Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Greetings,
One of my main criteria is that the binos, in addition to astronomy usage, should also be useful for generalist type viewing, like nature.
I thought long and hard about 7x42 Swarovski SLC, it's very steady off-hand as it's main virtue (IMO) but ultimately rejected it and decided to get a 10x50 SLC. I know if I get 7x42, I will always regret that it doesn't really resolve as much as greater powers and that kind of restricts it a bit.
I've always been a Leica person due to their incredible sharpness but once I saw a Swarovski, that changed.
I like 10x50 Swarovski vs. 10x50 Leica Trinovid or the Ultravid because Swaro has more eye relief (17mm vs. 15mm) and even more importantly, more focus overdrive past infinity. I am terribly myopic (about -5.25 diopters equal in both eyes) and the Trinovids, as great as they are, cannot be used without eyeglasses in my case, the focus just doesn't move far enough for me, regretfully so as they are great glass.
I also have a 8.5x42 Swarovski EL and it's great for general type viewing and OK for but probably not the best for astronomy. The main thing I like about it, I can use it without eyeglasses as it has 6D of focus overdrive past infinity. I assume 10x50 Swarovski SLC can also be adjusted to 6D of override past infinity.
Anyway, question --- would the heft and size of 10x50 Swarovski SLC make it more stable versus say, a lighter 10x42 EL or Trinovid? I don't have direct experience with a 10x50 glass.
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
etc ,
I don't know how important it is to you that you get a 10x binocular with 50mm objectives , as opposed to 42mm , but for all round use , the Nikon 10 x 42 SE is a fine performer , with plenty of eye - relief , generous diopter range and is very lightweight compared with the Swarovski SLCs .
Of course , you will know very well not be tempted by binoculars with individual eyepiece focus for all - round use , but if your intended purpose was exclusively to use them for astronomy , the Fujinon FMTSX 10 x 50 would surely be foremost in your thoughts ? :-)
Sorry if my suggestion hinders rather than helps your choice here , but just thought it worth mentioning :-)
Good Luck !
Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
For nature viewing I personally wouldn't go with a binocular with individually focussing eyepieces, like the Fujinon.
On the original question, I am of the opinion that what hurts most 10x50 binoculars for hand-held use, is their too light weight. Selecting a light weight binocular makes sense at 8x, but, to me, not anymore at 10x.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Swaro 10x50 SLC is about 42 oz, I am not sure if that's considered heavy or light. I think it's heavy compared to 8x42. But I suppose it's pretty light compared to some of these high-powered binoculars like 20x80.
I would be gaining 1.5x power over the Swaro EL but also a bigger objective.
Re: FUJINON 10 X 50 FMT-SX porro --- sounds interesting. I really want a roof prism design, but this one looks to be 1/2 to 1/3 of the cost of an equivalent roof design, and probably just as bright if not brighter (fewer elements to deal with)
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10146
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Mark's comment above just to go show how different we can all be with regard to certain aspects of binoculars .
The Nikon 10 x 42 SE only weighs 24 ounces , and for ME that is a GOOD thing !
When I'm handholding binoculars , 24 ounces is about the heaviest I'd LIKE them to be !
I certainly don't experience anything I would consider disadvantageous as a result of their " lack of " weight -- in fact far from it -- as far as ergonomics go , give me those any day ahead of the chunky Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50 I have , for example !
B.T.W , etc and Mark , I certainly didn't ADVOCATE selecting the I.F Fujis for DAYTIME use -- quite to the contrary if you read my above post carefully :-)
Regards , Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
pcad
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 1501
Loc: Connecticut
|
|
Hi etc,
Most roof prisms are not as bright as equivalent porro designs for a bunch of reasons. Number of elements isn't one of them. The two most common roof designs have the same number of elements as porro designs, that being 2 elements on both tubes.
The reasons for the differences are:
Roof prisms need good phase correction coatings to decrease destructive interference.
If a roof design uses a mirrored surface it loses some light compared to a porro design which uses only total internal reflectance.
The roof edge may scatter some light. Porro prisms are not roof prisms and don't have this edge to worry about.
There are some roof prism designs which are very, very good and would be nearly as good as an equivalent quality porro design, but not better. Roof prism designs that are this good are also rather expensive compared to Porro designs.
The roof designs DO have advantages of smaller size and lighter weight in the 63 mm size and smaller binoculars.
Peter
--------------------
Peter
Telescopes 25 - 318 mm
Binoculars 15 - 88 mm
Microscope 50x - 1000x
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
pcad,
I knew that roofs weren't as bright as porros, but I didn't understand the real reason why, thanks for shedding some light on it. wikipedia has interesting entries on porro and roof prism designs.
In any case, I am fascinated with the Swarovski SLC 10x50. I don't really have an astronomical binocular. I think I could use it for both astronomy and more. I have a feeling the view is better than 10x42.
I noticed Swaro came out with the "Neu" hydrophobic coating on SLC (and also a higher price tag)
Never tried Ultravid 10x50, especially the new "HD" also with the hydrophobic coating, but if this coating is anything like Swarovski's "Neu" or "easy-clean" then it's a great feature (however at a significant price increase over non-HD). In my experience, "Neu" doesn't really repel water, thus it's not really hydrophobic but is much eaiser to clean and dirt doesn't stick to it, with the added benefit of being harder to scratch, IME. Great feature.
My first choice in a 10x roof would be Leica, with the exception that, incredibly enough, they still don't build enough focus overdrive into it so that myopic users like myself cannot use them without eyeglasses. I think they go to about 4 or 4.5 diopters of focus overdrive past infinity. The Ultravid seems to be just an upgraded Trinovid with a lighter body and different, brighter coatings, not a fundamentally new design like Swarovski EL. (This is not a problem pe se, as the original Trinovid was, and still is a fantastic design) I just wish I could use Leicas without eyeglasses. When you view the sky, you need to hold the binoculars in place for extended periods of time, versus having to take them of/put them on constantly, not practical when viewing nature for example.
With Swaro EL, it has the dual advantage of having 2mm more Eye Relief than 10x50 Leica, *and* more focus overdrive. Thus, I get a better picture both with and without eyeglasses.
|
Luigi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 2054
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
For me 10x shakes too much compared to 8x. In my experience, heavier bins slow down the shakes,but don't lessen the amplitude, and they are more tiring to hold. For general purpose use I favor 8x32 or 8x42. For astro use where I use a tripod or can lie down, 10x50 works well. I also find the quality of the binoculars to be more important for daytime use. Less expensive binoculars can work very well for astro use.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT, Eon-120ED
Lunt 60mm single etalon HA
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
One each generic rescue Greyhound (pictured)
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
Etc.,
You didn't initally ask about the 10x50 Fujinon, but the subject has come up, and as a user, I agree that it is a fantastic glass FOR ASTRONOMY--extremely bright, pinpoint sharp, and with probably the flattest, best corrected field of any binocular made. And at a good price, yet! But terrestrially, I can't recommend it. 10x takes a lot of focusing, not easy with the individual eyepiece adjustments, and especially while holding up 3 pounds. It is not very resistant to bright light just outside the field of view, a problem if you go birding at dusk and are looking into deep shadows near the bright horizon. And, compared to it's tried and true 7x50 sibling, daytime images don't look quite as razor sharp and color saturated. It does, however, have 5 diopters of adjustment marked both + and -, another one at least if you go off scale.
But, honestly, I don't think you need a 10x50 when you already have a top drawer 8.5x42. Such a small jump doesn't seem worthwhile. As far as the shakes, they bother me a lot worse by night than by day. If you're really worried about the shakes, stop right there at 8.5x. A fun view that shows less is to be preferred to a not fun view that shows more. If you are willing to tolerate more shake for more resolution by day, and willing to look at the sky seated in a chair with armrests, you might consider the much-lauded 12x50 Nikon SE. Now that would be an interesting, if not altogether easy to manage, jump.
Ron
PS The 8.5x42 is intended to be the ideal compromise. Compromise can be, well, compromising. You'd like to move down a little and up a little too, but it just isn't worth it.
|
hallelujah
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 1660
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mt. High
|
|
Quote:
I also have a 8.5x42 Swarovski EL and it's great for general type viewing and OK for but probably not the best for astronomy. The main thing I like about it, I can use it without eyeglasses as it has 6D of focus overdrive past infinity. I assume 10x50 Swarovski SLC can also be adjusted to 6D of override past infinity.
Anyway, question --- would the heft and size of 10x50 Swarovski SLC make it more stable versus say, a lighter 10x42 EL or Trinovid? I don't have direct experience with a 10x50 glass.
etc,
The 2008 Swarovski catalog shows, on paper, the EL 8.5x42mm with a diopter compensation of + or - 3, and the SLC 10x50mmWB as having the same.
The SLC 10x42mmWB & the 15x56mmWB both have a diopter compensation of + or - 5.
On paper, it would seem that the 10x42mm would be better, overall, for your eyes than the 10x50mm.
As far as the stability of the 10x42mm vs. the 10x50mm, due to additional weight, I have found that the SLC's seem to balance very nicely in my hands, so much so that I would be inclined to go with a 15x56mm, myself. You would need to try one out, in person, and see for yourself just how well they balance in your own hands.
The only negative that I observed was that the listed IPD of 59-72mm, for the 15x56mm, did not seem to be that narrow in reality. I have an IPD of 63mm and the 15x56mm that I tried in the store would not close narrow enough for me.
--------------------
Pentax 12x50mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 16x60mm PCF WP FMC/WP/FP
Pentax 20x60mm PCF WP II FMC/WP/FP
Orion 12x63mm Mini Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 15x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 16x80mm Giant FMC/JAPAN
Orion 20x70mm Little Giant II FMC/JAPAN
Orion 30x80mm MEGAView FMC/JAPAN
Barska 30x80mm X-Trail LW FC
Burgess Optical Series II 20x90mm FMC/WP/FP
Handel's Messiah**Hallelujah! For the LORD God Omnipotent Reigneth
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
ronharper ,
What you say makes sense, I agree that going from 8.5x42 to 10x50 is not a big jump.
Problem is, I am afraid of going any higher than 10x because it will cease to be a generalist type bino and become strictly an astronomy bino. IMO anything above 10x needs a tripod. Even 10x50 might need a tripod to be effective.
So I might just decide on a 12x50 and get a tripod. One thing that would concern me about 12x50, in addition to increased shake, is smaller exit pupil size of about 4mm requiring a more precise placement. Plus, less eye relief, meaning a smaller effective FOV. I generally like 18mm of ER.
8x or 8.5x42 is a pretty good generalist bino configuration, that does everything "OK" but does not excel at anything..
hallelujah
Quote:
The 2008 Swarovski catalog shows, on paper, the EL 8.5x42mm with a diopter compensation of + or - 3, and the SLC 10x50mmWB as having the same
Yeah, I saw that... I am not looking for diopter correction though, as my eyes have equally bad myopia. Thus, I set the diopter correction to 0 on all my binos. What I need is generous focus range, well past infinity so I can use them without eyeglasses. I need about 6D of override, having -5.25D in both eyes. Swaro EL, for example has 5.5D of overdrive and is just barely enough.
I am assuming that 10x50 SLC and 7x42 SLC both can do 5.5 to 6D of focus past infinity but I am not real sure.
Thanks for your comments on IPD. I am not sure what mine is, but it's smaller than average and it might become an issue with some of them.
I usually buy binos used and online but there are times where it pays to try things out in person. Like Leica, for example - great glass but impossible to use without eyeglasses, if you got serious myopia more than -4D. Zeiss on the other hand can accomodate about 7D of focus override.
|
Mark9473
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/21/05
Posts: 2699
Loc: 51°N 4°E
|
|
Quote:
smaller exit pupil size of about 4mm requiring a more precise placement.
I don't think that's correct. You'd only need ultra-precise placement if the exit pupil matches the eye pupil. In astronomical viewing where the eye pupil is say 6 mm, an exit pupil of 4 mm is actually easier to position than one of 5 mm.
Of course someone will argue that to minimize the eye's aberrations you need to center the exit pupil on the eye pupil, but then it's not anymore a discussion about 4 mm compared to 5 mm.
--------------------
Mark
Leica 8x20; Vixen 8x42; Swift 8.5x44, 10x50 and 20x80; TS 7x50; Orion 15x63
WO Megrez II 80 FD + Baader 90° T2 Amici
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
etc,
I can understand, you like glass and, and want to optimize, not compromise.
From what people say (I haven't used one) if anything, the 12x50 has too much eye relief. Search around for recent comments about this, or maybe EdZ or some other users will join in.
I have seen where birders who like 10x50s are highly impressed by the Swarovski:10x50 SLC.
Resident expert Holger Merlitz has compared another top 10x50 roof, a Leica, to the tanklike Fujinon: 10x50 German Lesson .
And, completing the dizzying round robin, there's this discussion among some birders: SLC vs Leica 10x50.
And don't forget Zeiss and Kowa!
Ron
PS. I'll be joining the roof club soon, or at least my wife will, with a 8.5x42 EL that's supposed to arrive tomorrow. I hope she lets me take a peek.
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12581
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
These two were mentioned above
Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 and Nikon SE 10x42
Comparing optical and a bit of ergonomic qualities in these two:
The Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 beats the Nikon SE10x42 hands down for astronomy,
The Nikon SE 10x42 beats the Fujinon hands down for terrestrial use.
FujinonFMT-SX 10x50
has 42% greater light gathering than SE10x42
has 6.7° fov vs 10x42SE 6.2° fov
can see 1 arcmin resolution out to 95% of fov vs 10x42SE only to 85%
has 4mm shorter usable and therefore easier to use eye relief than SE10x42
sees several tenths magnitude fainter than the SE
has significantly better internal beam transfer than the SE
has significantly better illuminance of exit pupil than the SE
has less curvature than the SE
coatings are about equal, no discernable difference
baffles in both are excellent
stars in both are perfectly pinpoint
both have nearly equal normal power resolution 8.1 arcsec line pairs
both show minor off-axis color fringe in daylight, the Fujinon in true Fuji fashion is quite blue, the SE is green/purple.
Optically, the Fujinon FMT-SX beats out the Nikon SE 10x42
but there are reasons why especially birders would choose the SE10x42
Nikon SE 10x42
Has minimum IPD of 53mm vs Fuji 57mm
Weighs only 24 oz. vs Fuji 49 oz.!
Has close focus of 13 feet vs Fuji 50 ft
has 17mm usable eyerelief, a bit too long making eye placement tricky.
From 30m to 100m the Nikon SE 10x42 is fast focus, the Fuji is IF.
(However from 30m to 3m, the SE10x42 is one of the slowest focusing I’ve tested.)
The SE has slightly greater pincushion, probably helps eliminate the rolling ball effect
SE has significantly better hand held resolution 11.5 arcsec line pairs vs 12.9 for the Fujinon
Because it has slightly more curvature has slightly better apparent depth of field
For astronomy, the Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 is probably the finest binocular I've ever used. Not the most powerful, the finest. Closely rivaled by the Nikon SE 12x50. But I would pick the Nikon SE10x42 as the best choice of a cross-over binocular.
Typically, better 8x binoculars see about 1/2 magnitude less than a good 10x50. The Fujinon FMT-SX 10x50 sees 0.3 to 1/2 magnitude deeper than the next best 10x50s. So typically, the FMT10x50 sees about 0.7 to a full magnitude deeper than the best 8x40/42s. No 8x binocular comes close to the normal power resolution of the FMT10x50, whether mounted or handheld(mounted 8.1 arcsec for the Fuji vs 10.3 for the best 8s) and (handheld 12.9 arcsec for the Fujinon vs 14.5 arcsec for the best 8s). However, when you take into consideration that at 8x, none of them should ever be able to equal a 10x,and should only be able to resolve 80% of a 10x, more than half of a dozen 8s tested equalled or exceed the resolution of the FMT10x50.
The Nikon SE12x50 has only fractional gains over the FMT-SX 10x50.
edz
Small Binocular Reports: Three Families
the Nikon SEs, the Fujinon FMT-SXs and the Nikon Action Extremes.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
Edited by EdZ (04/15/08 11:37 AM)
|
Bruce MacDonald
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/12/06
Posts: 1019
Loc: Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
|
|
I've yet to try the Fujinons but if they are even better for astronomy than the 12x50 SEs, which are a super pair of bins judging by my brief experience with them, then perhaps I ought to think about the Fujis...hmmm.... 
I'm sure they're worth every penny.
--------------------
Bruce MacDonald
Devizes, Wiltshire, UK
Per Mare Per Terras
Viz Top Tip: Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
ronharper,
Whether a bino has too much ER or not, depends on whether you are using eyeglasses or not.
Eyeglasses users are sensitive to ER. I like about 18mm. If you don't have eyewear, that might be entirely too much.
Case in point, Swaro EL 8.5x42, while it has a stunning "wow" view every time, suffers from this very problem. I use with eyeglasses about 50% of the time, but the other 50%, without and was getting blackouts. It's not that it had too much ER, rather the eyecups were to shallow and did not go up high enough to compensate for this 18mm ER.
I had to solve this problem by getting eyecups from Swaro 8x50 SLC, which are designed for 21mm of ER but in actuality work very well with 8.5x42EL.
Picture-- 21mm eyecups on the left, stock EL eyecups on the right (supposedly 18mm ER eyecups)
To further complicate things, the actual ER figures are often different from stated ones.
|
ronharper
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/06
Posts: 1006
|
|
etc.,
Thanks for the tip about the 8x50 SLC eyecups, a much neater solution than stacking O-rings and the like. Funny though, I tried the EL and similar Zeiss and Leicas in a store, and the EL is the only one that did not suffer from blackouts, and had the most comfortable eyecups too. I guess the way one's face is built makes the difference. Blackout also seems to depend on lighting conditions/pupil opening, so time will tell. It's really for my wife. Do or do I not instruct her in the fine art of finding faults in an expensive binocular? What a moral quandry! I HOPE that I don't end up using it.
At the moment we're still part of the Porro-prismed mass. UPS needed a signature and we were at work (ironic isn't it, how else is one supposed to buy stuff?), so no EL. Tomorrow hopefully!
Ron
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Ron,
Yeah, try it - you may find that the stock EL eyecups suit you just fine, but they were just a bit too short for me. I even too measurements.
Stock Trinovid eyecups raise about 0.45" (just about right, and Leica has shorter ER!)
Stock EL eyecups raise about 0.355" (not enough!)
8x50SLC eyecups raise about 0.505"
So I take 8x50SLC eyecups, extend them all the way, and very slightly twist them down to get the absolutely best ER for me. When I measured *that* distance, it came out to be 0.455", or exactly what Leica had known all along.
I sent an email to Swaro engineers to design a better eyecup, longer, and with click-stops. It's a good thing Swaro's eyecups are upgradable, while Leica's aren't. In fact, you cannot even remove Trinovid eyecups on your own.
Picture: This is what a properly extended eyecups looks like on Trinovid. While it only has two positions - up and down, I find that the "up" gives perfect ER so if you don't wear eyeglasses, you use it like that. (With me, the problem is, the focus range doesn't accomodate my severe myopia and I ultimately cannot use the Trinovid with eyecups extended and have to resort to glasses-only, but with Swaro does adjust its focus enough)
Back on topic, Swaro 10x50 should be better than Leica 10x50, for two reasons, (1) It has better ER (2) it has greater focus past infinity -- none of which really matter for users with great eyesight, but greatly matter to users with myopia - the former while wearing eyeglasses, the latter while not wearing eyeglasses.
|
Swedpat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/18/05
Posts: 1033
Loc: Boden, Sweden, Scandinavia
|
|
Hi,
Today I mounted my Swarovski SLCnew 7x42 and became very pleased. It's a great binocular to handhold, but, as with all binoculars, even better with a completely stable view. The long eye relief, large exit pupil and large sweet spot in combination to the wide field of view makes this binocular just awesome and comfortable to use.
But of course a higher magnification will provide more details. Even the cheap "junk-priced" Bresser "Lidl bargain" 10x50 beats the SLC 7x42 in this respect. No strange at all, because noteven the sharpest available glass with 7x will compensate for that much higher image scale as 10x.
THEN I IMAGINED WHAT THE SLC 10x50 WOULD DO! It just has to be extremely awesome...including awesome HEAVY!
The weight is 200g higher than the 7x42 and the instrument is larger sized, making the point of weight to be more distant from the face. Yes, the holding comfortability of the SLC 7x42 is surely one of the best of all binoculars. But would I withstand the weight? Even the 7x42 feels heavier than I expected. I don't know yet...
Regards, Patric
--------------------
*2,3x40 Constellation View Wide-Bino
*Leupold 6x30 Yosemite
*Leupold Katmai 6x32
*Swarovski SLCNew 7x42B
*Bresser (Lidl) 10x50
*Oberwerk 11x70
*No name (Kunming) 15x70
*Scopos ED APO 66
*Meade 5000 26mm Plössl, Vixen LV 10/5mm
Psalm 19:2
|
etc
member
Reged: 01/27/08
Posts: 40
|
|
Thanks for the report.
Yet another reason why I like Swarovski over Leica... Swaro can be mounted on a Tripod.
To be perfectly honest, the entire SLC line is one generation behind, maybe not as behind as the Trinovid line of Leica. But, 7x42 at 33oz? (Zeiss 7x42 is much lighter) The body is not magnesium alloy for weight savings, and I don't think it has the latest coatings of the EL line. The close-up focus is not that good, although I personally don't care about that. The "Neu" coating is really welcome however.
Having said that, being aware that SLC is not the latest and greatest, I was thinking about 7x42 SLC because of the generous eye relief. I find it more useful overall than anything from Leica, due to greater focus range.
|
|
5 registered and 16 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1803
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 