i purchased 2 samples of Swarovski EL 8x32 in the past, i got a brand new Zeiss FL 8x32 last week, and i borrowed a pair of Ultravid 8x32 for the week. So, i decided to compare them.
First of all, me and my wife compared the 8x32 FL to the 8x42 FL that she already had. We could not find any difference in sharpness, brightness, or color rendition, so the larger 8x42 will go on sale next week. We tried them at dusk and dawn and bright sun and dark weather, no visible difference.
Then, the four of us, father mother and two daughters, examined the three 8x32 side-by-side-by-side, from our deck and while taking birding walks through the woods. We agreed to take notes, and then to compare notes to see what comes out of them.
The four of us had surprisingly similar notes:
Body and handling The Ultravid is the smallest, it fits small hands the best, but the smallest IPD is in the FL. Oddly, the FL has a small IPD to fit a young person, small hands find it difficult to reach for the focuser.
Everyone hated the focuser on the Ultravids. The EL and FL have great smooth focus, the Ultravid needs some grease.
The best accessories come with the FL: the most comfortable strap, the nicest field bag, best objective cups, and decent ocular cups. In fact, with the FL rainguard being a bit sloppy, and with the Ultravid objective cups being unuseable because they are not tethered, the FL and the Ultra are the same. The EL has a great neckstrap, but everything else is garbage. In fact, we found two plastic neckstrap buckles from an older binocular, and we threaded the EL neckstrap the old fashioned way, it feelt more secure.
Eye relief is longest in FL, long enough for eyeglass wearers. The EL still has enough eyerelief for eyeglass use, the Ultravid is only 12 or 13 mm, not enough. The Ultra can be used with eyeglasses, but some field of view will be lost (but 300 ft/1000 yards will still be visible).
Colors, contrast, brightness, control of stray light, were best in Ultravids, but they also had the most color fringing.
The FL had the least color fringing and the most relaxing view, but only in the middle of the field, the image degrades quickly towards edges, and they have a small "sweet spot". In fact, they have 420 ft. field of view, but the image feels restricted because it is nice only in the center of the field, the edges are darker, less shrap, and fringed with purple.
The EL has almost the image quality of the Ultravid, and it is almost free of color fringing, like the FL. However, it has such a wide sweet spot that i can't tell if the image degrades at the edges or not. The EL also has the best depth of field.
In terms of overall image quality, it looks like we all agreed that the EL was the nicest. Not quite bright and contrasty like the Ultravid, not quite free of fringing like the FL, but the most wide, pleasant, useable, beautiful image.
To wrap it up, all three models are great, and nice. You really have to have them side by side to see the differences.
Thanks for the very well written comparison review! You have an eye for small details that made this a very satisfying read. Well done!
I agree with Sail - an informative & detailed (and nicely objective) summary! Thanks for the work!