Swarovski CL 10x30 - opinions? (1 Viewer)

[gweller]

Has anyone got any experience with the CL 10x30? I would like to get a 10x30 or 10x32 bin, so was quite interested how this one performs.

Thanks and best regards
Gary

 

[[email protected]]

I had the CL 10x30 and I was never really impressed by it so it is long gone. The 10x30 and 10x32 format is not the best format for birding as your main binocular because of the small exit pupil and it is hard to make a good one. I had the 10x32 EL and I didn't even like that because of too much glare. If you have to have a 10x get a 10x42. Even better get an 8x42 EDG, FL, SF or Ultravid HD which is probably the best all around size for birding. Here is a review and he wasn't that impressed with it either.

"The image quality in good viewing conditions is very impressive, but it does deteriorates a bit more than I expected it to towards the field edges. There also seems to be an issue with glare in difficult light conditions. The result is a binocular that, while excellent in many respects, doesn’t really fit the bill as a “primary” birding and wildlife binocular."

https://irelandswildlife.com/swarovski-cl-companion-10x30-binocular-review/

 

[Hermann]

I've had the 10x30 for about two years now and used it extensively. It's my go-to pair whenever I want 10x magnification in a lightweight package, for instance on trips that involve a lot of hiking in difficult conditions, e.g. in the mountains. In the past two summer trips to Norway I pretty much used it all the time, and I never had the feeling I would have preferred something bigger (and heavier).

The 10x30 CL works surprisingly well for a pair with such a small exit pupil, in fact, it's the first 10x30 that works for me. Swarovski must have got something right when they designed this pair. I wouldn't want to use it at dawn or dusk all the time, but during the day it works well for me.

Optical quality is excellent in the centre with pretty good edge performance as well. Not at the same level as some other binoculars but still pretty good. Glare is - contrary to what Dennis wrote - less of a problem than, for instance, with the 10x32 SV, as long as you make sure you set IPD right. I can live with it, and glare, especially veiling glare, is one of my pet peeves.

In short: A nice, light pair of binoculars, with very good optics. I like it.

Hermann

 

[tenex]

Leica 10x32s (BN, UV) have been my daily binocular for years and suit me very well, and I also think highly of the Swaro EL, but have little experience with mid-priced alternatives. I do suspect it's a format where quality matters. But really you have to try for yourself, despite all the general advice against it.

 

[Hermann]

Leica 10x32s (BN, UV) have been my daily binocular for years and suit me very well, and I also think highly of the Swaro EL, but have little experience with mid-priced alternatives. I do suspect it's a format where quality matters. But really you have to try for yourself, despite all the general advice against it.

The 10x30 CL is *clearly* better optically than the Leica 10x32 BN.

And where did you see "all the general advice against it"? Dennis alone doesn't count ... :king:

Hermann

 

[[email protected]]

Not to many people use a 10x32 or 10x30 for an all around birding binocular. I never see them when I am birding. I almost always see a few 8x32's but mostly 8x42's. For travel or something or occasional viewing like that they are all right. The poll shows they are not very popular. They are not as easy to use as an 8x42 being more finicky and when the sun drops and that Ivory Billed Woodpecker lands in front of you you will wish you had the 8x42.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=376666&page=5

 

[mwhogue]

I had the CL 10x30 and I was never really impressed by it so it is long gone. The 10x30 and 10x32 format is not the best format for birding as your main binocular because of the small exit pupil and it is hard to make a good one. I had the 10x32 EL and I didn't even like that because of too much glare. If you have to have a 10x get a 10x42. Even better get an 8x42 EDG, FL, SF or Ultravid HD which is probably the best all around size for birding. Here is a review and he wasn't that impressed with it either.

"The image quality in good viewing conditions is very impressive, but it does deteriorates a bit more than I expected it to towards the field edges. There also seems to be an issue with glare in difficult light conditions. The result is a binocular that, while excellent in many respects, doesn’t really fit the bill as a “primary” birding and wildlife binocular."

https://irelandswildlife.com/swarovski-cl-companion-10x30-binocular-review/

Dennis,

Out of curiosity, did you have the old or new model 10x30 CL ? The Ireland review of course covers the older model 10. I have both old and new CL in 8 but have never tried a 10. I do own the SV FP 10x32 and love it.

For the OP's question, it may be that if you want the reduced size and weight of a SW in 30 as opposed to 32 it would be better to go with the 8 for all around use.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

I have had both the older CL and the newer CL in 8x30 and 10x30. Don't get me wrong they are nice binoculars I just never used them as my main birding binoculars. They were too finicky, less comfortable and not as bright in low light as my 8x42's. I had the SV FP 10x32 and I also loved it until I used it in some high glare situations over water and near the sun and I couldn't tolerate the glare. I have had all the SV's and I currently just have the 12x50 SV which handles glare pretty well. It is my "Big Gun" and the best larger aperture binocular I have used. The bigger aperture SV's handle glare better. I personally found the 10x32 SV to be the most glare prone of any of the SV's. I think it has to do with the smaller objective lens and the smaller exit pupil.

 

[gweller]

I had the CL 10x30 and I was never really impressed by it so it is long gone. The 10x30 and 10x32 format is not the best format for birding as your main binocular because of the small exit pupil and it is hard to make a good one. I had the 10x32 EL and I didn't even like that because of too much glare. If you have to have a 10x get a 10x42. Even better get an 8x42 EDG, FL, SF or Ultravid HD which is probably the best all around size for birding. Here is a review and he wasn't that impressed with it either.

"The image quality in good viewing conditions is very impressive, but it does deteriorates a bit more than I expected it to towards the field edges. There also seems to be an issue with glare in difficult light conditions. The result is a binocular that, while excellent in many respects, doesn’t really fit the bill as a “primary” birding and wildlife binocular."

https://irelandswildlife.com/swarovski-cl-companion-10x30-binocular-review/

Thanks Denis, but the review you refer to clearly relates to the older version, so it's not much help really. And yes I know the pros and cons of a 10x bin......

 

[gweller]

Dennis,


For the OP's question, it may be that if you want the reduced size and weight of a SW in 30 as opposed to 32 it would be better to go with the 8 for all around use.

Mike

Hi Mike, yes my line of thinking was if I got the CL, (being a cheaper and lighter bin), how much would I be giving up over the SV.

Cheers!
Gary

 

[[email protected]]

The new CL is not an SV optically. It is 1/2 the price and it is not going to be. Your giving up a LOT with the CL in normal conditions versus the SV. If you compare them you will notice a big difference especially in FOV. The new 10x30 CL is 324 feet and the 10x32 SV is 360 feet which is a huge difference plus the SV has tack sharp edges and the CL does not and the SV will be brighter because it has a bigger aperture and better glass and coating's. In high glare situations the CL does show a little less glare than the SV though. If you are going to use it where there is a lot of glare that could be deciding factor.

 

[Hermann]

The new CL is not an SV optically. It is 1/2 the price and it is not going to be.

Quite right.

Your giving up a LOT with the CL in normal conditions versus the SV. If you compare them you will notice a big difference especially in FOV. The new 10x30 CL is 324 feet and the 10x32 SV is 360 feet which is a huge difference plus the SV has tack sharp edges and the CL does not and the SV will be brighter because it has a bigger aperture and better glass and coating's.

The SV has a larger field of view - correct. As to the tack sharp edges - well, it depends if you actually need tack sharp edges. And the CL is still a lot better than many other bins. BTW, the CL also doesn't have any rolling ball. Better glas and coatings? Any reliable references? And by reliable I don't mean arguments of the type "The CL is cheaper, so it must have cheaper glass and coatings." The bigger aperture - that's irrelevant during the day when the entrance pupil of your eyes is somewhere in the region of 1.8mm.

In high glare situations the CL does show a little less glare than the SV though. If you are going to use it where there is a lot of glare that could be deciding factor.

The difference with regard to glare, especially veiling glare, is quite obvious. I wouldn't call the CL good. But it's quite a bit better than the SV 10x32.

Hermann

 

[gweller]

Quite right.



The SV has a larger field of view - correct. As to the tack sharp edges - well, it depends if you actually need tack sharp edges. And the CL is still a lot better than many other bins. BTW, the CL also doesn't have any rolling ball. Better glas and coatings? Any reliable references? And by reliable I don't mean arguments of the type "The CL is cheaper, so it must have cheaper glass and coatings." The bigger aperture - that's irrelevant during the day when the entrance pupil of your eyes is somewhere in the region of 1.8mm.



The difference with regard to glare, especially veiling glare, is quite obvious. I wouldn't call the CL good. But it's quite a bit better than the SV 10x32.

Hermann

Thanks Hermann, for that good summary. I've read enough of Denis' post to know where here is coming from..... ... so it was good to read your more balanced opinion.

Anyway,my next step is to try the CL out and compare it the SV, and decide from there.
Cheers!
Gary

 

[tenex]

The 10x30 CL is *clearly* better optically than the Leica 10x32 BN.

And where did you see "all the general advice against it"? Dennis alone doesn't count ...

Let's keep things straight here. Not against the (new) CL, against the 10x30/32 format, as I said, which this forum is replete with. And I would be just as surprised if the old CL (if it even existed back then) was superior to the BN in any respect, as I would if the new one beat the HD+.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I have been using the 8x32 FP for years with the 10x42 SV. I used more on the 8x32 for birding tours etc together with my spotting scope. I used the 10x42 mainly on boats during river cruise or longer walk in open space if it involves hills etc.

I got the 10x32 FP now and I think, it is a good compromise between the 2 models above. Even on my 8x32, during dusk and dawn here, I still can ID birds. So not a problem at all with the 10x32. Weight is more or less with the 8x32 and I didn't have any issue with flares so far as reported.

Overall, the 10x32 FP is a nice instrument and I should have gotten it earlier hahaha!

By the way, I do have the new CL 8x30. It is another bino which I used a lot too before I have the 10x32. Comparing the 8x32 and 8x30, FOV is smaller on the latter, but still usable. Other friends who tried it for months, says, the weight and size were great and as far as price matters, 8x30 CL is good to have too for different purposes. I used it on my last tours for 2 weeks, easily I could ID birds from the distance too

 

[[email protected]]

"I got the 10x32 FP now and I think, it is a good compromise between the 2 models above. Even on my 8x32, during dusk and dawn here, I still can ID birds. So not a problem at all with the 10x32. Weight is more or less with the 8x32 and I didn't have any issue with flares so far as reported."

I bet you don't have reflective sun like I do when using binoculars in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. I loved my 10x32 FP's until I used them on a sunny morning in an open valley in the mountains in the morning there where there was a lot of reflective glare. I got a LOT of veiling glare. Much worse than the 8x32 FP's. I sold the 10x32 FP's not long after that experience. The preference for different binoculars depends a lot on how you are using them.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

There's plenty of mountains and hills in where I live. Will let here know if I have problems with the glare in the future

 

[mwhogue]

"I got the 10x32 FP now and I think, it is a good compromise between the 2 models above. Even on my 8x32, during dusk and dawn here, I still can ID birds. So not a problem at all with the 10x32. Weight is more or less with the 8x32 and I didn't have any issue with flares so far as reported."

I bet you don't have reflective sun like I do when using binoculars in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. I loved my 10x32 FP's until I used them on a sunny morning in an open valley in the mountains in the morning there where there was a lot of reflective glare. I got a LOT of veiling glare. Much worse than the 8x32 FP's. I sold the 10x32 FP's not long after that experience. The preference for different binoculars depends a lot on how you are using them.

Dennis and anyone inclined to comment,

Is it possible that glare and flare might be worse in any given bin when used at higher altitudes? While I have never focused on this issue when glassing in the mountains as opposed to on the beach for example, I am more sensitive/bothered by the stronger light at higher altitudes. IME some makes have better flare/glare control like the Nikon EDG and Kowa Genesis, but I wonder whether higher altitude could be an issue generally with encountering excessive glare.

Mike

 

[[email protected]]

There's plenty of mountains and hills in where I live. Will let here know if I have problems with the glare in the future

Yes, but you are near the equator at a lower latitude and at a lower altitude so the sun is filtered more going through the atmosphere. You probably have many more trees with some canopy also. When I go to Costa Rica I get no glare either from any of my binoculars. When I was at Rocky Mountain National Park I was at 10,000 feet altitude. Now that is a HILL! It makes a big difference.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis and anyone inclined to comment,

Is it possible that glare and flare might be worse in any given bin when used at higher altitudes? While I have never focused on this issue when glassing in the mountains as opposed to on the beach for example, I am more sensitive/bothered by the stronger light at higher altitudes. IME some makes have better flare/glare control like the Nikon EDG and Kowa Genesis, but I wonder whether higher altitude could be an issue generally with encountering excessive glare.

Mike

Answered in post#19.