Swarovski 10x50 (1 Viewer)

[dmcharg]

Hi looking for some advice on Swarovski 10x50. I am thinking about buying a pair of Swarovski 10x50 EL but would appreciate some advice from others out there particularly with regard to eye relief and wearing glasses ? Also how easy is for me to mount them for extended viewing ?

I currently have a pair of Swarovski 8x25 CL which are fantastic, these are my travel/hiking/walking binoculars so the 10x50 would be to complement these. Intended use would be birding, astronomy and just general use. I have tried the Swarovski 8x32 and 10x42 and the views are outstanding and i am well aware of the size difference but haven't tried the 10x50 so not sure about the eye relief. Its been a while but i recall the 8x32 felt easier to use in terms of eye position/eye relief compared to the 10x42 but the 10x50 is what more interests me.

Thanks
David.

 

[etudiant]

The big Swaro will delight you by all accounts.
Eye relief is better than on the 8x25s, 20mm vs 17mm, and the exit pupil is more generous, so ease of view should step up accordingly. Swaro does offer a tripod attachment for mounting, although for extended sky viewing you'd want a parallelogram mount.

Your projected uses might be even better served with a Canon 10x42L IS, their top of the line image stabilized glass. It is truly superior for astronomy observation as well as for any sort of prolonged observation.
The Canon is optically excellent, a very bright, well baffled porro, robust and fully waterproof. Compared to the Swaro, it is heavier and bulkier, although not needing a tripod balances that.
Swaro's service is justly famous and puts the Canon warranty (3 year afaik) very much in the shade.
The Canon is much cheaper, less than half the Swaro price here in the US.

Both glasses are actively discussed here on BF if you probe around.

 

[Pileatus]

Hi looking for some advice on Swarovski 10x50. I am thinking about buying a pair of Swarovski 10x50 EL but would appreciate some advice from others out there particularly with regard to eye relief and wearing glasses ? Also how easy is for me to mount them for extended viewing ?

I currently have a pair of Swarovski 8x25 CL which are fantastic, these are my travel/hiking/walking binoculars so the 10x50 would be to complement these. Intended use would be birding, astronomy and just general use. I have tried the Swarovski 8x32 and 10x42 and the views are outstanding and i am well aware of the size difference but haven't tried the 10x50 so not sure about the eye relief. Its been a while but i recall the 8x32 felt easier to use in terms of eye position/eye relief compared to the 10x42 but the 10x50 is what more interests me.

Thanks
David.

We have the 8X32, 8.5X42 and 10X50 SV's (none are Field Pro).
I wear eyeglasses and use all of these models for astro viewing.
I think the 8X32 SV has the best eye relief for eyeglasses, by a mm or two.
The 10X50 is a tad better than the 8.5X42 for me but not by much.
ALL the models work well with my eyeglasses. One pair of eyeglasses, with very thin lenses, works best so there will be differing opinions. My prescription sunglasses cut down on eye relief but I get used to it pretty fast.

The 8X32 is my wife's and she uses it for star gazing...handheld and mounted.
I use the 10X50 for stars but it's only enjoyable when mounted or stabilized.

I built a mounting system that works for all open bridge designs. It's tripod mounted with full articulation and stability while sitting. It's hard to relate the difference between handheld and totally stabilized views. Let me say the 10X50 is a stargazing wonder that also works well for birding, especially hawkwatching, as long as you can hold it steady.

I had photos but lost them. I can take some more and post them if you need more info. I tried the Swaro mount but the rubber straps are just too unwieldy and I wanted to be able to adjust the IPD while the bin was mounted.

Let me know if you want to see photos.

 

[RobMorane]

Hi,

I think the review from Roger Vine's website will give you some complete insights.
His reviews are totally amazing
Here's the link
http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/Swaro10x50EL.htm

All the Best

 

[PhilR.]

The 10x50 EL SV is listed as having the same ER as the 8x32 EL SV, but I have found that in actual use the 10x50 has slightly less ER. Using the same pair of sunglasses (it is really bright where we live), I can just barely see the field stops in the 8x32. I cannot see the entire field stops of the 10x50. If the ER of the 8x32 is truly 20mm, then I would estimate that the ER of the 10x50 is closer to 18mm or perhaps 18.5mm.

I would estimate the ER of the 8.5x42 to be between the two binos above - perhaps closer to 18.5mm to 19mm. Again, as compared to the 8x32. I do not know if the 8x32's ER is truly 20mm.

 

[The-Wanderer]

I have the 8.5, the 10 and the 12x EL SVs allbought used (previously unloved!). I do not mount the 8.5 on a tripod and the ER is, just, OK for me pressed against my specs.. Ditto the 10s hand held but insufficient using a tripod because I need to not press against my specs because of inducing vibration. The 12s are specified as having 19mm ER as against 20 mm for the other two. They do not work well for me. They all use the same eyecups which means the ocular is recessed by 5mm as I measure them. This is, in my opinion more than necessary. I think this a case of style over substance because of the elegant (?) slope at the ocular end of the barrel.

I do wish more manufacturers offered different eyecups!

I am not overly impressed by Swarovski's bins I don't know where I could try the Zeiss SFs and could not afford them now anyway. It has been reported by BF ers and some reviewers that these Zeiss give superior eye relief for people like me.

 

[Theo98]

I currently have a pair of Swarovski 8x25 CL which are fantastic...I have tried the Swarovski 8x32 and 10x42 and the views are outstanding...David.

David,

If you got along well with the 8X32 and 10X42 SV ER's, then you "probably" won't have an issue with the 10X50 SV. Although I don't wear glasses, I do find the 5mm exit pupil of the 10X50 greatly increases my ease in obtaining a relaxed and quick sight picture (8.5X42 SV is very similar). For me, my 8x25 pocket CL had too little eye cup extension (had to rest the extended cups on my index fingers anchored to my eye brows to obtain a full sight picture), however as you stated, are fantastic compacts!

As far as tri-pod stability, I always use my 10X50 SV's hand-held...other member uses sound "solid". If possible, Try the EL10x50SV to determine if they will be a good comfortable fit with Your glasses. Other than their size and weight, IMO the EL10x50SV has the Best View in the Swaro line up of optics!

Keep us informed,

Ted

 

[John Frink]

...I am thinking about buying a pair of Swarovski 10x50 EL but would appreciate some advice from others out there particularly with regard to eye relief and wearing glasses?

The 8x32, 8.5x42, and 10x50 SV's all have more than enough eye relief for me; I need 16mm with my regular eyeglasses, and by my measurement they all provide 18mm at the lowest eyecup position. That's just a bit too much for me, and if I'm not careful with eye placement I experience what I call 'rolling blackouts'; so I place a 2x37mm rubber O-ring (2x33mm for the x32's) over the barrel of the eyecups to raise them 2mm above the lowest position. The first detent is 3mm up, and that takes away too much relief; with a 2mm O-ring it's perfect for me.

The 12x50 SV has about 2mm less eye relief, so I don't use an O-ring with them.

Full disclosure: I have a pair of 10x50 SV's (non-FP) for sale in the Classified section of this forum.

Hope this helps.

John

 

[Troubador]

I have the 8.5, the 10 and the 12x EL SVs allbought used (previously unloved!). I do not mount the 8.5 on a tripod and the ER is, just, OK for me pressed against my specs.. Ditto the 10s hand held but insufficient using a tripod because I need to not press against my specs because of inducing vibration. The 12s are specified as having 19mm ER as against 20 mm for the other two. They do not work well for me. They all use the same eyecups which means the ocular is recessed by 5mm as I measure them. This is, in my opinion more than necessary. I think this a case of style over substance because of the elegant (?) slope at the ocular end of the barrel.

I do wish more manufacturers offered different eyecups!

I am not overly impressed by Swarovski's bins I don't know where I could try the Zeiss SFs and could not afford them now anyway. It has been reported by BF ers and some reviewers that these Zeiss give superior eye relief for people like me.

See John Frink's post describing how he has the problem of too much 'eye relief' with Swaros. How many different eyecups should a manufacturer supply?

QUOTE: The 8x32, 8.5x42, and 10x50 SV's all have more than enough eye relief for me; I need 16mm with my regular eyeglasses, and by my measurement they all provide 18mm at the lowest eyecup position. That's just a bit too much for me, and if I'm not careful with eye placement I experience what I call 'rolling blackouts'; so I place a 2x37mm rubber O-ring (2x33mm for the x32's) over the barrel of the eyecups to raise them 2mm above the lowest position. The first detent is 3mm up, and that takes away too much relief; with a 2mm O-ring it's perfect for me. UNQUOTE

Lee

 

[John Frink]

See John Frink's post describing how he has the problem of too much 'eye relief' with Swaros. How many different eyecups should a manufacturer supply?

Years ago I visited my optometrist and explained that I was a nutso birder who was having trouble getting sufficient eye relief from several different binoculars that claimed to have been designed for eyeglass wearers. She found me some eyeglass frames that could be fitted closer to my face, with adjustable nosepads, gaining about 2mm of additional eye relief. The difference was amazing, and I have used frames of that type ever since.

John

 

[Troubador]

Years ago I visited my optometrist and explained that I was a nutso birder who was having trouble getting sufficient eye relief from several different binoculars that claimed to have been designed for eyeglass wearers. She found me some eyeglass frames that could be fitted closer to my face, with adjustable nosepads, gaining about 2mm of additional eye relief. The difference was amazing, and I have used frames of that type ever since.

John

Thanks for this John. Something to bear in mind: take bins on the next trip to the opticians!

Lee