I know these two bins are quite different animals, and each would have their own strength and weakness. So I will try to explain how I come to this debate and hope to get some feedback here.
Currently I have three binoculars seeing major usage, they are Zeiss Dialyt 7x42, SW SLC 8x56 and Nikon WX 10x50. During last year, the rate of use is ranked as Dialyt>WX>SLC. The use case of WX is obvious, in any trip with purpose of astronomical use / tourism sight seeing, WX is in my backpack. Dialyt on the lighter and tougher side, is normally used in short business trips with no planned sight seeing (small and light), in sailing / kayaking (tough, cost less if damaged by sea salt water), and in range (tough rubber armor). The SLC was bought with in mind of their super relax view and low light capability, but as I don't do hunting and the only low light application I have now rather than astronomical observation is searching my cats in backyard at night...And the other use case is when hiking with my wife, she will take the Dialyt and SLC will be on my neck.
I got a chance to use friend's E2 8x30 for several weeks, which I intended to compare with the Dialyt. But in one occasion I did compare it with my SLC 8x56 too, in daylight. Apart from the SLC being much easier to see through as it has both big exit pupil and long eye-relief, E2 with much bigger FOV (8.8 degree, similar to Dialyt, 8.6 degree, and WX, 9 degree) at 8x did made SLC 8x56 like a tube view (7.6 degree). Obviously E2 is limited in light throughput, but this actually brings up the question in my mind, if the Victory SF 8x42 (8.5 degree) would be a better choice than SLC 8x56 for me, on hiking/ cat searching/ or even short business trips?