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"