EL 8.5x42 vs. NL 8x32 - only pair (2 Viewers)

[HenChamp]

Looking for opinions from people with more experience than I have. Going on a trip and need to make a decision by tomorrow in order to receive the binoculars in time.

General nature use and birding mostly. Light hiking, but no long trips. What would you do? The appeal of the NL is the weight and focus ring seems improved, my one gripe of the 8.5x42 really (and smaller can be helpful).

What am I giving up going to the NL32, anything? FOV seems like it may be the same or better on the NL even with the 32.

Thanks in advance.

 

[[email protected]]

I would get the EL 8.5x42. It will be brighter in low light, have easier eye placement, sharper edges and that extra .5x of magnification makes a big difference in seeing detail. I think it will be a better all around binocular for you. The NL's with their huge FOV need a complex eyepiece to get that big FOV which IMO makes eye placement more finicky, and they can be more glare prone and the armour seems to be biodegradable. I wouldn't buy an NL until Swarovski solves their armour issues. Also, the NL has gotten too heavy and bulky compared to the older EL. The NL 10x42 weighs almost 33 oz.! Really!

 

[Mike Crawley]

I'm not being critical, I understand your problem, but presumably you are getting the binoculars "Mail order" rather than spending a couple of hours in a shop trying them for fit (face and hands) ?

if this is the case, I personally, would take my current favourite pair of binoculars rather than risk having to take a few days getting familiar with new binoculars (even the glorious 8.5x42 ELs) and potentially missing stuff.

Only been to Hong Kong once but it was a great experience, I hope you enjoy your visit

 

[Jimmy534]

NL Pures are amazing there is a reason why they are best. However dropping to a 32 will inevitably have an effect (Dawn and Dusk). I tried the 10x32 NL Pure's the other day and they were very light (to me) and great to look through. I expect you could walk around with them without any weight considerations. Although I think the 8x would be even better for stable image etc. I have the NL pures in 10x42s and if I saw a good used deal on some x32s as a walk around pair I would snap them up.

 

[Conndomat]

Looking for opinions from people with more experience than I have. Going on a trip and need to make a decision by tomorrow in order to receive the binoculars in time.

General nature use and birding mostly. Light hiking, but no long trips. What would you do? The appeal of the NL is the weight and focus ring seems improved, my one gripe of the 8.5x42 really (and smaller can be helpful).

What am I giving up going to the NL32, anything? FOV seems like it may be the same or better on the NL even with the 32.

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

I would opt for the 8.5x42 without pointing out the optical differences.

What is a bit worrying about the NL are the increasing problems with the rubber coating, I really think Swarovski should come up with something here, the material does not seem to have a good longevity, until Swarovski improves here I would do without an NL.

Andreas

 

[ReinierB]

I vote for the NL 8x32.
I have the NL 10x32 and had the EL 10x42. I found the EL 42 not really comfortable. A bit (front)heavy and I could not find a way to hold the binoculars in a comfortable way. The NL has more eyecups positions. I missed one in the EL. Or I could not see the whole FOV or I had blackouts. For me the NL doesn't have this problem. The focuser of the NL is also better (smooth in both directions) and on the right place. It is now even possible to watch and focus with only hand. The NL 32 is light, althought the weight is around 675 g and not 640 g as stated by Swarovski. An I prefer the strap the NL. I did not really like the cords of the new EL's.
I sold the EL 10x42 and bought the NL 10x32 and never regretted. The 10x42 is better in low light, that is the only thing I miss now.
I think the exit pupil of 4 mm would be sufficient, so the NL 8x32 would be better in dim light compared with the 10x32.

The best thing is to compare them both side by side.

 

[ReinierB]

True, the 0.5 more power is attractive. That was not into my consideration. That might draw me over the line.
So maybe go for the EL 8.5x42 and add a nice 8x30 later?

 

[GrampaTom]

Henchamp, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, between this post and the one in the Zeiss subgroup, you are revealing early symptoms of gearheadedness. An affliction, I and others struggle with as recovering gearheads.. Welcome to Birdforum.

Re the question you pose. Its a tough one to answer. I own EL1042 and NL832s. So there are differences in my experience from the one you might experience.

With regard to this, "What am I giving up going to the NL32...?" The only serious thing you will give up is cash. Seriously. They are both really good binoculars.

Regards NL rubber failing. This is a complaint that has been levied against the EL as well, for longer than the NL. I'd bet a dollar there is no chemical difference in the armor covering between either. My 3 year old ELs used a lot but perhaps not in such difficult terrain as some experience, look fine. Swaro takes care of it at no cost. Not much of a thing.

Re magnification bino makers label 8x42, 8x32, 10x40, whatever. Its important to understand that first number, the X is "nominal" that is its more than likely the actual magnification is not exactly 8 or 10. The EL 8.5 is sorta unique and promises to me at least an advantage over an 8, but what is its actual magnification? 8.4? 8.6? I shopped the NL 832 against SF832s. Both I and a dealer at one shop acknowledged the NL 8 view was higher X than the SF 8. Gils and John Roberts, (I believe) have written to this point. So dont buy the EL8.5 just cuz its labeled 8.5.

I find eye positioning on my NLs trickier than my ELs. I see glare in my NLs and never saw it in the 1042ELs. It is more a thing of conversation here on Birdforum. I was pissed to see glare at all in the NL after reading about it so much. But then took the advice from a couple people I respect and birded exclusively with the NL for almost 3 months. Glare was not an issue. It is a non issue.

I love the wasp waist of NL for a couple reasons. Many dont.

This may be more relevant. I bought the 832s as a compliment to a scope. The weight AND more importantly size of the EL42s was a bit of a problem hauling around scope and tripod. Not so much that they got in the way, but that they were in danger of banging into each other. The 832 is a happier combo with the scope. 8X is plenty with a scope in tow. The wasp waist facilitates one handed bino use with scope and tripod on other shoulder.

The NL confirmed how good the optical quality of my ELs truly is. The AFOV of the NL is nice and helps with the lesser mag... Thats a much longer conversation though.

If I could have just one? Prolly take the EL 1042. Your 8.5 to me is a trickier choice vis a vis the EL/NL debate

 

[Conndomat]

Regards NL rubber failing. This is a complaint that has been levied against the EL as well, for longer than the NL. I'd bet a dollar there is no chemical difference in the armor covering between either. My 3 year old ELs used a lot but perhaps not in such difficult terrain as some experience, look fine. Swaro takes care of it at no cost. Not much of a thing.

Hello Tom,

I actually notice differences between my EL 8.5x42 and the NL 8x42.

The EL is from 2016, overall the rubber feels harder, a bit denser and less compressible, I always have a slightly more solid feeling with the EL.

Perhaps Swarovski has also changed the rubber coating on the EL over time, I don't know, but I find these many reports (not only in this forum) about this quickly breaking NL rubber coating questionable.

It is commendable that Swarovski uses an environmentally friendly rubber coating, but if people keep sending their glasses around the world because of problems, it quickly becomes an environmental problem.

Andreas

 

[HenChamp]

Henchamp, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, between this post and the one in the Zeiss subgroup, you are revealing early symptoms of gearheadedness. An affliction, I and others struggle with as recovering gearheads.. Welcome to Birdforum.

Re the question you pose. Its a tough one to answer. I own EL1042 and NL832s. So there are differences in my experience from the one you might experience.

With regard to this, "What am I giving up going to the NL32...?" The only serious thing you will give up is cash. Seriously. They are both really good binoculars.

Regards NL rubber failing. This is a complaint that has been levied against the EL as well, for longer than the NL. I'd bet a dollar there is no chemical difference in the armor covering between either. My 3 year old ELs used a lot but perhaps not in such difficult terrain as some experience, look fine. Swaro takes care of it at no cost. Not much of a thing.

Re magnification bino makers label 8x42, 8x32, 10x40, whatever. Its important to understand that first number, the X is "nominal" that is its more than likely the actual magnification is not exactly 8 or 10. The EL 8.5 is sorta unique and promises to me at least an advantage over an 8, but what is its actual magnification? 8.4? 8.6? I shopped the NL 832 against SF832s. Both I and a dealer at one shop acknowledged the NL 8 view was higher X than the SF 8. Gils and John Roberts, (I believe) have written to this point. So dont buy the EL8.5 just cuz its labeled 8.5.

I find eye positioning on my NLs trickier than my ELs. I see glare in my NLs and never saw it in the 1042ELs. It is more a thing of conversation here on Birdforum. I was pissed to see glare at all in the NL after reading about it so much. But then took the advice from a couple people I respect and birded exclusively with the NL for almost 3 months. Glare was not an issue. It is a non issue.

I love the wasp waist of NL for a couple reasons. Many dont.

This may be more relevant. I bought the 832s as a compliment to a scope. The weight AND more importantly size of the EL42s was a bit of a problem hauling around scope and tripod. Not so much that they got in the way, but that they were in danger of banging into each other. The 832 is a happier combo with the scope. 8X is plenty with a scope in tow. The wasp waist facilitates one handed bino use with scope and tripod on other shoulder.

The NL confirmed how good the optical quality of my Els truly is. The AFOV of the NL is nice and helps with the lesser mag... Thats a much longer conversation though.

If I could have just one? Prolly take the EL 1042. Your 8.5 to me is a trickier choice vis a vis the EL/NL debate

Nailed it. A gear head. Into cars, watches, speakers, etc. I love spending money on hobbies and am grateful I can. I also want the best I can afford and it brings me joy to use a well designed product. The EL8.5 is great to me. Nearly perfect. The downside? The focus knob sucks. Everything else is awesome.

Have an NL pure on the way. Will try myself and see if it’s worth it vs EL. Only way to know.

 

[GrampaTom]

Nailed it. A gear head. Into cars, watches, speakers, etc. I love spending money on hobbies and am grateful I can. I also want the best I can afford and it brings me joy to use a well designed product. The EL8.5 is great to me. Nearly perfect. The downside? The focus knob sucks. Everything else is awesome.

Have an NL pure on the way. Will try myself and see if it’s worth it vs EL. Only way to know.

Indeed! Yes. Agree. Look forward to your decision....

 

[GrampaTom]

Hello Tom,

I actually notice differences between my EL 8.5x42 and the NL 8x42.

The EL is from 2016, overall the rubber feels harder, a bit denser and less compressible, I always have a slightly more solid feeling with the EL.

Perhaps Swarovski has also changed the rubber coating on the EL over time, I don't know, but I find these many reports (not only in this forum) about this quickly breaking NL rubber coating questionable.

It is commendable that Swarovski uses an environmentally friendly rubber coating, but if people keep sending their glasses around the world because of problems, it quickly becomes an environmental problem.

Andreas

Hi Andreas,

We digress from the OPs question, so Ill try to keep it brief. (some of you will laugh)

My ELs are late 2019, last of short focus. I can detect no difference in feel or appearance between my 2 examples (NL/EL).

I get the argument of the environmental impact do to cost of returns, as a general statement. But theres so much we don't know about Swaro's "rubber."

We dont know, but seems a fair guess Swarovski makes its own rubber covers. Why? I think we know the decision to use this environmentally more friendly material was not about us, (users), but had to do with the folks on the production line who're exposed to the chemicals in the molding process. There probably is heat and are fumes. If true that suggests Swarovski invested in a manufacturing process, with potentially some limitations. e.g. the choice of materials that work with it. But what if that process can make use of returned failed covers? Grind em up and throw back in the melted pool in some acceptable proportion. You know about Patagonia's PCR fiber use? PCR = post consumer recycled. If Swaro is making, does it make sense to think they've two different formulations for the same sort of part?

Further while its been a thing of conversation here, there's too much we dont know. Whats the return rate of Swaro binos for failed covers? .1%, 1%, 10% or some other number? Theres a cost to that of course but how does that cost compare to the cost of materials and fabrication? Whats the return rate for covers at Leica, Zeiss? Seems based on convos here it'd be less, but they sell less, so the potential for complaints is less. We dont know whether Leica or Zeiss are making or buying. Cant believe Swaro engineers are ignoring this. Maybe when the covers fall off your 2016 ELs you'll receive a new formulation that ends the problem. Not a bad gamble. Not a bad trade.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Swarovski would just talk to us? Crystals aint binoculars...

Tom

 

[Rg548]

Whatever you decide, I will say that unless you are planning really low light work..... 8x32's are a great all rounder.
Great size, weight, good enough in low light.
I avoided 8x32's for years, thinking they were neither one thing or the other, but actually, they are just great.

But these NL's seem to have various problems, and that is not acceptable at this price.

I honestly believe some of the top drawer older models can still deliver today, and the problems are ironed out.

Zeiss FL's
Ultravids... (bombproof)
And my current faves, Leica's BN's

 

[[email protected]]

Whatever you decide, I will say that unless you are planning really low light work..... 8x32's are a great all rounder.
Great size, weight, good enough in low light.
I avoided 8x32's for years, thinking they were neither one thing or the other, but actually, they are just great.

But these NL's seem to have various problems, and that is not acceptable at this price.

I honestly believe some of the top drawer older models can still deliver today, and the problems are ironed out.

Zeiss FL's
Ultravids... (bombproof)
And my current faves, Leica's BN's

I agree. The Zeiss FL's 8x32 and 8x42, UVHD 8x32 and 8x42, EL 8x32 and 8.5x42 and the Leica BN 8x32 and 8x42 are all really better choices in the long run than the self destructing NL, and they are way less expensive. You will never see a UVHD or an FL with a cracked, peeling armour like the NL. I would definitely stay away from the NL until the armour problems are ironed out. I especially like the armour on the FL. You can pick up older samples, and they still look like new. It was a mistake for Zeiss to get away from the high tech polymer they used in them and go back to magnesium.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tom (post #12),

Just to clarify one point, Swarovski has its RA coverings and other plastic components made by a specialist company Pließnig GmbH of Austria.
See towards the end of post #195 at: EL 10x42 casing deterioration.
(as one image shows this includes the FieldPro neck strap components).

I imagine that most (all?) of the other optical manufacturers have similar arrangements.


John


p.s. The above link indicates that unsurprisingly Swarovski also purchases the electronic components that it uses from others.

 

[GrampaTom]

Hi Tom (post #12),

Just to clarify one point, Swarovski has its RA coverings and other plastic components made by a specialist company Pließnig GmbH of Austria.
See towards the end of post #195 at: EL 10x42 casing deterioration.
(as one image shows this includes the FieldPro neck strap components).

I imagine that most (all?) of the other optical manufacturers have similar arrangements.


John


p.s. The above link indicates that unsurprisingly Swarovski also purchases the electronic components that it uses from

Thanks John, very glad to have my conjecture corrected. What then do you think is the reason for Swarovski’s environmental concerns over RA?

I’ve wondered , just because Swarovski is in the crystal business are we assuming they make lens? Seems not as I read that.

I’d bet you’re right about other manufacturers. It is the way of the world of manufacturing. Has been for decades accelerated by Globalization.

Curious this info was published by you back in 2016, yet we in ongoing convos here don’t seem to understand it.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tom,

For some time, Swarovski has placed both a strong emphasis on, and considerable investment in, more environmentally friendly approaches to its operations
e.g. the 2016 Sustainability Report details significant on-site measures that have been taken in relation to production, such as power generation,
and the decontamination/ recycling of water and other liquids that are used.

So the selection of materials used in the various products is consistent with the overall approach.

However, in relation to the accelerated breakdown of the material used for the current RA, it may be an instance of going a step too far too fast.
Perhaps the durability of the RA in actual usage has not proven to be what was predicted? Swarovski is obviously aware of the situation,
and one would imagine that they're exploring ways to address it.


John

 

[John A Roberts]

. . .
Curious this info was published by you back in 2016, yet we in ongoing convos here don’t seem to understand it.

For some links to information about Swarovski, from Swarovski:

A) 2016 Sustainability Report
See additional details and images at: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-optik’s-2016-sustainability-report.373270/
A copy of the 136 page report can still be downloaded from the link in post #11
(An image of the material composition the NL x42 - that complements those of the EL x42 and EL Range from the Sustainability Report -
can be found at: Material Composition of NL x42 vs EL SV x42 )


B) Production Numbers and Revenue
See various posts at: Swarovski Binoculars - Volume of Production


C) Composition of the current RA Covering (thermoplastic polyurethane aka TPU)
What Swarovski has disclosed about the current RA covering is in post #6 at: Swarovski SLC 10X42 Rubber Casing Fault


John

 

[CharleyBird]

"Bombproof"
"Self destructing"

Meaningless hyperbole. Try to rein it in.

All instruments have their problems, as emphasised by one optics dealer I talked to. No exceptions.
With multi-outlets and years of experience of thousands of binoculars, they'd sent UV's back to Leica for a number of reasons, and quite interestingly, a pair of my UV's developed a problem they'd mentioned.
Yet, fingers crossed, my two year old NL have given no problems.

 

[birdcat]

Looking for opinions from people with more experience than I have. Going on a trip and need to make a decision by tomorrow in order to receive the binoculars in time.

General nature use and birding mostly. Light hiking, but no long trips. What would you do? The appeal of the NL is the weight and focus ring seems improved, my one gripe of the 8.5x42 really (and smaller can be helpful).

What am I giving up going to the NL32, anything? FOV seems like it may be the same or better on the NL even with the 32.

Thanks in advance.

I had the EL 8.5x42 for a bit that I took on short walks. Decided they were a bit too big and tried the NL 8x32 and the Zeiss SF 8x32. I liked the view from the NL but decided to keep the SF as my only binocular. The biggest reason was the NLs fogged up on me easily in humid weather compared to the EL and SF. The Zeiss also had better balance in my hand and the focuser seemed better than the NL between it and the Zeiss SF samples.