Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (3 Viewers)

[ajfossey]

Love this thread and others relating to the NL’s. Grateful for everyone’s insights and opinions as to features they like and magnifications they feel to be the most useful. Its all been food for thought.

For myself, I’d already pre-ordered unseen and untested the 8x42 for no reason other than it is pretty much the only magnification with that size objective that I felt missing and likely useful to me.

I’ve used them extensively both yesterday and today birding in open estuarine habitat where I’d more usually be carrying either my 10’s or 12’s; they are very comfortable to grip and not tiring to hold for an extended period of time. The field of view is impressive to my eyes and I compared them directly against 8 & 10 x32 EL’s, 8.5x42 FP EL’s, 12x50 FP EL’s and Zeiss 10x42 SF’s.

Each in my opinion has its merits and the immediate stand outs for me on the NL’s were the comfort factor through improved ergonomics and the better balance, akin to the superb Zeiss binoculars, with the weight nearer the eye pieces. The view was ‘punchy’ in so much as the image is a delight across the view with neutral tones, bright and high contrast. The depth of field helped deliver a relaxed view without the need to constantly refocus as one does particularly with the 12x50’s.

Perhaps I’m not prone to ‘flare’ though I have seen this on my 8 and 10 x32 EL’s on occasion. I have not yet seen it on the NL’s, I will try and look harder!

These are lovely binoculars in my opinion. I have not the language and technical knowledge to discuss and talk about specifics; I just feel that like all quality optics at this level, they bring something to improve on the birding experience and I’m confident from my use thus far that these will deliver superbly.

 

[Torview]

It is impossible that there is so much difference in glare between some users and others unless the binoculars are different

The difference is the Human looking through them, pass one binocular around 10 forum members on here and some will see too much glare, some too much CA and some a colour cast.

 

[Uhu74]

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

1: I like it. Adapters for regular straps are included. Best of both worlds IMO, because I now can swap between strap or harness within seconds.

2: Nothing new here, most quality bins are the same weight, the EL is just as heavy. Weight difference with a SF is only 5 slices of Wurst. I think a 32mm is the right one if this weight is too much.

3: Assumptions. Have you ever seen one in real life?

Never mind, I enjoy mine and like to share my findings.
Even if the rest of the world thinks they suck, only thing what matters to me is that I like them:t:

 

[dries1]

One better like them after shelling out three grand.

Andy W.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

The difference is the Human looking through them, pass one binocular around 10 forum members on here and some will see too much glare, some too much CA and some a colour cast.

I agree, but just because some people don't see the glare doesn't mean it's not there.

CA and cast color is harder to appreciate than glare.

If the lens cell or the edge of the lens is not properly blackened there is a problem so that why i wanted to see a detailed photo of that part of the binocular.

 

[henry link]

Yes, we are certain to get reports that the NLs are "glare monsters" and other reports that there's no glare at all and both will be "true" for their respective observers.

The NL design places a lot of reliance on the inter-prism baffle to cover everything in front of it all the way to the objective cell. It really doesn't quite succeed even when the baffle is perfectly concentric with the objective, but when observations are made with an eye pupil that isn't perfectly centered within the exit pupil a baffle so far behind the objective will naturally shift its position relative to the objective as viewed by the de-centered pupil. As a result some folks will benefit when their way of looking through the binocular shifts the baffle position to cover the bottom of objective cell where all the glare is coming from, while others will be unlucky and find their way of looking increases their exposure to the glare.

 

[Torview]

I agree, but just because some people don't see the glare doesn't mean it's not there.

CA and cast color is harder to appreciate than glare.

If the lens cell or the edge of the lens is not properly blackened there is a problem so that why i wanted to see a detailed photo of that part of the binocular.

I certainly had glare issues with my 2 8x32Sv, so it is discouraging to read it may be present in the NL.

 

[dries1]

Perhaps it could be the result of the first batch, some slight sample variation, if so, I would think the designers would be aware of this also, maybe. Of course they have to be reading some of this now regardless. I am more than happy to try them next year, but please do keep the observations coming. I am heading out with some oldies with the nice weather a 503 SE 8x32 and an EII 10X35.

Andy W.

 

[james holdsworth]

Henry’s tests are not subjective, unlike the rest of us and our “ tests”

 

[NDhunter]

Yes, we are certain to get reports that the NLs are "glare monsters" and other reports that there's no glare at all and both will be "true" for their respective observers.

The NL design places a lot of reliance on the inter-prism baffle to cover everything in front of it all the way to the objective cell. It really doesn't quite succeed even when the baffle is perfectly concentric with the objective, but when observations are made with an eye pupil that isn't perfectly centered within the exit pupil a baffle so far behind the objective will naturally shift its position relative to the objective as viewed by the de-centered pupil. As a result some folks will benefit when their way of looking through the binocular shifts the baffle position to cover the bottom of objective cell where all the glare is coming from, while others will be unlucky and find their way of looking increases their exposure to the glare.

Henry:
It seems there are some problems with glare or whatever you want to call it.

I recall back in 2009 when the Zenray 7x36 ED2 was introduced, there was the dreaded crescent, glare issue, at the bottom of the view, that turned out to be a baffling problem. I was one of the early reporters of this finding and some did not see it.
I reported seeing it, and was condemned for a critical comment.

Many on here recall that problem, and ZR made a baffling change to fix the
problem of stray light. If some are interested, go back to the ZR subforum and this was discussed in 2009.

Holger Merlitz presented a nice article about the baffling issue, with photos
and more.

It would be ironic that Swarovski would be subject to a similar issue.
It had to do with the wide field of view and it seems everything is a compromise.

Maybe someone could post a link to Holgers article.

The next question is what models have some issues.

Jerry

 

[dwever]

8X NL Pure in stock MidwayUSA

I have had manufacturers tell me they avoid forums like this because there is too much misinformation on them.

Understatement of the year.

On another note and not misinformation: 8X NL pure in stock at MidwayUSA as of 7:30 P.M. Eastern Time U.S. https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022752782

10X and 12X back ordered.

 

[John A Roberts]

Eyepiece Images of 12x42 NL

In relation to the comments about glare in the 8x42 and 10x42 models - and the likely posting of images of the eyepieces -
see two images from Arek’s review of the 12x42 NL, at: https://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=359


Arek notes that:
'The situation is not ideal – close to the pupil you can notice a lighter area and a bright arc.
One glance at bright lamp posts reveals that images are properly contrasted but the situation is not so perfect.
When you move the binoculars sometimes you can catch one 'ghost' but, fortunately, its size is not big and its intensity is low.
Perhaps it is a result of lack of proper blackening when it comes to parts near the focusing element.'


And he goes on to say in relation to the barrel interiors:
‘Interior of the tubes is dark, matt and ribbed in some places. Bottoms near the prisms are also dark and matt.
The edge of the case surrounding the focusing element is a bit too bright.
Additionally, when the focusing element moves towards the prisms and eyepieces, it reveals an internal tube which is equally bright but quite matt.
We don't have any reservations concerning cleanliness inside the binoculars. We didn't find any specks of dust or dirt on the optics.’


John

 

[PeterPS]

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...

Glare seems to be a downside of EL/SV/FP/NL design. About 7 years ago when I bought my first SV 8x32 and noticed the glare problem I contacted Swaro and asked them if they could improve the baffling to eliminate this issue: I was told that doing that it is not possible without altering other parameters of the design, and it seems the same is true for the NL design.
Regarding the armor, sure the seams don't seem to be such a serious problem, but there have been recent reports on the fact that the armor of the FP models is not robust, so there might be a compound issue here. The armor of the EL and SV models seems to be better, and I asked Swaro about the difference from the armor of the more recent FP and NL models---usually my contacts at Swaro reply very promptly, this time no answer after more than 1 week, so the armor seems to be a sensitive issue.

 

[PeterPS]

In relation to the comments about glare in the 8x42 and 10x42 models - and the likely posting of images of the eyepieces -
see two images from Arek’s review of the 12x42 NL, at: https://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=359


Arek notes that:
'The situation is not ideal – close to the pupil you can notice a lighter area and a bright arc.
One glance at bright lamp posts reveals that images are properly contrasted but the situation is not so perfect.
When you move the binoculars sometimes you can catch one 'ghost' but, fortunately, its size is not big and its intensity is low.
Perhaps it is a result of lack of proper blackening when it comes to parts near the focusing element.'


John

The pics of the eyepieces are not really what's needed here. Yes, there are "false pupils" but the light from that "bright arc" will fall on the iris and have little effect. A blown-up photo of the EP is what's relevant here: if the lower edge of the EP is shiny then there will be glare.

 

[Hermann]

Regarding the armor, sure the seams don't seem to be such a serious problem, but there have been recent reports on the fact that the armor of the FP models is not robust, so there might be a compound issue here. The armor of the EL and SV models seems to be better, and I asked Swaro about the difference from the armor of the more recent FP and NL models---usually my contacts at Swaro reply very promptly, this time no answer after more than 1 week, so the armor seems to be a sensitive issue.

Interesting. If you want some really tough armour, you'd have to get a Habicht GA ... 3 The Habicht 7x42 GA and the 10x40 GA have just about the toughest armour in any currently available binocular. It's heavy though, the weight differences between the leatherette and the rubber-armoured versions are considerable.

Hermann

 

[peffert]

i attach some samples i took with my phone to show how the glare shows in the NL. As you can see, there is a bright shiny spot near the exit pupill (i took the picture a little off axis to show it better) and this shiny spot generates white ghosts as you can notice on the other pictures

 

[PeterPS]

i attach some samples i took with my phone to show how the glare shows in the NL. As you can see, there is a bright shiny spot near the exit pupill (i took the picture a little off axis to show it better) and this shiny spot generates white ghosts as you can notice on the other pictures

Thanks for your pics that clearly show the existence of glare. Now, if a user notices glare or not that depends on many factors: facial features, using the binos w/ or w/o glasses, how high/low the binos are positioned wrt the eye pupil, and even on the natural environment and the latitude of the place.

 

[Rotherbirder]

Love this thread and others relating to the NL’s. Grateful for everyone’s insights and opinions as to features they like and magnifications they feel to be the most useful. Its all been food for thought.

For myself, I’d already pre-ordered unseen and untested the 8x42 for no reason other than it is pretty much the only magnification with that size objective that I felt missing and likely useful to me.

I’ve used them extensively both yesterday and today birding in open estuarine habitat where I’d more usually be carrying either my 10’s or 12’s; they are very comfortable to grip and not tiring to hold for an extended period of time. The field of view is impressive to my eyes and I compared them directly against 8 & 10 x32 EL’s, 8.5x42 FP EL’s, 12x50 FP EL’s and Zeiss 10x42 SF’s.

Each in my opinion has its merits and the immediate stand outs for me on the NL’s were the comfort factor through improved ergonomics and the better balance, akin to the superb Zeiss binoculars, with the weight nearer the eye pieces. The view was ‘punchy’ in so much as the image is a delight across the view with neutral tones, bright and high contrast. The depth of field helped deliver a relaxed view without the need to constantly refocus as one does particularly with the 12x50’s.

Perhaps I’m not prone to ‘flare’ though I have seen this on my 8 and 10 x32 EL’s on occasion. I have not yet seen it on the NL’s, I will try and look harder!

These are lovely binoculars in my opinion. I have not the language and technical knowledge to discuss and talk about specifics; I just feel that like all quality optics at this level, they bring something to improve on the birding experience and I’m confident from my use thus far that these will deliver superbly.

What a pleasant change - a brief, to the point resume from an owner/user, without any grandstanding, arm-waving, sensationalism or gainsay. I tip my hat to you sir. I'd much rather consider opinions like yours if I was buying than much of the pure speculation which appears here. As a long-standing Swaro user, only one factor preludes my purchase of an NL - the insane price - IMHO, of course.

RB

 

[Canip]

Yes, we are certain to get reports that the NLs are "glare monsters" and other reports that there's no glare at all and both will be "true" for their respective observers.

The NL design places a lot of reliance on the inter-prism baffle to cover everything in front of it all the way to the objective cell. It really doesn't quite succeed even when the baffle is perfectly concentric with the objective, but when observations are made with an eye pupil that isn't perfectly centered within the exit pupil a baffle so far behind the objective will naturally shift its position relative to the objective as viewed by the de-centered pupil. As a result some folks will benefit when their way of looking through the binocular shifts the baffle position to cover the bottom of objective cell where all the glare is coming from, while others will be unlucky and find their way of looking increases their exposure to the glare.

MISTERY SOLVED (at least for myself) o

Thank you, Henry and Peffert, for pointing out this glare issue. In fact, I now wonder how Swarovski engineers missed it.

Henry, you are right, the location of the eye pupil behind the exit pupil is absolutely crucial. But let me explain:

The NL has in total 7 positions of the eyecups - fully in, 5 intermediate click-stops, and fully out. Let's name them 0 (fully in) to 6 (fully out).

Using positions 5 and 6, I get strong glare in the lower part of the image when observing against the sun. Even moving your eye position will most likely not help. I suspect that people having used positions 5 and 6 are the ones that experienced glare.

With the eyecups in position 0-3, I NEVER get glare, whatever I do.

Using the eyecup position 4, I CAN get glare, but can avoid/better it by shifting the position of the eye.

With eyecups in position 0 (fully in) and observing with glasses on, I do get strong glare. That's unfortunate for eyeglass wearers.

Now: I myself so far never used positions 5 and 6 (fully out). In fact, I almost never use the fully extended position with all my binos (exception: Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42). I somehow had a feeling the two most extended eyecup positions of the NL felt kind of "strange". So I never so far saw any glare in the NL.

Positions 2-4 provide me ample possibility to comfortably observe with the NL, they even allow me to place the eyecups into my eye sockets, and I don't get any kidney beaning whatever.

So I suggest to all those who only have used eyecup positions 5 and 6 (maybe without thinking much, I know many people who have the reflex of always fully extending the eyecups when picking up their binocular) to try out positions 4 and 3. I am almost certain that they will find it not only helpful with the glare, but also a comfortable viewing position. Depends on many things, including face anatomy, of course, but worth trying, I think.

COMMENTS WELCOME, esp. those contradicting my findings.

For people observing with eyeglasses, my advice: If you choose to keep your glasses on while observing, just don't!
If you have to observe with glasses (e.g. astigmatism), try to extend the eyecups one or two positions.

For me personally, the glare issue is not an issue in practice (and based on the otherwise stunning performance of my 8x42, I consider ordering the 10x42 as well). In fact, I had to specially test for glare to see it.

From a design perspective, however, glare is definitely a issue, of course, and I hope Henry is right and Swarovski finds a quick fix.

Canip

EDIT: thanks to colleagues pointing out that my 0-7 numbers were confusing, I had to correct my original text, it should now be okay.

 

[PeterPS]

MISTERY SOLVED (at least for myself) o

Thank you, Henry and Peffert, for pointing out this glare issue. In fact, I now wonder how Swarovski engineers missed it.

Henry, you are right, the location of the eye pupil behind the exit pupil is absolutely crucial. But let me explain:

The NL has in total 7 positions of the eyecups - fully in, 5 intermediate click-stops, and fully out. Let's name them 0 (fully in) to 7 (fully out).

Using positions 6 and 7, I get strong glare in the lower part of the image when observing against the sun. Even moving your eye position will most likely not help. I suspect that people having used positions 6 and 7 are the ones that experienced glare.

With the eyecups in position 0-4, I NEVER get glare, whatever I do.

Using the eyecup position 5, I CAN get glare, but can avoid/better it by shifting the position of the eye.

With eyecups in position 0 (fully in) and observing with glasses on, I do get strong glare. That's unfortunate for eyeglass wearers.

Now: I myself so far never used positions 6 and 7 (fully out). In fact, I almost never use the fully extended position with all my binos (exception: Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42). I somehow had a feeling the two most extended eyecup positions of the NL felt kind of "strange". So I never so far saw any glare in the NL.

Positions 3-5 provide me ample possibility to comfortably observe with the NL, they even allow me to place the eyecups into my eye sockets, and I don't get any kidney beaning whatever.

So I suggest to all those who only have used eyecup positions 6 and 7 (maybe without thinking much, I know many people who have the reflex of always fully extending the eyecups when picking up their binocular) to try out positions 5 and 4. I am almost certain that they will find it not only helpful with the glare, but also a comfortable viewing position. Depends on many things, including face anatomy, of course, but worth trying, I think.

COMMENTS WELCOME, esp. those contradicting my findings.

For people observing with eyeglasses, my advice: If you choose to keep your glasses on while observing, just don't!
If you have to observe with glasses (e.g. astigmatism), try to extend the eyecups one or two positions.

For me personally, the glare issue is not an issue in practice (and based on the otherwise stunning performance of my 8x42, I consider ordering the 10x42 as well). In fact, I had to specially test for glare to see it.

From a design perspective, however, glare is definitely a issue, of course, and I hope Henry is right and Swarovski finds a quick fix.

Canip

Hi Canip,
As I said in a previous post, it depends on your facial features, among other things. What you described in your post is easy to explain: if you can get closer to the oculars you avoid the glare problem. The question is if you can, without getting blackouts. Depending on your eye sockets you may or may not be able to use the NL with the eyecups on a lower position to avoid glare and also avoid blackouts. Some users will have to twist the eyecups all the way out to avoid blackouts (ER also plays a role here) and then they cannot avoid glare.
Peter