Swarovski EL Question

[Brian]

*****

 

[fatrascal]

I'm not qualified to answer this question because I've never looked through the 10x32's but my buddy who is a mule deer hunting fanatic and a dang good Glaser used to have 10x32's. He upgraded to 10x42 el's with range finder for several years and is now looking to go back to 10x32's due to weight savings. He said he's never gained very much in light gathering ability when he stepped up to the 42mm. Fatrascal

 

[Brian Fahs]

I'm not qualified to answer this question because I've never looked through the 10x32's but my buddy who is a mule deer hunting fanatic and a dang good Glaser used to have 10x32's. He upgraded to 10x42 el's with range finder for several years and is now looking to go back to 10x32's due to weight savings. He said he's never gained very much in light gathering ability when he stepped up to the 42mm. Fatrascal

The 10x 42 el range does not have the same lenses as the 10x 42 el sv. It does not have the field flattened lenses. It has been discussed on here quite a bit and the concensus is the non range swaro 10x 42 el sv is optically superior.

That being said the 10x 42 el sv has better light transmission then the 10x 32 el sv. Also the 10x 42 has a wider field of view. Technically the 10x 42 is optically superior to the 10x32. I guess it comes down to weight savings if that's what you desire.

 

[MattB355]

I bet your eyes couldn't tell the difference between the two. The 32's will be lighter and handier but the eye box will not be as big as the exit pupil is 3.2 on the 32mm vs 4.2 for the 42mm. I have a pair of 8x32 and 10x42 EL's and have a very hard time telling them apart visually besides the power difference. The 42 glass does have less glaring at sunset but the 32's are still great and I am being nit picky.

 

[Browninglover1]

I bet your eyes couldn't tell the difference between the two. The 32's will be lighter and handier but the eye box will not be as big as the exit pupil is 3.2 on the 32mm vs 4.2 for the 42mm. I have a pair of 8x32 and 10x42 EL's and have a very hard time telling them apart visually besides the power difference. The 42 glass does have less glaring at sunset but the 32's are still great and I am being nit picky.

I have first generation 8x32 and 10x32. The 8x produce a "wow" every time I look through them or anytime I let someone else look through them. The 10x lack the wow factor but are still very nice and in my testing they actually let me see a little bit more detail (due to magnification) even at dusk. However, the little 10x just aren't as pleasing to look through and I'm assuming it's likely due to the small exit pupil that makes eye placement a little more critical.

I wouldn't be afraid to run 10x32 as my primary binos but I'd probably prefer to have the 10x42 for the little bit more forgiving eye placement offered by the larger exit pupil.

 

[fatrascal]

I forgot to mention that my buddy is wanting to not only go for the 10x32's but he's going for the 10x32 ranges. In his opinion there is not enough difference in quality and is instead going for weight savings. I haven't looked up the difference in weight but its probably just ounces. But you know how them ounce counters are.
On a side note I remember a few years ago Swarovski came out with the ATM spotting scope which was made with a different material making it lighter than the ATS. A Swarovski atm 65mm spotter weighed 2 ounces lighter than the 65mm ATS if my memory is correct. The weight savings was a mere 2 ounces but Swarovski thought it was deemable to come out with a new spotter for 2 ounces of weight savings. This in my eyes was unfathomable. But I'm not an ounce counter. Fatrascal.

 

[MattB355]

I have both and I prefer the 8x32's most of the time now as they are much lighter and handier. They are also so much easier to hold steady than the 10's for 3D shooting, one hand holds, and mountain panning. However, I have an outdoorsmans stud on the EL10x42 and on the tripod, the 10x42 comes alive. I would not get a stud on the 8x32's as I think the stud would get in the way and be a tight fit compared to the 10x42s. If you are only handholding, I would go 8x32's all the way. The reduced magnification helps with a clearer image especially when you are a little out of breath when hiking or get excited during a hunt.

 

[Myronman3]

I had the 8x32 and the 10x42 side by side for two weeks. I kept the 8x. I lost nothing to the 10x42.

 

[Wildwillalaska]

I’ve had at least 1/2 dozen swaro binos over the past 20 years, and a couple different variations of the 10x42 EL’s. I am one that brightness/clarity is important, but also eye strain. Rarely get headaches, but when I do it’s almost always eye strain and hate them beyond description. Best binos I’ve ever owned is the current model 10x42 EL’s, and part of it I attribute to the ginormous inlet pupil size—which is also one of the reasons I cannot talk myself into the EL Ranges. The 10x32 are nice and certainly compact—but after hours of use simply not even the same ballpark as the 10x42’s. I have zero experience with the 8x32 ELs. I had a backup pair of 8x30SLC back in the day that I actually liked more than the 10x42 SLC they backed up. Super light and amazingly clear and bright.

I just wish Swaro would make my beloved 10x42ELs in a range version without bastardizing them with smaller entry pupil and weird humpbacks. Picked up my first pair of non-Swaro sporting optics in almost 2 decades this year and will try the Leica 10x42 HDb ranges for the season. Not sold, but liked them better than the swaro option (god I even hate saying that—feel dirty). And there is no way I am parting with my 10x42ELs till I have a dozen hours behind the Leicas—maybe not even then. Did I mention that I love the 10x42ELs—enough so I very well may go back to those and a separate rangefinder.

 

[hotdiggity]

The 10x 42 el range does not have the same lenses as the 10x 42 el sv. It does not have the field flattened lenses. It has been discussed on here quite a bit and the concensus is the non range swaro 10x 42 el sv is optically superior.

That being said the 10x 42 el sv has better light transmission then the 10x 32 el sv. Also the 10x 42 has a wider field of view. Technically the 10x 42 is optically superior to the 10x32. I guess it comes down to weight savings if that's what you desire.

The 10x32 actually have a wider field of view than the 10x42 according to Swarovski.

 

[Brian Fahs]

The 10x32 actually have a wider field of view than the 10x42 according to Swarovski.

I stand corrected.

 

[hotdiggity]

Things I have noticed between the two:

-Clarity is about the same
-Weight is less on the 32s vs the 42s
-Handling is good on both, easier to carry the 32s around the neck, easier to hold the 42s steady
-Veiling glare seems to be pretty significant on the 32s, or at least with the ones that I've looked through. Whites and bright objects get ghost images. I have not noticed this with the 42s.
-Getting the binoculars properly lined up is definitely more important on the 32s