I had my nineteen years old Swarovski serviced lately and it looks, works a even smells like new. Best thing, Swarovski did not charge a dime, best service ever! I’ll stick with the brand.
Agree, best service in the world. My 10 year old 8.5x42 SW was disassemled, cleaned, collimated, new housing (on body and focuser). Also they sent me complete new protective caps and spare eyecups, all free of charge. And they sent me back for about two weeks latter on their own cost. That's unbelievable.
Thanks this was really helpful. I had just ordered this one - they have just announced a replacement model and this is available for about 25% off. As the new ones would be £1k more I thought I’d get the ELs as by all account they are fantastic. I found your explanation of setting them up saved me time and helped me consider accessories I might not otherwise have been aware of. They definitely look and feel a lot more luxurious than photos might suggest - on screen, they don’t look much different than a £200 pair. Once you get your hands on them, you realise that these are anything but ordinary. Lots of clever touches as you point out which just make them all the more enjoyable to use. I’ve ordered the phone digiscoping attachment for a phone which I’m looking forward to.
N0w3lly called NL Pure www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/swarovski-nl-pure-8x42-binoculars?gclid=CjwKCAjwrvv3BRAJEiwAhwOdM7lUus95ylaEDiBlYdwCfAn09c5Ok3GLc8DkJjzaFSRohvAilCn64RoC7jIQAvD_BwE
Oh they are definitely not £200 instruments that's for sure, you're right. They have a solidity, weight, feel and quality, you know the glass takes up a lot of that weight, and when you look through them, then you see the clarity!
Hi, Someone said that the image is not sharp!? And he said that the Zeiss victory is much sharper. ( maybe he had a bad model???). Now I am afraid to order the Swarovski 8.5x42. Thanks for the tip.
@@miertjestoer9525 I've owned Zeiss and Leica previously... not a Zeiss Victory SF, but I have tried a pair. I have also tried Noctivids. What I will say is that to say Swarovski binoculars are not sharp is a ridiculous claim frankly. They really are "Rolls Royce" for quality. You notice, feel, and manipulate that straight out of the box. For anyone wondering why/ how a pair of binoculars can cost so much money, it is the construction and - most importantly - the very advanced and top quality optics within, just as you can get a 50mm camera lens for £50 new, and a pro grade one for over £2000, these are the same principles. You are getting high quality engineering, optical excellence, and high quality control standards to boot. Swarovskis are also hand assembled and hand tested. It is 'possible' of course that he received a faulty pair, or perhaps they were not calibrated correctly. If that is the case, Swarovski also have amazing warranties and service as they have a strong belief in the excellence of their products, and they also put the customer first. But, what I would say: always test them first. In a store, have a good look through them. Test them side by side. I am not telling you here what choice you make, ultimately, and some of my preferences kick in inevitably too (I said I like that what I see through the binoculars are accuraretely represented in terms of colour especially. But sharpness is utterly exceptional through a pair of Swarovskis, I assure you of that. That is not to say, just to reiterate, that it is not possible to receive a pair slightly "off" calibration or even human error is possible (has the person set up the diopter correctly, as an example, or locked it to ensure it doesn't change whilst in use? I will just point out: I am not getting anything at all from Swarovski for "bigging up" their product either. I am trying to honestly reflect the experiences I have had. But, at £2000 price points, don't get me wrong: Zeiss and Leica also both make exceptional binoculars. They do. I am making subjective conclusions based on what I find important. Leica produce beautiful colour - vivid in fact. But, for me, that is not as "true to reality" as I desired. I wanted colour accuracy. Zeiss are slightly cooler to the blues and greens of the spectrum. That was the reason I didn't want the Victories. Swarovski were sharper edge to edge across the whole field of view. This I feel is important. And Swarovision technology is what makes that possible. There is no colour fringing at all that I can detect in Swarovski binoculars. There is slight fringing in the other two pairs in harsh light. That to me was important. But there you are: horses for courses, and depends how you use them and what purposes you have for what is a big investment you will want to own for YEARS. One other thing: get ELs rather than NL Pures UNLESS you want the huge field of view. Sharpness and everything else, they are on par, but the price differences now are not insubstantial. But, NL Pures (and I have had a play) are mindblowingly good because of the field of view. Not good enough for me to want to sell the ELs though, lose money and pay an extra £1000+ mind!
Just a couple of corrections I wish to make to the content as it was unscripted (and late!): the glass is LOW (not high) refractive index. The ocular caps flex as you expand the barrels about the bridges (not brackets), so they don't pop off accidentally. As well as swaroclean the outer elements also have hardened coatings to protect the glass. They are also dry nitrogen purged and waterproof down to 4 metres. I also omitted to mention the 360ft/ 1000 yards FoV and the very close 4.9ft focus. This review is based on 4 months use to date, and when I mentioned the other competitor items, that was having tried them out in store and in the field before buying. Thanks
Excellent review. Like you, I thought over and over about the other two big guns, but decided on the Swarovski EL Fieldpro. My 10x42s are coming Friday and i cannot wait.
Brilliant review. I was leaning toward the Leica Noctivid before this review. Aside from the superior EL physical merits, the Swarovski customer service stands out the most. Thanks, JK
I'm glad it helped you out, and best of luck with whatever choice you make. I tried to be as honest as possible: in truth at this price point all the makers offerings are top drawer quality and all have their own selling points. But I do think the Swaro's do just tip the scales because of the excellent edge to edge sharpness, lack of aberrations and neutral/ accurate colour reproduction
@@n0w3lly90 I agree with you. My handicap is not having tried the top three in person. Interestingly, the Noctivid leaflet from the Leica website purported a FOV of 376ft/1000yd for the 10x42 model. However, when I did the stoichiometry 112m/1000m, the FOV is actually 336ft/1000yd; same as the EL. Given this and the advantages in eye relief and close focus, I am going with the Swarovski. Again, thanks for your help.
@@GroomsJk that is true, the FOV is not as generous as that in the Leicas. At the end of the day at 10x mag, 336ft is actually pretty generous as it is. And 10x is an optimum general purpose magnification. 8x magnification you'll get around 400ft (the Swaro equivalent for birders is curiously 8.5x magnification as opposed to 8x). Another thing, the Swaros have amazing close focus, down to 4.9 feet (Noctivid are over 6ft) and as I said in the video have class leading eye relief at 20mm (19mm on the Noctivids - close!), which is huge.
They are! But they are also heavy and combersome. I bought the Zeiss SFL 8x40 recently and they are fantastic! Not as clear to the edges as the EL's, but instead have a superb contrast and are so lightweight and comfy to handhold 😊 Have you tried them?
@@GM-bq6zo Very close but not quite. The EL's are fantastic when you have it on a tripod. Otherwize when I want to travel light I prefer SFL's. Beautiful colors and contrast. Very sharp in the center. I have the 8x32 Conquest HD also. They are super sharp in the centre but aren't as easy on the eyes when looking through them. A bit duller image. The SFL's are definetely better.
Pleased you liked it disher01, hope you found it useful ... Do read my amendment comments as I did record it late one evening and was a bit tired, so said a couple of things wrong, like saying high as opposed to LOW refractive index ;)
Thanks for the review. I have a question to anyone here about some complaints I sometimes hear about the Swaro's renewal in 2015. Some say that the rubber housing starts to deteriorate when it's exposed to much sun. And that's why Swarovski is already bringing a new line out this year only after 5 years since the last update. Can anyone give me an honest answer? Because I like to buy a the EL's but because of the high price I want to be sure. Thank you.
I have not owned mine for 5 years personally, so couldn't say. What I do know is that oftentimes when people have owned Swarovski, they tend to be very loyal customers and buy the same brand again, and that includes previous users of Zeiss and Leica. I am not sure how the sun alone can degrade the housing: I think you'd have to be a rather vigorous / rough user of a pair of binoculars for that to happen. I tend to look after my most expensive instruments (be it my photographic gear, binos, etc.) because I want them to continue operating as faultlessly as possible for years to come... But other than that, I don't know. As I come from the UK also, I can't say Sun is always a very threatening thing! 😀
@@n0w3lly90 Yeah, I heard that the sun over there at the other side of the North Sea is brutal :-p. I forgot to add that the complaints concerning the rubber housing almost always comes from cases where people took their Swaro to warm country's like Spain or country's in Africa. So I guess you don't have to be afraid when using it over here.
@@dimitribuerms7112 i go to Spain a lot, it's very hot there (missus is Spanish), and I take my binos each time because the in-laws live in the North West mountains where you can see a lot of wildlife (boars, wolves, deer, etc.). So far, so good. My experience, till now, is that they are really tough, robust, as are the coatings. The waterproofing certainly works (tried that!), and they don't fog up either... But, certainly longer term ownership we'll see! ;)
Oh... And eagles, storks, swallows nesting, etc.! And a lot more besides. One of the things I want to do is go South to the Andalusian reserves where wild Iberian Lynxes live. Would love to catch a glimpse of one, and Iberian bears too (which I haven't yet seen!)
I have the 8x32 and 12x50EL’s and can bet my wrap my hands around the barrels between the open bridge. The 42’s look like there’s less room, can you get your hands between the barrels after setting your IPD? I also have the Noctivids and can’t really get my hands between the barrels, not a deal breaker but I like the feel of the Swaro EL’s better.
I really enjoyed your review. I am still unclear what exactly is meant by the "Field Pro" designation. Is this different than the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 W B model?
Field Pro is the monicker that Swarovski gave to all the ergonomic enhancements to the design. They changed the eyecups, the objective lens caps to be flush fitting, and the strap was changed to have adjustable height with toggle pull straps as well as bayonet button mounts in the body of the binoculars. Also, the outer shell received an update, the field bag. it is the same as the 8.5 x 42 W B field pro, yes - except for the magnification of course
@@n0w3lly90 thanks for clearing that up. (I'm in the market for a pair of 8.5x42 so sorry about that mixup). I see the field pro designation used but it seems to have been dropped on the Swarovski site so it's caused some confusion for me. :-)
@@markholter5687 the 8.5x are actually very interesting, and I was really in two minds at the time when I picked. The 8.5 give 8x style field of view but, also, the extra 0.5x magnification gives just a little extra valuable reach over a standard 8x. So that is a very interesting magnification, especially for birders I think
8.5x is when you want wider field of view and is a pretty specialised magnification for bird watching mainly. I went for 10x because it is a good multi purpose magnification: good for birds, but also wildlife you wouldn't want to get too close to. 10x is also comfortable to hand hold without too much shake. So those were the major reasons, as well as I live near the coast and we get yachts racing sometimes, ships and other things that are good to observe. I basically went for what I considered a happy medium.
The NL Pure binoculars are slightly heavier by 40 grams. I haven't tried the NL Pures around my neck if I am honest, but, for the price of them, I doubt they are £700- £900 (depending on where you look) better than the ELs. The ELs are already incredibly sharp and optically exceptional binoculars. The NL Pures have the edge on field of view, ergonomics, and probably a better placed focusing mechanism (bit like thr Zeiss Victory SF) for sure, if that is important to you. But binoculars of this grade tend to be heavy because of the HD optical glass inside them. It all purely comes down to what you want and, importantly, what you can afford to pay. When I got my ELs they were £2500. I would say the sheer price drop on them today makes them a "bargain" for what they are at around £700 less than they used to be before the NLs appeared
@@n0w3lly90 I haven't tried the nl pures yet, but aesthetically I don't really like them, I much prefer the els, and the els are a bit lighter as you say. I also wonder if the double bridge design could be stronger on the els compared to the single bridge and long barrels on the nl pure. I have the 32mm els and they're great, Im wondering whether to get the 8.5x42mm for winter birding, more eye comfort etc, even though they are heavier.
It entirely depends on what you want in a pair of binoculars. The SLC range includes 7 x 56s for instance, or 15 x 56. If distant magnification, or, very low light capability is your priority, then I would say "yes". If you are more interested in ultimate optical performance, then no - the ELs are better. The SLCs don't have field correction, for instance for edge to edge sharpness, and they do not have some of the more advanced coatings of the ELs either. Also, the ELs have an open bridge design. For handling, I find that better, but it might not bother you. The SLCs are very, very good, don't get me wrong: they wear the Swarovski name, after all. They are slightly better value for money too, if you want to save a bit.
Sorry about the delay in my reply. Best thing I can suggest, if you are able to, is try them out in a dealership - have a look through both before buying, if that's an option. If you can't, then there are a lot of good expert reviews online that explain the differences, and similarities, between the EL and SLC ranges. Essentially the former are more compact and lightweight, and have better optics than the SLCs. For example: chromatic aberrations are handled better/ almost entirely nullified by the ELs. They are visible more in SLCs. The SLCs are bigger because they use an Abbe-Koenig prism set up rather than the Schmidt Pechan prisms in the ELs. Abbe-Koenig are bigger, which means the barrels are longer. There are lots of youtube videos that explain those too. Interestingly though, Abbe-Koenig prisms are far more expensive to produce than Schmidt Pechan prisms, and, do offer slightly better light transmission
@@iaraculonna you're very welcome mate, no worries. One thing I will say confidently: get a pair of Swarovskis, you'll wonder why you never had a pair! Truly stunning to look through, really are
I have a Swarovski EL Swarovizion 10x42 and I am disappointed. For 2200 euros, I would expect it to be very sharp, but it is not sharp. I compared cheaper binoculars and they were sharper in the center of the field of view, but I already read that on the forums. Zeiss Victory SF is the sharpest binocular. EL Swarovski is only about half as sharp. Swarovski is just a big advertisement..
I disagree with your findings, Vikinona. And, consistently in laboratory tests, Swarovski outshine Zeiss and Leica. They have exception control of chromatic aberrations, and the colour and contrast are accurate and well tempered to reality. Sharpness is exceptional. Have you had an eye test lately? Also, Swarovski have better minimum focusing distance. If I had a complaint it would be the focusing mechanism, it could be a lot better
@@n0w3lly90 My eyesight is good. I own a Nikon 10x42 SE and a Bushnell Nitro and they are sharper than the New Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovizion. Swarovski has a clear image from edge to edge in the entire field of view, but when you focus on one object, and compare it with Bushnell Nitro binoculars, the Bushnell is sharper. EL is sharper in the front field of view, but Bushnell is sharper in the middle. And I read in the forums that Swarovski binoculars lack sharpness and have a lot of glare. I will send you a video where they also criticize Swarovski EL
I wonder if they lowered the quality when they lowered the price point of the EL’s with the release of the NL Pures. I do know that one spec changed. The “shortest focussing distance” changed from 4.9 feet to 10.2 feet. I am considering purchasing a pair of these as they are discounted $200 or so for the winter sale.
@@kenbrake2828 The EL has the same image quality and colors, as the NL. I've read that some people are not satisfied with NL's image quality and they've said it's not sharp and they would rather buy SF Victory.
This appears to be a video for the somewhat more sophisticated prospective binocular buyer, who doesn't require flashy this or that or over the top enthusiasm or emotive language. I thought the video was very informative without distractions and above all, appeared honest and reliable. 👍👍
Hi, I will connect his voice to a lie-detector, then I can see if he tells the truth or not. .....wait....gosh...he lied to us! Note: Purchase Swarovski EL 10x42 is canceled. But who I can trust? 😮
