I need to get some binoculars. I had 10x42 SLC before and liked them. I had them before the EL series came out. Now that I am in the market for a replacement, and I can go in any direction, I'd like some advice. Cost is not a factor. Best tool, period. If they were all on the table, and you were to pick one to take home free, which one.

Basic fundementals...
8 vs 10 magnification.
30s or 40s for objective lense.

Leica

Leica 8x32 Ultravid HD
Leica 8x42 Ultravid HD
Leica 10x32 Ultravid HD
Leica 10x42 Ultravid HD

Rangefinder
Leica 8x42 Geovid HD
Leica 10x42 Geovid HD


Swarovski

Swarovski 8x32 EL
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL
Swarovski 10x32 EL
Swarovski 10x42 EL

Swarovski 8x32 SLCnew
Swarovski 8x42 SLC HD
Swarovski 10x42 SLC HD


Zeiss

Zeiss 8x32 Victory FL
Zeiss 8x42 Victory FL
Zeiss 10x32 Victory FL
Zeiss 10x42 Victory FL

Rangefinder
Zeiss 8x45 Victory RF
Zeiss 10x45 Victory RF


I tend to lean to the 10x42. Without running these side by side, I think I'm considering the Leica 10x42 Geovid HD so I can eliminate the need for a seperate/additional tool in the backpack. I have no idea if the rangefinding binoculars are as clear as the non. I plan on running a test, but I'd like to have the list down to no more than 4.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Zeiss 8x42 or 8x45. Personally I prefer to have a separate rangefinder. 8x magninfication is all you (at least I) need.

8x42 or 10x42 SLC HD. Ergos are flat out fantastic as is the glass. I'd compliment it with a Leica crf 1200 or Swaro 8x30 laser range finder. If I had to have an all in one I'd pick the Geovid 10x42 HD.

Reasons for SLC HD (since you gave us a list):
Zeiss FL is flat out awesome, but felt like a brick in my hands.
Swarovision can actually make you nauseous while scanning the horizon if you're susceptible to the "rolling ball" from the field flattener lenses.
Swaro has the best service in the business, with possible exception of Leupold.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with any of those you listed. This is just my opinion.

Leica 10x42 Geovid HD

I'm a Leica fan. Because they extensively test their stuff to the Nth degree before selling it and do whatever it takes to get it right. I have never seen any proof that anybody matches their standard.
I especially like the lenths they go to to make a really reliable glass.
I suspect the optical or image clarity difference between the Geovid and the standard Ultravid is pretty small. By all means, try them out.
I'd also recommend that you try a 10X and an 8X. Afterall, what I'd do and be happy with might not please you.
I'd also recommend that you check out the latest and best from Nikon. E

In the 32's, I'd pick the Leica U-vid HD 8X32. In fact, I did just that. Superb little bino! The view makes you forget you're using such a compact midsize bino.

In the 42's, it would be a tough choice between 8X42 SLC HD or 8X42 Zeiss FL.

I prefer 8X over 10X for an all-around bino. 8X gives you wider FOV, more depth of field, a "brighter" image, a more comfortable view with less eye fatigue, and optical aberrations are less noticeable with less magnification. The greater depth of field means you're fiddling with the focus knob less while in the field because more stuff is in sharp focus. When viewing objects at long range, I can see almost as much detail with 8X as 10X because hand tremors are less noticeable with less magnification.

I own both 8X and 10X binoculars, and I almost always grab my 8's when I carry binos.

I don't particularly want a combination rangefinder / binocular, because electronic devices are much more likely to fail than an all-mechanical optic. Then, you have a binocular that's much bulkier and more complex than it has to be by virtue of the added RF feature. I much prefer to by a compact rangefinder and carry it separately. I'm not spending anywhere near as much time behind the RF as I am the bino, so why have an overweight bino to house something I won't be using most of the time? Plus, I'm pretty sure that adding the RF has a slight negative impact on optical quality.

Swarovski 10x42 EL

Not a bad one in the bunch.....

Leica 10x42 HD Ultravid.

Personally, I would go with the Swaro 8x42 SLC HD. Swaro has managed somehow to sharpen the resolution of the new top end over the previous EL and SLC by another arc second or do. They are down to 2 arc seconds, which is more than eyes can use. If you go with the SV EL be SURE you try first, that flat field business has made rolling ball an issue for a significant amount of people . Don't worry if it will be an issue, you will know it real quick. I have never had an issue with it until I picked up the new SV EL. For me the rolling ball makes the new EL unusable. It may or may not affect you. For my money the SLC HD is the best binocular on the market.

Swavorski 8x42 SLC HD - since $$$$ is no object!

Swarovski EL 8.5x42

I would seriously consider an 8x42 over a 10x42 if I were you.

And my number one pick at this time would be the new Swarovski SLC HD. Its a toss up between The SLC HD and the Zeiss VIctory FL as far as optics go but the SLC HD has better build quality.

But, you could save quite a bit of money by buying the Zeiss-A demo or lightly used one-see them go for around $1200 quite often.

Spend the rest of the money on a separate range finder.


As good as the range finding binos are they are not quite as good as the flagship binos. (zeiss, Leica)

Or the 8's. Either one are awesome.

IMO, the Swarovski EL 10 x 42 are hard to beat. If I were to go to the newer Swarovision, I might consider the 8.5 x 42.

donsm70

Lieca 8X42 Ultravid, but the Swaro 8X's would work too....

For all day, all around use,the 8X's are steadier for me than 10X.

Hand's down my choice. 8x32 EL my second choice. I have no third choice and would not be happy with a Zeiss 8x32Fl after having owned one.

I've used 8x30-ish glass for twenty five years and have never found a need for 42mm glass. I use my binoculars every day and have had the chance to compare my 8x32 Leica's against a Swaro 10x42 on game (on a daily basis) for the last year... I can't find any reason, having compared them constantly, to chose a 10x42 of any kind.

The 8x42 is good stuff and offers a very slightly more relaxed view, but not enough that I'd want their extra weight or bulk.

The 8x32 Leica is the compromise I make... and rest assured, any binocular is a compromise weighted in one direction or another.

I have run Swaro 8x32's HARD and my Leica 8x42 even harder. I use my glasses year round in all kinds of weather. I am working with some Swaro 10x50's as well and am not nearly as impressed with them as I am the Leicas in the same class. The Swaro 8x32's and the Leica 8x42's are beat up and have been ridden down the mountain NUMEROUS times over the last 12 years. I have dropped them on the pavement in my driveway more times than I can remember. I have dropped them in the rocks up hunting, filled them full of dirt and mud, drowned them in rivers and lakes and they just keep going.

I used to really like Zeise, but the eye relief/field of view was not as large and clear as the other two brands. I would go with the Leica 10x40's with a close second to the 8x42's. Flinch

I bring them home and wash them off in the sink with dish soap and a tooth brush. They get a lot of the dirt and grit in focus nob and eye cups after a hard hunt. I don't baby my glass, but I do take care of the lenses. I want to see what holds up, because my success and the success of my hunters depends on good glass. Both have been through hell and back. For my eyes and money, Leica is a better product over Swarovsky by quite a bit. I was a diehard Swaro fan until I ran Leica. This is not meant to ruffle feathers, just my personal findings with a lot of experience in the field with both. Leica's are a bit heavier, but I fully believe it is due to better innards. The Swaros have lost a bit of clarity, perhaps due to wiping the lenses off with a shirt sleeve so many times in the field ;o) They are also substantially looser in the adjustments. The Leicas have absolutely been flawless and amazing in every way and have taken MUCH more abuse than the Swaros. Flinch

I do like the Swarovski El's. I also just bought a set of the Steiner Peregrine XP's and I am supprised for almost half the cost I think I like them more then my swarvos.

Don't remember if it was here or another forum but I posted after trying the Leica Geovids. Not really a review so much as a need to profess the pure visual elation that came from the 8x42 Geo HD's. I have some of the best glass for the money bin's (Nikon SE's, Zen's ED and Fujinons, KOMZ BPO) and have tried the Leica Ultravids, which didn't agree with my eyes, but those GEO 8x's were REALLY something.
After some looking I found that the coatings applied to maximize the laser recovery pushes the view to the red or blue, (don't remember exactly) end of the spectrum thus enhancing certain color renditions and making it (to my eyes) freakin' awesome (for lack of better words).
The 10x's seemed a bit constricted. No less brilliant but the psychological effect, to me, deterred from the enjoyment.

Thanks for the honest reply. I own Leica 8x32 Trinovids and 8x42 Ultravid HD's. I cannot say anything better about them than you have. My money is on Leica. I also have a pair of Meopta 12x50's that seem to be some darn good glass in a tough package at a more than fair price. Certainly no bad choices here.

You are looking for good binoculars or a good argument, either one you can get it here. I can and have owned most of the high end glass and after several bouts between Swarovski EL's and Leica Ultravids, I finally sttled on the Swarovski 8.5X42 Swarovision binoculars.

It has been said that the 32 mm binos stay with the 42's in all around use...they don't. Although the EL 32 mm are quite good, so are the SLC 30 and Leica 32mm. They can't give you the same light transmission or field of view. They are more compact, but they are not as good.

Get the Swarovski 8.5X42 Swarovision and you will be impressed. I doubt you would be disappointed. Even if you were diappointed, you can sell the Swarovski's at least 5 times faster than any other optic you mentioned, there must be a reason.

Also, as light as the alpha glasses are getting in 8x42 the 8x32 class are less desirable. And they are simply not as bright and it does make a difference.

Gotta correct myself here......did not consider the "one binocular/all round" thing.....because I gave up the notion 30 years ago,and have always had a "light" 7 or 8X in conjunction with a 10x40 or 42,because I simply prefer the 10X for the general run of Western hunting.I have just had too many times out west when I wanted the extra power.

That said, I bring both on any traveling hunt.

But I have to admit that if I were forced to choose one it would be small,light 7 or 8X like Brad,knowing I was leaving something on the table(at least for me)....which is what inevitably happens when you choose "one" of anything.

Is that a fact or an opinion?? If fact, what's it based on? Curious I am.

Idea! --> Switch Power binoculars

Geovid 8X42. No flies on the rangefinder, either.

Stacked with my Leica 10X42 Trinovid I preferred the 8X Geovid's view. the magnification difference wasn't as big a factor as it might seem.

Any 10X is difficult for me to hand-hold and I found the 8X's to have for me a better view, too.

Savage yes the switch power bins are an option.......but it kinda takes the fun outta blowin money on a second pair of binoculars

You know...like buying another rifle!

Bob,

Bet is that you and I already have that second set of binoculars. Both that I have are heavier and bigger than these new 7/12 32's!

These are a neat new toy. If your a Cabelas CLub member you get an extra $100 off!

Here are the old ones. My son's Pentax is in the middle. Those Hensoldt's on the right are what I have used since the 60's. I got a discount on them then and only paid $127.00!

Shrapnel,

I can assure you, I'm not a troll. It pains me to admit I'm the market beause I lost my 10x42SLCs. I don't think they were the best all end all even at the time, but were pretty close. I have honestly not even looked at the market/trends technology in 8 years or so. I think I only think I know what I want to look through.

I really do appreciate all the information and personall preferences. I have found in the last few years, my eyes are deteriorating fast. I also hate to admit that too. There is nothing that is going to the best at all criteria and everything has concessions on way or the other, and I agree with this. I do have 2 pairs of Leica rangefinders, the 800 and 1200. I don't chase technology and need the latest and greatest. I try and buy good gear the first time and not buy twice. It doesn't seem to work out for me this time, and that is all on me. I would have rather spend the money on something I didn't have vs. spending on something I used to have...

ONLY ONE??? Golly...like having only 1 rifle...I guess I'd pick my 8x42 Leicas...but more than one...8x42 Leicas....12x45 Zeiss...8x30 SLC...10x28 Golden Ring Leupolds..

I wish you the best im completing your quest. I sell and have sold most high end glass in binoculars, spotting scopes and LRF. I can own which I choose, I have tried them and used them in the field and stick by the Swarovski's. I do own and use a set of Leica Ultravid 8X20 compacts, but they are just for fun, when it comes to real hard glassing, The 8.5X42 El's are wonderful, they don't tire your eyes and are so bright and crisp, I can't help but say WOW, every time I use them.

With the quality of the optics in the 8.5X, you don't need the 10X to see what was necessary to have 10X in earlier glass.

I can even get you whichever binoculars you want including the Leica Ultravids. Whether you get them here or at a sporting goods store, I agree with you to do it once and not be sorry. (hint: Swarovski EL Swarovision)

8x42, IMHO, for all around use. 10X can be harder to hold still, at least for me. Wt. can be a big issue, especially with the 7x50's etc. I guess it depends on bulk, wt., and what you're going to be doing. Don't guess there's a "right answer", just a series of compromises and trade off's. Regardless of the size I chose, I'd go with the highest grade my budget would allow.

DF

You might want to consider the Leica Duovids 8+12x42. Excellent optics though you don't get quite the pop you would with the 8.5x42 Swaro EL's but they are still compact and give you the advantage of the dual power. You also don't need to refocus when you change power like I've heard you must with other switch power binocs.



If that's not your cup of tea, I'd personally stick with the Leica or Swaro in 8x unless you get the 7x42 Zeiss Victory which are considered by many to be one of the top all around binocs.

shrapnel, when it come to FOV and Swarovski the 32mm wins. a 10x32 Swaro EL HD has a Fov of 360' and the 10x42 EL HD has a FOV of 336

For a general all purpose hunting bino I prefer the Meopta Meostar 8x32. They are bright, lightweight and have a 420' FOV.

The "rolling ball" effect in the Swarovsion's is something that a lot of us can't tolerate... I'd never own a pair having tried them on multiple occasions. Some people notice it less than others...

Yes, 32's usually have wider FOV than 42's of the same brand, series, and magnification.

They don't quite hang with the 42mm binos in low light, but the difference isn't really that huge when you're talking about premium binoculars. My Leica 8X32 U-vid HD's are usable before and beyond legal shooting hours already, so I find the slight reduction in low light performance a worthwhile tradeoff for the handier size and weight. I think a high end 8X32 bino is a great compromise for general hunting use. They combine a form factor not much larger than compact binos with optical performance that almost rivals their 42mm brethren. The only optical sacrifice you have to make is that last little bit of low light performance. I wouldn't select a 10X32, but in 8X, the 4mm exit pupil is still sufficiently large enough to be reasonably forgiving and low light performance is still good enough to be useful in 80% - 90% of the light conditions you could use an 8X42. I've compared my 8X32's to some good 8X42's and found the 42's gave me maybe 3-4 minutes of extra viewing time at dawn and dusk.

If you want ultimate low light performance, a high end 8X50 or 10X56 is the way to go, but for all-around use where all day portability is paramount, a good 8X32 will do most of what a good 8X42 will do. If you prefer 10X, don't get a 32, go for 10X42 at minimum.

Me, I'd take the SLC HD's only because I couldn't adjust the SV's to comfortably fit the bridge of my nose. Never experienced that before.

The good thing is the OP's list is so good that it pretty much boils down to minor things you like about one vs. another. Or, which one has ergonomics you prefer.

There isn't a bad choice in the whole group; they are all "lifetime" heirloom class binos.

Agreed. I've said this many times that when you are selecting glass at the top end, it usually boils down to ergo's as there isn't enough visible difference worth discussing.

I feel totally confident to state it as a fact based on others experiences and my own. I have and use Leica,Swarovski and Zeiss glass.

The only complaints I have against the Zeiss Victory are purley cosmetic, not functional.

The application of the rubber armoring leaves much to be desired. They have multiple armoring pieces on the bino, my armor has come un-glued in several places.

I have also had the end cap on the focus knob and the front hinge cover fall off of my 10x42 FL.

The optics are superb however, still my preferred glass optically.

I would just remove the three 10X32's from consideration.

Dude:
I agree, I have had a quality 10x32, often the poorest seller for the top brands. Sounds nice, but dimmer, hard to get nice eye placement. For hunting think, 42mm, either 8x or 10x, many
great choices mentioned here. Also consider 8.5x42, I have
the Swaro. EL, and I like the little extra power over the 8.

It does come down to personal preference.

Jerry

Why not the Zeiss 7x42 for all-around?

7X42 is a nice config. It's very easy to get behind and provides a monstrous FOV, DOF, and great light transmission. They have a very relaxed, steady view. I'd prefer a tad more X's for all around use myself, though.

Yeah, 32mm is just too small an objective to really utilize 10X. When you combine high magnification and small objective on any optic, eye position and light transmission becomes critical due to the small exit pupil. If I was planning to ante up the high price tag for a premium optic, I wouldn't want to handicap its potential like that. In my view, I'll never accept less than 4mm exit pupil on a serious all around bino. While larger is better, I've found a 4mm minimum exit pupil is perfectly usable in all but extreme low light. This means a max of 8X in 32mm, 10X in 42mm, 12X in 50mm, etc.

I had a similar dilemma a few years ago. Tried an 8 x 42, but due to the weight and size, didnt take \ use them as much as I should have. I have since purchased some 8 x 33's that I really like. The convenience outweighs the negligible (to me at least) difference for the type of hunting I do (archery).

swarovisions, 10x42's

Brad,

I have a Swaro 7x50. I'm not familiar with the "rolling ball" effect. Please explain.

Thanks,

DF

Yours won't have the effect... only found in the new Swarovision's. I could perhaps get used to it, but I found it pretty overwhelming the various times I tried the Swarovsion's.

Thanks for your comments Flinch. The super hard coatings that Leica uses can make a difference I'm sure. That and their extra beefy constuction. E

Thanks, Brad.

I checked it out on line, as I had never hear about it. Do you know what causes it, or why the new Swaro's would be like that vs. the older ones like mine? That being the case, looks like they're moving backward and they progress forward...

DF

As I understand it's the result of the compromise made (optically speaking) to get a crisper, in-focus image (flat field) out to the edge of the viewing area... in optics there is no free lunch.

For all around use I use, and prefer an 8x30/32. I have the 8x30 Zeiss Conquest and couldn't be happier. It's been, and continues to go all around the country with me on business trips, hiking, etc. and I still hunt. Now if I typically hunted differently, i.e. tree stand, etc. I might pick up a 7x42 and be done.

What I understand, only a percentage of people are sensitive to this effect. I was wondering what makes some sensitive and others, not so sensitive.

Interesting.

DF

A very simplified explanation of rolling ball. Magnification also increases movement. When you have a nearly perfectly Sharp edge on a binocular what happens when you are panning is that the image speeds up coming into the view on one side and speeds up leaving the view on the other side. Depending on individual sensitivity once that starts it can seem to stretch across from the edges to nearly across the whole fov. Whether or not you are sensitive to this depends largely on how much distortion you have at the edges of your vision. Binocular designers typically design in some pincushion distortion which you can see in most binoculars as the slight fuzzy edge of the outer fov. This distortion breaks up or hides the rolling effect.

If you are sensitive to this in the new SV EL, you will know it real quick. It hit me pretty hard and quite out of the blue as I am usually pretty unaffected by many things some users complain about. I had never really experienced the rolling ball until the SV EL. It seemed sort of strange that it took the most expensive and newest state of the art binocular to do this. You may or may not be able to get used to the effect, again depending on how much distortion is present in your own eyes at the periphery of your own view. It would literally make me seasick the first time I used it. Personally at what it costs I have no intention to try to see if I could get used to it in the SV EL. Not when the SLC-HD gives the same overall view, save for the edge of the SV EL and for $400 or more less.

So just be aware that it is there (or at least that it may affect you) and be prepared to not get too out of sorts if you see it. Just get it from someplace with a good return policy and exchange it for the SLC-HD and all will be good.

Steve, a far better explanation than I could give. Nicely done. What you wrote is essntially what I read on the birding forum I participate on. Every time I've tried them, I find the Swarovsion's view quite disconcerting. Would also add, I wasn't pre-disposed to finding the Rolling-Ball-Effect, as I had never heard of it when I tried them.

I have an excellent Leica 8x32 BR that I have no intention of changing...

I just quickly scanned through the posts, so maybe this has been mentioned and I missed it. How about Leica Duovid 8-12X42? They're a little heavier than a fixed power, but if you want an all around binoc they are the ticket.. My $.02.

I don't think there is a all around pair of bino's. I use a pair of 8x42's for the woods and 12x45's for everything else. If money is not a problem, why settle for one pair?

I agree totally. That's why I mentioned my Leica Duovids. To me they are as close to an all around, single pair of binos, as you can hope for. They pretty well cover the two pair you mentioned. You get your 8X and 12X in one.

I guess from all this that the state of the art, newest Swaro's are "too good". I'm safe. I'll just hang onto my older Swaro 7x50's, which BTW have the best FOV and exit pupil one could ever imagine. Check out those numbers. They're heavy, so I use them in the box blind while deer hunting. My packing around binos are Kahles 8x42. The glass is pretty close to the Swaro and in a neat, solid package. With those two, I'm not in the market for new binos...

DF

From what I understand, only the newest Leica bino's and scopes (AquaDura coatings) are considered as "super hard" lense coatings. That would be UltraVid HD's and their new riflescopes. Leica does make very durable bino's though.

I don't think I'd quite call it "too good" what it represents is a different level of design not before attempted in what we see in the SV EL. There has been lots of clamor, particularly in the birdwatcher's crowd, that has obsessed over sharp edges for a long time. Swarovski evidently decided they could sctratch that itch. I think they full well knew that rolling ball would affect a substantial portion of users, which is why they brought along the upgrade in the SLC-HD. Other that the very slight edge distortion in the SLC-HD the image is indistinguishable. The SLC-HD is less money than the SV EL because it does not need the extra very expensive field flattener lens in the eye piece and with fewer lenses in the eye piece it is somewhat less costly to make the SLC-HD. I think this is a Swarovski approach to offer the flat SV image and have something else with the SLC-HD in the "new and improved" category so they can appeal to a somewhat larger base.

But like you with your Swaro 7x50 and Brad with his Leica 8x32...if it ain't broke don't fix it.