UPDATE a year later “Are alpha worth it?” How I answered it for me (answering?) Swaro, Zeiss, GPO…Maven

[svivian]

I just got my NL pures this spring straight from swaro and it came with a lifetime warranty card. when i registered it was also for lifetime.

 

[Bluto]

Well that’s far better. And I’m certainly not one to argue with someone who bought them and got different info first hand!

The discrepancy is odd. Maybe the “change” was for something else, region, or there was a change back that went unnoticed.

Either way, if Swaro has a lifetime warranty that’s good enough for me.

 

[Bailer]

Spend a full day glassing (on a tripod) from before dawn to after legal light. Does that change your findings?

It did for me. I bought some used gpo 12.5’s that seemed pretty good in casual use. Less good on a long day looking for deer in the desert. For me it was the lack of depth of field that made them too much work to use. Constantly adjusting the focus, and when more than one ridge is in the field of view one will be out of focus. El’s are much better in that situation. I’m sure others I haven’t tried would also work.

 

[Bluto]

Welp. Got my hands on some NL’s today in 10x42 by accident. Had to drive a while to find an archery shop, and guess who’s also a Swaro dealer. No chance to actually test or anything, but they did have a part of the USAF resolution chart on the wall. Convenient.

For the first 5 minutes I *hated* the ergonomics. I couldn’t figure out a way to hold them with the barrel shape. Then I did. Basically with my hands the most comfy place is to brace my thumbs on the opposite barrel. Also, of all of the things I didn’t notice before, the FOV stands out. Unfortunately for me, I really liked them. This may never end

 

[Shraggs]

ZEISS makes great optics like the others, I can say that their warranty response has not been close to the others in my experience with swaro and meopta. I had my bino fl’s serviced, 2 failed scopes and the new rf programming bug. In every case ultimately they solved or serviced and made good on the problem. The pattern has been: dismissing me/product has an issue, forcing me to escalate rank to move past denial and massive delays in execution.

My ZEISS binos are different from my swaro - but both great alphas. I would still buy another ZEISS bino absolutely, I believe a low failure probability product class. Never ever a scope.

Swaro and the others are not immune to something failing or breaking by a user but my process for fixing was like clock work and no hassle or challenge to me to prove i need help from the manufacturer.

 

[Gone4Days]

The best part of Swaros is they hold value and if you decide to sell, you can off load them in a day.

 

[307]

The best part of Swaros is they hold value and if you decide to sell, you can off load them in a day.

I agree with this and while I have my gear to use, it's a nice little financial insurance policy should the need arise. I currently own Maven and they take a beating on the resale market, losing around 1/3 (depending on specific product) of initial retail cost.

 

[Bluto]

The best part of Swaros is they hold value and if you decide to sell, you can off load them in a day.

No doubt in that! Zeiss seems to be the same, at least with the Victory. (I can’t make sense of the Leica range and nomenclature, so no idea.)

 

[ABT20]

Appreciated the write up!

 

[Mpw20]

Agreed on your assessment of low/no light. I’ve hunted with the alphas you mentioned and almost alphas (Steiner etc) down to regular field grade leupold and bushnell. On scopes and binoculars If counting antler points is something required of you (like me in nw pa) the alphas give me almost daylight clarity first to last legal light in thick woods during rifle season.

 

[Spiral Horn]

There is some inherent bias in optics reviews (mine included). However, one consistent thing I’ve noticed in comparing mid-grades and near-alphas to alphas is — throughout the majority of categories the alpha is usually a smidge to clearly better, and most are surprised to see the difference in individual categories less than stunning. This often leads to the non-objective conclusion that the non-alpha is almost neck-and-neck with the alpha. But in reality all of those slightly superior characteristics add up to a better product that will offer a better experience. Whether it is worth the $ difference is a whole different discussion.

 

[robby denning]

There is some inherent bias in optics reviews (mine included). However, one consistent thing I’ve noticed in comparing mid-grades and near-alphas to alphas is — throughout the majority of categories the alpha is usually a smidge to clearly better, and most are surprised to see the difference in individual categories less than stunning. This often leads to the non-objective conclusion that the non-alpha is almost neck-and-neck with the alpha. But in reality all of those slightly superior characteristics add up to a better product that will offer a better experience. Whether it is worth the $ difference is a whole different discussion.

 

[sahunter06]

Nice write up and summary. I had that problem a few years ago and tested 4 of the tops glass brands. I went with gpo passion 8x56 to my eyes the clarity and low light differences were splitting hairs. Plus I picked mine up as a demo display only ( used in photos ) with lifetime warranty. Great deal on the binos. Have used them in Colorado on elk hunts and work great. High end glass is very subjective and I agree with low light acuity is one of the most important factors to consider.

 

[yej0001]

Zeiss has arguably the best optical quality in my experience.

 

[OspreyZB]

There is some inherent bias in optics reviews (mine included). However, one consistent thing I’ve noticed in comparing mid-grades and near-alphas to alphas is — throughout the majority of categories the alpha is usually a smidge to clearly better, and most are surprised to see the difference in individual categories less than stunning. This often leads to the non-objective conclusion that the non-alpha is almost neck-and-neck with the alpha. But in reality all of those slightly superior characteristics add up to a better product that will offer a better experience. Whether it is worth the $ difference is a whole different discussion.

Spot on. It's easy for someone that doesn't have experience with this stuff to side-by-side an alpha and a near-alpha, and think "I can't see any difference, the near alpha must be just as good". Now give that person a Noctivid to use for a full season, then have them swap it for a Trinovid, bet they'll see a difference.

The other day I handed my Zeiss victory FLs to a buddy that was carrying Vortex diamondbacks. Didn't tell him anything about them or how much they cost, just asked to check out his Diamondbacks and handed him the FLs. His reaction was "these are a little better than mine". My reaction to the Diamondbacks (which I kept to myself) was "these are pretty much worthless".

 

[Bluto]

There is some inherent bias in optics reviews (mine included). However, one consistent thing I’ve noticed in comparing mid-grades and near-alphas to alphas is — throughout the majority of categories the alpha is usually a smidge to clearly better, and most are surprised to see the difference in individual categories less than stunning. This often leads to the non-objective conclusion that the non-alpha is almost neck-and-neck with the alpha. But in reality all of those slightly superior characteristics add up to a better product that will offer a better experience. Whether it is worth the $ difference is a whole different discussion.

Totally agree. As Robbie has certainly mentioned and no doubt you and others, the alpha glass is firmly in the realm of more dollars for the slight improvements that you mention.

How much is it worth? Cost is a number, value is something completely different.

For the hunt last year, I ended up renting and got some Victory RF’s. I took along my old “crummy” pair so that from camp or just glassing sessions nearby I could compare. Swapping back and forth, I had a hard time seeing a big difference. But - in low light or shadows or other imperfect conditions, you can tell. They’re just better.

This was blatantly apparent when spending some time behind lower tier, then swapping in the Zeiss.

I just gotta figure out what is value, to me.

 

[Bluto]

UPDATE/ADDENDUM 2023 - I took what I learned from this comparison, and purchased new Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and Zeiss SFL 8x40 and took them to Idaho for a September archery hunt. Since these are not apples and oranges to the original writeup, I don’t intend to blur the two, but I would personally feel comfortable carrying my observations as far as manufacturer quality, etc to the 8’s. NOT for optical performance, however. (Example - I’ve heard (but haven’t tried) the SFL 10’s aren’t at the same relative performance level as the 8’s.

Both of these worked brilliantly and frankly I had a tough time distinguishing between the two at times. I think that’s a compliment to both. The Zeiss, for building a VERY lightweight bino that slugs it out nicely with a long-standing alpha glass titan, and to Swaro for a design that is still very much alpha all of these years later. Here’s what I thought, but the disclaimer first. My eyes are in their 40’s. If you’re 26 you *will* have better pupil dilation, assumed better acuity, etc. So take it with a grain of salt. My final call is based purely on MY intended use, not YOUR intended use. Please consider that - more later.

Subjective stuff.

While I found the SF eyecups far more comfy than the EL, not as much so with the SFL. I have no idea if they’re actually different, or if it’s just that with extended use it wasn’t a big deal. Still more comfy by a small margin, and seem to stay put a little easier. (Of note, some people are stuck on diopter function, locking, etc. I don’t care as long as it works. Both were fine.)

Focus wheel direction. I don’t know why, but I always moved the Swaro the wrong direction initially. It seems “backwards” to me and the Zeiss more intuitive. Purely personal feel and in no way would I make a bino decision off of this. Just annoyed me a little.

Standard stud for tripod adapter. This really irritates me, and probably shouldn’t. The SFL takes one, the EL obviously doesn’t. Your call. Enough on that.

(Mostly) objective stuff. Yeah, I still have opinions.

Weight. The SFL specs lighter and to me feels even lighter than that. Both are well balanced, but sheesh these things feel amazing to me. Big nod to the Zeiss.

Size. Same. Maybe the weight difference skews my opinion here, but they are definitely smaller spec as well. Your call on how much this matters.

Acuity in generic conditions. I can’t tell a difference. I had no noticeable difference in steadiness, or ability to resolve in the field on a tripod. The light weight of the Zeiss is great in the hand, but I still couldn’t tell a ton of difference.

Low light. Excellent from both binos. You had an old pair of vortex with me as a comparison, the EL and SFL were both leagues better and almost seemed to “generate” light versus the vortex. (CRAPPY vortex, not razors or anything. I’m not a vortex hater.) Depth of field was also exactly the same to me.

Color and clarity - another push. I just couldn’t force a difference here.

Edge clarity - no contest, the EL’s win. It’s as much of a difference in favor of the EL’s as the size/weight are to the SFL.

So which is better? I think I’d have to say that the EL is still objectively the better bino. The edge clarity is clearly better and since that’s optical performance versus dimensions, that means better glass overall.

So why am I selling the EL and keeping the SFL? For the money - which is only slightly less - the SFL suits me better for my use. Strictly an archery hunter, and even though it’s a different state every year I continually find myself in timber and not utilizing glass to the extremes that the EL shines in - like edge clarity. Add the phenomenal size and weight difference with the SFL, and that’s what I’m sticking with.

For 8’s. If I go to 10’s or larger, probably Swaro until Zeiss releases whatever’s next.

If you’re a muley guy or you rifle hunt, all bets are off. I wouldn’t listen to me but if 8’s are in your wheelhouse the SFL is a really strong option.

 

[robby denning]

UPDATE/ADDENDUM 2023 - I took what I learned from this comparison, and purchased new Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and Zeiss SFL 8x40 and took them to Idaho for a September archery hunt. Since these are not apples and oranges to the original writeup, I don’t intend to blur the two, but I would personally feel comfortable carrying my observations as far as manufacturer quality, etc to the 8’s. NOT for optical performance, however. (Example - I’ve heard (but haven’t tried) the SFL 10’s aren’t at the same relative performance level as the 8’s.

Both of these worked brilliantly and frankly I had a tough time distinguishing between the two at times. I think that’s a compliment to both. The Zeiss, for building a VERY lightweight bino that slugs it out nicely with a long-standing alpha glass titan, and to Swaro for a design that is still very much alpha all of these years later. Here’s what I thought, but the disclaimer first. My eyes are in their 40’s. If you’re 26 you *will* have better pupil dilation, assumed better acuity, etc. So take it with a grain of salt. My final call is based purely on MY intended use, not YOUR intended use. Please consider that - more later.

Subjective stuff.

While I found the SF eyecups far more comfy than the EL, not as much so with the SFL. I have no idea if they’re actually different, or if it’s just that with extended use it wasn’t a big deal. Still more comfy by a small margin, and seem to stay put a little easier. (Of note, some people are stuck on diopter function, locking, etc. I don’t care as long as it works. Both were fine.)

Focus wheel direction. I don’t know why, but I always moved the Swaro the wrong direction initially. It seems “backwards” to me and the Zeiss more intuitive. Purely personal feel and in no way would I make a bino decision off of this. Just annoyed me a little.

Standard stud for tripod adapter. This really irritates me, and probably shouldn’t. The SFL takes one, the EL obviously doesn’t. Your call. Enough on that.

(Mostly) objective stuff. Yeah, I still have opinions.

Weight. The SFL specs lighter and to me feels even lighter than that. Both are well balanced, but sheesh these things feel amazing to me. Big nod to the Zeiss.

Size. Same. Maybe the weight difference skews my opinion here, but they are definitely smaller spec as well. Your call on how much this matters.

Acuity in generic conditions. I can’t tell a difference. I had no noticeable difference in steadiness, or ability to resolve in the field on a tripod. The light weight of the Zeiss is great in the hand, but I still couldn’t tell a ton of difference.

Low light. Excellent from both binos. You had an old pair of vortex with me as a comparison, the EL and SFL were both leagues better and almost seemed to “generate” light versus the vortex. (CRAPPY vortex, not razors or anything. I’m not a vortex hater.) Depth of field was also exactly the same to me.

Color and clarity - another push. I just couldn’t force a difference here.

Edge clarity - no contest, the EL’s win. It’s as much of a difference in favor of the EL’s as the size/weight are to the SFL.

So which is better? I think I’d have to say that the EL is still objectively the better bino. The edge clarity is clearly better and since that’s optical performance versus dimensions, that means better glass overall.

So why am I selling the EL and keeping the SFL? For the money - which is only slightly less - the SFL suits me better for my use. Strictly an archery hunter, and even though it’s a different state every year I continually find myself in timber and not utilizing glass to the extremes that the EL shines in - like edge clarity. Add the phenomenal size and weight difference with the SFL, and that’s what I’m sticking with.

For 8’s. If I go to 10’s or larger, probably Swaro until Zeiss releases whatever’s next.

If you’re a muley guy or you rifle hunt, all bets are off. I wouldn’t listen to me but if 8’s are in your wheelhouse the SFL is a really strong option.

thank you for putting all this together for us. Another great comparison.

 

[Bluto]

thank you for putting all this together for us. Another great comparison.

Wow, thanks Robby. I’m just a hack but happened to be in a place where I could purchase both and see what I thought. (That means my wife was okay with it.)

I guess the real benefit is just another real world comparison and opinion that continues to prove what most people agree on. The alphas are alpha for a reason. The magnitude of difference decreases with the increase in price, but one can’t deny it’s there. But - there’s a still a good fit for people that don’t want to/can’t drop $3000 on NL Pure’s. And that’s a good thing.

Thanks for the compliment!

 

[robby denning]

Wow, thanks Robby. I’m just a hack but happened to be in a place where I could purchase both and see what I thought. (That means my wife was okay with it.)

I guess the real benefit is just another real world comparison and opinion that continues to prove what most people agree on. The alphas are alpha for a reason. The magnitude of difference decreases with the increase in price, but one can’t deny it’s there. But - there’s a still a good fit for people that don’t want to/can’t drop $3000 on NL Pure’s. And that’s a good thing.

Thanks for the compliment!

We pay a lot for small difference. Thanks man for sharing.