Naturally we all have our own Rankings, me ?, I would`nt mention the CL/FL in the same breath.
-
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.
What binoculars do you think have the most WOW factor! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Naturally we all have our own Rankings, me ?, I would`nt mention the CL/FL in the same breath.
Yes, typical of waterproof porro's. I really like the optics on the Habicht 8x30. There is just something about a porro view. I think the optical path is so simple compared to a roof that it doesn't produce as many abberations in the view. They don't need phase coating and all that stuff. A simple prism and eyepiece and bam the light ray is in your eye. It doesn't have to bend all over the place. Porro's are clean and bright. Alot of people like the way they fit their hands too. So much cheaper too.
The CL and FL are like comparing the HT and the SV. It depends on what you want. A clean bright view with no RB and a smoother focus or a more saturated view with sharp edges RB and a slightly rough focus. I don't like the fat short body of the FL as well. The CL fits my hands better and it is way lighter so it depends where your priorities are. I think the CL has better contrast than the FL as well. If you like the FL try the HT. You will like it.
Last edited:
I have had them both but I am going by memory. I would say the 8x30 CL and the Bushnell 7x26 Custom Elite are about equal optically if the Busnell doesn't have too much ER for you like it did for me. I had to hold it back from my eyes which is a PIA if you know what I mean. But the view on the Bushnell is very good being a porro. If it works for you it is a nice binocular especially for the money.
Had the Swaro CL briefly when I did a review of the top 30/32 mm Swaro binoculars last summer (2011); it (the CL) is bright little binocular. Not as good optically as the preceding latest 8x30 Swaro SLC NEU, but a nice small (not compact size) binocular. I do not want to give you a comparison of the 8x30 CL and 7x26 Bushnell because I would be going on memory.
But I will give you a comparison of the 7x26 CC with the Swaro 7x30 SLC that is phase corrected, but not all the latest coatings; and I just did it this morning. Last year when I had the 8x30 CL I did compare it extensively with my 7x30 SLC. Although the CL is a very, very bright binocular- it IMO was not as crisp and sharp optically as my 7x30 SLC. To me the SLC discerned better sharper detail when compared to the CL even though it is a 7 compared to an 8. Also, the 7x30 had much better edge sharpness and bigger FOV compared to the CL. To give you some idea about the optics of the 7x30 SLC (1999) - I have compared it a number of times to a few samples of the 8x30 SLC NEU. In those comparisons optically the older 7x30 did well. It was not quite as "contrasty" as the 8x30 NEU with all the latest coatings, but in almost all other optical categories, including sharpness and resolution, the 7x30 SLC more than held its own. And the edge sharpness on the 7x30 was better than the 8x30 NEU. So.... the 7x30 SLC that I have is a very good binocular. Is it EL or SV good- no; but is quite good.
Now on the the 7x30 SLC and the 7x26 CC- they are different sizes and weights right off the bat. And the Swaro build quality and H2O proofness, and other attributes that this iconic SLC classic certainly gives it an edge in a # of other categories. And we are talking about a big cost difference. But.... surprisingly the 7x26 CC does very well optically when compared. The 7x26 has a narrower FOV and the edges are softer; but in the center, the sharpness of the 7x26 is very good. Is it optically just as good as the 7x30 SLC- no, but it hangs really well in sharpness, color and contrast. A better comparison to the 7x26 is other compacts such as a 8x20 Swaro, and the 8x20 Leica; and for me I like the more pleasing easier view of the reverse porro 7x26.
So for a compact size bino, the 7x26 is very nice- especially for the price point. It is an iconic binocular in its own right, as it has not really changed optically since it came out years ago. This is one that got pretty right right from the start. There are others that are lighter, smaller, waterproof, etc- but also more expensive; but to me, if you do not need all of that, the view through the 7x26 is quite nice.
^ Agreed!! Saying the CL and the FL are in the same league is then extrapolating that the CL should be spoken of on equal comparison with the Swaro EL; Leica Ultravid; and Nikon EDG along with that Zeiss FL- which is simply ludicrous. And saying that a comparison of the CL and FL is analogous to a comparison between the HT and SV is a stretch that is frankly outrageous. Not a close analogy at all!
For that matter- IMO the Swaro CL not only falls short in a comparison with the Swaro 8x30 SLC NEU; it also falls short when compared to other lesser priced bino's in its class. Such as the Pentax DCF ED- which I can assure you is optically much better, and from my brief comparison with the Vortex 8x32 Viper HD- the CL also falls short. As said above by someone else- to me, the CL is the first binocular from Swarovski that I have looked at that did not seem to me like it fit with their usual high standards. It is well built, but optically, it almost seemed like it was outsourced.
Just how I saw it- but to each their own.
Agreed, the old SLC easily outperformed the CL to me, in fact the old Zeiss 8x30 Conquest is far better IMO, and I have`nt mentioned the Meopta 8x32, which is not only much cheaper but really does run the EL, FL, Ultravid very very close to me.
Totally agree with you regarding the Meopta 8x32- it clearly to me is better than the Swaro CL, and it was not difficult to reach that conclusion.
Star Farmer
Well-known member
I was very fond of my Swaro 8x32 CL but it got stolen. I remembered it being very comfortable to use and provided a nice view. Well built, though the tiny metal Swaro name plate fell off and I had to glue it back on. The paint of the name plate also partially wore off.
Somehow, it seemed smaller than the Zeiss FL which replaced it.
Somehow, it seemed smaller than the Zeiss FL which replaced it.
It is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the FL.
I don't agree about the old Conquest outclassing the Swarovski 8x30 CL. The CL to my eyes was definitely better than the Conquest and Kikkerts also.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Stephen B
I can assure you that Swarovski does not outsource optics, but I agree totally that the CL line can't be compared with the SLC 8x30. That one had a wide field oculair of 136 meters to 124 meters for the CL. The housing of the SLC was aluminium while the CL is plastic. I do like the styling of the CL but don't like the optics. IMHO this model is not Swarovski worthy, but who am I?
Demco
Were you serious by comparing a CL to an FL?
Jan
I can assure you that Swarovski does not outsource optics, but I agree totally that the CL line can't be compared with the SLC 8x30. That one had a wide field oculair of 136 meters to 124 meters for the CL. The housing of the SLC was aluminium while the CL is plastic. I do like the styling of the CL but don't like the optics. IMHO this model is not Swarovski worthy, but who am I?
Demco
Were you serious by comparing a CL to an FL?
Jan
Sorry, I don't agree with the Pentax ED or Viper HD being superior but we are all entitled to our opinions. I feel the CL had better contrast than both of those binoculars for me. Both of them are way heavier with the Pentax ED being heavier than most binoculars in it's class. The Vipers edges are too soft for me and all of these binoculars you are talking including the Meopta are way heavier and bigger. I want something in between a 32mm and a compact in size and weight that's why I bought the CL. I already have better optics in a 20 oz. glass. My SE and EII. Show me something that combines the compact size and weight of the CL for $700.00 with better optics in a waterproof design. The size and weight is the critical thing for me. My Leica Trinovid 8x32 BN's are better than all these 32mm's you are talking about and lighter and smaller. The Pentax 8x32 ED is a brick. I want 17 oz. or less not 23.5 oz.
Last edited:
Well if you like it Dennis good luck, I think you`ll be in the minority on this Forum.
Honestly I think its a rip off. Swarovski have a Binocular that will sell because of the premium badge to the less well informed consumer who will believe it to be a top notch product, sadly their money would have been better spent elsewhere.
Its got a mediocre fov, and close focus is only 3m.
Honestly I think its a rip off. Swarovski have a Binocular that will sell because of the premium badge to the less well informed consumer who will believe it to be a top notch product, sadly their money would have been better spent elsewhere.
Its got a mediocre fov, and close focus is only 3m.
I don't see anything else in that size and weight and performance category for that price. I think Swarovski thought out the market pretty good on the CL. They have been backordered in the green color since they came out so they are a good seller for them. I definitely don't think it's a ripoff. The Zeiss FL housing is plastic. Heck it is strong and light. We need more birding binoculars in that size, especially some good waterproof porro's.
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Dennis,
The reason why Zeiss makes the HT housing of an material that is not plastic is because the consumer does't want a binocular with an plastic housing (quote Zeiss on the question why they switched on housing material).
So that's no argument that holds.
I don't know what the price for a CL is in the US but down here it is 1.000,00 euro and to be frank for that price.........
Jan
The reason why Zeiss makes the HT housing of an material that is not plastic is because the consumer does't want a binocular with an plastic housing (quote Zeiss on the question why they switched on housing material).
So that's no argument that holds.
I don't know what the price for a CL is in the US but down here it is 1.000,00 euro and to be frank for that price.........
Jan
The Fl's plastic housing held up pretty good in the field. I never had a bit of a problem with my FL's. They were tougher than nails. Actually they work very good. People just don't like the IDEA of a $2K binocular being PLASTIC! HaHa. You can pick new CL's up now for $650.00 to $700.00 on E-bay. Not too bad. They won the Field and Stream "Best new Gear for 2011" if that means anything to you. They are a not bad small carry around lighweight travel binocular that appeal to alot of people. I don't look at them as my main birding binocular. Don't forget I still have my 8x30 EII, 8x32SE,8x32 Leica Trinovid BN and my 8x20 Leica Trinovid. The Nikon's are my serious birding binoculars. The CL's will be carry around,travel ,concert and some light birding duties.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...nting-gear-2011-2012?photo=15#node-1001451811
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Sorry mate, just checked on E-bay and I think they are already sold because I can't find them for that price. I do see them for 889,00 to 1.133,00 US$.
Here are 4 pair of Swarovski CL's 8x30 that sold for $615 to $735.00 which are new or near new. I got mine for $700.00 BNIB. You have to watch closely because they go fast. I think you could call gr8fuldoug1 and make a deal for $750.00 to $800.00(Plus Shipping) on a pair and he would could probably ship them to Holland. I believe he is out of New York. His phone number is 212-753-5128.
http://www.ebay.com/csc/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=swarovski 8x30 cl&_sop=15
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
