• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Swarovski SLC 8x56 or Canon 10x42L IS for Astronomy? (2 Viewers)

gmkirk130

Active member
United States
Which would you rather use for astronomy and why? Assume you can only hand-hold the binoculars, i.e., no tripod or assistance of any kind. I’d be very interested in hearing from those who have used both binoculars.

Thank you in advance,
Gary
 

takitam

Well-known member
I haven't used SLC 8x56 but have tried several other 8x bins. The most pleasant was, surprisingly, Nikon 8x30EII despite its small aperture. But it fogged easily and that was its only serious flaw. When you try the Canon after any non-stabilized bino, you will have a bit of a revelation. Stability improves the view so much that it's hard to exaggerate the difference. You see stars that weren't there before. Others gain a different colour or shade that was barely perceptible. It also lets you observe so much more detail, like a planet and its satellite or a double star. It's a cool experience and 10x42L is probably the best handheld bino for astronomy. That was one of the main reasons I bought it for, but I have never really used it much nor have I learned anything about the stars.

No doubt, SLC will be the best standard binocular you can use for stargazing, but it would benefit greatly from some form of support. Once you enjoy the stars without the shake, image stabilization or simply a tripod, it's hard to go back.
 

Tringa45

Well-known member
Europe
I have an 8x56 SLC, which is a delightful binocular with some outstanding qualities and a weight that is not to everyone's taste. ;)
Although astronomy is not my main interest I took it down to a dark site in the Eifel at new moon and had some wonderful views of the Milky Way and also picked up the Andromeda galaxy. I was however using a bino adapter on a tall tripod.
Nevertheless, I would have to admit that for your requirements the Canon 10x42L IS might be the better choice.

John
 

Jon555

Active member
United Kingdom
Sorry, slightly behind the time curve, but IS binos win big-time for Astro work as they keep the stars at the same position on your retinas. Just check out Jupiter's Moons...
The Canon 12x36 III might be a better choice tho...
 

Scott98

Well-known member
Jamaica
Pretty big difference between these two...beyond the stabilization. The Canon is 7 ounces lighter and has a much smaller exit pupil. From a dark site, the SLC will have spectacular views of the Milky Way star clouds, a 42mm will never compete IMO. (No, I haven't used the Canon, sorry :)).

I'd much rather have the SLC 56mm. The optics are spectacular, a milestone achievement in 56mm binos for astronomy. I've got the 10x56 SLC and it's plenty stable when I set up on my adjustable lounge chair. The views of M31 are amazing. My 42mm binos don't come close. The views are stable when I prop my elbows against my knees or the armrests of the lounge chair.

I guess it comes down to what you like to do with these. I've got a Stowaway for zooming in for more detail on DSO's or planets, that's not why I'm out there with binoculars. The Canon would compete against other 42's, it's just too small to be in the conversation with the 56mm SLC's. And this is without touching on the optical quality - I have no idea what the Canons are like, and yet I'm already sure the SLC blows them away because they're basically perfect optics IMO.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
Pretty big difference between these two...beyond the stabilization. The Canon is 7 ounces lighter and has a much smaller exit pupil. From a dark site, the SLC will have spectacular views of the Milky Way star clouds, a 42mm will never compete IMO. (No, I haven't used the Canon, sorry :)).

I'd much rather have the SLC 56mm. The optics are spectacular, a milestone achievement in 56mm binos for astronomy. I've got the 10x56 SLC and it's plenty stable when I set up on my adjustable lounge chair. The views of M31 are amazing. My 42mm binos don't come close. The views are stable when I prop my elbows against my knees or the armrests of the lounge chair.

I guess it comes down to what you like to do with these. I've got a Stowaway for zooming in for more detail on DSO's or planets, that's not why I'm out there with binoculars. The Canon would compete against other 42's, it's just too small to be in the conversation with the 56mm SLC's. And this is without touching on the optical quality - I have no idea what the Canons are like, and yet I'm already sure the SLC blows them away because they're basically perfect optics IMO.
The Swaro is an amazing premium level glass, but for astronomy , hand held id consider the Canon 15x50IS . That would be a better option than the SLC or the 10x42L.

Paul
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top