-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Having 2 pairs of binoculars. Which would you choose? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReinierB
- Start date
You can see the difference in size here. This is the SLC 8x42. The SLC 10x42 is even a bit shorter. The SLC 42 is just a bit fatter than the NL 32. The stated weight of the NL 10x32 is 640 g, but for me it is still the question why they state it as 640 g! I measure 675 g, totally stripped except for the eyecups. The SLC 10x42 is exactly 765 g (as stated). So it is just 90 gr difference in weight!
I like the NL 10x32, don't get me wrong. I just think the SLC 10x42 is more versatile. It's better in dim light, has less glare and the eyecups are a better fit for my eye sockets (you see they difference in size in this picture).
What I like better about the NL 10x32:
- smoother focuser and on the right position. When walking with a scope for instance, I can hold the NL with one hand and still use the focuser.
- the FOV, although I still think 110mm of the SLC 10x42 is fine. 132mm of the NL 10x32 is just better.
- in bright daylight the colors of the view are just a bit nicer.
- the hold is just a bit more comfortable, although the SLC 42 is very comfortable as well.
- fieldpro (yes I like it
)
If I had the SLC 10x42 first, I think I wouldn't have bought the NL 10x32, because the difference in weight is just too small for me. I think it would have been the UHVD 10x32 or the FL 10x32 instead.
Thotmosis
Well-known member
You can see the difference in size here. This is the SLC 8x42. The SLC 10x42 is even a bit shorter. The SLC 42 is just a bit fatter than the NL 32. The stated weight of the NL 10x32 is 640 g, but for me it is still the question why they state it as 640 g! I measure 675 g, totally stripped except for the eyecups. The SLC 10x42 is exactly 765 g (as stated). So it is just 90 gr difference in weight!
I like the NL 10x32, don't get me wrong. I just think the SLC 10x42 is more versatile. It's better in dim light, has less glare and the eyecups are a better fit for my eye sockets (you see they difference in size in this picture).
What I like better about the NL 10x32:
- smoother focuser and on the right position. When walking with a scope for instance, I can hold the NL with one hand and still use the focuser.
- the FOV, although I still think 110mm of the SLC 10x42 is fine. 132mm of the NL 10x32 is just better.
- in bright daylight the colors of the view are just a bit nicer.
- the hold is just a bit more comfortable, although the SLC 42 is very comfortable as well.
- fieldpro (yes I like it
If I had the SLC 10x42 first, I think I wouldn't have bought the NL 10x32, because the difference in weight is just too small for me. I think it would have been the UHVD 10x32 or the FL 10x32 instead.
View attachment 1538636
It’s nice to have options, like if you take the scope you can combine it with the NL and if not you take the SLC.
Hmm, good question. I think I go for my Meopta Meostar 7x42 as birding bins (and scope when necessary but have used that once or twice this year, I hardly do birding anymore) over my 10x42. That has narrower fov and the stability and dov of the 7x42 are just a joy.
Besides that for insect watching I use my Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 and last summer season I used that more than my Pentax Papilio II 6.5x21 that's on my belt (and now around my neck when fungi searching) so I think I can skip the latter (although it's soooo much fun) and I can use magnifying glass for mosses/lichens instead of that
Besides that for insect watching I use my Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 and last summer season I used that more than my Pentax Papilio II 6.5x21 that's on my belt (and now around my neck when fungi searching) so I think I can skip the latter (although it's soooo much fun) and I can use magnifying glass for mosses/lichens instead of that
5 is expensive but probably ok. 3 might be enough.
My most used bins right now is the Curio 7x21. I like it because it is allways with me.
My other bio is a 8x42 Noctivid. It's just perfect but to heavy and big for always being with me during longer walks.
To be honest I would like to find a nice 12x or 15x because I like to observe the night sky. Some nebulas or some planets should be really nice trought some of these. Do you have any suggestions?
My most used bins right now is the Curio 7x21. I like it because it is allways with me.
My other bio is a 8x42 Noctivid. It's just perfect but to heavy and big for always being with me during longer walks.
To be honest I would like to find a nice 12x or 15x because I like to observe the night sky. Some nebulas or some planets should be really nice trought some of these. Do you have any suggestions?
Well I am down to the three binoculars that I feel I need . The Celestron Regal LX is gone and I still want to upgrade my 15x70 .
Attachments
I would go for a 12x50 like the EL or Ultravid, although quite expensive. I like my EL 12x50 and can hold it steady enough. I think a 15x56 is less allround.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
I have three pairs of binoculars.
I've kept my old well-used pair of Nikon SE 8x32 largely out of sentiment but I would be tempted to buy another second hand pair if they were in mint/good condition at a resonable price. Optically, they're still superb even if the wilting eye-cups are irritating. I still occasionally use them when I'm birding in woodland.
I traded in my elderly Zeiss 8x42 when the Swarovski NL 10x42 appeared. I did so as I find the higher power more useful for raptor watching in Spain. The NLs offered greater power without sacrificing a decent FoV and the forehead rest helped to keep them steady.
I wanted a small light-weight pair of binoculars to fill a niche - family walks, looking at architecture, etc - where birding wasn't the primary activity. However, I find small 25mm binoculars, particularly with a double hinge design, ergonomically challenging and too poor in low light (although I've only had relatively cheap pairs). To fill this role, I opted for a pair of Kite Lynx 8x30 binoculars; not that much greater in size or weight than many 8x25s but better ergonomically and optically.
The only other binoculars that might tempt me are Kite APC Stabilised 16x42. I looked at a pair at the Global Bird Fair and was impressed by how much more detail I could discern with the stabilistation switched on but found the poor FoV problematic. They would certainly be a tempting option when down in Cadiz Province watching migrating raptors.
I've kept my old well-used pair of Nikon SE 8x32 largely out of sentiment but I would be tempted to buy another second hand pair if they were in mint/good condition at a resonable price. Optically, they're still superb even if the wilting eye-cups are irritating. I still occasionally use them when I'm birding in woodland.
I traded in my elderly Zeiss 8x42 when the Swarovski NL 10x42 appeared. I did so as I find the higher power more useful for raptor watching in Spain. The NLs offered greater power without sacrificing a decent FoV and the forehead rest helped to keep them steady.
I wanted a small light-weight pair of binoculars to fill a niche - family walks, looking at architecture, etc - where birding wasn't the primary activity. However, I find small 25mm binoculars, particularly with a double hinge design, ergonomically challenging and too poor in low light (although I've only had relatively cheap pairs). To fill this role, I opted for a pair of Kite Lynx 8x30 binoculars; not that much greater in size or weight than many 8x25s but better ergonomically and optically.
The only other binoculars that might tempt me are Kite APC Stabilised 16x42. I looked at a pair at the Global Bird Fair and was impressed by how much more detail I could discern with the stabilistation switched on but found the poor FoV problematic. They would certainly be a tempting option when down in Cadiz Province watching migrating raptors.
@John Cantelo Now that is a sweet looking SE. I really love the patina that years of use can layer on a quality tool. The shine on the armour, the worn ridges of the focus wheel, the lacking bits of pain on the exposed metal parts. I think Nikon should contact you as part of their marketing strategy. Out of curiosity, after all the obvious use this unit has gone through, is there any part or area where you have seen the SE fail or feel weak?
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Thank you for your kind comments. I recall watching an Aquatic Warbler with my 8x32 SEs many years ago with a friend who'd recently bought a new pair of 8x32 Leicas. Like others, he mocked my SEs (by then probably nearing a decade old) until we swapped binoculars whereupon he went very quiet! That the SEs had the better image wasn't even a matter of argument.
As indicated in my previous post, I dislike the rubber eyecups. They were fine when new but soon became deformed (the current eye cups are replacements of the originals) so I'd prefer pop-up one like those currently found on most bins. Particularly when wearing gloves I've found the narrow focus wheel a trial at times so a barrel focus wheel would be an improvement. I've never found any problem with water ingress but I'm told that others have so waterproofing might be improved. Hydrophobic coatings might help too.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Hi John,
Am I missing something here, is this picture of the Nikon a different binocular than your previous posted picture?
@john that is a testament to how well the SE is built. It's a modern day classic. The last of the great porros.
There was a fellow here who used sections of foam or neoprene glued to the eyecups of his Maven B1. I'm wondering if a section of the appropriate length, glued to the SE rubber eyecups, would work better than the way they are at present. Nikon's eyecups are not as firm and solid as the rubber eyecups that came with some Zeiss models. I suppose you would fold down the existing eyecups, or if you had spares, cut them down. Here's the link - How to easily extend binocular eyecups.
There was a fellow here who used sections of foam or neoprene glued to the eyecups of his Maven B1. I'm wondering if a section of the appropriate length, glued to the SE rubber eyecups, would work better than the way they are at present. Nikon's eyecups are not as firm and solid as the rubber eyecups that came with some Zeiss models. I suppose you would fold down the existing eyecups, or if you had spares, cut them down. Here's the link - How to easily extend binocular eyecups.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
The focuser is different in those two pictures.
John Cantelo
Well-known member
Apologies if my photo misled you. I thought the minor glitches would signal that it was a quick photoshop.
Hmmmm, what about the two E2 models? They seem pretty good to me. Just based on appearance the bodies look a lot nicer than the SE's to me. Very comfortable eye placement on the 10x35 E2 which was supposedly a weak point of the SE's. SE's have too much magnfication for the objective size for my tastes.
As my 1st everyday pair, I own a 8x42 for all my birding. I like the clarity and field of view but sometimes feels like the 10x is missing a little bit.
I just bought a 8x32 as a side pair, for when birding is not the main purpose of my wanderings. smaller, lighter, and takes less space in the backpack.(and still better light that an 8x25).
So now that I have a 8x32 as a side pair, I am thinking about replacing the main ones (8x42) for a 10x magnification so that I have 8x and 10x when needed. I was going to replace it for classic 10x42, but now I am looking on the 10x50 range (to get the almost same clarity as the 8x42 I own).
Haven't made my mind up yet between 10x42 and 10x50. I am not in a hurry to choose. Weight is a factor to take into account, but as I use a harness instead of the neck straps to carry my binos, it is less a concern for me.
So in my very humble opinion, I think that having an 8x30/32 and a 10x42/50 would be a nice combo and would cover some ground.
I just bought a 8x32 as a side pair, for when birding is not the main purpose of my wanderings. smaller, lighter, and takes less space in the backpack.(and still better light that an 8x25).
So now that I have a 8x32 as a side pair, I am thinking about replacing the main ones (8x42) for a 10x magnification so that I have 8x and 10x when needed. I was going to replace it for classic 10x42, but now I am looking on the 10x50 range (to get the almost same clarity as the 8x42 I own).
Haven't made my mind up yet between 10x42 and 10x50. I am not in a hurry to choose. Weight is a factor to take into account, but as I use a harness instead of the neck straps to carry my binos, it is less a concern for me.
So in my very humble opinion, I think that having an 8x30/32 and a 10x42/50 would be a nice combo and would cover some ground.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Imo I think E2’s are the pinnacle of the last of the true classic porro design with a few modern tweaks, the angled prism cover and the leatherette inlay instead of the body being completely wrapped, very nice touch, very elegant binoculars. The Swarovski Habicht’s stays more to the traditional older porro design and bring modern day optics and coating to the genre.
The SE is kind of a different animal. Imo it takes the Nikon porro design, modernizes the exterior with a complete armoring which makes them substantially more robust than the E2. You could probably drop the SE and have no problem. There are those that do have some issues with eye placement, blackouts. I have to have my eye placement and IPD just right to have no issues, but it’s not as friendly an eye box as the E2. Optically I feel it’s a step up from the E2, maybe like the difference between the E model to the last enhance coating E2. They don’t call it the superior E for no reason 😆.
Paul
hopster
Well-known member
The Meopta Meostar 12x50 HD is excellent as long as you don't want the wide and flat field of the EL. In some ways it is better i.e. less CA, possibly sharper, less prone to glare and with a better colour balance to my eyes. A lot cheaper too and with a 30 year warranty. If you wear glasses, check that the ER is enough for you. They also do a 15x56 which is also very good.
It partners my NV 8x very nicely.
