Hello everyone dose anyone know if the glass in the e.l's and s.l.c's are the same because i have a pair of 10x42s s.l.c's which are fantastic but just wonderd if the glass is the same why such a big price difference.

Cheers to all

Nope, they are not the same. I can't tell you whether the optical glass used for the lenses is the same in both product lines, but the optics have been calculated differently, and very likely the coatings are different as well.

Both are great product lines, but the ELs take the price - both price and quality wise. Are they worth the extra cost?? Top level optics is a game of diminishing returns, only you can decide whether the difference in price is warranted. It is probably one of those things: if you never used anything other than your SLCs, you'd probably never wonder whether anything better existed.

- mike

About six monts ago, I bought a pair of Swaro 7x42 SLC's, with Swarobright. They are excellent binox. I have not compared them to the EL's, so I can't cmt on which is better.

They are at least different designed and that leads to 2 different pictures with 2 different binos. Not only the glass / and or coating is important, also the design of any item.

For me, the EL 8,5x42 is the way to go...

At least as long as I am not out for the night hunt - there a 56mm is the way to go!

Klaus

Glass and coatings are the same, the housing is made of differnt material and of course design making the EL's more expensive.

If someonce compared the same power/size of each side by side and said they saw a diffrence... I'd ask them to pass the pipe.

IMO the only reason to justify spending $400 on the ELs is to save wieght... that comes in at about $100 an oz by the way.

The coatings used are the same, however, the glass is better in the EL. According to Rob Lancellotti at Swarovski, the glass used in the EL is the same type used in their HD spotting scopes. If you looked through a 10x new SLC and a 10x EL, I would be surprised if you could tell me the difference, even stacking one on top of the other. I am always amused when I hear of folks telling the differences they "see" between top of the line bino's from the big three manufacturers. Most of these top bino's have the ability to resolve detail far better than the human eye can, so, I take these opinions with large grains of salt.

I can "see" differences between the top of the line binoculars fairly easily. And I think most people can. Optical coatings can change color correction and contrast, even at a theorectically same resolution. When you compare binoculars in a store under fluorescent lighting, or in the mountains, or at sea, or depending on the time of day (colour temperature) even the top of the line binoculars will seem to be different in their ability to make you see better because of these differences. In a perfect world you could make your comparision under the conditions you are most likely to use the binoculars, which usually isn't in a sporting goods store with fluorescent lighting. No need to pass the pipe.

If you are claiming to see these differences, more power to you. Most people cannot, and if they do, it isn't fairly easy as you say. Optical coatings do not "correct" color, at least broad band coatings don't anyway. The sole purpose of optical coatings is to reduce light reflection. Comparing bino's in anything but natural light is an exercise in futility IMO. Unless you know what your talking about, you should curb your "pipe passing" banter.

Gee RDF51, curbing our banter would render AR pretty dry. But Ivan mentioned "pipe passing" above so I thought it was OK, guess I just need to learn the AR rules.

I am certainly not an expert on optical coatings, and when I stand corrected I have no problem admiting it. You are right, the purpose of optical coatings is to reduce light reflection, and back in my photography days the better optical coatings improved contrast and therefore color rendition (not colour temperature as I stated). Maybe it's not the same for binoculars. But I'm only a layman and have no problem admitting it. Here's one explanation that keeps us laymen confused:

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-166.html

quote:

Originally posted by RDF51:
If you are claiming to see these differences, more power to you. Most people cannot, and if they do, it isn't fairly easy as you say. Optical coatings do not "correct" color, at least broad band coatings don't anyway. The sole purpose of optical coatings is to reduce light reflection. Comparing bino's in anything but natural light is an exercise in futility IMO. Unless you know what your talking about, you should curb your "pipe passing" banter.

WOW, new AR posting police

No, not at all. I just got the feeling that he was implying that I was basing my opinions from making store comparisons which would not prove a whole lot. I just thought the "pipe passing" comment was funny. I am probably talking Winks comments to literally, but, I still say that the differences seen with Alpha bino's is hard to see. Sometimes the choice between say an EL, FL and Ultravid comes down to ergonomics more than optical differences. I could put bino's through several tests to determine which handled astigmatism, chromatic aberration (aka color fringing) collimation but this involves spending time with each and it probably wouldn't ever have any real bearing on how these would perform in hunting situations.