I agree with you. Average birder does not need anything more than 8x32. Rest is preference.I have had many 8x56 binoculars including the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56, Zeiss FL 8x56 and the Swarovski SLC 8x56. They are slightly more forgiving because of the bigger exit pupil, giving you more room to move your eye around, and they can give you a little more 3D because of the larger objective as explained from Cloudy NIght's.
"A greater diameter of the objective lenses helps the 3d view by introducing a 3d effect produced by the parallax effect in objects out of focus: a roof 8x50 will seem to show more 3D view than a roof 8x30. Parallax effect in objects out of focus means that, when the shifts a bit laterally, everything closer or farther than the focused object will shift slightly with respect to what is in focus. This is a very obvious effect when using a terrestrial scope like a 20/60x80: when the eye is shifted to, say, the right, objects farther than the focused one shift to right, objects closer than it shift to left. This effect gives some impression of 3D view, and is very useful when looking at birds in the thick of a tree, because a slight movement of the eye helps to see beyond the branch that hides the bird. If I reduce the objective diameter, or if increase the magnification, the parallax effect is reduced. In binoculars, the 3d view can be helped by the parallax effect, especially when eyes don’t stay always perfectly on axis, which is usual with hand held binoculars."
But the major factor in 3D is objective lens spacing. The farther apart your objective lenses, the better the 3D out to about 100 yards. So if you really want good 3D, any smaller porro will be better than a bigger aperture roof prism like the SLC 8x56. Immersiveness is determined by the AFOV and the Swarovski SLC 8x56 has a very average 60 degree AFOV, whereas, some of the newer 32 mm roof's like the Swarovski NL 10x32 has a truly immersive AFOV of 69 degrees. For you, the 8x56 would be brighter in low light, but you would not see a difference in brightness in the daytime except maybe in the shadows. The biggest advantage an 8x56 has over an 8x32 is lack of optical aberrations because of the large exit pupil, they pass the field stop of the binocular and never reach your eyes. For general birding, what do you prefer, the EL 8.5x42 or the SLC 8x56? You have four nice binoculars there. I understand the advantages of big aperture binoculars, but I question if they are the best tool for the average birder. I think the average birder doesn't feel the advantages are worth the disadvantages of weight and bulk. That is why they are discontinued. Here is an older fellow that likes big aperture binoculars.
Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars
Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...www.audubon.org
-
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.
SLC 8x56 and 10x56 Discontinued in USA for 2022? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jaymann
- Start date
It is fine if you want to carry a 8x56 for its advantages and there are some, but I think it is kind of a specialized binocular. For my birding, I will take an 8x32. But that is just my preference. I think a lot of birders and even US hunters prefer the 8x32, 10x32, 8x42 or 10x42 and that is why the SLC 8x56 is being discontinued.
Last edited:
BoldenEagle
Well-known member
I have 10x56 SLC's and have found them the best choice for me regarding enough eye relief, brightness (not just in twilight but in daylight also) and "ease of view".
I find most differences when comparing to other binoculars (with smaller apertures) by watching against the sky at daylight: SLC's give the most transparent and "clean" image, as if there is no anything between me and the target. Most other binoculars have "too much going on" as there is slight shadows, lighter areas etc. which makes the image "live" when panning the sky and that irritates me. If viewing against trees or other dark background, these effects don't really bother or are virtually absent. I tried the Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 and it had the sharpest and most stunning image quality against dark backgrounds I have ever seen but also it lacked the comfort the 10x56 SLC offers when panning the sky.
So the ultimate test for me is panning the sky. This may have something to do with eye relief as I can see those same effects with my SLC if eyecups are too high. At least 10x model has the most generous eye relief I have found in any binocular and I have to even just slightly (maybe about 1-2 mm) lift them to get the most comfortable position with my glasses. After that, the view is very easy and comfortable.
In my opinion the most obvious cons are just the quite long minimum focus distance and secondly the weight. CA control is not perfect but can't really complain about it either. On the other hand, the weight is not only a drawback; it gives also stability and I find lighter binoculars being more shaky when hand holding. I also use finnstick very often and it makes the weight of the binocular somewhat irrelevant then. Of course the weight is there when carrying the binocular on longer hikes but it's also something that one can just adapt to, if not just physically unable to let them hang around neck (which can be of course avoided by using harness- type strap). But I could imagine that it is perhaps the most obvious feature that makes average birder looking for an alpha not to byu this (or 8x56) binocular.
I never have tried the 8x56 SLC and seen how easy view it would give as I have allways felt I need 10x magnification.
Regards, Juhani
I find most differences when comparing to other binoculars (with smaller apertures) by watching against the sky at daylight: SLC's give the most transparent and "clean" image, as if there is no anything between me and the target. Most other binoculars have "too much going on" as there is slight shadows, lighter areas etc. which makes the image "live" when panning the sky and that irritates me. If viewing against trees or other dark background, these effects don't really bother or are virtually absent. I tried the Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 and it had the sharpest and most stunning image quality against dark backgrounds I have ever seen but also it lacked the comfort the 10x56 SLC offers when panning the sky.
So the ultimate test for me is panning the sky. This may have something to do with eye relief as I can see those same effects with my SLC if eyecups are too high. At least 10x model has the most generous eye relief I have found in any binocular and I have to even just slightly (maybe about 1-2 mm) lift them to get the most comfortable position with my glasses. After that, the view is very easy and comfortable.
In my opinion the most obvious cons are just the quite long minimum focus distance and secondly the weight. CA control is not perfect but can't really complain about it either. On the other hand, the weight is not only a drawback; it gives also stability and I find lighter binoculars being more shaky when hand holding. I also use finnstick very often and it makes the weight of the binocular somewhat irrelevant then. Of course the weight is there when carrying the binocular on longer hikes but it's also something that one can just adapt to, if not just physically unable to let them hang around neck (which can be of course avoided by using harness- type strap). But I could imagine that it is perhaps the most obvious feature that makes average birder looking for an alpha not to byu this (or 8x56) binocular.
I never have tried the 8x56 SLC and seen how easy view it would give as I have allways felt I need 10x magnification.
Regards, Juhani
The SLC 10x56 is always going to pan better than the SF 10x42. The SF 10x42 is more of a flat field design, so it is going to show some RB for a lot of people, plus with the bigger exit pupil you have more room to move your eyes around in the SLC 10x56. That is the price you pay for the sharp edges on the SF. I agree on the "clean" image. The big 56 mm does have a purity of image that is hard to describe, and the 8x56 is probably slightly better because of the even larger exit pupil. The SLC 10x56 wastes a little less light than the 8x56 with its smaller 5.6 mm exit pupil. For a young person under low light, the 8x56 would be brighter, but you would see more detail with the 10x56 because of the higher magnification. They are both pretty good low light binoculars. I have had the Swarovski SLC 8x56, Zeiss FL 8x56 and the Steiner Shadowquest 8x56 and the brightest one in low light was the Steiner I think due to the fact that it is a porro and has a higher light transmission than the two roofs. The now discontinued Shadowquest was known to be one of the best low light binoculars you could buy, primarily targeted at hunters.
Binoculars rankings - 8x56 - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Last edited:
proudpapa56
Where'd you go, stay put!
To recap, the SLC 8x56 is not being discontinued.
tenex
reality-based
Oddly enough this blurb concerned the old 56mm SLCs, which I understood were not as bright in daytime as many smaller models. In any case, it makes the same claims I recall from an old Better View Desired piece on choosing binoculars: "They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows." No justification is offered here, but BVD cited arguments borrowed from telescope optics, involving light-gathering and diffraction under conditions radically different from daytime terrestrial observation. I've never heard anyone here claim to be seeing "better color" or to be making easier daylight IDs thanks to big glass. The benefits seem subtler or more aesthetic, involving viewing comfort, crisp views at long distances and so on... at least for those with typical visual acuity. What were the authors of pieces like this thinking?Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars
Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...
Last edited:
