Swarovski 10x42 SLC vs. Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD

[Newtosavage]

Finally! I have managed to own both of my "wish list" binoculars, at the same time. Christmas definitely came early for me this year.

I've wondered for a long time, probably like a lot of folks, just how much better the SLC's really are vs. the Conquest HD's - a binocular I get along with really well. IMO the Conquest HD is the top of the heap for $1K binocs. There are others in it's price range that are smaller, or lighter, or have a wider field of view, but IMO the combination of image quality, robust build, warranty and service, fit in the hand, fit of the eyecups and butter smooth, quick focus wheel really work well for me personally. Conquest HD's have been my "benchmark" binocs since they first came out against which I compared every other pair I owned (and that's a lot of pairs of binoculars over the years).

So along comes this good deal on some Swaro's and that set up this high stakes, winner takes all and loser gets a new home, head-to-head.

Right out of the gate, I can say the Zeiss wins the packaging contest. I like the Zeiss case with the hinged top and outside buckle much better than the more conventional double zipper lid on the Swaro case. It's not bad, but it's not nearly as quick and handy as the Zeiss case, plus the Zeiss case has a small mesh pocket in the lid to store things like tripod mount studs, lens cloth, etc. The Swaro case only has an open pocket on the outside of the case which is really good for losing things. It also requires two hands to open with the zippers, as opposed to one-hand operation (and quick!) with the Zeiss bag.

Fit in the hand goes to the SLC. They are both extremely solid feeling, with the Zeiss being 28 oz. and the Swaro's being 27. However the SLC's are a little more compact, and the curved barrel fits my hand a little better than the straighter tube of the Conquest. Having said that, I have no issues at all with the shape and feel of the Conquest. Of the $1K binoculars out there, it is my favorite in the hands for fit, balance and grip. But the SLC has it beat in this area.

One thing the Conquests have that really works for me is the fit of the eyecups. I have deep eye sockets and a large nose bridge. Binoculars with large flat eyecups (which seems to be the trend?) just don't work for me. But the Conquests fit into my eye sockets like they were made for them. Once I asked Zeiss to send me the extended eyecups to match the eye relief, the eyecups are just darn near perfect on the Conquests. Having said that, the SLC eyecups are just darn near perfect right out of the box, without any modifications. And the SLC's extend and retract more easily, without being too easy to move. They also fit more flush when down, which opens up more usable field of view for eyeglass wearers or - as I often do - when glassing on a tripod. I don't have to get my face as close to the SLC's as I do the Conquests, which is a plus for long glassing sessions. The Zeiss are really good in this area, but the SLC's are a hair better.

Finally, the diopter adjustment on the Zeiss is the conventional ring under the Right eyepiece, with no clicks, detents or a lock. Initially I was concerned about this but it has not moved at all since I set it, and that was before I drug it through a lot of brush, climbed trees, and threw it under the seat of my truck a few dozen times. But, the diopter adjustment on the SLC is pretty slick. You pull up the focus wheel, it clicks while you adjust it, and then you push back down the focus wheel once it's set. Easy peasy and no chance of it moving. So while the Zeiss diopter works just fine, I like the SLC's a little better.

So enough about the exterior. What about the view? Well, to my eyes, the only thing the SLC's have on the Conquest HD's is that they are a hair brighter. Other than that, the view looks identical to me. Both are tack sharp, have great depth of field, and despite having slightly different specs on the field of view, they look identical to me. Honestly, in bright conditions I would be just as happy to use either binocular for days or weeks at a time. I have 20/10 vision, so if someone can see more detail with one of these than the other, they have really, really good eyes! To me, it's too close to care. BUT, the brightness is what I was after when I pulled the trigger on the SLC's and it appears they won't disappoint. I'll have them out in a deer blind this weekend and will really have a chance to see how they "shine" compared to the Conquests. If they are as bright as my 8x42 Bushnell Legend M's (the binocular equivalent of the "plastic fantastic" IMO) then I will be pretty happy as those are the brightest binoculars I've owned.

I've never been sensitive to CA and frankly don't ever want anyone to point it out to me because ignorance is bliss. And I'm not as knowledgeable about optical qualities as many here, so I won't try to compare flat fields, pincushion distortion or talk about a rolling ball effect (although I have seen that on a few pairs and I know I didn't like it). I'll leave that talk to the experts.

The other aspect of the view I always look for is the color. To me, that can make a big difference in whether an optic is pleasing to the eyes or not. Some binocs tend to look neutral in color while others seem to have a blue, yellow or red tint. To my eyes, Nikon's slightly warm optics are the most pleasant to look through. I fell in love with the view from my old beat up pair of Nikon Premier LX-L's when I had them. If those binocs could accept a tripod adapter, I'd still own them. Every Zeiss and Swaro I've ever looked through tend to have a slight blue or cool tint, and both of these are no exception. I think it helps make them appear brighter, the way blue UV brightners make your white shirts "appear" whiter even though they probably aren't. It's easy to get used to though, and of the two, I'd say the SLC's have the slightly more neutral color of the two. but it's very slight.

So what's the downside of the SLC? It's compact, sharp, bright and has the potential to gain value over time, unlike just about any other binocular. Easy - the crappy focus wheel. LOL I mean seriously Swaro, the focus wheel on my $175 Sightron Blue Skys kick this thing's butt! The Zeiss EASILY wins in this area, as the Conquest focus wheel is one of the best I've ever used. Super fast and butter smooth with just enough tension to do it's job. The SLC's focus wheel is sticky and slow by comparison and both pairs I've owned tend to stick right where you use them the most. Grrrrrr. This is very frustrating for such an otherwise awesome optic. I sure wish Swaro would fix this. Maybe they could get some help from Simmons or Bushnell at the next Photokina or SHOT show.

Well, now it's off to the field to put them to use on an evening hunt. I'll update as I have the chance. Things don't look good for the Zeiss, but as I said, they have been my benchmark bins for many years, so it's going to take a pretty good effort to unseat them from their throne.

 

[realunlucky]

I owned the conquests before moving to the slc's. I think they were an improvement for me

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Grumman]

I love my SLCs. You are definitely correct about room for improvement on the focus wheel being smoother though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

In comparing these two the primary difference to me was depth of focus. The reason I sold my conquests was because they have a shallow depth of focus and I found it irritating when glassing on a tripod to be constantly adjusting the focus wheel for the slightest movements.

That and the eyecups (which I always left all the way in) cracked twice.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I've never noticed an issue with the focus wheel on my slc binos.

 

[Newtosavage]

Had a chance for some real world application this evening. I brought all my hunting bins to the deer blind - the Swaros, the Zeiss and the "plastic fantastic" Bushnell Legend M 8x42's.

First thing I noticed is that the focus wheel on the SLC's is so close to my face that I kept trying to focus the bridge with my gloved fingers! LOL I'm not used to it being that close to my face. The Zeiss focus wheel was right where I expected it (but I'm used to it by now) and of course smooth as silk, despite the cool temperatures. The Legend M's continue to impress with their image quality and yes, ergonomics. One would think that such a huge binocular would be awkward but it's actually a joy to use in the hand. If only the focus wheel wasn't so stiff, I would probably use them all the time for hunting whitetails. They are still the brightest of the three, although they are 8's instead of 10's like the other two.

I had the chance to observe a bobcat across the field for a good 20 minutes this evening. He was at 230 yards according to my rangefinder and gave me great looks as he sat and cleaned himself and rolled in the grass. Resting the two 10x on the blind, I had to admit after a little while that the Zeiss had the more pleasing image of the two although a hair darker. So long as there is enough light, the Zeiss has a tiny bit better resolution (could see whiskers on the bobcat with the Zeiss but not with the Swaros) and better contrast. The blacks are just blacker and the whole scene looks a little "punchier" if you know what I mean.

However about 30 minutes after sunset is when the Swaros took over, as I expected they would. At very, very last light, I would definitely grab the Swaros if I needed to count points or confirm a deer was a doe, spike or legal buck.

I had the chance to view that bobcat for a good while, then a group of does for about 20-30 minutes at a range of 150-300 yards. It was overcast and drizzling rain/sleet - exactly the kinds of conditions that will test optics in a hunting situation.

Like I said, I'm going to have a hard time giving up my Conquests but I'm going to give these Swaros a few weeks before I decide for sure. The main thing that was throwing me this evening was the location of the focus wheel. I kept reaching in the wrong place. I suppose that's something I'd get used to though.

Finally, I have to believe that the magnification of the Swaro's is slightly greater than that of the Zeiss. When I had all three side by side, if I didn't know better I would say the Bushnells were 8's, the Zeiss were 9's and the Swaro's were 10 power. I kept going back and forth, and they definitely fall in that order.

View attachment 83040


- - - Updated - - -

I've never noticed an issue with the focus wheel on my slc binos.

You're lucky. Both the ones I've owned now - these and a pair about 3 years ago - have had the same sticky/jumpy action. Honestly, I think the edge of the focus wheel is catching on the rubber armoring. I may have to take an exacto knife and relieve some of the armoring just to see if that's not the issue. I can't see a space between them though.

 

[realunlucky]

My focus wheel also isn't what I'd expect from Swarovski but it is acceptable. Where I "saw" the greatest improvement was when looking into the shadows for bedded deer. Most cheaper binoculars won't let you see into the darkness with the conquests I could see into it a bit but wow the SLC really took it to another level.


Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Xlr8n]

The SLC's are on my 'want' list. The ulitmate hunting bino imho.

 

[Newtosavage]

Did an experiment with my wife and daughter this morning, just to see what they would choose. I laid out all my binoculars and didn't tell them how much any of them cost. Neither of them picked the Swaros, although my wife did describe them as "light in the hand" (they are the heaviest of all five. LOL) My wife picked my Bushnell Legend M 8x42's as her favorite, and ranked the Zeiss 4th behind the Swaros and her old Leupold Acadias. My daughter agreed with me that the resolving power of the Zeiss appeared to be a hair better, and chose those over the Swaros, but she did agree the Swaros are a tiny bit brighter. She still would rather use the Zeiss though.

So, 2 out of 3 non-biased reviewers so far have not chosen the Swaro SLC. Go figure. What the hell do we all know anyway?

 

[wyoguy]

I upgraded to the conquests last year they fit me better than the slc's when I as doing my tests, had focus issues with the slc's. Swarovski has a better warranty/customer service from what others say than zeiss.

 

[Newtosavage]

So far my one call to Zeiss to get the extended eyecups was beyond helpful. They had the eyecups in my mailbox in 4 days, no questions asked and emailed me tracking information. Shipped them free and I bought the binoculars from the used dept. of Adorama (and told the Zeiss dealer as much).

Took the Swaros out this evening and they did pretty good. I can get used to the smaller size. Still not sure I can get used to that darn focus wheel though. It is sticky/choppy right where I use it most. That is a darn shame. The Zeiss focus wheel sure has me spoiled rotten.

 

[Researcher]

So far my one call to Zeiss to get the extended eyecups was beyond helpful. They had the eyecups in my mailbox in 4 days, no questions asked and emailed me tracking information. Shipped them free and I bought the binoculars from the used dept. of Adorama (and told the Zeiss dealer as much).

Took the Swaros out this evening and they did pretty good. I can get used to the smaller size. Still not sure I can get used to that darn focus wheel though. It is sticky/choppy right where I use it most. That is a darn shame. The Zeiss focus wheel sure has me spoiled rotten.

Have your SLCs always been bought new? If nkt id consider sending them in to be checked out and cleaned. I bought a used pair at a pawn shop and the focus wheel was not smooth but had a “gritty” feel. I sent them in and now its as smooth as it can be.

 

[Newtosavage]

Both pairs were used when I bought them. Both have the exact same feel. If I do decide to keep the Swaros, I'm definitely sending them in to see what can be done. Other than the location of the focus wheel being too close to my face IMO, the sticky action is really the only criticism I have of these binoculars. If they had the Zeiss focus wheel and location, I'd have nothing to complain about.

- - - Updated - - -

Welp, I thought it over and I just plain like the Zeiss better. I'm willing to give up a tiny amount of light gathering for a more pleasing image and better focus wheel. I think I'll just be happier with the Zeiss in the long run.

2nd time is a charm I guess. I wanted to confirm what I thought about the SLC's when I owned a pair 3 years ago. Yup, same conclusion.

 

[timberbuck]

Both pairs were used when I bought them. Both have the exact same feel. If I do decide to keep the Swaros, I'm definitely sending them in to see what can be done. Other than the location of the focus wheel being too close to my face IMO, the sticky action is really the only criticism I have of these binoculars. If they had the Zeiss focus wheel and location, I'd have nothing to complain about.

- - - Updated - - -

Welp, I thought it over and I just plain like the Zeiss better. I'm willing to give up a tiny amount of light gathering for a more pleasing image and better focus wheel. I think I'll just be happier with the Zeiss in the long run.

2nd time is a charm I guess. I wanted to confirm what I thought about the SLC's when I owned a pair 3 years ago. Yup, same conclusion.

The focus on the Conquest is too fast and the depth of field pales in comparison to the SLC. The Conquest HD is not in the same class of binocular overall as the SLC.

The SLC is brighter, has better CA control, has truer colors and is much easier and faster to obtain perfect focus. No contest.

I'm not a Swarovski fanboy but feel I must set things straight when I see them.

Here is a list of binoculars I have owned and compared.

Leica Untravid HD plus 10x50
Swarovski EL swarovision 10x42
Zeiss Victory HT 10x42
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42
Swarovski SLC 10x42 (current)
Swarovski 8.5x42 EL Swarovison
Zeiss Victory FL 10x42
Zeiss Conquest HD
Styrka S9 10x42
Many others over the years

The focus mechanism as stated is not perfect on the SLC I agree but the binocular is as good or better optically than anything I have compared it to (10x42) and better without question than any of the $1000 class options like the Conquest HD and Nikon Monarch HG. My Zeiss HT's and EL Swarovisions could not beat it optically.

 

[YBPS]

SLC all the way

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

In comparing these two the primary difference to me was depth of focus. The reason I sold my conquests was because they have a shallow depth of focus and I found it irritating when glassing on a tripod to be constantly adjusting the focus wheel for the slightest movements.

That and the eyecups (which I always left all the way in) cracked twice.

At what ranges? I have the 8x and don't tend to need to adjust them often and I glass off a tripod almost all the time. Not saying the swaro's aren't better (I haven't used them), just saying I don't tend to loose focus on my 8x often but I'm glassing open country. Closer in may be an issue?

Once I asked Zeiss to send me the extended eyecups to match the eye relief, the eyecups are just darn near perfect on the Conquests.

Do you just mean some replacements of the same style on there or do they have alternate eye cups?

My main complaint on them is the eye cups start getting sticky over time, not sure if there is a recommended way to clean the grit out that must be getting in there or just call them for new ones, I cracked one on my 15x in the past, my 8x haven't cracked but one is starting to get sticky after a couple seasons. But in general for the price point you can get them used/on sale they're nice glass for the money and I find more enjoyable over lower tier stuff (IE worth the extra money).

 

[Newtosavage]

At what ranges? I have the 8x and don't tend to need to adjust them often and I glass off a tripod almost all the time. Not saying the swaro's aren't better (I haven't used them), just saying I don't tend to loose focus on my 8x often but I'm glassing open country. Closer in may be an issue?



Do you just mean some replacements of the same style on there or do they have alternate eye cups?

My main complaint on them is the eye cups start getting sticky over time, not sure if there is a recommended way to clean the grit out that must be getting in there or just call them for new ones, I cracked one on my 15x in the past, my 8x haven't cracked but one is starting to get sticky after a couple seasons. But in general for the price point you can get them used/on sale they're nice glass for the money and I find more enjoyable over lower tier stuff (IE worth the extra money).

They are the same style eyecups, but they have a third "out" position that makes them taller than the stock eyecups, and at least to my eyes, matches the eye relief better. If I wore glasses, the original eyecups would be fine but I'm glad I have these new ones. They really take the viewing experience to the next level for me.

The SLC is brighter, has better CA control, has truer colors and is much easier and faster to obtain perfect focus. No contest.

I'm not a Swarovski fanboy but feel I must set things straight when I see them.

Not sure what makes you feel you're "setting things straight." You make it sound like some great injustice has been done. Optics don't work that way my friend. As someone else has said "we all bring our own lenses to the game" - meaning we're all going to see things a little differently through each pair of binoculars. That's why my wife chose the "lowly" Legend M's over both my Zeiss and Swaro's. To her eyes, they just produced a better image. And that's all that really matters.

As for the focus wheels, I'm not trying to be disagreeable but my experience is exactly the opposite. The focus on my Conquests snaps smoothly and quickly into sharp focus and is easy to get spot-on. The SLC's (both pairs I've owned now) were sticky and hard to get exactly right. Using the focus wheel on both of the SLC's I've owned was not what I'd describe as a pleasant experience. And the wheel was located too close to my face. I had to re-reach for it all the time. If I had to pick one main reason I sold those SLC's, it would be the crappy focus wheel.

Finally, in probably the best resolution test I could ever ask for - trying to see whiskers on a bobcat in the shadows, on a heavily overcast drizzly day at fading evening light from 230 yards away with my bin's resting on a 2x4 and me not touching them - the Zeiss produced a marginally sharper image TO MY EYES. Your eyes might have chosen otherwise.

I'm not afraid to call things like I see them and have no qualms about wearing a pair of $140 Bushnells in a room full of elitist professional birders wearing one of the "alphas" from the top three, if I like those particular binoculars. I've done it for decades now actually.

The great thing about it all is we have choices and nobody else has to live with our choices. On top of that, we've never had so many great choices in optics as we do today! These are the "good old days" of optics! I remember the days when an old "Bausch and Lomb" bin was considered tops! I look at those today and just laugh. We had no idea what was coming back then.

 

[wind gypsy]

At what ranges? I have the 8x and don't tend to need to adjust them often and I glass off a tripod almost all the time. Not saying the swaro's aren't better (I haven't used them), just saying I don't tend to loose focus on my 8x often but I'm glassing open country. Closer in may be an issue?
.

At all ranges I found the depth of focus to be shallow. I noted this most with direct comparison to leica geovids which have an insanely good depth of focus but notice my el 12x50 and HG 10x42 also have a deeper focus.

Maybe it’s just my eyes but others have noted it too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

I would agree the Swaros appeared to have a deeper field in focus - at least that was my very first impression. So I looked specifically at that, since I think we can all agree a deep field in focus sure makes for a more pleasing view with less eye strain. After further scrutiny, it wasn't "actually" that different (verified by using blades of grass in my lawn vs. a distant tree) but it just appeared as such at first impression. And I admit I have no idea why. Maybe less light fall-off with the Swaros gives that impression? Whatever it is, the edge goes to the Swaros in that area, although it doesn't bother me personally since IMO the Zeiss has nearly the perfect focus wheel and is easy to capture focus with.

Funny thing is my wife's Legend M 8x42's killed both the Swaros and the Zeiss in this area. They might have the greatest depth of focus of any binocular I've ever looked through. It was one of the features my wife commented on first, as she examined them all. She said "the feeders and the neighbor's roof are all in focus at the same time!" and it excited her to not have to move the focus wheel very much.

 

[Forest]

If it makes you feel any better I too tried the slc's and conqests but kept the conquests. Not because I thought they were better optically, but because I felt they were a better value for the $$. For just lightly less quality and a lot less money I went with them and have been extremely happy ever since. My only complaint about them is the focus wheel, I think it moves too freely. Nearly every time I take them out of my bino harness they need adjusted. Thought I had finally found my forever binos but tried some higher power this year and just liked them so much I might have to make the switch....