NL Pure 8X32 / 8X42 (1 Viewer)

[nickw_]

They are not too wide and I like it. But most of the time, I do not need it and I'm do not regret this FOV when I'm using excellent binoculars with a smaller FOV.

I'm not very sensitive so I cannot say for sure. But I hardly see the difference.

The 8x32 are ok but I have small hands. I prefer the handling of the 8x42 but they are too big and heavy for me most of the time.

Thank you very much for the feedback. I'm curious why you prefer the handling of the 42's? I would have guessed most people would be the opposite, preferring the smaller size of the 32.

I’m an 8x guy myself and only have a few 10x’s in my collection. I prefer the the steadier hold and the more immersive feel (DOF) of the the 8x and the larger FOV (picture window). The 10x NL to me is a game changer, you get the same large FOV of an 8x and can get a closer look at things without sacrificing FOV. The balance and ergonomics in conjunction with the Swaro headrest helps stabilize these 10’s better than any other I’ve owned or had the experience of using.

There are many great 8X binoculars on the market that have very wide fields of view, so not so unique, but there are very few high end 10’s with huge, usable FOV. With an eight power that generally has about 400+ feet at 1000 yards always feels nice to me, the added 40-50 feet in an 8x doesn’t really do anything for me, they’re nice to look through but doesn’t impress me like a 10x with 400ft. I think if you would get the 10x NL , I don’t think you’ll ever look back and say , I should’ve got the eight. You may want to add an 8x at some point, but you won’t be wanting to much with an NL10x

Paul

This is exactly the internal dilemma going on in my mind. I love the steady image and large FOV (I often use 7x's). But just like you, I'm drawn to the 8x/399ft FOV with 10x details. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's helpful to know you came at this from a similar angle and are happy with the 10x42.

With the 8'x I find myself drawn to the size of the 8x32. Thats the other model which really tempts me, primarily for its size. It is too bad 10x32 are usually overly compromised, on paper they are the perfect binocular. Alas, we can't have it all.

I imagine I will end up with the 10x42’s. Forced to choose just one (without actually handling them) it seems like probably the best all around compromise for me.

Here I go again... Often enough when I bird with my 825s, I wish Id brought my 1042s. Ive never wished for the reverse. The difference from 8 to 10 is 25% not 2.5. Wiggles? of course. My 8s do to. There is a learning curve to using 10s. Its not long. if you're used to 8s you may struggle awhile. More info is better. Admittedly the biggest question should be where do you bird and what birds are you mostly looking to see? A Goldfinch in a bush 20' away is gorgeous with 8s. The graceful shape and subtle colors of a Pintail couple swimming at 200 yards is better with something else.

Do you use a scope? Then 8s are fine. No, then what are you hoping to see? Wide vistas.. or the critter in as much detail as you can acquire given the air quality, sun angle?

FOV? We need to temper the adjectives. Do you bird at 1000 whatevers? Divide those numbers by 10 to get to 100 whatevers. Isn't that more like it? How much time do you spend looking left and right? Why arent you focusing on the center of the view? Many thanks to kimmik for this, are you a bino panner or an eye panner? See here # 28 Binocular Evolution II: Curvature and Distortion. Though I don't necessarily agree that one becomes an eye panner cuz the view is sharp to the edge. I suspect we all do some combination, the brain chooses depending. Then there's habits.

Immersive? Whew. Confess I dont know what that is at least with regard to binos. I want to see the bird with as much detail as i possibly can. The head turning on a Cinnamon Teal swimming at a bit of an angle, so the light just catches that red eye, those gilt edges on the primary feathers.... yep. What a beautiful bird! Or the white circle above the eyes and below the bill of the Northern Harrier revealing that Owl-like face. Gotcha!

Ive fairly big hands. My 1042 ELs feel great. The several NL 832s Ive handled do to. With scope, the latter is on the list.

Why do have binoculars? Are you looking at them or through them? Collector? Or birder?

Temper the adjectives? Why? I love them! They save me from typing so much, plus simplify my sentences.
Joking aside....

I think your right, 10x is probably the right choice. Once using them, I probably wont find myself wishing I had brought something smaller. Only while packing them.

When I think of immersiveness, I am primarily thinking of the apparent field of view (AFoV ). I like feeling like I'm inside the image, not looking at it from afar. Akin to going to the IMAX versus a regular movie theatre. This actually really important to me. It helps me feel more connected to what I'm viewing. I find it easier to loose myself in it, thus I end up enjoying my time more.

As for what I am using the bin's for, truth be told I will be using them as an all around nature binocular. All sorts of wildlife (lots of bears!), hiking, camping, exploring, etc. I want a new binocular I can take with me everywhere. So small size (for packing) and immersiveness (while using) are important to me. I know those two things are typically mutually exclusive, but then NL 8x32 might come very close. That said, I am leaning towards the NL 10x42. I think the 10x view and large 70˙ apparent field of view are probably a better compromise for me. They would connect me to the subject matter more, which I think is worth packing the extra 200g around. If weight becomes an issue, I know where I could shed a few thousand grams.

 

[pm42]

I'm curious why you prefer the handling of the 42's?

Because they are bigger and heavier, I find them a better fit for my hands and more stable, especially with the headrest which I do not like with the 32s.
But as I said, I do not use them often because for practical reasons, i.e. already transporting some photo gear, I use either the NL 8x32 or the SFL 8x40.
Even if they are not the best compromise for me, the NL 8x42 are the best binoculars I've ever used though.

 

[razor6]

Tom,
Now this might be just my opinion and may not be a perfect definition of the word immersive, but I feel when I’m looking through certain types of binoculars, usually with a curved field or edge, I find that I feel that I’m more inside the image, not looking through a tube. To me this is less so when I’m looking at a binocular that have field flattener‘s. Ultravids more immersive ( in my definition) than Swaro EL’s.

Paul

Paul,
That describes it precisely for me as well.

 

[Maljunulo]

Why do (we) have binoculars? Are you looking at them or through them? Collector? Or birder?

Bingo!

 

[Bill Atwood]

Hi Bill, I'm curious how the 10x with the 399ft FOV feel in use compared to a typical 8x (with a similar field of view)? You can see my full question above, but essentially I'm also considering the 10x because of the large FOV. Up until now, I’ve been a 8x guy.

I pretty much agree with Paultricounty's comments. However, as can be expected due to larger exit pupil and DOF, 8x is better at finding birds in close and thick habitat compared to the 10x32s. Even so, the 10x32NLs are still quite usable and the larger image of the acquired target can be more rewarding. This difference lessens with increased distance. Also the exit pupil may be easier to deal with if you don't wear glasses.

 

[nickw_]

Because they are bigger and heavier, I find them a better fit for my hands and more stable, especially with the headrest which I do not like with the 32s.
But as I said, I do not use them often because for practical reasons, i.e. already transporting some photo gear, I use either the NL 8x32 or the SFL 8x40.
Even if they are not the best compromise for me, the NL 8x42 are the best binoculars I've ever used though.

Thank you for sharing, that makes sense.

Oddly enough, I went down to my local dealer yesterday and tried many binoculars out again. They had a pair of CL's, which I also found on the small side and less stable. I can easily see for extending viewing the larger one being more comfortable for both the hands and eyes.

I pretty much agree with Paultricounty's comments. However, as can be expected due to larger exit pupil and DOF, 8x is better at finding birds in close and thick habitat compared to the 10x32s. Even so, the 10x32NLs are still quite usable and the larger image of the acquired target can be more rewarding. This difference lessens with increased distance. Also the exit pupil may be easier to deal with if you don't wear glasses.

Thank you for sharing. I am looking forward to the small size of the ATC when it comes out, for distance viewing.

 

[dwever]

Well almost four weeks from starting this thread I got to try an 8X32 NL Pure!!! Took about three minutes to know I would choose the NL Pure 8X42. Exit pupil, ease of view, 8X42 fit my hands. Either though I'd be overwhelmingly happy to own and use.

 

[Aquaplas]

For me the NL 8x42 is a complete different animal compared to the NL 8x32. The picture is more „wow“ and the Colouration is better. Shows fine light differences better. The NL 8x42 for me is the best Swarovski glass when it comes to show light differences. Only my Habicht 7x42 and my SLC 8x56 can do that better.
When it comes to stray light no of the NL series is perfekt. Here I prefers my SF8x42 and my SFL 8x40.
From the NL series for me the best is the 8x42 and the 10x32. So I sold the 8x32. The 10x32 is very near to the 10x42NL. But between 8x32 and 8x42 NL for me is a big gap, and it’s not only eas of view and brightness.

 

[nickw_]

For me the NL 8x42 is a complete different animal compared to the NL 8x32. The picture is more „wow“ and the Colouration is better. Shows fine light differences better. The NL 8x42 for me is the best Swarovski glass when it comes to show light differences. Only my Habicht 7x42 and my SLC 8x56 can do that better.
When it comes to stray light no of the NL series is perfekt. Here I prefers my SF8x42 and my SFL 8x40.
From the NL series for me the best is the 8x42 and the 10x32. So I sold the 8x32. The 10x32 is very near to the 10x42NL. But between 8x32 and 8x42 NL for me is a big gap, and it’s not only eas of view and brightness.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the 8x models. I can see the larger apparent field of view on the 42 adding to the "wow" experience.

I am curious if you could comment on how you think the 10x models compare? I know you said they're similar, but I would still be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[Aquaplas]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the 8x models. I can see the larger apparent field of view on the 42 model adding to the "wow" experience.

I am curious if you could comment on how you think the 10x models compare? I know you said they're similar, but I would still be interested in hearing your thoughts.

For me the 10x32 vs the 10x42 is a very small different in brightness and viewing comfort. The 10x32 is in general I think one of the best 10x bin you can buy. Normally iam a 8x guy. Because the better fov and 8x are always clearer and have better Colours because the lower mag. I also have in the 10x32 a very good glare control for such a small ep and a NL. All NL have glare. But the 10x32 dose a very well job. A bit better than the 10x42. Compared them side by side for a longer time. The resolution of the 10x32 for me is outstanding. The 10x32 and the 8x42 for me are the two best bins in the NL Serie. The 10x32NL is for me also a big step forward compared with my old 10x32 EL FP. The step here is much bigger than the 8x32ELFP and the 8x32NL.
The wow effect on the 8x42 and on the 10x32 has to do with the distortion curve. The distortion curve on the 8x42 and on the 10x32 is tons Shaped (hope this is the correct word in English) and this makes this both models more impressive than the 8x32NL. When I look trough the 8x42 and the 10x32 I always feel the 8x mag as a 8,5 and the 10x mag as a 10,5 mag. This effect I have only on this two NL bins.

 

[tenex]

The distortion curve on the 8x42 and on the 10x32 is tons Shaped (hope this is the correct word in English) and this makes this both models more impressive than the 8x32NL. When I look trough the 8x42 and the 10x32 I always feel the 8x mag as a 8,5 and the 10x mag as a 10,5 mag. This effect I have only on this two NL bins.

I'd like to hear more about this, not having spent much time comparing NLs. And I think the 8x42 has been reported as actually 8.2x.

 

[Aquaplas]

I'd like to hear more about this, not having spent much time comparing NLs. And I think the 8x42 has been reported as actually 8.2x.

Yes the measured 8,2 mag I read also in the internet. But the mag is not the thing. I read that from the distortion curve in a German forum. So the NL 8x42 and 10x32 has a little bit more rolling ball Effekt than the 8x32. This has to do with the distortion curve. And this makes the visual Effekt from a more impressive and a bit higher mag. But it’s not real more mag. I like this much more than the curve from the 8x32. The 8x32 reminds me from that point more on a SLC Bino. My SLC 8x42HD is very similar in this point. The 10x32NL is from all 10 time bins my favorite from the distortion curve. My 2nd one is the 8x42. This is near on Perfektion I think. You special can see it when you look an buildings. Geometric objects. Houses have an Effect of more „massiveness“

 

[samp1800]

Yes the measured 8,2 mag I read also in the internet. But the mag is not the thing. I read that from the distortion curve in a German forum. So the NL 8x42 and 10x32 has a little bit more rolling ball Effekt than the 8x32. This has to do with the distortion curve. And this makes the visual Effekt from a more impressive and a bit higher mag. But it’s not real more mag. I like this much more than the curve from the 8x32. The 8x32 reminds me from that point more on a SLC Bino. My SLC 8x42HD is very similar in this point. The 10x32NL is from all 10 time bins my favorite from the distortion curve. My 2nd one is the 8x42. This is near on Perfektion I think. You special can see it when you look an buildings. Geometric objects. Houses have an Effect of more „massiveness“

Have you tried an SF 10x32? If so I'm curious how the SF and NL 10x32 compare in terms of rolling ball effect.

 

[tenex]

But the mag is not the thing. I read that from the distortion curve in a German forum

Can you provide a link? It sounds like you/they feel that reduced pincushioning (higher AMD instead, leading to RB) makes objects look bigger or more massive -- at least blocky or rectangular ones. Do I have that right? I never really thought about it that way, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at buildings. I do agree though that one can have too much pincushioning, and there's a more moderate range that feels more ideal.

 

[henry link]

Distortion affects the average magnification over the FOV. For that reason I measure the magnification for only a small area of about 5-6º of AFOV at the field center, where both binocular and camera distortions are so low that they can be ignored. I measured 8.23X for the 8x42 NL in that area. Gijs measured 8.2X, but I don't know what area of the field is included in his measurements.

The 8x42 NL has a compound "mustache" distortion consisting of normal pincushion that gradually increases out to the edge of an AFOV circle of about 50º in diameter. The distortion then reverses and diminishes to approximately zero pincushion near the field stop. That brings on pretty strong AMD which causes objects to quickly radially compress toward the field edge and that causes the Globe Effect when panning.

Too much pincushion results in a reversed AMD near the field edge which causes objects to stretch rather than compress. That's seen in some telescope eyepieces, like the Televue Naglers and Panoptics, but isn't common in binoculars. I've seen mild examples in Leica Ultravids and in the pincushion part of the compound mustache distortion of the Zeiss 8x42 SF.

 

[Aquaplas]

Have you tried an SF 10x32? If so I'm curious how the SF and NL 10x32 compare in terms of rolling ball effect.

Havent tried the SF 10x32. Only the SF 8x32. The NL 8x32 for me has less rolling ball effect than the SF 8x32. Cant speak for the 10x32SF.

 

[Aquaplas]

Can you provide a link? It sounds like you/they feel that reduced pincushioning (higher AMD instead, leading to RB) makes objects look bigger or more massive -- at least blocky or rectangular ones. Do I have that right? I never really thought about it that way, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at buildings. I do agree though that one can have too much pincushioning, and there's a more moderate range that feels more ideal.

Cant find it at the moment. I read that a year ago or so in a thread in Jüllich forum. I cant say what it is, but my Supposition is the Distortion Curve makes a different. Also the Distortion Curve in Realization with the degrees of the Fov. Cant Explain me that differently.
For me the NL 8x42 and the NL 10x32 have this "Effekt". The 8x32 not. When i glass around with the 8x42, there is much more Rolling Ball Effekt then with the 8x32. With the 10x32 there is also more. But its not so much than on a EL 8x5x42. The NL 8x42 and 10x32 Looks much more impressive for me. Always when i Look trough i have this Wow blowen up Effekt. With the 8x32 in is not. Here i have the Impression it is a very well correctet and sharp to the edge picture, but all looks Harmless compared to the 8x42 and 10x32.
Cant spek for the 10x42, because this is the only one i dont buy, and look only in a Shop for a view hours.
Its possible it has to do with the 69 Degrees? The NL 8x32 have only 65.

 

[tenex]

Thanks. I've heard that distortion can vary among models with complex profiles (SFs as well) but have only examined NLs individually on separate occasions. They're seldom all in stock at once locally, so I've not been able to line them up and compare them. Then again, I'm often not as impressed by subtle effects like this (or "3D") in particular models as some others are.

I do notice the somewhat lesser FOV of the 8x32, but if anything I'd expect larger FOV to make individual objects look a bit smaller in the others.

 

[kimmik]

Distortion affects the average magnification over the FOV. For that reason I measure the magnification for only a small area of about 5-6º of AFOV at the field center, where both binocular and camera distortions are so low that they can be ignored.

Using the circles test pattern I saw in your prior posts, here are 1. Control image with phone camera, 2. Noctivid 8x42, then 3. NL 8x42. The distortion profile is pretty uniform for both models, though clearly more rectilinear for NL and more pincushion for Noctivid.

 

[Paultricounty]

I recently had the chance to try all of the NL pure, EL's, SLC and the 8x42 NL Pure was hands down the winner for me. I wasn't expecting such a big difference in how they feel in the hands but I found them much more comfortable than the EL's. I wear glasses and I was also surprised how much easier the view was with 8x42 than everything else I tried. I used to own the Swarovski EL FP 8x32 but I sold this because it just didn't work with my glasses. Optically they are all fantastic but in terms of ergonomics and ease of viewing the 8x42 was fantastic. As good as they are however I am not paying £2.5k for a pair of binoculars.

I’m not sure but I think the 8 x 32 EL has more eye relief than the NL 8 x 42, I could be wrong. I think what you’re finding out is , that the 8 x 42 exit pupil is larger and that is offering a more comfortable eye box.

Paul