What's the view through a 1997 10x50 SLC like in 2021? (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

I guess the build quality will be Swarovski (this is, very nice, and even better than that, it's quite likely that they can be repaired), but I'm specifically interested in the view they provide. How does a 1997 10x50 SLC compare to the current middle class, say something like a Vortex Viper, or even a Zeiss Conquest HD (I'm aware there's no 10x50 Conquest, it's just an example of ascending quality).

AFAIK the SLC do have phase correction but lack dielectric coatings (Swarobright, if I'm not mistaken), so I'm not sure about the level of performance compared to the current offering.

Anyone who still uses one and can offer a first hand account?

I once had a 7x42 Leica Trinovid BA, and while the image lacked the last bit of sparkle of something like a current EL, it was certainly very nice.

 

[NDhunter]

I have experience with the 10x50 SLC. Mine was newer, around 2006, the Neu series. This is a very good binocular and is very
bright with a very sharp and contrasty view.

As far as comparisons the 10x50 offers a very bright view, much better than most 42mm offerings. I do have the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42
and the big Swaro. is much better in low light. As far as Vortex, I do not go there, they are just China made clone optics.........

There are not many quality 10x50 binocular offerings, and the Swarovski SLC does many things right.

Jerry

 

[casscade]

It’s an alpha in most every way other than maybe CA. Great dof, bright, resolution will equal the best of today, also great expansive fov. Still a top performing binocular imo.

 

[dorubird]

Conquest HD 10x42 vs Swarovski 10x50 SLC WB (old model, before 2004...no Swarobright and no Swarodur... The appearance difference between the new Swaro and the old model it is not very obvious, and can be seen only in the binoculars design bridge).

I tried these two binoculars during the day. When it comes to finishing and construction, Swarovski is my favorite over Zeiss. But when it comes to optics, the situation is obviously in favor of Zeiss. This is explained by the fact that this Swarovski is part of an older generation with an older coating treatment, and the Zeiss HD is the latest Conquest model on the market with more light transsmision. Thus, Swarovski had a stronger yellow tint to the image, and during the day it was obviously darker than Conquest HD. Yes darker!!! In the center Zeiss also had an extra sparkle in resolution. The percentage of edge resolution were similar (but with a slightly larger FOV for zeiss 6.6 vs 6.4). CA present in both binoculars but not very annoying to my taste. This comparison clearly indicates the difference between modern technology and older one.

Maybe this will be useful for you!

 

[yarrellii]

Jerry, casscade, dorubird.
Thank you very much for your insights and experience.
The model I was lookig at is the one dorubird has tried, not the Neu, and hence my question. I guess a Neu with Swarobright and all the latest coatings will be much improved, but not so sure about the older model from 1997. Dorubird's experience is what I was fearing, I'm glad I passed. While a "reasonable priced" EL 10x50 is a really hard one to get, I got my eyes on a 10x50 Ultravid, that by most accounts does not lag behind the HD by a lot. Thanks!