NL >=50 mm versions? (3 Viewers)

[Brummie]

Seems like any top tier 12 power binocular should have a good quality built-in tripod/monopod adapter installed at the factory, a lot of the used 12X42 NL have them installed, I’d say that’s pretty telling.

I haven't tried it, but my understanding of the issue with installing the studs on the NL42s is that the threaded socket is very shallow - only around 3 turns. Seems it wasn't designed to be used to install a stud, and such use may be precarious. I don't need a stud pre-installed, I just would want the 1/4"-20 socket to be sufficiently deep that it will be secure.

I'm potentially in the market for the NL 10x52, rather than the 12x52. But I'd still definitely want to mount it because for me the two advantages over a 10x42 would be (i) night sky, and (ii) having the option of using it with a zeiss tripler (I'd expect the image quality at 30x52 to be significantly better than 30x42).

 

[SuperDuty]

I haven't tried it, but my understanding of the issue with installing the studs on the NL42s is that the threaded socket is very shallow - only around 3 turns. Seems it wasn't designed to be used to install a stud, and such use may be precarious. I don't need a stud pre-installed, I just would want the 1/4"-20 socket to be sufficiently deep that it will be secure.

I'm potentially in the market for the NL 10x52, rather than the 12x52. But I'd still definitely want to mount it because for me the two advantages over a 10x42 would be (i) night sky, and (ii) having the option of using it with a zeiss tripler (I'd expect the image quality at 30x52 to be significantly better than 30x42).

Makes good sense to me.

 

[SuperDuty]

I will say though, I was disappointed in the 10X50 SV in comparison to my 10X42 SV, that was back in probably 2015 or 2016, overall I preferred the image of the 42, theoretically that shouldn’t have been the case, I thought they looked more dull, and they definitely had a lot more CA on the edge, that’s what I saw, other people won’t agree I’m sure. A lot of times I don’t fully understand the allbinos reviews, but these these two were actually pretty close to what I saw.

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[Brummie]

I haven't compared the EL 10x42 and 10x50, but apart from those two scenarios I mention, I wouldn't expect to see any appreciable difference. Even in terms of dusk use, my eyes don't see a lot of difference between comparable 40 and 50mm binoculars. It's only when trying to pick out faint night-sky objects that I can clearly detect an advantage.

If a 50mm is actually worse than its 40mm equivalent in regular use, then certainly not worth it. I hope that's not the case with the NLs, but I guess there will always be some sample variation.

 

[dries1]

I have the SV 10X50, and though heavier I preferred it to the 10X42 SV, larger FOV and better light gathering overall IMO. If mounting glass there is also the SLC 10X56 to consider, or the WX 10X50 which may be priced near the new to be NL 10X52?

 

[Brummie]

I have the SV 10X50, and though heavier I preferred it to the 10X42 SV, larger FOV and better light gathering overall IMO. If mounting glass there is also the SLC 10X56 to consider, or the WX 10X50 which may be priced near the new to be NL 10X52?

In my case, when I say I'd want to mount the 10x52, I don't mean all the time - I'd want them to perform both mounted and hand-held.

I have a pair of SLC 15x56, which I enjoy owning because they're a lovely optical instrument, but I struggle to find practical reasons to carry them. They need to be mounted, and for almost the same weight, I could carry a combination of compact scope and bins [I think a SF32 + ED50 is less than the weight of a SLC56, and a SFL30 + ATC is only 20% more - a negligible difference when you factor in the tripod as well].

I was actually thinking of getting the WX 10x50 (only if I happen to going to Japan in the next couple of years, and can pick them up for a good price) as a dedicated night sky and earth observation binocular (not for wildlife or field use). The NL 10x52 potentially presents a different option - a field binocular that would replace a 10x42, which I can also use as an ersatz fieldscope with the tripler and which offers excellent night sky views. They're very different animals, but I couldn't ever justify having both.

 

[Tringa45]

I will say though, I was disappointed in the 10X50 SV in comparison to my 10X42 SV, that was back in probably 2015 or 2016, overall I preferred the image of the 42, theoretically that shouldn’t have been the case, I thought they looked more dull, and they definitely had a lot more CA on the edge, that’s what I saw, other people won’t agree I’m sure. A lot of times I don’t fully understand the allbinos reviews, but these these two were actually pretty close to what I saw.

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

I was interested in a 10x50 SV early in 2012 but it was not available due to alleged production difficulties and I settled for the 10x42 EL (mid 2011 production).
There were I think anti-reflective coating improvements (5 to 7 layer?) from Swarovision to Field Pro, so it's surprising that in Allbino's tests the 10x42 SV had better transmission than the 10x50 FP.
Apparently any coating improvements could not make good the additional glass path of the larger binocular.
Perhaps the importance of attributes such as coatings and HT glass is often subject to exaggeration on this forum.

John

 

[tenex]

I have a pair of SLC 15x56, which I enjoy owning because they're a lovely optical instrument, but I struggle to find practical reasons to carry them.

I love using mine, and just had it out yesterday by a local lake where Bald Eagles are nesting and the nearby path is closed, so the extra magnification was welcome for viewing them as well as any waterfowl out on the lake. It was also a windy afternoon and the weight of the 56 helped to keep it steady.

The highlight though was while observing one eagle standing off at some distance on the lake shore, when a juvenile Red-Tailed Hawk flew in to perch right on a tree in front of us, to check us out. I've occasionally had one fly low overhead, but never just stare at me at eye level from that close (about 13ft/4m, the minimum focus of the SLC). Those golden eyes seemed huge. It must only have been a minute or so but felt much longer; then it flew off to the top of another tree where it was facing in the eagle's direction.

NL 52s sound very attractive in 12x or even higher, though I intend to avoid the temptation.

 

[Tringa45]

Those golden eyes seemed huge. It must only have been a minute or so but felt much longer; then it flew off to the top of another tree where it was facing in the eagle's direction.

I guess he didn't like your big eyes.

John