Swarovski EL W B 8x32 - Flare (1 Viewer)

[54PAC]

Newby here

I am looking to get a pair of binoculars to supplement/aid my photography

Because of the amount of photographic gear i carry the binoculars would not be full size, weighty types, rather something lighter
Going for 8x (if i need more that 8x will be looking at next gen stabilised)
I wears specs so eye relief is important
Close focus (for butterflies and dragonflies) more than welcome
Price? May have stretched to Swaro at £1395 (but on Interest Free) otherwise best quality/value


Going backwards and forwards between:
Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 (no flare issues & better fit for spec wearers, relatively cheap)
Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (more flare, more finicky eye placement but light)
Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 (less flare, better fit for spec wearers, heavier)

Then read an article here (Gilmore Girl) who was blown away by the:
Swarovski 8x32 EL

but after checking I concluded that flare was reported, but better eye relief than HG 8x30, but very expensive

Getting to the point,

I emailed Swarovski with the following question:

I am a potential Swarovski customer (Swarovski EL W B 8x32)
In my research for this product I have come up with some disturbing comments regarding the flare resistance of this model
Not effecting the 10x model these criticisms are quite numerous eg Birdforum, Allbinos and You tube
Perhaps you could advise if this issue has been addressed or is a known (to you) issue with these binoculars

In my inbox today:
Thank you for your email. The answer is “Yes” we are aware of this issue, after hearing about it, we did check it out, and yes, there is some extra internal flare when you are looking into the sun at a REALLY abnormal angle. Honestly, it’s something that is searched for and not completely obvious through normal usage. The product has been in our current line for almost 8 years with very little complaint about this issue. I want to be clear that we aren’t trying to be dismissive as there is obviously enough concern and to warrant comment on a forum, I just don’t think it’s an issue that could be easily remedied due to the engineering of the product. If you have any further questions or concerns I’ll be happy to address them for you.

 

[james holdsworth]

Kudos for a pretty forthright response from Swarovski

 

[BabyDov]

I believe there were fewer flare concerns on this forum with the 8x. Some people saw it and some, not.

My personal trial of the 8x32 El was quite favorable. But I am not as bothered by glare with any of the Swaros I've tried.
Try the 8x32 El for yourself. Most dealers have a liberal return policy if it turns out not for you. However, odds are you will love it.

 

[[email protected]]

The EL 8x32 does have considerable glare regardless of what Swarovski says and many people have commented on it. If your budget is $2K I would buy the Zeiss SF 8x32. Most reviewers have said it very good at handling glare. Glare can be very bothersome depending on how you use your binoculars.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[BabyDov]

The EL 8x32 does have considerable glare regardless of what Swarovski says and many people have commented on it. If your budget is $2K I would buy the Zeiss SF 8x32. Most reviewers have said it very good at handling glare. Glare can be very bothersome depending on how you use your binoculars.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Many people have also commented they didn't experience glare with the El.. People should try it for themselves. The Zeiss SF is larger than the El. For that reason alone, I would try the El first, since size was the OPs primary reason for wanting a 32. Furthermore, color rendition is better with the El.

 

[Torview]

I can only give my owner experience with two 8x32SV`s one pre field pro and one field pro, flare was rarely a problem but veiling glare was frequently a serious annoyance and at times making the view unusable. Now many on here have zero problems so you really have to try it for yourself because it is a fantastic binocular.

I find on these pages there is often a tendency to transfer ones own experience to everybody else, and disbelief when those experiences conflict, but all are valid.

They didn`t work for me and this is my loss because they are outstanding in every other regard. Still yet to try an 8x32SF but if it can match the SV everywhere else without the VG (for me) I`ll be buying one.

John.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Newby here

I am looking to get a pair of binoculars to supplement/aid my photography

Because of the amount of photographic gear i carry the binoculars would not be full size, weighty types, rather something lighter
Going for 8x (if i need more that 8x will be looking at next gen stabilised)
I wears specs so eye relief is important
Close focus (for butterflies and dragonflies) more than welcome
Price? May have stretched to Swaro at £1395 (but on Interest Free) otherwise best quality/value


Going backwards and forwards between:
Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 (no flare issues & better fit for spec wearers, relatively cheap)
Nikon Monarch HG 8x30 (more flare, more finicky eye placement but light)
Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 (less flare, better fit for spec wearers, heavier)

Then read an article here (Gilmore Girl) who was blown away by the:
Swarovski 8x32 EL

but after checking I concluded that flare was reported, but better eye relief than HG 8x30, but very expensive

Getting to the point,

I emailed Swarovski with the following question:

I am a potential Swarovski customer (Swarovski EL W B 8x32)
In my research for this product I have come up with some disturbing comments regarding the flare resistance of this model
Not effecting the 10x model these criticisms are quite numerous eg Birdforum, Allbinos and You tube
Perhaps you could advise if this issue has been addressed or is a known (to you) issue with these binoculars

In my inbox today:
Thank you for your email. The answer is “Yes” we are aware of this issue, after hearing about it, we did check it out, and yes, there is some extra internal flare when you are looking into the sun at a REALLY abnormal angle. Honestly, it’s something that is searched for and not completely obvious through normal usage. The product has been in our current line for almost 8 years with very little complaint about this issue. I want to be clear that we aren’t trying to be dismissive as there is obviously enough concern and to warrant comment on a forum, I just don’t think it’s an issue that could be easily remedied due to the engineering of the product. If you have any further questions or concerns I’ll be happy to address them for you.

A fair response from Swarovski would be my take and they didn't use it as an opportunity to say in their defence how for very many the 8x32 EL is an absolute top gun and their modern favourite. I love mine; it gives a crystalline clarity, as the phrase goes, with superb resolution over the entire field and for my face and hands happens to be a superb handler... Of course you would have to try for yourself as always. Also worth mentioning is the well-known Swarovski service backup which is good for peace of mind but as someone pointed out is basically pre-paid through the high Swarovski pricing of new goods.

Good luck,
Tom

PS: I have experienced glare-degraded views but not enough in my case to be put off the binoculars.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

SeldomPerched, post 7,
As I have written before: I have used the EL and the EL-SV for many years and on a lot of different circumstances and I never had any flare/glare or unwanted reflections. In my test reports of the Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 (WEB-site of House of Outdoor) I have compared the SF 8x32 with the EL-SV 8x32 and for me the EL-SV 8x32 is a bettter choice as far as handling is concerned together with its optical quality, although the Victory SF 8x3 is also an excellent binocular and I can very well understand why it is liked by a lot.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[GrampaTom]

From Seldom Perched, "
"Also worth mentioning is the well-known Swarovski service backup which is good for peace of mind but as someone pointed out is basically pre-paid through the high Swarovski pricing of new goods."

I have read this sentiment here before, but there is another side to it. I was a Corp. Quality Manager for a decent sized manufacturer in the 1980's. I'm long retired now, but there was something back then called "Total Quality Management." It was a management system derived from US help to Japan following WWII, which was then in turn, re-imported back here, (and elsewhere). Globalization has had its effect, but whether still used as a formal management system or not, there are signs the idea has made its way into thinking organizations around the world.

Poor quality carries negative cost implications that cut into profits, multiple ways. Quality failures occur internally and externally. Internal failures are those incurred when things go wrong within the manufacturing system, starting from purchased raw materials or parts, and continuing through each subsequent operation. Statistical process control as well as system-wide culture are the primary tools to control internal failure. Recognizing and eliminating these failures in house, insures the most uniform quality with lowest manufacturing cost, for a given product design, for product exiting the factory.

Stuff happens

External failures occur when something slips through the system. Blatant failures, like missing, or misaligned parts, cosmetic flaws are mostly, (but not always), caught by the above. The stuff of less than optimum design, process, or materials that're effected by time, wear and tear, tend to show up once the product is in the hands of the end user. External failures are hugely costly for multiple reasons. First, all the material, labor and systems costs are attached to the shipped good. if the product fails and needs to be replaced, that new product now costs at least 2x the price of the first item. If the item is repairable, return,
analysis, dis-assembly, repair, re-assembly, and return costs are incurred. This is very expensive. As is obvious here at Birdforum, humans like to complain. There is a tendency to complain among friends, acquaintances and ahem... forums. Stuff that works tends more often to just be used. The cost of external failure is both the direct cost of replacement or repair and the cost to reputation and even future sales!

Smart companies, and I think we can agree Swarovski is one of those, use liberal warranty and customer service policies as compliments to their Total Quality Management system. If a company doesnt know something fails, how can they fix it? If they dont fix it, reputations suffer. If they aggressively service failures, and make the effort to collect the extremely valuable information as to why and what is less than optimum, they then can stop ongoing and future issues. A guy named Philip Crosby wrote a book named "Quality is Free" that speaks to all of this.

Its probably not entirely fair to deduce the high price of Swarovski binoculars pays for the liberal service policy we all enjoy. Rather, that after sales service enables Swarovski to continuously improve, redesign, maintain target profitability and stay in business.

 

[Upland]

Why not buy the 8.5x42? Less glare and more light gathering. Have heard nothing but praise for it. Probably can find a good used pair within your budget if you are patient.

 

[BabyDov]

Why not buy the 8.5x42? Less glare and more light gathering. Have heard nothing but praise for it. Probably can find a good used pair within your budget if you are patient.

I think the OP was most concerned about size and weight. Given that priority, do you think the 8.5 x42 El would be his best choice?

If he doesn't experience glare issues with the 8x32 El, he will also enjoy a wider FOV, and closer focusing distance, as well as easier handling than with the 8. 5x42. Furthermore, most dealers have a liberal return policy, given people's differences. IMO, the OP can only lose, if he doesn't give the 8x32 Els a try. Glare is not an inevitable problem. The OP can easily judge for himself. (If glare turns out to be an issue, he can then consider the Zeiss SF 8 x32, which is currently priced higher than the El)

 

[Xlr8n]

The Nikon HG's in 8x42 are an excellent choice and are about as light and compact as a 42mm bino can be. Hard to beat for the money.

That being said, I recently picked up an 8x32 EL SV FP and they are phenomenal glass. You'd swear you are looking through a larger objective. The only real issues I've had with glare are when I'm actively looking for it. In other words, I can try to make it a problem but under normal use it is no more likely than in any other high end glass I've used. I'd follow the recommendation above and try out a set and see if they cause any problem for you. Odds are you'll keep them.

 

[oetzi]

"I find on these pages there is often a tendency to transfer ones own experience to everybody else, and disbelief when those experiences conflict..."

Well, where would be the fun, were we to consider the most important factors in using a binocular: eyes and brain.

 

[[email protected]]

Why not buy the 8.5x42? Less glare and more light gathering. Have heard nothing but praise for it. Probably can find a good used pair within your budget if you are patient.

I 2nd that idea. The 8.5x42 has less glare, it performs better in low light, and it has easier eye placement than the EL 8x32. It is a better binocular overall and proves why an 8x42 is the best all around birding binocular. If you are not a flat field fan don't forget about the Swarovski 8x42 SLC. It is probably the best of the Swarovski line up for glare control and can be had for considerably less money.

 

[jan van daalen]

From Seldom Perched, "
"Also worth mentioning is the well-known Swarovski service backup which is good for peace of mind but as someone pointed out is basically pre-paid through the high Swarovski pricing of new goods."

I have read this sentiment here before, but there is another side to it. I was a Corp. Quality Manager for a decent sized manufacturer in the 1980's. I'm long retired now, but there was something back then called "Total Quality Management." It was a management system derived from US help to Japan following WWII, which was then in turn, re-imported back here, (and elsewhere). Globalization has had its effect, but whether still used as a formal management system or not, there are signs the idea has made its way into thinking organizations around the world.

Poor quality carries negative cost implications that cut into profits, multiple ways. Quality failures occur internally and externally. Internal failures are those incurred when things go wrong within the manufacturing system, starting from purchased raw materials or parts, and continuing through each subsequent operation. Statistical process control as well as system-wide culture are the primary tools to control internal failure. Recognizing and eliminating these failures in house, insures the most uniform quality with lowest manufacturing cost, for a given product design, for product exiting the factory.

Stuff happens

External failures occur when something slips through the system. Blatant failures, like missing, or misaligned parts, cosmetic flaws are mostly, (but not always), caught by the above. The stuff of less than optimum design, process, or materials that're effected by time, wear and tear, tend to show up once the product is in the hands of the end user. External failures are hugely costly for multiple reasons. First, all the material, labor and systems costs are attached to the shipped good. if the product fails and needs to be replaced, that new product now costs at least 2x the price of the first item. If the item is repairable, return,
analysis, dis-assembly, repair, re-assembly, and return costs are incurred. This is very expensive. As is obvious here at Birdforum, humans like to complain. There is a tendency to complain among friends, acquaintances and ahem... forums. Stuff that works tends more often to just be used. The cost of external failure is both the direct cost of replacement or repair and the cost to reputation and even future sales!

Smart companies, and I think we can agree Swarovski is one of those, use liberal warranty and customer service policies as compliments to their Total Quality Management system. If a company doesnt know something fails, how can they fix it? If they dont fix it, reputations suffer. If they aggressively service failures, and make the effort to collect the extremely valuable information as to why and what is less than optimum, they then can stop ongoing and future issues. A guy named Philip Crosby wrote a book named "Quality is Free" that speaks to all of this.

Its probably not entirely fair to deduce the high price of Swarovski binoculars pays for the liberal service policy we all enjoy. Rather, that after sales service enables Swarovski to continuously improve, redesign, maintain target profitability and stay in business.

Hi grandpa,

Great post.
Glad to have you on board at BF.

Jan

 

[BabyDov]

I 2nd that idea. The 8.5x42 has less glare, it performs better in low light, and it has easier eye placement than the EL 8x32. It is a better binocular overall and proves why an 8x42 is the best all around birding binocular.

Yes, the 8.5 x 42EL is a great birding binocular. However, it is not likely to be what the OP wants. He said he wants a less weighty binocular that won't burden him along with all the camera gear he must carry. In addition, he says he wants a binocular that will focus down onto insects. The 8.5 x42 El is great, but the current version has a 10.8 ft close focusing distance, while the x32 goes down to 6 ft .Furthermore, better light gathering with the x42 won't be appreciated with most photo taking opportunities, at least not enough to make up for the extra weight and more difficult handling. (With the x32, he can easily hold his binocular in one hand and perhaps, his camera with the other.) With an EP of 4.0, he should not have any eye eye placement issues, with the x32.
(In one of your earlier posts, Dennis, you had mentioned that you once owned the 10x32 El, which might have had more eye placement difficulties and more severe glare issues than the 8x, perhaps because of its it smaller EP.)

Again, we can disagree on what we prefer, but when it comes to making recommendations to others, we should probably size up to the the individual by listening to their needs, rather than always trying to fit them into our clothes.

 

[Upland]

The OP mentioned a 8x42 as a candidate. Thus my recommendation of the 8.5. Another 42 that is compact and light would be the Kowa BD II 8x42. Not in the same league as the Swaros but OP mentions the M7. I would prefer the Kowa over the M7 having owned both. Sometimes a OP might be interested in other ideas. The 8.5 is superb and if you find a used one at a good price the close focus will be closer. Hope these ideas are ok with you BabyDoc

 

[b-lilja]

I personally find both the Swaro 8x32 NLs and ELs to have very serious glare problems. It is really a shame because other than that they have an incredibly crisp and neutral although flat view. Almost everyone on the site will laugh at this, but I think all things considered the best current 8x32 roof going is the Zeiss Conquest HD - for less than a grand US.

 

[[email protected]]

I personally find both the Swaro 8x32 NLs and ELs to have very serious glare problems. It is really a shame because other than that they have an incredibly crisp and neutral although flat view. Almost everyone on the site will laugh at this, but I think all things considered the best current 8x32 roof going is the Zeiss Conquest HD - for less than a grand US.

The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 does handle glare better than the EL 8x32. That is without a doubt, and it is a good binocular for the money.

 

[SeldomPerched]

From Seldom Perched, "
"Also worth mentioning is the well-known Swarovski service backup which is good for peace of mind but as someone pointed out is basically pre-paid through the high Swarovski pricing of new goods."

I have read this sentiment here before, but there is another side to it. I was a Corp. Quality Manager for a decent sized manufacturer in the 1980's. I'm long retired now, but there was something back then called "Total Quality Management." It was a management system derived from US help to Japan following WWII, which was then in turn, re-imported back here, (and elsewhere). Globalization has had its effect, but whether still used as a formal management system or not, there are signs the idea has made its way into thinking organizations around the world.

Poor quality carries negative cost implications that cut into profits, multiple ways. Quality failures occur internally and externally. Internal failures are those incurred when things go wrong within the manufacturing system, starting from purchased raw materials or parts, and continuing through each subsequent operation. Statistical process control as well as system-wide culture are the primary tools to control internal failure. Recognizing and eliminating these failures in house, insures the most uniform quality with lowest manufacturing cost, for a given product design, for product exiting the factory.

Stuff happens

External failures occur when something slips through the system. Blatant failures, like missing, or misaligned parts, cosmetic flaws are mostly, (but not always), caught by the above. The stuff of less than optimum design, process, or materials that're effected by time, wear and tear, tend to show up once the product is in the hands of the end user. External failures are hugely costly for multiple reasons. First, all the material, labor and systems costs are attached to the shipped good. if the product fails and needs to be replaced, that new product now costs at least 2x the price of the first item. If the item is repairable, return,
analysis, dis-assembly, repair, re-assembly, and return costs are incurred. This is very expensive. As is obvious here at Birdforum, humans like to complain. There is a tendency to complain among friends, acquaintances and ahem... forums. Stuff that works tends more often to just be used. The cost of external failure is both the direct cost of replacement or repair and the cost to reputation and even future sales!

Smart companies, and I think we can agree Swarovski is one of those, use liberal warranty and customer service policies as compliments to their Total Quality Management system. If a company doesnt know something fails, how can they fix it? If they dont fix it, reputations suffer. If they aggressively service failures, and make the effort to collect the extremely valuable information as to why and what is less than optimum, they then can stop ongoing and future issues. A guy named Philip Crosby wrote a book named "Quality is Free" that speaks to all of this.

Its probably not entirely fair to deduce the high price of Swarovski binoculars pays for the liberal service policy we all enjoy. Rather, that after sales service enables Swarovski to continuously improve, redesign, maintain target profitability and stay in business.

Hello GrampaTom,

That makes sense to me.

Just to emphasize that the quoted last sentence in my post was actually a definite vote for Swarovski, with the point you comment on as a minor side thought. I'm happy with the overall price as I know now from my brief experience of two years with the make that the product will be excellent. That includes such nitpicking things as these: the dioptre dial will show zero for zero consistently on all their binoculars, making adjustment hassle-free (from the ones I have had anyway in their modern EL and SLC line); the collimation will be spot on, and not leave me questioning the bins or my own eyes; and the eye-cup twist action will be identically firm and positive on different models. Also, much less crucial but a good sign, the latest-style rainguards and objective covers seem a really neat solution — to me at least. It took me a bit longer to trust and win battles with the Field Pro strap system, but I have been won over to that now.

Swarovski has unwittingly scored one own goal though... the bins I own or have used of theirs are such a pleasure to use that much as I liked the NL a dealer showed me when they first came out I am too excited by the ELs and SLCs to want their latest supermodel!

Tom