New Swarovski 10X42

[TheHunt]

I heard the Swarovski is suppose to have a new model that is has better light gathering capabilities then their older model. Has anyone heard the same?

 

[D13er]

I believe they are called EL's ????

JB

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin 1759

 

[eastkoothunter]

Thats right, they're the EL's. My dad just bought a pair and they are really nice glasses. It is a little high in price but you cant go worng for your money!
Cris

early to bed, early to rise, hunt like hell and make up lies!

 

[_droptine_]

Swarovski revamped the SLC's earlier this year. They have a slightly different looking body and I think they put a different coating on them. They were a new version of the SLC's not the EL's.

 

[eastkoothunter]

My mistake. Thanks for the correction

early to bed, early to rise, hunt like hell and make up lies!

 

[muleybull]

The SLC's are cheaper than the EL's, and now they are using their sworobright on the SLC's, so the only thing you pick up with the EL's is a little wider field of view. Is it worth the extra money?

 

[RuRu12]

Received my new 10x42WB New SLC's yesterday. I spent a lot of time at the optics counter at Cabela's before deciding on them. I looked really hard at the ELs and the Leica Ultravid, but I didn't think either were worth the extra money to me.

I saved myself 6% by ordering them at Cabela's and then having them shipped to my house. If I had bought them at the store I would have had to pay sales tax, by mail ordering for home delivery I avoided the sales tax.

 

[DanBucks]

The best feature of the El's are that they are "Extremely Lightweight" due to being made of magnesium as apposed to aluminum, plus they are more comfortable to hold than their SLC cousins.

Dan Bucks

 

[RuRu12]

I'll agree that th ELs are more comfortable to hold, but the difference in weight in 10x42 is only 3.2 ounces. Here is a comparison chart from Swarovski's website. The 10x42 EL is listed first, the 10x42 SLC second.

Magnification 10x 10x
Objective lens diameter (mm) 42 42
Objective lens diameter (in) 1.65 1.65
Exit pupil, diameter (mm) 4.2 4.2
Exit pupil, diameter (in) 0.17 0.17
Eye relief (mm) 15 14
Eye relief (in) 0.59 0.55
Field of view, real (m/1000 m) 110 110
Field of view, real (ft/1000 yds) 330 330
Field of view, real (degree) 6.3 6.3
Field of view, apparent (degree) 63 62
Shortest focusing distance (m) 2.5 4
Shortest focusing distance (ft) 8 13
Diopter compensation (dpt) +-3 +-5
Interpupillary distance (mm) 56-74 56-72
Interpupillary distance (in) 2.2-2.91 2.2-2.83
Twilight factor (DIN 58388) 21 21
Length, approx. (mm) 158 147
Length, approx. (in) 6.22 5.79
Width, approx. (mm) 123 122
Width, approx. (in) 4.84 4.8
Height, approx. (mm) 64 71
Height, approx. (in) 2.52 2.8
Weight approx. (g) 780 870
Weight approx. (oz) 27.5 30.7
Color gr?n
Color green

 

[landon05]

for the same money don't over look ziess fl.....they are awsome.el are great too don't get me wrong. but check the zeiss out. they are worth a look

 

[Texas_Hunter]

I shopped for a long time for different bino's and used different ones in the field. There is a direct correlation between money spent and quality, the more expensive bino's are superior during low light conditions. I have used the Nikon's, Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski's - the Leica's are too heavy for me and the Zeiss are not sturdy enough for me. The Swarovski's, imho, are superior to all of these. I have the EL's and they are incredibly bright and their warranty is great.

 

[slider]

I tried them ALL!!! Side by side,low light,and how well they fit!!! I bought the EL's. My bro just bought a new pair of high end Bushnell's and just about threw them away after a low light comparison in the Mountains with my EL's!!! His wife bought him a pair of EL's for Christmas!!!Money well spent PERIOD!!! Good Luck