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

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

pre 2016 EL 8.5x42 vs field pro - close focus distance (1 Viewer)

jaymann

Member
I compared old specs vs new and it has changed from 1.5 to 3.3. Field of view is still the same.
Does anybody know why this happened. Was it a type or Swarovski actually changed the close focus distance?
I have the pre 2016 version and wanted to trade in for field pro version. Does this mean my existing bino is better?
Thanks in advance.
 

bkdc

Well-known member
They dropped the price on The Legend (no longer a legend with the minimum focal distance). I’m surprised that the pre-Legend bins are not selling for higher prices on the secondary market. I suspect they will eventually command a higher Price. Field Pro or not Field Pro. Many people still prefer the non-Field Pro version which has exactly the same optics.

I’m about to sell my pre-neutered EL SV on eBay. I hope it fetches a higher price and I will make sure I describe the focal distance issue on the description. :)
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
Distinguishing by Serial Number: 1.5 m minimum focus EL FieldPro vs 3.3m EL Legend

A) Original EL FieldPro x42 with 1.5 m minimum focus distance
As Jan has indicated, all EL 10x42’s (and 8.5x42's) prior to #K9027 48841 have a 1.5 m minimum focus,
see at: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=4030788&postcount=15

The 27 in the serial number indicates the 27th week of the year - the end of June/ the start of July
And the change coincided with the announcement of the NL x42 models at the start of July, see at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=391608
(in contrast, the minimum focusing distance of the EL x32 and x50 models has not changed with the introduction of the NL x42's)



B) Swarovski’s serial numbering patterns
Recently there has been a change to the numbering on all of Swarovski's products:
• The original pattern of A+9 (a letter followed by 9 digits) was used until the end of August, the 36th week of the year, and

• The new pattern of AA+7+A (two letters, followed 7 digits and another letter) was introduced from the start of September



C) New EL Legend x42 with 3.3 m minimum focus distance
As indicated, the change was introduced on the original pattern numbered units, and it continues on the new pattern numbered ones, so:
• Units with a serial number from #K9027 48841 on i.e. any production from the start of July until the end of August, along with

• Units from September on with a new pattern serial number i.e. #KD10 10000A or later


For more detail and examples of the old and new numbering patterns, see at: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=394392


John
 
Last edited:

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
They dropped the price on The Legend (no longer a legend with the minimum focal distance). I’m surprised that the pre-Legend bins are not selling for higher prices on the secondary market. I suspect they will eventually command a higher Price. Field Pro or not Field Pro. Many people still prefer the non-Field Pro version which has exactly the same optics.

I’m about to sell my pre-neutered EL SV on eBay. I hope it fetches a higher price and I will make sure I describe the focal distance issue on the description. :)

I would not expect any more value to the older model, even though it has a closer near focus.

The majority of users do not consider this attribute, because they do not use their binocular that way.

Jerry
 

bkdc

Well-known member
A change in minimal focal distance usually means a change in refractive index of the prism. Lower refractive index has a benefit of fewer distortions and aberrations to correct.

Does anyone know whether Swarovski is keeping the exact same prism and optical formula or whether there is some cost-cutting involved with a lower refractive index prism while maintaining (or even improving) image quality?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top