Swarovski SLC or Zeiss Conquest HD?

[frankrb3]

A lot of people are recommending the SLCs. Natchezss has a pair of demo SLC 10x42 WB on sale right now. I just don't know the difference between the SLC WB and the newest generation of SLC. Are the older ones not HD glass? Do they have threads for a bino stud behind the center cap? Also, local sporting goods store has 8x42mm conquest HDs for $679.00

 

[NMhunter92]

This info is from another forum and has been my go to for information. I think he also has the same handle on rokslide but this dude knows his stuff.


The CL (Companion) line: This is Swarovski's entry level line. The components are quality BAK4 glass, fully multicoated lens surfaces, and a compact composite body. I have seen these binoculars and think they are really nice ergonomically, but they have a limited field of view, and show noticeable levels of pincushion distortion and chromatic abberration.

The SLC neu line is being phased out. This is the workhorse line from Swarovski. Glass is high-grade BAK4 with Swarovski's excellent trademarked coatings (Swarodur, Swarotop, Swaroclean). Most of the models in this line are very well optimized. They are known for wide sweets spots, deep depth of field, low distortion, and good aberration control.

The EL line was a game-changer in optic design. The EL was the first open bridge binocular design, and left other makers scrambling to copy it. The technology in the ELs is the same as the SLC neu, using the same grades of glass and coatings. The optical designs are a little different, and the images end up a little different as well.

To answer the PM I had that started this post, the differences between the EL and SLC neu are mostly in build design (open bridge vs. piano hinge) Allbinos.com rates the SLC neu 10X42 optically higher than the 10X42 EL in their testing, but it does not take into account the ergonomics of the open bridge. Personally, I think the images are extraordinarily similar, with the EL showing a little more pincushion distortion, field curvature, and edge CA. Both provide world class images.

Now Swarovski has upped the ante with their latest super-performing, super-expensive binoculars. I believe the primary reason they have gone to such lengths and expense is from competition from lower priced binoculars. In any case, the newest Swarovski bins perform at a very high level.

The SLC-HD series is similar in design to the SLC neu, but incorporates flourite glass in the objective. This reduces CA. Allbinos.com seemed to find CA in their test sample, but I have looked at the SLC-HD every chance I have gotten. I don't see it, and I am pretty sensitive to CA. The SLC-HD provides the finest binocular view in the world in my opinion. It has just enough pincushion distortion to avoid the rolling ball effect. IT has little to no field curvature. The result is super high levels of apparent resolution. It is a very impressive instrument. The single birdge design is also very comfortable to me.

The EL Swarovision series is a large, long double bridge design with every bell and whistle. The image in the Swarovision is just like the SLC-HD, except extremely flat. There is no discernable field curvature or distortion, to my eye. I can't see any CA at all. The stable image is just about perfect. The only issue with the Swarovision is the lack of distortion. It is so flat, that the rolling ball is quite pronounced to me when panning. Perhaps with time I owuld become accustomed to it. But, I don't know why I would try it, when the SLC-HD has the same image, with just enough "bend" to ease the rolling ball.

 

[Trial153]

I like my SLC better then my ELs, if I could get SLC in 8x32 they would be a quick replacement for my els

 

[Xfactor]

which of the Leica lineup fits into this discussion and compare to the swaro slc hd and zeiss conquest hd offerings?

what is the leica warranty like in comparison? any real world experiences?

thanks in advance!

 

[frankrb3]

I would guess the trinovids since they are similarly priced to both. SLC are definitely more expensive but I would assume most people would consider all of these to be mid range quality optics for the manufacturers since there is both cheaper and more expensive options for most of them.

 

[WRO]

Looks like a perfect fit. At this point I am leaning towards the Conquests, even though there is an over whelming number of recommendations for the SLCs. I have found plenty of places where they can be had for around $900 which seems like such a bargain if they are 95% of what SLCs are. Like I said originally I have lots of time, and would like to get the SLCs if I can afford them when the time comes, mostly because so many of you recommend them over the conquests.

The euros/Meostars are head and shoulders above the conquests.

 

[rileybassman]

The euros/Meostars are head and shoulders above the conquests.

idk about head and shoulders... I have used both and agree the euro hd's are better... but maybe only by 5% or so... YMMV

 

[wncbrewer]

I recently got a pair of conquests HD's and love them. I looked very very hard at the SLC's and I agree that they're better. 600-800 bucks better? For me, no, but I think that depends on the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frankrb3]

I recently got a pair of conquests HD's and love them. I looked very very hard at the SLC's and I agree that they're better. 600-800 bucks better? For me, no, but I think that depends on the person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that's the dilemma I am having. I'm convinced that the SLCs are probably a better optic, but are they worth the several hundred dollars more that they typically are. I probably should have titled the poll "which of these two optics are a better value". There's probably a lot of honest guys that would say the Conquests are the better value even though the SLCs are probably a better optic.

 

[elkguide]

I bought my Swarovskis with the intention that they would be a lifetime purchase. I still think that after a LOT of years and as time passes, the cost per year goes down and the enjoyment goes up.

 

[Trial153]

And that's the dilemma I am having. I'm convinced that the SLCs are probably a better optic, but are they worth the several hundred dollars more that they typically are. I probably should have titled the poll "which of these two optics are a better value". There's probably a lot of honest guys that would say the Conquests are the better value even though the SLCs are probably a better optic.

Ok I will bite. I had Conquests in 8x32 and 10x42. I also have SLC's in 10x42 and 8x32 els to give you a frame of reference.

I agree that the Conquests are better value but the SLC's are better glass. I honestly think the Conquests are the best sub 1k glass made right now, and if I was on a tighter budget I would have no problem using them for anything anywhere. I honestly say I never felt them lacking in meaningful anyway.

 

[Matt Cashell]

This info is from another forum and has been my go to for information. I think he also has the same handle on rokslide but this dude knows his stuff.


The CL (Companion) line: This is Swarovski's entry level line. The components are quality BAK4 glass, fully multicoated lens surfaces, and a compact composite body. I have seen these binoculars and think they are really nice ergonomically, but they have a limited field of view, and show noticeable levels of pincushion distortion and chromatic abberration.

The SLC neu line is being phased out. This is the workhorse line from Swarovski. Glass is high-grade BAK4 with Swarovski's excellent trademarked coatings (Swarodur, Swarotop, Swaroclean). Most of the models in this line are very well optimized. They are known for wide sweets spots, deep depth of field, low distortion, and good aberration control.

The EL line was a game-changer in optic design. The EL was the first open bridge binocular design, and left other makers scrambling to copy it. The technology in the ELs is the same as the SLC neu, using the same grades of glass and coatings. The optical designs are a little different, and the images end up a little different as well.

To answer the PM I had that started this post, the differences between the EL and SLC neu are mostly in build design (open bridge vs. piano hinge) Allbinos.com rates the SLC neu 10X42 optically higher than the 10X42 EL in their testing, but it does not take into account the ergonomics of the open bridge. Personally, I think the images are extraordinarily similar, with the EL showing a little more pincushion distortion, field curvature, and edge CA. Both provide world class images.

Now Swarovski has upped the ante with their latest super-performing, super-expensive binoculars. I believe the primary reason they have gone to such lengths and expense is from competition from lower priced binoculars. In any case, the newest Swarovski bins perform at a very high level.

The SLC-HD series is similar in design to the SLC neu, but incorporates flourite glass in the objective. This reduces CA. Allbinos.com seemed to find CA in their test sample, but I have looked at the SLC-HD every chance I have gotten. I don't see it, and I am pretty sensitive to CA. The SLC-HD provides the finest binocular view in the world in my opinion. It has just enough pincushion distortion to avoid the rolling ball effect. IT has little to no field curvature. The result is super high levels of apparent resolution. It is a very impressive instrument. The single birdge design is also very comfortable to me.

The EL Swarovision series is a large, long double bridge design with every bell and whistle. The image in the Swarovision is just like the SLC-HD, except extremely flat. There is no discernable field curvature or distortion, to my eye. I can't see any CA at all. The stable image is just about perfect. The only issue with the Swarovision is the lack of distortion. It is so flat, that the rolling ball is quite pronounced to me when panning. Perhaps with time I owuld become accustomed to it. But, I don't know why I would try it, when the SLC-HD has the same image, with just enough "bend" to ease the rolling ball.

Geez,

The guy you quoted sounds like a real nerd, gilaelkhunt.

 

[elkguide]

Geez,

The guy you quoted sounds like a real nerd, gilaelkhunt.

Nerd???????? Maybe. But solid review and info.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Nerd???????? Maybe. But solid review and info.

Super nerdy, I assure you.

I have adjusted my opinion since I originally posted that in 2012. I did grow accustomed to the EL SV view and don't notice the rolling ball as much, as I mentioned in the Avery Adventures podcast.

 

[frankrb3]

So at this point I am trying to save up for the SLCs. I am convinced that I can get a good pair of Conquests for around $800 at almost any point. Local store even has conquest 8x42s for $679. The SLCs are much harder to find good deals on. Natchez has the older demo version for $1150 which seems like a good deal. Just trying to find the money to blow. Was reading a thread the other day and a gentleman gave the advice "buy the best glass you can afford, even if you cant afford it." I'm about to be $1150 more in debt because of that dude.

 

[frankrb3]

Can anyone tell me the main differences between these two versions of the SLCs? The older ones are the demo ones for sale on natchez. Still can't find out what different about them and if they can take a bino stud.

View attachment 46482

View attachment 46483

 

[Matt Cashell]

The older SLCs are threaded for an adapter. The biggest difference is they show some fringing from chromatic aberration because they don't use fluorite in the objective assemblies.

They are used for comparison to the meostar hd in this review:

Meopta Meostar B1 10X42 HD binocular

 

[frankrb3]

Thanks a lot bitterroot

 

[wncbrewer]

Here's how I rationalized it. I could spend 50ish% more for the slc's for maybe 10% more performance or drop those savings into an out of state tag for the coming year (which is what I did). I'm not saying that the conquests are better, but I am saying that, for me, they are better for the money and I'd rather spend my hard earned money on tags than gear any day.

One man's opinion. It's free and worth every penny.

Cheers..mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Travis Bertrand]

I love my slc. Money well spent. Getting ready to buy my wife a pair.