD is low on the blue end and saggy in the middle:

Swarovski_SLC_10x42_WB_HD

Good thing the focuser is probably coarse and ratchety and doesn't turn smoothly in both directions, said the Fox, because I'd be putting up the car on eBay to buy this model and buying a bus pass.

As PP said, the 8x56 FL won't sell in the U.S.. (except for Henry , but I think hunters in Europe are going to eat these up like roasted wild boar. :eat:

<B>

 

[brocknroller]

The new EII still looks the same with just a different kind of basic black cover change. There isn't enough change in it to call it an EIII.

The new SLCs changed more than their covering and look much different. But that still doesn't explain why they dropped the HD and kept on calling them SLC. They look more like large versions of the CL.

Bob

If I said PA TAY TOE, would you say PA TAH TOE?

What I meant is that the models previously released, the 8x42 and 10x42, have only cosmetic changes, they have armoring where there used to be bare metal, that's all. From what's been said, mechanically and optically, the 8x and 10x42 SLCs are identical to the 8x and 10x42 SLC-HDs.

And the rest of the models in the line are modeled after the original SLC-HDs but also with armoring where the bare metal used to be, which is a good thing, because on the 56mm models, the original armoring scheme would have created a large exposed metal area, and they all have HD glass, so why not call them all HDs?

I speculated about the name change above. I think it's a return to the roots thang. Drop the namby pamby "HD" designation, which has become an overused marketing term.

<B>

 

[ceasar]

Brock,

What don't the new ones have if they all have HD now?

The old 8x42SLC HD are on SALE at E.O. for $1829.00

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-slc-8x42-hd-binocular

The new 8x42SLC WB will sell for $1729.00 It is not yet in stock.

http://www.eagleoptics.com/binoculars/swarovski/swarovski-slc-8x42-wb-binocular

Bob

PS: The 10 x 42 SLC HD is now out of stock. It is also advertised at the SALE price of $1989.00

The new 10 x 42 SLC WB is listed for $1799.00. It is not yet in stock.

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

Are the 56mm models there to try? If so, can you find out if they all use Abbe-Konig prisms and what the FOV specs are?

Henry

Sorry Henry, I was only at the fair for one day, and I had commitments elsewhere so I couldn't spend a lot of time on the Swaro stand.

BTW I did try the Zeiss FL 8x56 during a very dull part of the day, with heavy rain, and the view through it was just fabulous. Now I understand why you love it so much.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Ed,

Yes, that is huge. Could be a problem if the eyecups are not properly designed. I just hope the 8x56 will be available in the US. I'm not keen to special order a pair, sight unseen.

Henry

Absolutely right Henry. I keep banging this drum: doesn't matter what the ER is if the eyecup doesn't deliver the eye to the right position.

Tried several bins with 'generous' eye reliefs yesterday and most of them had too much ER with the eyecup screwed down to accommodate my glasses. I needed the eyecups eased up a bit to get rid of blackouts, but there were no click stops at this position and the eyecups were so loose they wouldn't stay where I needed them.

Big ERs are not the full story.

The stars of the show for me were SLC 8x42 and Conquest HD 8x32.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

The only question is if the overall light transmission can match the FL. According to Arek, the 10x42 SLC-HD only achieves 85.6% whereas he rated the 10x42 FL 5% higher. The SLC-HD is low on the blue end and saggy in the middle:

I know you are talking 56s here but although the SLC 8x42 was one of my stars of the show, it wasn't as bright as Zess HT or as lively. But, its a close thing, and to my eyes significantly better than EL SV.

Lee

 

[mooreorless]

Lee your post shows how people can see things a lot different, for me the SV was significantly better than the SLC HD I tried, both were 8x42. I am sure I would like the Zeiss HT, I liked the 8x42 and 8x32 Zeiss FL quite a bit.

 

[Troubador]

Lee your post shows how people can see things a lot different, for me the SV was significantly better than the SLC HD I tried, both were 8x42. I am sure I would like the Zeiss HT, I liked the 8x42 and 8x32 Zeiss FL quite a bit.

Steve

At the time I looked through the EL 8.5 the weather was quite dull with rain from time to time. I wonder if it is the case that for some reason the SLC 8x42 transmitted more of what wavelengths were available in those conditions than the EL SV?

I was surprised at the big EL (and so was Typo who was with me). FWIW the EL SV 8x32 seemed livelier. Work that one out if you can.

Lee

 

[mooreorless]

Lee, It could of been the way the SV fit me, ER etc. and the field in focus. The SV 8x42 felt like an extension of my eyesight, got out of the way, it seemed made for me. First binocular that did that for me. I am not a RB person at all. I saw it a split second in the full size Nikon LX and adapted to it.