Swarovski SLC New 7X42 (1 Viewer)

[Bob A (SD)]

APS,

You have a PM with a source suggestion

--Bob

 

[308CAL]

I've compared my Ultravid 7X42 to a few SLCnew models and, if I was buying today, I might buy the SLC instead of the Ultravid.

i compared & bought the SLC new

 

[Patriot222]

i compared & bought the SLC new

Ditto to that. I really like the image that the SLC provides.

 

[AlanFrench]

[SNIP]
My only gripe is the focus wheel.Harder to turn in one direction and I usually prefer a good two finger focus as opposed to a one and a half!

How do others find the focus on these?
[SNIP]
Matt

On my SLCs, which are not the latest SLC "New," the focus is extremely smooth and fast, and feels the same going both ways. I didn't find anything that was quite as nice when it came to the focus wheel.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[AlanFrench]

Cat,

Check around for a pair of 7x42 SLC pre-Neu but with Swarobright coatings. Why? First because they are identical optically to the current version with only the minor exterior differences distinguishing them. All pre-Neu SLCs after 2003 have Swarobright coatings with some, not all, in the previous two years. You can identify the year of manufacture from the serial number by adding 30 to the first two digits (e.g. D73xxxxx = made in 2003). Second because you can easily save hundreds of dollars.
[SNIP]

Are you sure about the dates for the Swarobright coatings? I think it was 1999/2000 when I was last seriously shopping for binoculars, and I am fairly sure Swarovski was advertising the Swarobright coatings. I don't keep back issues of many magazines, so I have no way to check.

Thanks.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Alexis Powell]

Are you sure about the dates for the Swarobright coatings? I think it was 1999/2000 when I was last seriously shopping for binoculars, and I am fairly sure Swarovski was advertising the Swarobright coatings. I don't keep back issues of many magazines, so I have no way to check.

Thanks.

Clear skies, Alan

Your memory is not in contradiction to the previous info on Swarobright in the SLC. Swarobright was introduced with the release of the EL in 1999, but it didn't make it into the SLC until later.

--AP

 

[etc]

Is the 7x42 SLC "Neu" as sharp as Leica? I have a 8x42 Trinovid and am thinking about getting a 7x42 SLC instead because I already have another 8x and don't need two.

But I don't want to loose in sharpness. I understand the resolution is lower, so some details might not been seen as well versus higher powers, but in exchange for all the 7x benefits.

 

[308CAL]

I have stack tested the 7x42 SLCnew against the ultravid 7x42 and 8x42 and I preferred the ease of view and edge ot edge sharpness of the SLC. I also liked the eyecups better and the size for my big hands was a plus. Resolution was good in all and the swaro gave up nothing. Brightness was a toss up. Flare resistance went to swarovski over the ultravids

 

[CHenry]

I have stack tested the 7x42 SLCnew against the ultravid 7x42 and 8x42 and I preferred the ease of view and edge ot edge sharpness of the SLC. I also liked the eyecups better and the size for my big hands was a plus. Resolution was good in all and the swaro gave up nothing. Brightness was a toss up. Flare resistance went to swarovski over the ultravids

I tried the SLCnew 7x42 and found them to be exceptional. But side-by side compared with the Meopta Meostar 7x42, I did not think the SLC was worth twice the price of the Meostars. I found the two indistinguishable in the image quality, and the Meostars were a little lighter and more compact.

 

[etc]

My main reasoning for going to 7x42 is to gain more eye relief. I have this Leica, which is absolutely great, but I find that its 15.5mm of ER is just insufficient and that 18mm works better for me, and 19mm is best.

Of course with that much of ER, I have to make sure the eyecups can be raised enough to compensate for it. There is definitely a possibility of too much ER for non-eyeglasses users. Honestly, I don't think I would choose 7x42 or anything with great ER if I didn't wear eyeglasses. ER, as far as I can tell, is mainly for eyeglasses users.

I get a sharper view of the edge (meaning greater view) with Swaro EL 8.5x42. It says it has 18mm of ER, and whether it does or not (I now take ER figures with a grain of salt sometimes), I get a sharper view of the edge, where as I cannot get the whole view with the Leica.

I don't want to get different glasses that seat closer to the face to accommodate insufficient ER.

It looks like 7x42 SLC, its faults aside, (mainly weight) has the largest ER of any Alpha binos.

 

[Alexis Powell]

My main reasoning for going to 7x42 is to gain more eye relief. ...It looks like 7x42 SLC, its faults aside, (mainly weight) has the largest ER of any Alpha binos.

Have you tried the Zeiss 7x42 FL? I've heard that even though Zeiss advertises 16 mm eye-relief on the whole FL line that the 7x42 has more eye-relief than the 10x42, and that the 8x42 is intermediate with about 16 mm.

--AP

 

[josika]

If it is good eye relief you require it may be worth looking at the new Nikon EDG line. The 7x42 is supposed to have 22.1mm. The 8x42 19.3mm and 10x42 18mm.

 

[Swedpat]

Have you tried the Zeiss 7x42 FL? I've heard that even though Zeiss advertises 16 mm eye-relief on the whole FL line that the 7x42 has more eye-relief than the 10x42, and that the 8x42 is intermediate with about 16 mm.

--AP

Alexis,

I have tried several models of the Zeiss Victory flourite serie. When I first read Zeiss statement of 16mm eye relief of all models, I thought it was strange, and then found that it isn't correct. The 7x42 has best eye relief. The 8x32 wasn't adequate for eyeglasses (for me), but the 7x42 was.
The eye lens of the 8x32 is smaller and the apparant field of view is wider; - just this fact is in it self an evidence that the eye relief cannot be the same.

Regards, Patric

 

[etc]

Then what is the ER of Zeiss 7x42?

 

[Swedpat]

etc,

I would guess the difference between the 8x32 and the 7x42 is 2-3mm. The 8x32 may have 13-14mm usable ER, and the 7x42 16-17mm. I cannot tell exactly without a measuring, but according to my experience and what I recall I think these numbers are close.

Regards, Patric

 

[etc]

Thanks. The official Zeiss site says that ER for all T*FL is 16mm, strange. They should update it if it's not correct.

 

[catmouse]

Hi Bob, I am saving for a pair of 7x42 Swarovski SLC, Finding the pre neu model is not easy, I see the older model is black rather then green I looked through a Leica Trinovid 8x42 and I liked the view very much, The SLC should be the same and with a wider field of view.

 

[Dale Forbes]

Hi Bob, I am saving for a pair of 7x42 Swarovski SLC, Finding the pre neu model is not easy, I see the older model is black rather then green I looked through a Leica Trinovid 8x42 and I liked the view very much, The SLC should be the same and with a wider field of view.

I have a pair of older black SLCs and beat and bashed them for years in the jungle and they are still exceptional instruments. it is hard to find such a solid, durable pair of top-end binnies in its competitors and there are still a good number of these black beauties floating about, so just keep your eyes open and I am sure one will eventually just fall in to your hands. (hopefully not literally, and if so, not from too great a height).

 

[Sedgley]

I have owned a pair of SLC 7 x 42 for a while now and I'm totally contented.

 

[Ries]

Informative thread, as I have a 7x42 still in my mind for the future, with Leica UVhd, Zeiss FL upfront with Meopta and SLC just behind that (min focus, weight and size being issues for me)

I tried the SLCnew 7x42 and found them to be exceptional. But side-by side compared with the Meopta Meostar 7x42, I did not think the SLC was worth twice the price of the Meostars. I found the two indistinguishable in the image quality, and the Meostars were a little lighter and more compact.

Having tried the Meopta, I'm also wondering if the edge to edge sharpness/flat field won't be similar to the SLC...can hardly imagine it being better on that