Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (2 Viewers)

[jan van daalen]

Gofoto.se, which is likely the dealer that you tried, has only the 8x in stock. Swaro-SE informed me that the next delivery will be in week 39, maybe then the dealers in SE will also get some 10x. It seems that Swaro has given higher priority to UK and NL dealers, big markets for sure (the NL market not so much, but NLs for NL is common sense...).

FWIW, I was told that every country got its share, depending on the pré order of their dealers and, on top of that, because of the overkill of pré orders every dealer only gets a percentage of his pré order. This week we will get only one 12x:-C:-C

Jan

 

[PeterPS]

FWIW, I was told that every country got its share, depending on the pré order of their dealers and, on top of that, because of the overkill of pré orders every dealer only gets a percentage of his pré order. This week we will get only one 12x:-C:-C

Jan

Hi Jan,

Thanks for your clarification, it makes a lot of sense. Do you recall of any other occasion when there was such a big demand for binoculars?

Peter

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Jan,

Thanks for your clarification, it makes a lot of sense. Do you recall of any other occasion when there was such a big demand for binoculars?

Peter

Hi Peter,

The biggest by far was when the (delayed) SV came on the market and customers could trade in their EL's for it, back in 2010-2011.

Jan

 

[peffert]

I know there's a lot of love for Swarovski on this forum. However, if a binocular in that price range isn't state of the art in one very important department that needs to be said clearly and openly. And yes, there are quite a few binoculars with excellent - state of the art! - glare resistance. I'm personally a lot more worried about glare resistance than about some seams in the armour.

I'm very much looking forward to Henry's thoughts once he had the time to look at the NL in detail.

Hermann

Hello Hermann,

I received my NL pure 10x42 today and i have to say that, unfortunatly, glare is present, and even more than in my 10x42 EL SV fieldpro (in my eyes ). I tested both in same conditions and glare appears on the NL more easyliy than in the EL's. It seems linked to an internal refexion in the prism (as well as on the EL's but more noticeable on the NL). In the NL when glare shows off, there is a white gohst in the low part of the FOV, it is possible to reduce the glare by moving slightly the position of the binoculars/eyes. It is Ok but annoying ! I recommand to test the binos to see if it is an issue, but i can say that the NL is far from perfect on this point ! I am a bit disapointed so far thinking that Swarovski did a bettter job on the NL than on the EL's regarding glare control. It seems it is not the case (for my eyes so far)! i absolutely agree with you on the minor aspect of the seams in the armour, i absolutly don't care about that ! but glare...

 

[Ries]

Question is to what extent Swaro could have avoided glare issues like this without compromising on other optical characteristics and possible seller points like for instance the FOV, edge sharpness and field flatness...so it might be "just" an unavoidable characteristic of the optical configuration and choices in that respect. Our optics techheads will be able to shed light on that.

 

[PYRTLE]

I received my NL pure 10x42 today and i have to say that, unfortunatly, glare is present, and even more than in my 10x42 EL SV fieldpro (in my eyes ). i absolutely agree with you on the minor aspect of the seams in the armour, i absolutly don't care about that ! but glare...

Oh dear, that is disappointing to hear.

 

[henry link]

Peffert has done a good job of describing the appearance of the glare.

I can see it almost anytime the sun is shining directly on the binocular and the binocular is pointed in the direction of the sun, even when the sun is high in the sky and perhaps 60º above the line of sight of the binocular. It's also visible in low light, looking into a dark landscape under a bright twilight sky. I've examined the interior with a magnifier and found that the source is, as usual, associated with the objective cell, which is not quite perfectly blocked from view. There is really only a very narrow part of the cell that gets by the baffling, but it's very bright. I think because the crescent of visible reflection is so narrow the glare tends to stay down in the lower 20% of the field, so centered objects are mostly not affected and as peffert mentioned lowering the binocular a little brings the baffle between the prisms up enough into the bottom of the exit pupil to cover the reflection. I don't think any of this is caused by the wide field. The binocular just needs a smidgen smaller baffle just behind the objective lens and the glare would be gone. Hopefully I can get interior photos of all this to post in my review.

Henry

 

[Uhu74]

Regarding the glare issues, I must admit that I haven't noticed any annoying glare in my 10x42 so far, and I have tried to provoke it.
I hate glare, and for that reason I sold my EL8X32 a few years ago.

Only thing I had get used to is proper eye placement, the NL seems to be a bit less forgiving compared with the EL 10x50 in that regard, most likely due to the smaller EP.

I just did a quick test again by moving the NL around a orange streetlight, and in some positions slight reflections were visible. (The EL10X50 had this as well.)
These were only visible in one tube, and never in both tubes at the same time.
(Low light performance is really good by the way )

The total whiteout that the EL8X32 was showing on a regular basis doesn't seem to apply to the NL, and that is a good thing.

Gijs

 

[arran]

I have been using my Pure NL 1042 quite intensively during the whole afternoon today and glare was not an issue at all.In certain light circumstances you sometimes get a small amount of glare but certainly not more than my previously owned 10X42.I can say I have been using Swaroski bins since they came on the market since begin of the millennium.I also could see that if glare is present , it is highly unpredictable but the different ocular steps needs definitely more fine tuning , as you have more steps to choose from.
In conclusion : these are the best bins I have ever owned , amongst all the bins I owned during the last 30 years , coming from my Leica brick , towards intensive use of the zeiss FL’s And SF, several ultravids !!

 

[henry link]

Dennis,

Your quote is describing something different. When viewing a "bright lamppost" surrounded by darkness in the 8x42 I see a single small almost focused ghost image of the lamppost, which circles the real lamppost as I move my pupil around. That indicates a single reflection somewhere in the glass of the optics which happens to bounce back to the eye a duplicate image of the lamppost that reaches the eye in relatively good focus. Could even be the eye itself reflecting back to a lens of the eyepiece and back to the eye. The glare I described comes from non-image forming light glancing off non glass surfaces in the interior, which of course can't produce a focused image of anything.

The 8x42 should do better for veiling glare than the 10x and 12x, but I'm not able to compare them.

 

[dries1]

Sometimes one only sees the best characteristics after a large purchase of something new to them. I look forward to Henry's unbiased review.

Andy W.

 

[peffert]

well, i also use binoculars a lot, i actually own a EL 10x42 1st gen, an EL SV fieldpro 10x42, a leica Noctivid 10x42 and lastly a NL pure 10x42

maybe it is a question of the samples I have, but definitively my fieldpro handles glare better than my NL pure. A little word on the Noctivid, i can state that the glare control is over Swaroski's, but i find the leica's CA just much worse !

I am not saying that the NL pure is bad, the image is outstanding, but i would be a liar if i don't point the glare issue i am having (i have it on my NL's, sample?)

the glare in my NL is as i described before, white gohst in the bottom of the field of view, due to a bright, slightly angled (20°?) "shine" near the exit pupill. it appears as Henry said, when looking at dark vegetation with a shiny sky over the FOV. i tried some adjustments of the eycups but it doesn't help... as Henry said, moving the binoculars down a bit compensate the glare, but i really don't have this glare in my ELs fieldpro....

 

[Uhu74]

Sometimes one only sees the best characteristics after a large purchase of something new to them. I look forward to Henry's unbiased review.

Andy W.

I agree with that to some point, but on the other hand, I sometimes also get the feeling that some people are looking for excuses not to buy a certain bino

Fact is, even unbiased reviews will still be subjective, and I would never buy a bino based on someone else's opinion.
I really enjoy reading reviews, but the only thing I believe in eventually are my own eyes.
Try before you buy.

 

[dries1]

Peffert,

I am sure your observations, like Henry have credence, thank you for your observations. I am a bit surprised myself regarding the glare, so perhaps this is the achillies heel of the new NL, every glass has one. It will depend on ones choice/compromise if they choose to buy one, at nearly 3 grand a tough choice.

Andy W.

 

[dries1]

Swaro

I agree with that to some point, but on the other hand, I sometimes also get the feeling that some people are looking for excuses not to buy a certain bino

Fact is, even unbiased reviews will still be subjective, and I would never buy a bino based on someone else's opinion.
I really enjoy reading reviews, but the only thing I believe in eventually are my own eyes.
Try before you buy.

I agree with all the above.

Andy W.

 

[Hermann]

I received my NL pure 10x42 today and i have to say that, unfortunatly, glare is present, and even more than in my 10x42 EL SV fieldpro (in my eyes ). <snip> In the NL when glare shows off, there is a white gohst in the low part of the FOV, it is possible to reduce the glare by moving slightly the position of the binoculars/eyes. It is Ok but annoying ! I recommand to test the binos to see if it is an issue, but i can say that the NL is far from perfect on this point !

Thank you. The way you described the glare reminds me of my impressions when I tried the SV 8x32 for a day. And I myself find that kind of glare totally unacceptable in a binocular in that price range, no matter how good the optics may be in other respects.

A shame really, sounds like Swarovski didn't learn from the criticism of the SV 8x32 in particular.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

Peffert has done a good job of describing the appearance of the glare.

I can see it almost anytime the sun is shining directly on the binocular and the binocular is pointed in the direction of the sun, even when the sun is high in the sky and perhaps 60º above the line of sight of the binocular. It's also visible in low light, looking into a dark landscape under a bright twilight sky.

In other words it's visible in many situations in the field. Dark landscape under a bright sky is very typical in the field, at least in my neck of the woods.

I've examined the interior with a magnifier and found that the source is, as usual, associated with the objective cell, which is not quite perfectly blocked from view. There is really only a very narrow part of the cell that gets by the baffling, but it's very bright. I think because the crescent of visible reflection is so narrow the glare tends to stay down in the lower 20% of the field, so centered objects are mostly not affected and as peffert mentioned lowering the binocular a little brings the baffle between the prisms up enough into the bottom of the exit pupil to cover the reflection. I don't think any of this is caused by the wide field. The binocular just needs a smidgen smaller baffle just behind the objective lens and the glare would be gone.

This sounds as though Swarovski should be able to rectify this problem quite easily. Whether they'll actually do it is, of course, another matter.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

I agree with that to some point, but on the other hand, I sometimes also get the feeling that some people are looking for excuses not to buy a certain bino

1. That ridiculous FieldPro System. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
2. The weight - 990 gr. with strap and rainguard? In an 8x42? You must be kidding!
3. Veiling glare.

Three strikes and you're out.

Hermann

 

[Canip]

Peffert has done a good job of describing the appearance of the glare.

I can see it almost anytime the sun is shining directly on the binocular and the binocular is pointed in the direction of the sun, even when the sun is high in the sky and perhaps 60º above the line of sight of the binocular. It's also visible in low light, looking into a dark landscape under a bright twilight sky. I've examined the interior with a magnifier and found that the source is, as usual, associated with the objective cell, which is not quite perfectly blocked from view. There is really only a very narrow part of the cell that gets by the baffling, but it's very bright. I think because the crescent of visible reflection is so narrow the glare tends to stay down in the lower 20% of the field, so centered objects are mostly not affected and as peffert mentioned lowering the binocular a little brings the baffle between the prisms up enough into the bottom of the exit pupil to cover the reflection. I don't think any of this is caused by the wide field. The binocular just needs a smidgen smaller baffle just behind the objective lens and the glare would be gone. Hopefully I can get interior photos of all this to post in my review.

Henry

Just wanted to mention that a have ZERO of the described issues with my 8x42, which I have now tested a number of times and under various conditions against the sun at different altitudes, with and without water surfaces underneath. In particular, I have not been able to create any substantial glare in the lower part of the image. So I am quite puzzled about Peffert‘s and Henry‘s findings. I will test further with the eyecups in all clickstop positions, but so far, my NL has behaved impeccably with respect to glare. However, I can‘t say anything regarding the 10x or 12x NLs.

Canip

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

It is impossible that there is so much difference in glare between some users and others unless the binoculars are different, photos of the inside of the binocular and the mount of the objective lenses would be helpful.