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

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Swarovksi SLC 10x56 versus Zeiss Victory HT 10x54 (1 Viewer)

etc

Well-known member
The original plan was to get a 10x56 SLC but found a Victory HT 10x54, what are the pros/cons? Only interested in these two specific models.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
The original plan was to get a 10x56 SLC but found a Victory HT 10x54, what are the pros/cons? Only interested in these two specific models.
I have had them both, and they were both excellent for me. If you have the Zeiss HT 10x54 I would buy the Swarovski SLC 10x56 and compare them side by side. Since everybodies physiology, eyes and priorities are different that is the only way you will know which one works best for you. Here are some differences between the two from the Scopeview review.

  • · The Swarovski SLCs have a plainer but ultimately better external build quality and nicer armour.
  • · The Swarovski SLCs have a smoother, faster focuser.
  • · Swarovski SLCs have even more eye relief and a better, more precise dioptre mechanism.
  • · The Zeiss HTs are ~120g lighter but no more compact.
  • · The Zeiss HTs claim slightly higher transmittance at 95% vs 93%.
  • · The 10x56 SLCs have larger objectives that gather 7% more light. I think this difference is detectable at night and in deep dusk conditions.
  • · The Swarovski SLCs suffer less from false colour (they are virtually free of it whilst the HTs still have some).
  • · On paper the Zeiss HTs have a slightly wider field.
  • · The Swarovski SLCs have a flatter field and less off-axis aberrations, so their usable field width is greater.
  • · Not a big deal perhaps, but the Swarovski SLCs have a more upmarket case.
  • · The HTs are more expensive.
 

quincy88

Well-known member
I have the SLC 15x56s. Zeiss does not make a 15x54, so I did not have to make the choice that you are now faced with when choosing which big binoculars I wanted.

My SLCs are one of my favorite pair of binoculars in any configuration, and cannot recommend them highly enough. I have written multiple reviews expanding on their virtues which can be found here:

Because of their weight it helps me to steady them by holding them way out near the objective lenses. This makes it so that I cannot reach the focus with my fingers. What results is I will hold them still near the objectives then move one hand back to focus then move my hand forward to hold them still again and repeat. All of this is fine, and works well for me and my 15s. BUT if I could move that focus knob closer to the objective lenses then I would do it. The Zeiss's focus knob would suit my hands and viewing style better. Of course all other things are not equal, but I would assign a pro to the Zeiss in this criteria.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Here's a comparison...
...unfortunately only on German, you would have to translate it!

Andreas
Translated.

"After the weather finally improved, I was able to spend a few hours outdoors with the new Swarovski SLC and the even newer Zeiss 10x54 HT. It started in the late afternoon and ended after midnight, so that I could browse the entire spectrum of lighting conditions and then finally be able to look at the stars in detail when the sky was clear. I now have a good overview of the properties of these instruments, individual details will be worked out in the next two weeks.

For those who do not want to read for long: We have two very powerful binoculars without any real weaknesses. If you want to shop in this performance class, you can't go wrong with any of these devices. The differences that I am now listing are in many cases subtle, only to be discovered on closer inspection. I go into the details below.


Zeiss 10x54 HT:

Pro:

  • light and handy
  • very good haptics
  • very bright
  • coating at the highest level
  • very good stray light suppression
  • good color fringe suppression

Cons:

  • edge sharpness only average
  • high distortion
  • center drive a bit too smooth



Swarovski 10x56 SLC:

Pro:

  • high edge sharpness
  • very bright
  • coating at the highest level
  • good color fringing suppression
  • little recording, but no globe effect
  • very good view
  • center drive almost "perfect"

Cons:

- occasional light scattered light
effects - a little "clunkier" than the Zeiss


The biggest difference between the two binoculars is the edge sharpness. The Swaro shows stars up to a good 85% to the edge of the field of view, the Zeiss only achieves a good 70%. For comparison, I had the 10x50 Fujinon FMT-SX2 with me, which even remains sharp up to 90% with a slightly wider viewing angle.

The central focus of these glasses seems perfect, even with the 10x54 HT I did not find any problems (although I observed without a "booster").

The second biggest difference lies in the design of the distortion - the Zeiss has a very strong cushion-shaped distortion, the Swaro only a slight distortion (corresponding to the "k = 0.7 correction" I suggested) and a very natural swivel behavior.

The Zeiss is lighter (1075g versus 1200g of the Swaro) and is "light and flaky" in the hand - you don't notice that it is a 54mm caliber, and some 10x50s are chunkier and heavier than the HT. The Swaro is also light for a 56mm device, but rather conventionally designed, you can tell that it is no longer a 50s. Focussing is also perfect with the Zeiss, you can operate the large cylinder very comfortably without even having to grip it a bit.

However, the center drive of the Zeiss turns too easily for me. With gloves, in particular, you need minimal resistance to get a feel for the angle adjustment. Here the Swaro hits it better, the roller rotates with a tangible resistance and does not move even if it is accidentally touched. Incidentally, the shoots in both binoculars are slowly translated: With the Swaro you need 13 hours (390 °) to get from close-up (just over 3 m) to infinity, with the Zeiss it is even 17 hours (510 °). This allows a very sensitive adjustment of the focus and suits the astronomer.

I can't get along perfectly with the view from the Zeiss: With the eyecups fully turned out, I can't see the field diaphragm, and when I drive in a step, I'm too close and see reflections on the reflective inner walls of the tube. The Swarovski fits better here, but this can vary from observer to observer.

The Zeiss shows its strengths in increasing twilight, here it seems impossible to create any scattered light effects. When panning the Swaro, I occasionally "succeeded" in capturing a few fleeting reflections that disturbed the contrast of the image. The reflections come from a shiny bar located just below the exit pupil (presumably a reflection on an edge of the Abbe-König prism. Blacking these edges should solve the problem).

Both devices show color fringes, albeit not in a noticeable way. Perhaps a Zeiss FL does a little better here, but I miss the direct comparison. The Fuji that was available to me had more problems here.

It was interesting to see how the image brightness of the Fujinon 10x50 suddenly collapsed with increasing dusk, while the Zeiss and Swaro still showed bright and high-contrast images - the optimized hunter glasses stop. There was a horse paddock near where I was observing, and after it was very dark I could no longer see the horses with the naked eye, only hear them sporadically. They were clearly visible through the binoculars, even details of the stains on the fur. With the Fuji it was mainly the outlines, details remained invisible. Of course, it was due to both effects, the larger exit pupil and the higher transmission, that gave the Swaro and the Zeiss advantages. I did not find any differences in brightness between these two.

Above all, the SLC was able to shine in the starry sky: With its high edge definition, it looked almost like Fuji, only brighter, and this was noticeable in extensive objects (Andromeda Nebula, North American Nebula). The image of the Zeiss, although very bright, then suffered from the lower edge sharpness, its strength is not here.

Incidentally, it seems that the field of view of the Zeiss is a little smaller than that of the Swaro. Both should have about 6.3 ° at 110m / 1000m, and I was able to confirm that on the Swaro. The Zeiss seemed to be at just under 6.2 °, although the imperfect viewing behavior could have played a trick on me here. I would like to see a little more field of view with both binoculars, Zeiss has shown it with its new 10x42 SF, and its 120m / 1000m should also serve well in the night sky.


What's my conclusion? Two binoculars on a very high level, so that it is difficult to find a flaw at all. Everyone will get their money's worth here. In the sum of all properties, I personally tend slightly towards SLC, which is also cheaper than the HT. The latter, however, has its own strengths, most notably its petite format, so there would be enough reasons to opt for the Zeiss instead.

Many greetings,
Holger"
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
The original plan was to get a 10x56 SLC but found a Victory HT 10x54, what are the pros/cons? Only interested in these two specific models.
Why are you not sticking with the original plan? Gordon at Honey Creek Bill and Beak has the SLC if interested.
My 8X54 HT weighs 36.9oz
My SLC 10X50 weighs 42.5oz
Zeiss did a nice job minimizing size/weight and still have a large objective with the HT 54mm. Comparing the two side by side is easier to see the HT is a smaller binocular even though the lengths are close to the same. I've used the HT much more than the SLC it being lighter and an 8X and have never had an issue. Sorry I can't do a 10X to 10X comparison here. I like them both. Picture is 50mm EL, HT, and SLC.
fullsizeoutput_110b.jpeg
 

tenex

reality-based
etc, I cannot recommend the SLC 56 highly enough. I have both 10 and 15x and they might be my favorite bins ever, though of course at times I need/want to carry a Leica 10x32 instead which I'm also very fond of. I agree with quincy that the 56s hold much better than their bulk would suggest even at 15x, and would add that when I discovered how to rotate my hands so my entire palm was in contact with the bin, I no longer needed to hold it further out and stretch to reach the focuser as he describes.

Among the many points Dennis mentions from Roger Vine's reviews, less CA in the SLC and so on, the one I would underline is:
"The Swarovski SLCs have a flatter field and less off-axis aberrations, so their usable field width is greater."
 
Last edited:

etc

Well-known member
What is the conclusion in the comparison of Swaro SLC 10x56 and Zeiss Victory 10x54?
On paper, they both look good.
Is a NIB Zeiss Victory 10x56 a good buy for $1700? Found one locally.
Can't find a Swaro SLC for under $2300 and given Zeiss costs more a priori...
 
Last edited:

quincy88

Well-known member
I don't think you are going to get a conclusive answer if you haven't already found it.
Holger Merlitz probably said it best in the above review posted by denco:
"What's my conclusion? Two binoculars on a very high level, so that it is difficult to find a flaw at all. Everyone will get their money's worth here."
And yes, I think the Victory at $1700 is a good buy.
 
Last edited:

jan van daalen

Well-known member
What is the conclusion in the comparison of Swaro SLC 10x56 and Zeiss Victory 10x54?
On paper, they both look good.
Is a NIB Zeiss Victory 10x56 a good buy for $1700? Found one locally.
Can't find a Swaro SLC for under $2300 and given Zeiss costs more a priori...
I assume the 56 is a typo. If not, 1700 dollar is not a bargain for a Victory FL or Nighthunter.

Jan
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Bearing in mind the specificity of the original poster's requirements (focus beyond infinity etc) he might be very well advised to refer to the link that another BFer has kindly gone to the trouble of finding for him:

Hello,

I think that you may find the official specification disappointing:
Zeiss USA page.

Stay safe,
Arthur

Whatever the price offered may be, there is no point in grabbing a HT, or any other binocular, for a steal if said binocular ultimately cannot meet the user's needs.
 

etc

Well-known member
I already saw the Zeiss link. Unlike Swarovski, they mention absolutely nothing about the inquiry I had which is why I had to post it here. The diopter setting between different barrels is 3D but this is not what I was asking about.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top