Hello,
This is my first post here!
I use binoculars almost every day, working at the range here in Patagonia. And when I go hunting or seen the country, walking in the mountains.
My first truly good binocular was a very old Swarovski Habitch 10x40 W I bought used in 1981. I paid then a ridiculouse price in a Used Optics Shop at Buenos Aires. I remember I paid, then, may be the cost of the leather case...!!! Because the binoculars had the leatherlike cover dried and chiped. But optically and mechanically they were almost mint! Frome then, my only pair of binoculars and for sure I would still have if were not stolen from my truck. And it never went miscolimated or fogged in bad weather. It had a rather yelow tinted view but had great resolution and contrast in low light. A year latter, 2002, I bought a Leica Trinovid BA 10x42. New this time. A truly great piece of optics. And build like a tank, indeed! I selected this one from 4 pairs, includiing a new BN. Mine was the best optically. But 2 years latter I bought a then new Zeiss Victory FL after look througt another...A big jump in the optics from my beloved Leica BA...I finnally sold this Leica. I cannot keep the two...I don`t regret my decision absolutely. The Victory FL has, for me, the best optics. Period. I tested it against Swaros SLC, El (not the last Swarovision) and Leicas Ultravid (not de HD) and Nikon LX. The FL surpassed the others in brightness, contrast, CA control and resolution. No doubt, for me.
But, a few days ago arrives, brought by a friend from USA an almost new (made in 2007) Swarovski Habitch WGA (green rubber armored). I bought at e-bay. Wow! Was like meeting an old love! It has ALMOST, the same view of the Zeiss FL !!! And the yellow tint has gone. Instead it has a very neutral and natural colours and a brightness, resolution and control of CA almost indistingible from the Zeiss FL. Plus a stereoscopic effect I have forgotten from my old Habitch!! And sealed as the brochure says!! A great binocular and at half the price of the Zeiss FL. Now I have the two, for me, best examples of a Porro and a roof prism binoculars !!!
Best Wishes to all
PHA
Hello,
Well, going into a more detailed comparition between this two binoculars I have:
Swarovski vs. Zeiss:
Size: Less height than Zeiss but, obiously wider.
Weight: A little heavier (around 1 oz more than the Zeiss)
Eye distance: Swaro mm less than Zeiss :13 mm vs. 17 mm
Field of view: Indistingible diference between the two.
Resolution: Almost the same in the centre. Perhaps, in my view, not measured, better Zeiss. The sweet spot is, in my view, the same in both.
Brightness: Almost the same. A little better in the Zeiss.
Color: Great in both. True color!The Swaro is a little colder or bluish. Very slight diference.
Color aberrations: Great control in both. The same looking at the edge of the mountains late in the evening.
Contrast: Great and almost the same in both. Very, very slight diference in favor of Zeiss.
Minimum focus distance: Here the Zeiss wins clearly: 4 m Swaro vs. 2 m in the Zeiss
Ease of focusing: Also Zeiss is much better. Faster and easier in the Zeiss. The Swaro notably change between cold and warm temperature.
View with back light: The same. Both are very good. Better than my former Leica BA.
Feelings about construction: The Swaro seems to be very strong, all moving parts metalic. If it is made as the old one I had, canīt be better!
Nothing to say about the Zeiss. Seems to be very well made.
General impresions: They have very distinct views, beiing both great optically. It is very notable the tridimentional efect in the Swarovski. Can be useful in some situations.
Best Regards
PHA
PHA,
Welcome to the forum. Patagonia--WOW! It is many Americans' perfect dream of wilderness.
This is a very interesting comparison to me, because although I have not used either of the Swarovskis, I am exactly where you were at one point in your history. I have two 8x42s, a Trinovid BA and a Zeiss FL. When I first got the Zeiss, I felt that it was clearly optically the better, and I stopped using the Trinovid altogether for a while. But lately, I have realized that I was simply bowled over by the FL's two great strengths: it is very bright, and almost free from CA. Those things are important, and obvious, but they are not all there is to a view.
I have developed a renewed appreciation for the Trinovid's richer (a product of the darker view perhaps, combined with its redder cast, which results from the silver prism coatings, and the other antireflective coatings in the binocular, all which are technical inferiorities, but it makes a nice view) presentation of colors, and also its larger area of critical focus or "sweet spot". CA is actually not bad in the 8x42. The Zeiss wins almost every bench comparison I make, but in the field, the views through the Leica are to me often as or more satisfying, provided the light is bright enough that the relatively dim view is not a handicap.
I envy how clear the difference between the two seemed to you. I wish I could bring myself to get rid of one or the other. I think the only answer for me is just to enjoy both, and try not to feel guilty about owning both!
I know what you mean about the Porro view. I have an optically amazing 7x50 Fujinon, but it is so cumbersome that it gets very little use for birdwatching or hiking.
I am looking forward to more contributions from you to our forum.
Ron