Thread: Swarovski slc/el bino

I used both and to be honest couldn't tell the difference..both excellent binoculars...never get sick of looking through swarovski glass.....

Latest SLC's give up nothing in optical quality compared to the EL's, only a few grams in weight. Check the specs on the Swaro website.

ELs. I bought a pair of 8.5x42s about 15 years ago and can’t see a reason to ever change them. The new version is even sharper, but is massively more expensive than what I paid. Perhaps look out for a used pair of older ELs?

That’s what it reads like have you got the slc? I can live with the weight and body construction if performance is on par cheers

I have some older el 8.5x42 ,but I find them too heavy and I m thinking of getting some of their pocket ones (8x25 or 10x25). For bow hunting and bush hunting I don't need more. For years I have used an old pocket pair of zeiss , the glass was excellent but they ended up failing mecanicaly.

[QUOTE=Mathias;999251]Latest SLC's give up nothing in optical quality compared to the EL's, only a few grams in weight. Check the specs on the Swaro

That’s what it reads like have you got the slc? I can live with the weight and body construction if performance is on par cheers

Yeah, I did the comparison and bought SLC instead of the EL. They are great.

Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk

The biggest difference between them is that the EL and SLC are based on two different optical designs, and you may have a preference for one over the other.

The EL incorporates field flattening technology which gives the image a flat/uniform appearance across its entire field. The image appears sharp to the very edges. The benefit of this is that the entire field of view can be utilized, because you can use eye movement alone to 'roam' around the image. The two major drawbacks to this design is that it's not 100% true to life (the world as we see it through our eyes isn't 'dead flat'), and the field flattening can also induce a 'fish bowl/globe' effect when panning. Some people experience it, some don't.

The SLC is a more traditional design, with a big sweet spot in the middle of the image, with the sharpness gradually falling off towards the edges. They're a smidge brighter than the EL's due to the lack of field flattening lenses, and the overall image is more three dimensional/stereosopic than the EL's.

The EL is also more feature rich, which partly contributes to its higher price. I.e an 'open bridge' design (easier to hold one handed); "field pro" strap attachment system (convenience); and close focus (the 8.5x42 model offers this). Because of these refinments, many find the EL to be more user friendly.

The SLC is simpler in it's construction/design which no doubt contributes to its lower price. But many prefer it over the EL, and vice versa.

Whether you need/want the extra features of the EL, or would be happier saving some $$ and going with the more traditional design of the SLC, is up to you.

Originally Posted by Frodo

The biggest difference between them is that the EL and SLC are based on two different optical designs, and you may have a preference for one over the other.

The EL incorporates field flattening technology which gives the image a flat/uniform appearance across its entire field. The image appears sharp to the very edges. The benefit of this is that the entire field of view can be utilized, because you can use eye movement alone to 'roam' around the image. The two major drawbacks to this design is that it's not 100% true to life (the world as we see it through our eyes isn't 'dead flat'), and the field flattening can also induce a 'fish bowl/globe' effect when panning. Some people experience it, some don't.

The SLC is a more traditional design, with a big sweet spot in the middle of the image, with the sharpness gradually falling off towards the edges. They're a smidge brighter than the EL's due to the lack of field flattening lenses, and the overall image is more three dimensional/stereosopic than the EL's.

The EL is also more feature rich, which partly contributes to its higher price. I.e an 'open bridge' design (easier to hold one handed); "field pro" strap attachment system (convenience); and close focus (the 8.5x42 model offers this). Because of these refinments, many find the EL to be more user friendly.

The SLC is simpler in it's construction/design which no doubt contributes to its lower price. But many prefer it over the EL, and vice versa.

Whether you need/want the extra features of the EL, or would be happier saving some $$ and going with the more traditional design of the SLC, is up to you.

Nice write up thanks for that 👍🏻

Originally Posted by Frodo

The biggest difference between them is that the EL and SLC are based on two different optical designs, and you may have a preference for one over the other.

The EL incorporates field flattening technology which gives the image a flat/uniform appearance across its entire field. The image appears sharp to the very edges. The benefit of this is that the entire field of view can be utilized, because you can use eye movement alone to 'roam' around the image. The two major drawbacks to this design is that it's not 100% true to life (the world as we see it through our eyes isn't 'dead flat'), and the field flattening can also induce a 'fish bowl/globe' effect when panning. Some people experience it, some don't.

The SLC is a more traditional design, with a big sweet spot in the middle of the image, with the sharpness gradually falling off towards the edges. They're a smidge brighter than the EL's due to the lack of field flattening lenses, and the overall image is more three dimensional/stereosopic than the EL's.

The EL is also more feature rich, which partly contributes to its higher price. I.e an 'open bridge' design (easier to hold one handed); "field pro" strap attachment system (convenience); and close focus (the 8.5x42 model offers this). Because of these refinments, many find the EL to be more user friendly.

The SLC is simpler in it's construction/design which no doubt contributes to its lower price. But many prefer it over the EL, and vice versa.

Whether you need/want the extra features of the EL, or would be happier saving some $$ and going with the more traditional design of the SLC, is up to you.

@Frodo
Mate - you should get a job as a reviewer of Optics and prob everything else marketed around outdoor field use

Originally Posted by Sarvo

@Frodo
Mate - you should get a job as a reviewer of Optics and prob everything else marketed around outdoor field use

Why? I'm no expert.

Originally Posted by Frodo

Why? I'm no expert.

Thats debatable

Go have a gander through em in the fresh & see what suits you, both are great bino's just don't discount 8 powers, I've got a pair of 8 x 32 EL's & they're awesome

Originally Posted by Philipo

I've got a pair of 8 x 32 EL's & they're awesome

this comment has stuck in my mind, most times I use my 10x42 EL's I wish I had a set of 8x32 EL's in my hand instead

I've got 10x42 Leica Trinovids and Swaro 8x30 SLC's, for open and bush hunting, while not top of range both are good glass. I never look through the x 42's and wish I had the x 30s when in big open country looking for game. I do not buy into the less is more theory with binos or cartridges for that matter. I do buy into the law of diminishing returns though. Best to take the advice offered and look through a few pairs that you think are your top choices.