Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Optical superiority of the EL10X50SV over the EL10X42SV

I am still over the moon happy with the 10X42SV I bought last year, but I keep hearing that the 10X50 is quite a step up in optical quality. What do any of you on here that have seen both think, did I cheat myself by not spending a few hundred more ?

Thanks Bruce

Bruce,

Depends on your priority really.

The 10x50 nets a larger exit pupil, more relaxed view and better low light conditions. It also nets you a much bigger & heavier bino.

Isn't heavier better for holding it still?

ringman,

Do you get a lot of headaches?

SKane,



It may be difficult, but would you try to stick to the subject.

I don't think you would want the bigger binoculars for any reason. I have owned all the Swarovision binoculars, except the 50's, and will attest to the optical quality of those binoculars. The quality is so fantastic with the Swarovision, I sold my 42mm binoculars and now use the 8X32 Swarovision other than the 10X Rangefinders when I am going to use a rangefinder.

I am not suggesting to get rid of the 42mm and go to 32mm, but for all around use, I would stick with what you already have and you won't miss a thing...

I was fortunate, unfortunate for my bank account, to get to take an 10X42SV out in the parking lot of the local Gander Mountain last summer on a nice sunny day with clean atmospheric conditions. I knew the second I brought then to my eyes that what just seconds before seemed like an insane expenditure was now somehow justifiable.

You made the right call - no need for second guessing.

After owning an optic of that quality, I will have to be nearly broke to ever settle for less. Damn Im spoiled.

iN

I just wonder how they can improve on these binoculars. Good thing Brad isn't posting or you would have been told of the rolling ball effect and you don't need to pay that much for binoculars.

It is pricey, but I will continue to use Swarovision until something better comes along...

I feel like a tool even criticizing the SV image in any way, but the only tiny nit I could pick would be very slightly less good CA suppression than the ZEN ED2 and Kowa Genesis, and my Minox BD10x44BP I believe is as sharp. The overall SV image though, it just blows everything else I've seen away, including the 10X42SE I had. The binocular that had noticeable globe effect to my eyes was the 8X42 Leupold McKinley strangely enough. All of this IMHO of course. Whether or not Swarovski can improve on the SV in the future remains to be seen. If they can't, I'm good with these from now on.

I have had the luxury of using most all of the top end glass (owned a few, fooled around with our hunters' stuff) with the exception of the newest Zeiss HT and SF, and Ultravid HD+, but personally speaking, I've never been "wowed" by a view like I get using my 10x42SV's. There may be brighter glass out there, but my 54 yr old eyeballs find the SV view simply amazing.

The first time I tried the SV, which was 3 yrs ago or thereabouts, I did see that dreading rolling ball thing when panning horizontally. Interestingly enough, I do not see it now. Not sure if Swaro made some changes or not to the later version, but something changed, either my eyes or the glass.

Believe it or not, the recent SLC's are slightly brighter to many eyes. This is because they don't have Swarovision, which includes another lens to flatten the field and produce the super-sharp image along the edges of the field of view.

As for Swarovski not being able to improve on their latest binoculars, whenever I hear something like this I recall a conversation between two older gun writers (who were then probably a little younger than I am now) in Germany in the early 1990's. Most of you would immediately recognize their names, and they were looking through some new Zeiss binoculars. Both guys seriously announced that it would be impossible to improve on the optics in those new Zeisses.

That new model was dropped in a few years because of a Zeiss binocular that was quite a bit lighter with slightly improved optics. Which of course was long ago replaced by a succession of other slightly improved binoculars.

Which has been the trend in optics ever since binoculars were invented.

I'm all about GREAT glass for binos, but I really don't need to go past the SLC's.

They do everything I need a bino to do.

Big Al agrees with you on the SLC (1990's vintage), as they are still a great hunting binocular no doubt.....


[img:left][/img]

[img:left][/img]

To quickly answer your question... No, you are not handicapped or losing optical quality by choosing the 10x42 over the 10x50. Both are excellent and I don't believe you lose any quality with one over the other. What you gain with the 10x42 is a more manageable size and weight. The 10x50 are excellent optically, but at a price - greater weight and price. With that said, I sold my 10x50s and just went with the 12x50s, because I have another pair of 8x42 SLC that I use for most of my short-range, non-glassing needs.

My opinion is that preference is between the SV and SLC is very personal. Do you like the flattened field view or not. The SLCs have one heck of a view for the money.

If you like the SV, then 42mm or 50mm is just a question of how much weight you want to carry. Either choice is excellent and you're not using out with the 42s... you might actually be gaining advantage by losing weight. :-)

If a future SV could include a considerably wider FOV and even less CA without losing any of the beautiful color saturation and contrast, I might consider a pair. When an update happens, I will be interested to see if any of the current magic is lost. Easy of view in particular with the current model is the best I've experienced.

I often wonder about this CA thing. I have the SV's and see no CA, but then again I don't/have never looked for it in any binocular I've ever owned. It's never crossed my mind on a hunt, that's for sure. I think it's overblown and all to do about nothing personally.

It's a misnomer that you have to look for CA to see it. If you're prone to seeing it, you can't selectively decide to not see it. I see it in a very pronounced fashion, be glad you don't. I said earlier that the SV does a more than acceptable job on CA, just not the best I've seen. Very close, but could be a TINY bit better. I sure as f--k wouldn't have spent $1900 on them if they weren't either the best or near the best in every single area. What you think personaly don't mean s--t to me, keep that noise over on the Turd forum.

bh46118,

You may not realize it but your opinion is to us the same as JGRaider's is to us. It is just one more opinion for us to consider when purchasing something. His post has a little higher class than yours, though.