I purchased the EL Range 10x42 in September 2018 and after having used them on many hunts since then, the lack of clarity in the glass is very distinguishable. It is so apparent that I can’t notice a difference between my EL Range’s and other mid-tier binoculars I own. I initially chocked up the lack of performance to “perhaps it’s just my eyes”, or “I need to spend some more time with them to be sure”, etc. but now I am certain they are sub-par glass. On one of the Kifarucast podcasts the host and guest discussed how they knew the EL Range used lower quality glass when compared to the traditional EL series. That was the first instance I had heard of where a prominent figure in the industry confirmed what I suspected from the start – Swarovski downgraded the glass in the EL Range’s compared to the traditional EL’s. When looking at the technical specs on their website the EL Range's seems to be on par with the EL’s and the SLC’s. Additionally, a close hunting buddy of mine has the SLC’s and when I looked through those to compare, it certainly seemed the SLC's were higher quality optics.
This lack of quality in the glass is not made apparent to customers when making their purchasing decisions. At the time, the language and specs on the website do not distinguish a difference in optical quality between the EL Ranges and the EL’s. A customer was led to believe they are the same quality (or nearly the same quality), when they are not. If I were made aware of the difference in the quality of glass, I would have purchased the traditional EL’s as I place a premium on optical clarity, not the rangefinder function. I am extremely disappointed in Swarovski and will explore products with their competitors, Leica and Zeiss.
At a bare minimum the company should make it very clear in the marketing materials that the EL Range’s do not have the same optical quality as the EL’s. We all know their customers don’t come to them for the latest range finding technology, they come to Swarovski for the highest quality optics. The lack of disclosure on their part is lazy at best, and outright deceitful at worst. I believe Swarovski purposefully misled customers by not making this difference in glass apparent. Furthermore, when I wrote the Company about my complaint they said I was simply mistaken and there was nothing they could do for me.
I’m not writing this to hurt Swarovski, but to try and educate others in order to avoid the same mistake I made. If you are assessing the buying options of the latest range finding binoculars, ensure you do your research to be certain you are not taking a large step down in optical quality. Or, at the minimum, make your purchase with the knowledge you are giving up a large degree of optical quality, particularly in those dusk and dawn scenarios.
Also, have you tried to confirm your claims with Swarovski themselves? A podcast doesn't seem like a very reliable source to make such accusations. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying I'd need to see a little more proof.
Yes, I'm a proud owner of traditional ELs, and I have yet to look thru another binocular that even comes close, so I'm going to reserve judgement until I see a bit more evidence.
Matt
I did try to confirm my claims with Swarovski (please read my original post), they told me I was out of luck.
In terms of specifics, when I looked through them the quality degraded rapidly with any light degradation (i.e. not mid-day) and the clarity to the edges was very clearly lacking. My biggest gripe is the dusk/dawn light gathering which is mediocre at best. I am convinced of these facts given I compared them side by side with other optics in the field over the past couple of seasons.
In terms of the lack of quality being known since inception, that was not my findings at all when did my initial research. I looked through them (in a store setting) and spoke to many folks in the industry and no one called out this lack of quality. I chalk that fact up to ignorance at the time, meaning most people selling them were not aware of this fact. In the years since their release I suspect more people have caught on, but that was not known out of the gate. Frankly, how could it be when the product name starts with EL and the website listed the same light transmission and other stats? This drove me to my opinion that Swarovski deliberately mislead consumers.
As per the Swaro EL Range, you got hung up on the "EL" monicker thinking it was a definition of optical quality:
"EL" in Swarovski EL binoculars stands for "Ergonomic Light." In addition to making them lightweight for extended field excursions, Swarovski endeavored to make them as ergonomically comfortable to use as possible. With binoculars, you'll take note in the field if they're unbalanced and either front- or back-heavy. The placement of the hinge and focus wheel should take into consideration the overall balance of the heavy objective lenses and the ocular's multiple, smaller lenses."
What you were looking for in best optical performance was Swarovision lenses, which were not built into the EL Ranges:
"Swarovision is a Swarovski term which encompasses a combination of field flattener lenses made with fluoride which, combined with long eye relief of 20mm and what Swarovski terms "optimized coatings." "Field flattener" lenses flatten the field of view optically so that there is no perceived pincushion distortion which is often engineered into optics to eliminate rolling ball or globe distortion experienced when panning across a scene. The use of fluoride in the manufacture of the glass used for the objective lenses in Swarovision makes them High Density (or Extra-low Dispersion, if you prefer) lenses and provides the best color fidelity presently possible - largely through reduction of chromatic aberration. (Swarovski points out that the machining process for the HD objective lenses is both sophisticated and complex and simply using fluoride glass in a binocular won't produce exceptional results if the entire optical system isn't tweaked for corresponding high performance.)"
I pulled the items in quote above off a 2011 review from Optics Reviewer. Also a quick Google check shows many Rokslide threads about the optical quality of the EL Ranges vs the Swarovision ELs over the past decade. The general consensus is the EL Ranges are good but not top tier glass. This corresponds with my assessment with owning both the early Swaro EL 10x42 (pre-Swarovision) and the Swarovision EL 10x42s. I like both but the Swarovisions are significantly better glass that are clear to the edge.
As per the "best" range finding binoculars....I was bowhunting Dalls in the NWT (2017) with a guide that had a pair of Leica Geovid 10x42 with the "banana shaped" barrels (Perger prism design). They were optically excellent to my eyes when the guide and I traded binos for an hour long glassing session watching and glassing for more sheep. They had greater depth of field than my Swarovision 10x42ELs and I almost went home and bought a pair. The Leica's large frame (size) and a bit more comparative binocular weight held me back. I prefer a separate rangefinder for bowhunting easier to use when stalking, and find my Swarovision EL 10x42s excellent binoculars.
All a moot point nows the NL PURE model has left the ELs obsolete for the discerning hunter or birder
In terms of the EL moniker, I don’t think it was unrealistic for someone to do a side-by-side reconciliation of the EL to the EL range by comparing the key optic criteria Swarovski listed on the website, seeing the same stats (light transmission, etc.) and think they would be buying similar if not identical quality. In terms of your point on Swarovision, that could be a key difference however the response I received from Swarovski clearly stated they do have Swarovision (I could paste the verbatim response but I’ll refrain). They did tell me that the only difference is that the normal EL’s have additional field flattener lenses for edge sharpness. So that makes sense why the edge-to-edge clarity would be lacking.
Given all this I still hold the belief that it doesn’t justify the large step down in optical quality and this was not made clear to the customer. I never would have purchased these if I knew that were the case. I understand people are very defensive of the brands they use but I have seen similar optical performance in binoculars that are a fraction of the price and frankly the range finder is nothing spectacular. Ultimately, I feel I paid $3,000 for something in which I have no desire to keep. It was a huge financial mistake.
I will concede that perhaps it was on me to do some more thorough field testing before purchasing the EL Ranges. But I did look through them before purchasing, read reviews available at the time, and even sought out the opinion of some so-called experts. My intent behind making this post is so others that may be looking to make a similar purchase avoid the same costly mistake I made. That’s why I worded the subject line the way I did so it hopefully pops up in a typical google search for Bowsite threads. Time will tell how the optical quality on the new pair of EL Ranges are, but until I see some independent reviews on low-light gathering I am very doubtful that the glass is on par with the regular EL's. Buyer beware
All a moot point nows the NL PURE model has left the ELs obsolete for the discerning hunter or birder
I'm not sure the first year they incorporated Swarovision. Perhaps Kurt knows.
I’m so happy that when I read your post for the second time, I noticed the 4th paragraph was in quotes. THANK GOD, I was beginning to think I knew nothing after that precise explanation you had in such detail. Lol
DJ
AZ8's Link
