SLC 8X42 vs 10X42 (1 Viewer)

[dries1]

How would one rate the comparison between these two in their respective formats? The SLC 8X42 seems to get much positive reviews, however where is the SLC 10X42 in relation to other premium 10X42s?

 

[Maljunulo]

Sorry, the question was about the SLC, of which I know nothing.

Answer removed.

The clutch in my brain slipped.

 

[tenex]

It's just that this forum is a predominantly 8x crowd, unlike the wider world where the 10x42 SLC sold out before the 8. I think the two are comparable in quality as one would expect, though I've somehow never tried them. Chuck says the 10x is one of his most used, which says a lot given the competition. Having come to like SLCs myself, I've been wondering whether I'll regret not picking one up when they were discontinued (as you may be also?).

 

[Canip]

How would one rate the comparison between these two in their respective formats? The SLC 8X42 seems to get much positive reviews, however where is the SLC 10X42 in relation to other premium 10X42s?

I would rate the two equal, although I do admit that I use the 8x more frequently. For me, both are up with the best 8x42s and 10x42s, respectively, and I think they will be be among the last ones that I will give away.

Pinac

 

[dries1]

Yes the 10X42 is popular with the other hobby, many owners there. I do like the SLC in 8X42 (small light package) but I prefer 8X42 to 10X42 anyway. If I were really going to get one it would be out of curiosity, perhaps try it under the new Kahles brand. The view of the 56 SLCs though are tough to beat in any format.

 

[elkcub]

The 2010 8x42 SLC-HD is the best (and last) binocular I will ever purchase. The 2010 10x42 SLC-HD is somewhat lighter and smaller but didn't work for me because it doesn't have the 18.5mm eye relief of the 8x (it's about 16mm?). If there is another 8x that's as good as the 2010 8x42 SLC-HD that's great; but I'm not looking for it. Even if I were, the 8x42 NL Pure could not be a candidate for the simple reason that it uses a field flattener, — which always produce off-putting stereoscope type images that I can't adapt to.

IMO, the 10x42 SLC-HD is/was a marked improvement over the earlier 10x42WB, which was/is a standard high-end binocular in the hunting community, and used by many a birder too.

Ed

 

[SeldomPerched]

I would rate the two equal, although I do admit that I use the 8x more frequently. For me, both are up with the best 8x42s and 10x42s, respectively, and I think they will be be among the last ones that I will give away.

Pinac

I have both and agree with Canip. I got the 10 first and its combination of qualities made it appeal so much I just bonded with it immediately. So I felt it would be good to have the 8. I like that even more but that's more to do with the ease of using an 8 than anything much else. And I'd add that none of the excitement was from having something hard to find. Neither 8 nor 10 had yet been discontinued. Mine are the last model i.e. SLC WB in the all-over green 'dinosaur skin'. As an aside to those who like their glass to have a nice appearance I'd say that these bins look a lot better than in most photos. I do not have the experience of Canip but those are my thoughts for what little they are worth.

(A year earlier, i.e. a year before anyone had discovered coronavirus Covid-19, I had got the 10x50 EL, so my first world quandary was whether I'd use the 10x42 much more because of its more compact size even though the 50 is superb. Horses for courses and my problem to decide on!)

Tom

 

[SeldomPerched]

The 2010 8x42 SLC-HD is the best (and last) binocular I will ever purchase. The 2010 10x42 SLC-HD is somewhat lighter and smaller but didn't work for me because it doesn't have the 18.5mm eye relief of the 8x (it's about 16mm?). If there is another 8x that's as good as the 2010 8x42 SLC-HD that's great; but I'm not looking for it. Even if I were, the 8x42 NL Pure could not be a candidate for the simple reason that it uses a field flattener, — which always produce off-putting stereoscope type images that I can't adapt to.

IMO, the 10x42 SLC-HD is/was a marked improvement over the earlier 10x42WB, which was/is a standard high-end binocular in the hunting community, and used by many a birder too.

Ed

I thought the WB was the more recent one, i.e. the one with the close focus ability removed. I agree about the eye relief though luckily it doesn't really affect me, but I notice the difference.

 

[SeldomPerched]

It's just that this forum is a predominantly 8x crowd, unlike the wider world where the 10x42 SLC sold out before the 8. I think the two are comparable in quality as one would expect, though I've somehow never tried them. Chuck says the 10x is one of his most used, which says a lot given the competition. Having come to like SLCs myself, I've been wondering whether I'll regret not picking one up when they were discontinued (as you may be also?).

Tenex,

You might but if you have just one of the 42s you have probably got the one (8x) that is even better than the other (10x) partly because of slightly better eye relief, as another poster has mentioned here or on another SLC thread. Chuck's affirmation as with some other bins was if I remember aright what decided me to go ahead with the 10x42 SLC a while ago. But I use 8x more and love them too. (I think I love everything!).

Both were bought by mail order unseen and the fact that the risk paid off added to the satisfaction, though I'd add the firm has an excellent returns collection system that turned round a second 8x when the first one had a (just slightly) tough to turn focuser.

As an aside have you got or used 10x50 EL SV or Field Pro?

Tom

 

[elkcub]

I thought the WB was the more recent one, i.e. the one with the close focus ability removed. I agree about the eye relief though luckily it doesn't really affect me, but I notice the difference.

The 10x42 SLC has a long history. In reverse order from the most recent:

1. 10x42 SLC (most recent, 'WB' not shown on focuser) [1st. photo]
2. 10x42 SLC-HD [no photo]
3. 10x42 SLC WB Neu (i.e., New armor) [2nd. photo]
4. 10x42 SLC WB (my 2002 reference binocular) [3rd and 4th photos]
5. ... etc.

So, I was referring to either 'WB' items (3 or 4), which are essentislly the same instrument differing only in armor style and possible a coating improvement.

I hope that makes it perfectly clear.

Ed

 

[tenex]

As an aside have you got or used 10x50 EL SV or Field Pro?

I tried EL 10x50 (and 12x) in a store several years ago but somehow fell for SLC 56 instead, which I have in 10 and 15x, my only Swaros. Previously I was a Leica guy, so I've never even tried SLC 42s, or seen the earlier models Ed described above. ("WB" is just the standard designation for wide-field glasses-friendly, and quite useless for distinguishing among all those models over 25 years or so, from 7x30 to 15x56. People refer to Mark III, IV, neu etc but I'm unfamilar with the differences.) I feel like I've realized too late how good the SLC line is/was. Incidentally I agree with you that the latest "dinosaur skin" is excellent and functional, and like the color.

 

[chill6x6]

Actually...the SLCs I like and use the most are the 7X42 and 8X42. I'm just a 7X/8X person. I do have a SLC 10X42 that is a 1997 model. That was the first REALLY good binocular I ever owned. I used to be a 10X42 person for birding thru and thru because of that 10X42 SLC. The first SV I ever bought was a 10X42.

Of course I think you should try an SLC 10X42. There is what looks to be a 2009 SLC on eBay for a pretty good deal that is very tempting to me. Looks just like my 7X42. There's another one that looks to be a couple of years older...but the seller only has had one feedback.

 

[mtn]

(A year earlier, i.e. a year before anyone had discovered coronavirus Covid-19, I had got the 10x50 EL, so my first world quandary was whether I'd use the 10x42 much more because of its more compact size even though the 50 is superb. Horses for courses and my problem to decide on!)

Tom

Tom, which do you find yourself using most between these two?

Thanks
Daniel

 

[SeldomPerched]

The 10x42 SLC has a long history. In reverse order from the most recent:

1. 10x42 SLC (most recent, 'WB' not shown on focuser) [1st. photo]
2. 10x42 SLC-HD [no photo]
3. 10x42 SLC WB Neu (i.e., New armor) [2nd. photo]
4. 10x42 SLC WB (my 2002 reference binocular) [3rd and 4th photos]
5. ... etc.

So, I was referring to either 'WB' items (3 or 4), which are essentislly the same instrument differing only in armor style and possible a coating improvement.

I hope that makes it perfectly clear.

Ed

Thanks, Ed. Nicely cleared up. The problem as you know being that the most recent one is called WB tooo but the name as you say not usually stated (hope I've hot that right after John Roberts's patient explanations).

 

[SeldomPerched]

Tom, which do you find yourself using most between these two?

Thanks
Daniel

Hi Daniel, at present because of the recent restrictions which are only just coming to an end it's all been garden birding so the tens have been mostly unused. But hoping to get out more soon and try. It's a difficult question: different looks (I mean views not cosmetics), both very nice, and of course different handling. I love 50s in general having recently got an 8x50 Leica but they are not so easy to get the best out of, in my hands anyway. Do you have experience with both, Daniel?

Tom

 

[mtn]

Hi Daniel, at present because of the recent restrictions which are only just coming to an end it's all been garden birding so the tens have been mostly unused. But hoping to get out more soon and try. It's a difficult question: different looks (I mean views not cosmetics), both very nice, and of course different handling. I love 50s in general having recently got an 8x50 Leica but they are not so easy to get the best out of, in my hands anyway. Do you have experience with both, Daniel?

Tom

Thanks for the reply Tom. I have a pair of each on their way... I sprung for the 10x50 SV ELs first (right before I made my previous post) and was wondering about the (potential) gap between them and the 10x42 SLC HDs and the trade-offs in handling. I was offered a good deal on some 10x42s, so I guess I will get to see for myself. Current thinking is the 42s will be used more in the field, hand-held and during full daylight and the 50s more in lower light and less mobile situations... I've read they are excellent for the night sky as well.

Cheers,
Daniel

 

[SeldomPerched]

Daniel, I'm definitely no expert but when my 10x42 SLC arrived last spring I thought it was a pleasant surprise to handle a ten that was easy to hold steady; the design was robust but cosy and ergonomic to me. When first using the 10x50 EL (a year earlier) I thought it was not so easy to handle, but that was just in the shop before using it properly and once I got home and was caught up in watching nature rather than scanning street walls from the shop the shake worries were forgotten - which is what I was banking on happening. Luckily it did! At this time of night I can't remember how old your SLC is but it may be heavier than mine if it is not the latest version.

You may find that the EL gives a cooler view and the SLC a warmer, yellower not redder, one. Both seem to me nicely done and nothing extreme, as you'd expect. The only criticism I'd have of either bin - in the case of the most recent versions that is; the older ones may be different - is that to my taste the eyecups are a bit hard; I find Leica's and Zeiss's eyecups a bit softer and easier on the face. But that doesn't really affect my thoughts on them overall.

You've probably read Roger Vine's reviews of both on scopeviews.co.uk but if not just to say he is mighty impressed by both glasses! Let us know what you think when they arrive. I am sure many would love to have just one of these, let alone both. I keep thinking that with the 42 the 50 is really an unneeded luxury for me but it is hard to let it go, so my plan is to keep it for as long as I enjoy using it. Perhaps the answer is to take up stargazing with them!

Tom

Thanks for the reply Tom. I have a pair of each on their way... I sprung for the 10x50 SV ELs first (right before I made my previous post) and was wondering about the (potential) gap between them and the 10x42 SLC HDs and the trade-offs in handling. I was offered a good deal on some 10x42s, so I guess I will get to see for myself. Current thinking is the 42s will be used more in the field, hand-held and during full daylight and the 50s more in lower light and less mobile situations... I've read they are excellent for the night sky as well.

Cheers,
Daniel

 

[John A Roberts]

Hopefully to flesh out the above . . .

Focuser Markings
The 10x42 was the one common magnification across all of the SLC x42 production, so in terms of the markings on the focuser cap
(and in keeping with the front to back positioning of the models in the image):

B) All New Model
ii) 2013 version, marked: 'SLC 10x42'
i) 2010 version, marked: 'SLC 10x42 HD 6,3°'

A) Original Model
ii) All later production, December 1998 to 2010, marked: 'SLC 10x42WB' (with 'HABICHT' on surrounding ring)
i) Original RA style with 'shoulder' at base of eyepiece, June 1992 to November 1998, marked: '10x42WB' (with 'HABICHT SLC' on surrounding ring)


Body Coverings
The image is from an SLC catalogue, showing the x42 rubber armouring styles from front to rear:

• 2013 - until the end of 2020 (all over two texture rubber covering - despite the image it is all the same colour)

• 2010 - all new model (forrest green rubber with blackened exposed metal in the bridge area)

• 2005 - 'neu' covering (forrest green with black rubber in the bridge area; metal body, mechanism and glass are identical to previous production)

• 1998 - upgraded covering (it lacks the 'shoulder' at the base of the eyepiece, also either green or black)

• 1992 - original covering (either green or black)

n.b. The above describes the original factory production. However, it's not uncommon to see pre-December 1998 units that have been serviced, fitted with the later version rubber armouring


John

 

[mtn]

Daniel, I'm definitely no expert but when my 10x42 SLC arrived last spring I thought it was a pleasant surprise to handle a ten that was easy to hold steady; the design was robust but cosy and ergonomic to me. When first using the 10x50 EL (a year earlier) I thought it was not so easy to handle, but that was just in the shop before using it properly and once I got home and was caught up in watching nature rather than scanning street walls from the shop the shake worries were forgotten - which is what I was banking on happening. Luckily it did! At this time of night I can't remember how old your SLC is but it may be heavier than mine if it is not the latest version.

You may find that the EL gives a cooler view and the SLC a warmer, yellower not redder, one. Both seem to me nicely done and nothing extreme, as you'd expect. The only criticism I'd have of either bin - in the case of the most recent versions that is; the older ones may be different - is that to my taste the eyecups are a bit hard; I find Leica's and Zeiss's eyecups a bit softer and easier on the face. But that doesn't really affect my thoughts on them overall.

You've probably read Roger Vine's reviews of both on scopeviews.co.uk but if not just to say he is mighty impressed by both glasses! Let us know what you think when they arrive. I am sure many would love to have just one of these, let alone both. I keep thinking that with the 42 the 50 is really an unneeded luxury for me but it is hard to let it go, so my plan is to keep it for as long as I enjoy using it. Perhaps the answer is to take up stargazing with them!

Tom

Thanks Tom.

Both pair that I have coming are newer versions (SV ELs and HD SLCs). I am looking forward to the comparison. I have a pair of Zeiss 10x that I quite like as well, so I'm not sure I will have the need for all three. I will be sure to share my thoughts once I've had plenty of time to compare.

Cheers
Daniel

 

[casscade]

Definitely post your results, especially on the 42 slc.. I’m currently about to purchase a 10x50 el, 10x56 slc, or a 10x42 slc, the 56 just seems so big by comparison.