I have a nice pair of Zeiss Victory 8x40's that are about 4 years old...supposed to be very good back then, and they really are. They set me back about $900 back then. I am considering about upgrading to the Swaro EL's in the 8x42 configuration. Any thoughts on how the $1800 Swaros might compare? My primary consideration is "last light" and if the Swaros might be any better in your opinion.

I have a pair of 8.5x42 ELs and a pair of Victory IIs 8x40. In a direct comparison, the ELs are better, no doubt about it. But I happily use my Victory IIs in the field, and never think about the difference. So, does that make the ELs worth the extra $$$?? Only you can tell, really. I would be perfectly happy to hunt with either.

(I should say, I have not compared the two in low light conditions. That is the realm of the 56mm binocs here in Central Europe...)

- mike

i upgraded from leicas 10x40 to swaro 10x40;s mostly because my wife goes along and i wanted here to have a decent set for her so i gave her the leicas. I find the swaro's to give a brighter image, but other than that, not enough to warrant calling it an upgrade.

I have 8x32 El's and I had a pair of Leica Ultravids both 8x42 and 8x32. To my eyes the El's were just a tiny bit more resolving when viewing in the shadows. Probably because they may be a bit towards the yellow side of neutral. I sold the Leica 8x32 and kept the Swaros.

You might look at the Zeiss Fl's. You can get them for a bit less than the Swaros and they are very bright and ultra clear. I have a pair in 10x42 and really like them. They also have a lifetime transferable warranty. Of course I have sent used Swaro products back and even though I wasn't the original owner they fixed them for free.
If you are looking to spend $1800 you might think about the new Leica HD's. With the addition of of the Floride they may just be the new number one.

Hank,

I had a pair 10x42 El's never like them just wasn't working for me for long viewing time. Bought a pair of Zeiss FL 10x42 a couple of years ago and don't know about comparing the two since I sold the EL's before buying the Zeiss but they are working great.

borntohunt

That's a rough question. Of course, if I had the extra cash lying around to buy them I would (who wouldn't), but were I shopping for a pair of top of the line binos, they might not make the list.

My dad has a pair of 10x42's that he purchased some years ago, and while they are simply astonishing to look through (yes, really), he got them when the dollar/euro exchange rate was a little more favorable. I seem to remember him saying he paid $1300 for them, rather than the $1900 they're getting now. Given the current price, he said he wouldn't buy them again. There are many equally good competitors at significantly less (Kahles, for one) that offer 98% of the performance.

They're pricey, and worth it if you've got the cash, but there are a lot of other choices that will leave you extra $$ for other things.

I don't currently have them anymore, but I had a pair of 8.5x42 ELs and I didn't care for them.

I am using a pair of 8.5x58 Nikons now. I like the eye releif on the Nikons more than I liked the complete lack of eye releif on the Swaros.

When my financial situation is better I will own a pair of Leica 10x50s.

I also own a pair of Burris Signature 2 10x50s. Not quite crap, but I wish I had the 10x58 Nikons instead.

If you wear glasses you really need to try the ELs before you buy. I didn't like the lack of eye releif. Especially for the $1200 I paid.

You know I sold them on Ebay 2 years later for $1200.

D99,
You brought up a good point and that is the Swaro's hold their value - almost to the penny. About the only optics I can think of that do.

the other thing about swaro is that if you have trouble the warranty and customer service is outstanding,in my experience with leica theirs is worthless