Maven vs Swarovski

[mt.ghost]

How do mavens compare to Swarovski?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MT_Wyatt]

How do mavens compare to Swarovski?

Depends on the model - the B1 review on Rokslide makes it pretty clear where those stand.

Review of B2's:
Review: Maven B2 9x45: Has the $1,000 game just changed? - BirdForum
They are big - I'm still debating if I want to carry the 11's or 9's.....I think the 11's are a bit much to hand hold sometimes.

I don't have Swarovski so I can't say definitively, but have read quite a few reviews. I'm sure others that have ran both will chime in, but wanted to offer those reviews as a starting point.

 

[Brock A]

I run the Maven B2 11s for binos and a Swaro ATS spotter...

I think it's really going to depend on the user. They both are good.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Brightwhite]

I have 8x swaro's and 11x maven B2's, I use them differently, but if I had to only have 1 pair of glass and that's it, I would take my 8x42 swaro.

The b2's are nice though, I've been happy with mine thus far.

 

[dreamingWest]

I did not think the Maven B1 10x42s compared well with the Swaro SLC 10x42s. I thought that the B2 11x45s compared well enough with the Swaros that anyone considering the two should try their best to test both pairs prior to purchasing. Ultimately, I chose the Swaro SLCs and could go into much more (mostly non-technical) detail regarding the B2s vs the SLCs. The SLCs are such a refined packaged and the low light image is striking. To my eyes, the B2s were the standout in the $1000 price range though.

 

[Bwana]

For the money grab the Zeiss Conquest HD's in your preferred power, best bang for the buck on the market in mid level glass.

 

[Brightwhite]

I did not think the Maven B1 10x42s compared well with the Swaro SLC 10x42s. I thought that the B2 11x45s compared well enough with the Swaros that anyone considering the two should try their best to test both pairs prior to purchasing. Ultimately, I chose the Swaro SLCs and could go into much more (mostly non-technical) detail regarding the B2s vs the SLCs. The SLCs are such a refined packaged and the low light image is striking. To my eyes, the B2s were the standout in the $1000 price range though.

I would agree with this, I did not like the Maven B1's that I have looked through, but the B2's are nice. A few other things to consider would be weight...I do not have the published weights of my B2's and SLC's...but my B2's are bigger and do seem much heavier.

 

[elkguide]

For everything except for an hour before sunrise and an hour after sunset, the B2's are great but at the pre and post hours, that's where and why I spent the money on Swarovski.

 

[dreamingWest]

Some more thoughts:

What elkguide said about B2s vs Swaros is what sold me. The Swaros offer "wow" factor performance during those precious moments. I mentioned this on another thread, but just as my brother thought he couldn't justify the extra cost of the SLC vs the B2s during our test, I had him slip the Swaros on a tripod after sunset. He was amazed and bought SLCs the next day.

While I thought the size of the B2s would be a negative. It really wasn't. The form of the binoculars, which I suppose is dictated by the Abbe-Koenig prisms, is great. They were very comfortable to hand-hold, even with the 11 power.

Keep in mind, I tested the 11x45s (exit pupil 4.1mm). The B2 9x45 (exit pupil 5.0mm) may give low light performance closer to the SLC 10x42 (exit pupil 4.2mm).

 

[WRO]

For the money grab the Zeiss Conquest HD's in your preferred power, best bang for the buck on the market in mid level glass.

Hoe would you compare them to the Euro 10x42 or Leica Trinovids?

 

[mikkel318]

I have the 9x45 B2s and my friend has the 10x42 EL Ranges. We've spent a lot of time swapping back and forth and we both felt that the B2s were very comparable. Even at Low light the mavens were appropriately brighter taking into account the 9x vs his 10x.

 

[Bwana]

Hoe would you compare them to the Euro 10x42 or Leica Trinovids?

I actually got to compare the Conquest twice with the Meopa Euro...and I've spent 2-3 hrs behind my buddies Trinovids, although not side by side with the Conquest.

In my opinion they easily beat the Euro hands down, between the Conquest's ergonomics/smooth focus/larger sweet spot/larger eye relief/all around sharper & brighter....Conquest 10x42 wins. The Trinovids are a different view/style, deep colors, sharp sweet spot, very shallow eye relief at 15mm(difficult with eye glasses), very short bodied with great ergonomics(similar to a Zeiss Victory FLT), very nice rubber armor...Leica wins in overall performance vs Conquest, but not if you wear eye glasses

Zeiss Conquest HD is a great set of glass for the money, and Leica makes fantastic products if you can handle the minimal eye relief....can't wait to get a pair of the new Noctivid 10x in my hands, that will cost me a punch in the face

Hope that helps.

I have the 9x45 B2s and my friend has the 10x42 EL Ranges. We've spent a lot of time swapping back and forth and we both felt that the B2s were very comparable. Even at Low light the mavens were appropriately brighter taking into account the 9x vs his 10x.

The Ranges have the Gen 1 EL glass without the SV field flattening lenses og the Gen 2...but that proves all eyes are different. I see a distinct difference between the B2 and EL in quality and sharpness, low light not too much...couple minutes maybe.

 

[realunlucky]

I have the 9x45 B2s and my friend has the 10x42 EL Ranges. We've spent a lot of time swapping back and forth and we both felt that the B2s were very comparable. Even at Low light the mavens were appropriately brighter taking into account the 9x vs his 10x.

The el ranges are not using the HD or swarovison coatings.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Firehawk]

I actually got to compare the Conquest twice with the Meopa Euro...and I've spent 2-3 hrs behind my buddies Trinovids, although not side by side with the Conquest.

In my opinion they easily beat the Euro hands down, between the Conquest's ergonomics/smooth focus/larger sweet spot/larger eye relief/all around sharper & brighter....Conquest 10x42 wins. The Trinovids are a different view/style, deep colors, sharp sweet spot, very shallow eye relief at 15mm(difficult with eye glasses), very short bodied with great ergonomics(similar to a Zeiss Victory FLT), very nice rubber armor...Leica wins in overall performance vs Conquest, but not if you wear eye glasses

Zeiss Conquest HD is a great set of glass for the money, and Leica makes fantastic products if you can handle the minimal eye relief....can't wait to get a pair of the new Noctivid 10x in my hands, that will cost me a punch in the face

Hope that helps.


The Ranges have the Gen 1 EL glass without the SV field flattening lenses og the Gen 2...but that proves all eyes are different. I see a distinct difference between the B2 and EL in quality and sharpness, low light not too much...couple minutes maybe.

And to my eyes, the Maven B2 beat the Conquest handily. But...I really liked Conquest and felt they were a "touch" better than the Razors and they are a nice trim package comparatively. Maybe I am weird, but I really like the B2 9x45. Never did a side x side with the Swaros. They just weren't in my price range, and I had Leica Duovids at the time. I sold the Leicas and kept the Mavens if that says anything. They were that good.

FH

 

[Matt Cashell]

In my opinion they easily beat the Euro hands down, between the Conquest's ergonomics/smooth focus/larger sweet spot/larger eye relief/all around sharper & brighter....Conquest 10x42 wins.

Wow. I have spent a lots of time with these two bins. I would have it the opposite.

The el ranges are not using the HD or swarovison coatings.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

realunlucky,

Just to be clear both the "HD" and "Swarovision" technologies from Swarovski aren't coatings. "HD" refers to extra-low dispersion (flourite-containing) glass elements in the objective assembly, while Swarovision is a field-flattening glass element in the eyepiece.

 

[Bwana]

They really need to dump the stupid HD tag, along with all the other optic companies too...it's a pixel/electronic term, where ED would be correct.

 

[realunlucky]

Do the ranges use the same glass as the CL? Optics so many great choices but the jargon is daunting to understand

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Bwana]

Wow. I have spent a lots of time with these two bins. I would have it the opposite.

The eye relief specs don't lie, if you wear eye glasses it glaringly obvious.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Do the ranges use the same glass as the CL? Optics so many great choices but the jargon is daunting to understand

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

That is a tricky question to answer. They both use high quality optical glass. Neither use HD designs. Both use similar coating technology.

However, the optical formula's are completely different, so they aren't really that similar at all, even though the raw materials are similar.

 

[Bwana]

Do the ranges use the same glass as the CL? Optics so many great choices but the jargon is daunting to understand

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Maybe you meant SLC ?, same glass different coatings best of my recollection.

EDIT: My apologies, had never heard of the CL model....thought it was a typo.