swarovski 8x20: rainguard? (and compact case) (1 Viewer)

[mbb]

I have recently bought a second hand Swarovski 8x20 as "carry everywhere" pair of binoculars. Does anyone have a rainguard to recommend?
I was thinking of some like the rainguards from Leica for their Ultravid 8x20: consisting of two separate rainguards, one for each eyepiece, not interconnected but having each its own loop for remaining attached to the strap. (not impeding the compact folding of the binoculars)
Does anyone know if those for the Ultravid would fit the Swarovski, and possibly where to find them? Or comparable ones?

Objective covers would also be nice to have, if anyone has some to recommend, but those are less essential.

If someone has a case/bag to recommend that would fit the binoculars (with rainguard) snuggly, that would also be welcome! (But I'll also try to visit a camera store nearby to see what's available.)

(I know that many carry those without rainguard and/or without case when on-the-go, but we all have our own preferences. 🙂 These really are aimed to be "carried anywhere" (in the jacket with the keys, in the office bag, on cycling holiday, ...), without thinkering about wether to take them along or not, therefore the compact case/bag. And I really prefer having the eyepieces protected from rain/dust/... when carried around the neck, therefore the rainguard.)


PS: yes, this is a thread about the "old" 8x20, not the 8x25 nor the new, hot 7x21 😉 (2013 isn't that old...)

 

[Mike Crawley]

Swarovski are fantastic at leaving odds and sods of spare accessories with their dealers.
Look up your nearest and give them a call, they might be able to help. At worst they can probably get you a genuine rain guard.

For a bag/case probably best going to somewhere like Wex or another photography type shop and finding something that fits.

 

[sillyak]

I use a Lowepro Adventura CS10. It fits them perfectly, good quality with a belt loop, and cheap.

It's definitely up to you, but I don't use a rain guard, definitely don't need objective covers. The objective is recessed far enough that I find nothing touches it when in a pocket, of course make sure you don't put it in a pocket with keys or similar.

As for rain guard, I just put the loop around my neck and keep the binos under my jacket when I'm walking along not using them. It's nice to not need covers and to keep everything compact and simple. Pull them out to use, and then tuck them back in.

 

[mbb]

Thank you for the tips!

I will look up that Lowepro around here! I plan on visiting two photography shops in town. (If I can find one in a local shop the better.)

Regarding the presence of spare parts at Swarovski dealers, that is certainly true, but it appears that Swarovski has never supplied or made rainguards for those 8x20’s as far as I know, thus there are none to ask Swarovski for . As opposed to all their 32-42-50…mm binoculars. (It is like the Zeiss Victory 8x25 accessories story all over again…)

Maybe it’s just me 🤔 : I just like, with waterproof binoculars with rainguards, not having to think about putting my binoculars back in a case or underneath my jacket when e.g. it suddenly starts raining. (I agree the objective covers are often less essential, but useful still e.g.when cycling on dusty/sandy roads etc., especially with someone in front of you.) I remember lively the pleasure of not having to hide my binoculars away anymore when it rained during walks when I got my first decent and waterproof binoculars 😊(which also came with rainguards…) For me, waterproofing without supplying rainguards is like cheap half-work: rainwater won’t enter and they won’t fog up internally, but rain will still be very annoying, while that would have changed less than 1% of the price…

 

[mwhogue]

mbb,

I use a carefully trimmed down Opticron rainguard on the SW 8x20. The UV 8x20 ocular covers will also work but are a bit large and no way to conveniently attach them to the fixed strap on the SW. The rainguard for the new SW 8x25 will also work but is a bit large and loose for my taste.

The original case for the SW 8x20 is great if you want to carry in a pocket or on belt but may be hard to find. I assume your pair didn't come with the original case (?). The UV 8x20 case will also work but is a bit large for pocket carry. I would like to get some objective covers as well, maybe the smallest Opticrons but I haven't tried any so far.

Mike

 

[PW42]

Leica do a good soft case for their 8x20 which I imagine would fit. Small with some good design features. It really keeps the binoculars as a very compact set up. It does not seem to be advertised but is certainly available direct from Leica. However it does have a Leica logo (although very discreet) and does not have a belt loop. And perhaps not surprisingly not the cheapest.

 

[Mike Crawley]

Thank you for the tips!

Regarding the presence of spare parts at Swarovski dealers, that is certainly true, but it appears that Swarovski has never supplied or made rainguards for those 8x20’s as far as I know, thus there are none to ask Swarovski for . As opposed to all their 32-42-50…mm binoculars. (It is like the Zeiss Victory 8x25 accessories story all over again…)

OK, having never ventured down the compact/pocket binocula route I didn’t know that.

good luck with your search

 

[mbb]

mbb,

I use a carefully trimmed down Opticron rainguard on the SW 8x20. The UV 8x20 ocular covers will also work but are a bit large and no way to conveniently attach them to the fixed strap on the SW. The rainguard for the new SW 8x25 will also work but is a bit large and loose for my taste.

The original case for the SW 8x20 is great if you want to carry in a pocket or on belt but may be hard to find. I assume your pair didn't come with the original case (?). The UV 8x20 case will also work but is a bit large for pocket carry. I would like to get some objective covers as well, maybe the smallest Opticrons but I haven't tried any so far.

Mike

Thank you a lot for this info! That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

I hadn’t even paid attention to the fact that the strap wasn’t removable 😕 I guess the cable ties will have to be used again. ☹️

Thus the UV ocular covers are wider than the Opticron ones, both their interior as their exterior diameter (too loose for the Swarovski oculars and too bulky)?
Do you still know which Opticron rainguard that is (model number/size)? Can you leave them on the binoculars when folding them compactly, without too much counter-pressure (towards opening the binoculars) or added bulk (not protruding above the bridge of the binoculars once folded)?
I notice that you have trimmed down the ‘fins‘ between the two caps, but am not sure if that is only for the bulk once folded, or if it also significantly helped ’loosen up’ the rainguard, making it more flexible, less rigid.

Regarding the case, I was also surprised to see the UV bag being that large on your picture. I thought it would have been a more snug fit.
It is an original Swarovski case that I got together with the 8x20, but looking very different and larger than yours. Maybe Swarovski changed the case somewhere over the years. Mine seem to be very similar to the old ones for the 8x25, maybe already produced at the same time and since than sold with the same bag. (Left picture in post 6 there: Swarovski 8x25 CL-P case problems )
My 8x20’s are from 2013 (serial number A83…). I don’t know when Swarovski stopped making them nor when they started to lake the 8x25. Trying to trace the bags, when were your Swarovski 8x20’s made?

(Not that I plan on switching at all for the moment, but I would still be curious about your experience with the UV compared to the Swarovski, as apparently you own both (not just tested in a store). 🙂)

 

[mwhogue]

mbb

Thus the UV ocular covers are wider than the Opticron ones, both their interior as their exterior diameter (too loose for the Swarovski oculars and too bulky)?
Do you still know which Opticron rainguard that is (model number/size)? Can you leave them on the binoculars when folding them compactly, without too much counter-pressure (towards opening the binoculars) or added bulk (not protruding above the bridge of the binoculars once folded)?
I notice that you have trimmed down the ‘fins‘ between the two caps, but am not sure if that is only for the bulk once folded, or if it also significantly helped ’loosen up’ the rainguard, making it more flexible, less rigid.

I just placed the UV covers on the SW and they are loose, possibly will come off unintentionally when carried during actual use. But if they will stay on when carried around the neck, this may be an advantage since it seems they would fall away when raised to the eyes thus allowing for very quick looks.

It is the "Compact" Opticron guard (only one size in the compact version) and yes trimming the fins down reduces bulk, makes it more flexible and easy to use on and off, and no counter pressure to open up the bins. But is still has enough spring tension to stay on when carried. As shown in the photos I also (carefully) cut off all the attachment lugs except the one used to attach with a small zip tie which reduces bulk further. The SW can be very near fully folded with the Opticron, making no practical difference in actual use or storage/carry in the small cases.

Regarding the case, I was also surprised to see the UV bag being that large on your picture. I thought it would have been a more snug fit.
It is an original Swarovski case that I got together with the 8x20, but looking very different and larger than yours. Maybe Swarovski changed the case somewhere over the years. Mine seem to be very similar to the old ones for the 8x25, maybe already produced at the same time and since than sold with the same bag. (Left picture in post 6 there: Swarovski 8x25 CL-P case problems )
My 8x20’s are from 2013 (serial number A83…). I don’t know when Swarovski stopped making them nor when they started to lake the 8x25. Trying to trace the bags, when were your Swarovski 8x20’s made?

My SW 8x20 must be an older model than yours. Mine came with the smaller fitted envelope style case shown when I bought them used. It includes a belt loop and is a lot smaller than the bag for the 8x25 SW. It's also a lot smaller than the Leica UV 8x20 bag. But my Leica bag does have a belt loop unlike PW42's bag (post #6).

Not that I plan on switching at all for the moment, but I would still be curious about your experience with the UV compared to the Swarovski, as apparently you own both (not just tested in a store). 🙂)

The optical performance is very close. It may come down to whether you prefer a Leica or a SW style image. If I remember the specs correctly, the SW have a slightly larger FOV but not noticeable in use as opposed to direct A/B comparison. Both have excellent ER for 8x20 models. I do much prefer the handling of the UV especially with the focus wheel of the SW being at the forward end of the bridge and the UV diopter adjustment is better. Keep us posted on your experience with them and how the accessory experiments work out.

Just added some more pics of SW 8x20, leica 8x20 and SW 8x25 bags. There is a more difference in the size of the bags than the pictures show.

Mike

 

[mbb]

I just placed the UV covers on the SW and they are loose, possibly will come off unintentionally when carried during actual use. But if they will stay on when carried around the neck, this may be an advantage since it seems they would fall away when raised to the eyes thus allowing for very quick looks.

It is the "Compact" Opticron guard (only one size in the compact version) and yes trimming the fins down reduces bulk, makes it more flexible and easy to use on and off, and no counter pressure to open up the bins. But is still has enough spring tension to stay on when carried. As shown in the photos I also (carefully) cut off all the attachment lugs except the one used to attach with a small zip tie which reduces bulk further. The SW can be very near fully folded with the Opticron, making no practical difference in actual use or storage/carry in the small cases.

I have just checked the Opticron "Compact" rainguard that I have for my 8x25 binoculars (product code 31021), but their internal diameter is 34mm. This is both the value mentioned on the box ("dia. to 34mm") and the value that I have just measured.
On Opticron's website, the product number for the Compact rainguard is now 31085, but the webpage mentions the same interior diameter (34mm). I have no idea what the difference is between these two products.
In any case, if that 31085 also measures 34mm internally as my 31021, it will also be too large for these little 8x20: their eyepiece and objective diameters are only 30mm. While a perfect fit for the Zeiss 8x25, they are very loose and big on the Swarovski 8x20.
Did you find yet another, more compact model?

My SW 8x20 must be an older model than yours. Mine came with the smaller fitted envelope style case shown when I bought them used. It includes a belt loop and is a lot smaller than the bag for the 8x25 SW. It's also a lot smaller than the Leica UV 8x20 bag. But my Leica bag does have a belt loop unlike PW42's bag (post #6).

Just added some more pics of SW 8x20, leica 8x20 and SW 8x25 bags. There is a more difference in the size of the bags than the pictures show.

Thanks for the pictures!
When comparing the small cases I have (for binoculars/compact camera/MP3/...), it also surprises me that size differences when just looking at them or especially on picture always seem significantly smaller than in actual use, where e.g. 1cm can actually make a significant difference when wanting to put them e.g. in the pocket of my jacket, side pocket of office bag etc.

I'm wondering if Leica's leather hard case for their UV8x20 would be a good fit for the Swarovski 8x20 (pictures in post 6 in this thread): Review: leica 8 x 20 BL Ultravid
Because I like the idea of a snug fitting hard-case for these "take it everywhere, put it everywhere" binoculars.
I'll check a generic hard case later today. Hopefully that will fit well.

The optical performance is very close. It may come down to whether you prefer a Leica or a SW style image. If I remember the specs correctly, the SW have a slightly larger FOV but not noticeable in use as opposed to direct A/B comparison. Both have excellent ER for 8x20 models. I do much prefer the handling of the UV especially with the focus wheel of the SW being at the forward end of the bridge and the UV diopter adjustment is better. Keep us posted on your experience with them and how the accessory experiments work out.

Thanks for sharing experience!

I have to admit I was quite skeptical about the position of the focus know on the SW 8x20, but it does not bother me much at all in actual use. Still, I can image that larger and differently placed knob on the UV to be a little more ergonomic or a little faster for quick focus-changes.

The diopter adjustment knob is very basic on the SW, but it is tight and protected (recessed) enough, with some markings, thus perfectly OK for me: easy to position once and leave as is.
I can image the UV diopter adjuster being more 'special' and nice, but does it really give a practical advantage?
The only diopter adjustment knob that I have experience with and that I find should really have been much better designed, is that of the Zeiss Victory 8x20: it is too exposed (not recessed), it has one single indent at 0 (it should either have many more, finely spaced, or none), and it has no markings/scale at all. Those 3 things together are not a good idea . In comparison to that, I much prefer the simple, 'classic' diopter adjustment found on many binoculars: just a ring around one of the two eyepieces, as long as it has a 'good' tightness and markings. That just works fine....

I seem to be more difficult or picky about glare/veiling/... control than about focus and diopter knobs (Though I have to admit I love my UV 8x32 on those aspects . Just the most marvelous binocular design for me.)
I hope to use these little SW 8x20 more soon, and will share my experience!

 

[mwhogue]

I have just checked the Opticron "Compact" rainguard that I have for my 8x25 binoculars (product code 31021), but their internal diameter is 34mm. This is both the value mentioned on the box ("dia. to 34mm") and the value that I have just measured.
On Opticron's website, the product number for the Compact rainguard is now 31085, but the webpage mentions the same interior diameter (34mm). I have no idea what the difference is between these two products.
In any case, if that 31085 also measures 34mm internally as my 31021, it will also be too large for these little 8x20: their eyepiece and objective diameters are only 30mm. While a perfect fit for the Zeiss 8x25, they are very loose and big on the Swarovski 8x20.
Did you find yet another, more compact model?

What you are describing is the same size "compact " Opticron rainguard I use. I'm not sure why the numbers are different. Sorry it did not work so well for you. I have and use several of them (bought at various times) including one that as you say fits perfectly on the Zeiss VP 8x25. I agree it is too large to work +really well+ on the SW 8x20, but it does work better for me when carrying around the neck on casual walks than anything else I have tried. Thanks for those exact measurements BTW.

m wondering if Leica's leather hard case for their UV8x20 would be a good fit for the Swarovski 8x20 (pictures in post 6 in this thread): Review: leica 8 x 20 BL Ultravid
Because I like the idea of a snug fitting hard-case for these "take it everywhere, put it everywhere" binoculars.
I'll check a generic hard case later today. Hopefully that will fit well.

Yes the Leica hard case fits the SW 8x20 very nicely but not with any rainguard in place other than the UV individual caps. It is a beautiful hard leather case but expensive as I recall. Leica sent me one for free (another story).

Looking forward to your experience in use of the bins and various accessories.

Mike

 

[mbb]

Yes the Leica hard case fits the SW 8x20 very nicely but not with any rainguard in place other than the UV individual caps. It is a beautiful hard leather case but expensive as I recall. Leica sent me one for free (another story).

Looking forward to your experience in use of the bins and various accessories.

The Leica hard leather case seems expensive indeed

In the meantime, I have found a hard case that is quite nice and that can be found for little money: a Hama hardcase 60L. ( 00103691 Hama Fototas Hardcase Colour Style 60L zwart | Hama NV )
I have added a few pictures below, showing the original Swarovski bag, the new hard case and the binoculars, as well as dimensions. Both pictures and stated dimensions can give a wrong impression...
Hama is a brand that makes all kinds of accessories and can be found easily in many online and local stores in Belgium and the Netherlands. Prices for this case vary between €6 and €20 approximately. (I have found mine here locally for €6.) There are different versions of finishing (e.g. 'carbon' etc.). I just took the one in stock locally.

I have measured the 8x20 binoculars to be approximately 9,9x5,9x3,9 cm folded (but with eyecups extended, how I would stow them away in a case/bag/pocket), or let's say 10x6x4cm, but 3,7 instead of 4cm if you wouldn't consider the small bump of the focussing knob. The very thin strap adds negligible thickness, as you can circle it around the ocular barrels (where there is no binocular 'bridge').

The Hama hard case is stated to have the following interior dimensions: 11x7x4cm. In theory(!), the case could thus have been up to 1cm less tall or wide (0,5cm on each side), but I hope some very small caps will still fit inside, once I find some(...). Also, the 'play'/additional space is still very(!) small: the binoculars do not move freely inside the case by themselves when you turn the case around! And the very few mm play all around together with the rigid casing materials does give some pressure/impact protection.
Three nice things about the case (see also the pictures):

1. the very small interior section the case has, meant for e.g. an SD-card of a camera, but perfect for a small piece of micro-fibre cloth (see picture). As opposed to some camera cases, that extra section does not add any bulk: it is just a very thin cloth sewed flat at one side of the case (no zipper, button, ...).
2. the case also has, at the outside, a small loop for a supplied strap and a belt loop. Again, these are just very thin but strong, sewed lids, remaining perfectly flat to the case when not in use and not adding any bulk. I don't plan on using these for the moment, but I don't mind them being there: they might come in handy some day and really are negligible. (I have cursed thick, padded belt loops on compact cases in the past.)
3. the very thin cloth pieces keeping the two pieces/shells of the case together at the interior sides. (The case opens up to less than 90°, but still more than enough, and what's inside won't fall out as easily by accident.)

Simple design just works... Sometimes I wonder why cheap, third party accessories are better and fit better than the original ones from expensive 'alpha' brands...
(And I actually like the fact of not having some flashy or expensive looking brand logo on the case/pouch. Though I could understand the original manufacturers to brand their cases/pouches...)

The case's specs don't mention exterior dimensions, but I've measured the case to be around 12,7x9x5cm externally at its maximum (including bumps from stitching, zip-lock,...). Thus yes, the case itself does add some bulk compared to the 'naked' binoculars, of course, but it is still pocketable.
It is much smaller than the soft (but bulky) Swarovski bag that came with my 8x20 and it gives a lot better protection to the binoculars. That protection is a welcome reassurement for me: this little case with the binoculars inside will 'disappear' in the pocket of my jacket with my keys and other stuff, in the bike and office bags, glove compartment of the car ... while 'forgetting' they are there.


Now, about some limited experience using them... 😄
I'm just back from a few days with the bike cycling around and birding. Normally, I would only have taken one set of binoculars on the bike, but because these are small and new (I wanted to test them ), I also took the little 8x20 in their new hard case in the pocket of my jacket, while keeping my FL 7x42 around my neck most of the time.
The 7x42 are more at the upper limit of size/weight when cycling, but I still chose them instead of my 8x32 because of the very cloudy weather, shorter days (more dark hours), and I like walking/cycling in nature at late, dark hours.
Well, I have to admit I barely took out the 8x20... The 7x42 are just soooo great and bright. Ideal in such situations. (I regularly wonder where they get the light from... ) Obviously, on those very clouded days, the 8x20's weren't as bright as the 7x42, and the view isn't as comfortable for longer watching: smaller exit pupil, less stable due to their very small size. (A 8x30/32mm is way more ergonomic and stable than a 8x20mm.)
Still, I was impressed by the view these little 8x20 achieved. They are plenty sharp. Of course, they aren't as bright as larger exit pupil binoculars when your pupils are large (dark hours), but they are not dark at all and perfectly bright during brighter moments of the days (still not a sunny, but the sparse moments where the thick clouds went away). (Disclaimer: I don't know if the older models were as good. My 8x20's were made 2013, after the latest important coating updates.) The position of the focus know didn't bother me a lot: you get used to it (just after switching from one to the other binocular, you just have to adapt for a brief instance) and it is secondary for such a type of compact binoculars.

Summary: I really think these binoculars in this hard case are great for what I bought them for: "carry anywhere, without thinking twice, just in case ànd still enjoy the view if something is worth observing".
(Birding for me is very much about enjoying observing the birds, more because of their beauty and what they do than because of some kind of bird being rare. Thus a nice view really adds to the experience.)
I might share more hands-on experience once I have used them more.
I just need to find OK, small rain guards now for when they hang around my neck...
Well, unless the new Swarovski 7x21 drops in price significantly (I guess this won't happen anytime soon 😕), I think these 8x20 will remain very good companions 😉

 

[Dipperdapper]

Hi mbb,

Like your solution for the carrying case of your 8 x 20. I found one similar on amazon for just a few pounds. It's a hard clamshell case and fits my Leica Ultravid 8 x 20 perfectly! Zip closes too and there is even space to include a sachet of silica gel desiccant. Works great and the combo fits in an ordinary pocket!

Neil.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I have an older version of this: Case Logic Point and Shoot Camera Case - Case Logic​

I use it with a pair of Trinovid 8x20'BCA's. It's a snug but not unreasonable fit and I like that it takes up minimal room. Has been my go-to setup for weight-sensitive travel, backpacking, cities, etc. Not sure if it would fit the Swaros but it's not a huge investment. I use the same case for a Sony RX100.

​

 

[Dipperdapper]

Ps. I usually store those pocket glasses with their eye cups extended, even while being stowed away(not often) in its clamshell for a while. That way, it's ready to be deployed in seconds.....lol

 

[mbb]

Ps. I usually store those pocket glasses with their eye cups extended, even while being stowed away(not often) in its clamshell for a while. That way, it's ready to be deployed in seconds.....lol

I do the same with my binoculars (both the smallest and the largest).
I see no reason to retract the eye cups (their respective bags/cases all accept the eye cups extended, though often without any spare room anymore, but that's OK), it's faster, especially in case of eyecups with multiple intermediate positions (they will still be at the positions that I like the most), and it actually adds a bit of protection (e.g. against those annoying fingerprints when quickly grabbing them ... )

 

[mbb]

After some more use (including taking them when I probably wouldn’t have taken bigger binoculars) I can confirm these little Swarovski 8x20 are really great.
Of course, they don’t have the FOV or exit pupil size of my 7x42 FL, but they really are great to « take along anyway » in the pocket of my jacket, other bag etc., more easily than my Zeiss Victory 8x25, also with this little hard shell case (and also thanks to it). Also the view through it really impresses me. Both the level of detail and the brightness these give.
Of course, when it’s getting darker (e.g. at sunset or on cloudy days in the wood) their small exit pupil becomes a limitation. Also if observing for longer time continuously (regarding comfort and ergonomics). But pocket binoculars are not meant for that…
I was actually also surprised that they were much less prone to glare/reflections/etc. than I was expecting based on their small form factor and earlier comments here on the forum. The more because I am quite sensitive to that. I took them on a tour in the evening, with low sun, along the river, together with my UV 8x32. The UV 8x32 is known to be extremely good on that level and performed nearly flawlessly. The little 8x20 wasn’t as perfect, but still much better than I expected and better than what I would have expected from some other binoculars that I have and have used there in similar conditions (though not this same time). The view was never unusable or too strongly affected to be sharp/clear ánd enjoyable.

I’m really wondering if some of the lesser love for the old little Swaro 8x20 compared to the UV 8x20 isn’t because most of the experience that people have had with the Swaro isn’t mainly based on four reasons:

1. the limited eye relief (but I’m lucky not to have to wear glasses, so that’s OK for me)
2. the ergonomic issue some have with the focus knob compared to the UV’s focus knob (while it could be better, I find it OK for such binoculars)
3. the design of the UV is more appealing (? personal taste…)
4. optically: I’m wondering if most of the shared experience wasn’t with (much) older units, as Swarovski’s 8x20’s have existed for many many years (since somewhere in the 80-90’s?), across several improvements of not only the eyecups, but importantly so the coatings, as optical quality is quite crucial for such small binoculars. The ones I have are from 2013 and thus with Swarobright coatings and the later incremental coating upgrades from Swarovski that I have read about in general in other threads, including from 2004, 2009, …

Canip’s assessment of a version from 1992 on Binoculars Today is already quite positive and so is Gijs van Ginkel’s measurement in a report from 2005 (I don’t know how old the actual binocular was) where it measured a little bit less bright than the UV. It would be interesting to compare versions/vintages of these, for those who are on the lookout in the second hand market.
Or maybe I should try to find an opportunity to compare them with some UV 8x20, but don’t know how or when (I won’t buy a second 8x20.)

Anyway, thanks again Jan for selling me these great little binoculars!