'The Big Three': NL Pure, Noctivid, Victory SF - A Brief Comparison (1 Viewer)

[Will K]

View attachment Alpha Glass Comparison.mov

A happy memory – a sunny afternoon spent comparing ‘the big three’: NL Pure, Victory SF and Noctivid (all 42mm).

(Question: Does anyone have a perspective on the grip materials used for these three models? Which is likely to age better, i.e., least likely to perish, over, say, 15+ years?)

My very subjective two cents, for anyone who is interested:

Noctivid – I was very impressed by the subtle quality of the Noctivid. The view was crystal clear and bright, and the build quality was outstanding. The FOV was the most limited of the three, however. It has a very solid, modest, and no-nonsense design. The focus ring is in a more classical rear position (the SF and NL bring it forward on the frame), which I don’t always like, but the bridge is very slight, decreasing the issue with finger spacing I’ve often found with such designs. I’d need to use them some more to be certain if it was still a problem for me, however.

Victory SF – I admit to being slightly disappointed with the SF. The FOV was wider than the Noctivid, of course, and the focus wheel was the best of the three, but I didn’t get on with the ergonomics. It was a little flashy to look at, didn’t fit comfortably in my hand, and the materials didn’t seem as nice to hold, for some reason. I’m willing to go back and try the SFL, however. That alternative structure might make the difference.

NL Pure – The NL was my favourite, in the end. It’s a bold design, but it owns it. These binos have lots of character. Slim, perfectly balanced, and the ergonomics bring the hand right into the focus wheel, just where it needs to be. And that FOV... well, we all know. I could have looked through them all day. In the past, I’ve tended to favour 12x binoculars, and I typically hold them right at the end of the barrels, near to the objective lenses; the idiosyncratic shape of the NLs mean that I will probably have to break that habit, were I to own them. But that does leave me questioning whether I’d have trouble holding a 12x model steady, without the forehead rest (which I don’t really fancy, as an idea).

I'm in love, but why do they have to be so expensive!? I’m going to save up and buy the NLs in 12x42. (Should be about £2550, unless anyone knows of a used one on the market somewhere? Cash like that is a big deal on a teacher’s salary.) I did recently have the opportunity of getting the Noctivid in 8x42 for £1200; I’ve been wondering if I should have snapped that up.

(Location: RSPB Pulborough Brooks. By the way, the other pair of binos on the bench visible in the video is a Vortex Crossfire HD – I have a soft spot for them, but they’re rather out of their depth in this company, of course!)

 

[dries1]

Nice photos Will, and a nice view to check them out. How much time will you be able to spend with them? a couple of days would help in the decision, optical characteristics yes but also ergonomics. I enjoy the Noctivid more and more over time, and I do have the NL (Both in 8X42). It is a big financial decision, good luck.

 

[Will K]

Nice photos Will, and a nice view to check them out. How much time will you be able to spend with them? a couple of days would help in the decision, optical characteristics yes but also ergonomics. I enjoy the Noctivid more and more over time, and I do have the NL (Both in 8X42). It is a big financial decision, good luck.

Thanks. I can use them as much as I want at this location, so long as the owners don’t kick me out for never buying anything!

The next thing on my list to buy is a good quality tripod, so the final decision will probably be made next year,after I’ve saved up a pot of funds once again.

 

[Patudo]

In the past, I’ve tended to favour 12x binoculars, and I typically hold them right at the end of the barrels, near to the objective lenses; the idiosyncratic shape of the NLs mean that I will probably have to break that habit, were I to own them. But that does leave me questioning whether I’d have trouble holding a 12x model steady, without the forehead rest (which I don’t really fancy, as an idea).

FWIW when I tried all three NL models earlier in the year I found the headrest, though it looks somewhat gimmicky and does not feel made to Swarovski's usual standards, made a real difference and the higher the mag the more helpful it was. I use 12x a reasonable amount myself (long distance scanning for raptors) and at that high magnification every bit of steadiness helps. If you prefer 12x, I'd consider it well worth adding to your purchase and getting familiar with.

 

[Scott98]

Interesting that you didn't dwell on the optics much - more on ergonomics, comfort, build, etc. Emphasizes the need to actually try these things in person. The optics of all them are excellent.

I'm different - for me the SF had the best feel and comfortable grip. I'm struggling a bit with blackouts still but the ease and comfort of holding them is what will probably make me keep them. I love the way the underside of the top bridge is perfectly flat in the Zeiss and it feels best on my fingers. The space between the barrels is wide so my hands grip & move around easily. It's so comfortable I typically walk around holding them in my hand to take the pressure off the neck strap. I believe they're several ounces lighter than the other two as well. This stuff makes them longer and more bulky...definitely the least compact of the 3.

The underside of the NL bridge looks flat also, unless that bird outline irriates your fingers! Can't see under the Noctovid bridge...maybe it's a flat surface as well?

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

View attachment 1478854View attachment 1478855View attachment 1478856View attachment 1478857

A happy memory – a sunny afternoon spent comparing ‘the big three’: NL Pure, Victory SF and Noctivid (all 42mm).

(Question: Does anyone have a perspective on the grip materials used for these three models? Which is likely to age better, i.e., least likely to perish, over, say, 15+ years?)

My very subjective two cents, for anyone who is interested:

Noctivid – I was very impressed by the subtle quality of the Noctivid. The view was crystal clear and bright, and the build quality was outstanding. The FOV was the most limited of the three, however. It has a very solid, modest, and no-nonsense design. The focus ring is in a more classical rear position (the SF and NL bring it forward on the frame), which I don’t always like, but the bridge is very slight, decreasing the issue with finger spacing I’ve often found with such designs. I’d need to use them some more to be certain if it was still a problem for me, however.

Victory SF – I admit to being slightly disappointed with the SF. The FOV was wider than the Noctivid, of course, and the focus wheel was the best of the three, but I didn’t get on with the ergonomics. It was a little flashy to look at, didn’t fit comfortably in my hand, and the materials didn’t seem as nice to hold, for some reason. I’m willing to go back and try the SFL, however. That alternative structure might make the difference.

NL Pure – The NL was my favourite, in the end. It’s a bold design, but it owns it. These binos have lots of character. Slim, perfectly balanced, and the ergonomics bring the hand right into the focus wheel, just where it needs to be. And that FOV... well, we all know. I could have looked through them all day. In the past, I’ve tended to favour 12x binoculars, and I typically hold them right at the end of the barrels, near to the objective lenses; the idiosyncratic shape of the NLs mean that I will probably have to break that habit, were I to own them. But that does leave me questioning whether I’d have trouble holding a 12x model steady, without the forehead rest (which I don’t really fancy, as an idea).

I'm in love, but why do they have to be so expensive!? I’m going to save up and buy the NLs in 12x42. (Should be about £2550, unless anyone knows of a used one on the market somewhere? Cash like that is a big deal on a teacher’s salary.) I did recently have the opportunity of getting the Noctivid in 8x42 for £1200; I’ve been wondering if I should have snapped that up.

(Location: RSPB Pulborough Brooks. By the way, the other pair of binos on the bench visible in the video is a Vortex Crossfire HD – I have a soft spot for them, but they’re rather out of their depth in this company, of course!)

Question: Does anyone have a perspective on the grip materials used for these three models? Which is likely to age better, i.e., least likely to perish, over, say, 15+ years?)
Well, it won't be the NL Pure that's for sure!!
Peter.

 

[Richard D]

Question: Does anyone have a perspective on the grip materials used for these three models? Which is likely to age better, i.e., least likely to perish, over, say, 15+ years?)
Well, it won't be the NL Pure that's for sure!!
Peter.

Too soon to say. Swarovski are pretty good at replacing armour for free in the warranty period at least. Is armour covered under Leica and Zeiss warranties - some waranties exclude armour?

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

Too soon to say. Swarovski are pretty good at replacing armour for free in the warranty period at least. Is armour covered under Leica and Zeiss warranties - some waranties exclude armour?



We are not talking about replacing ,it was how long the armour would last.

 

[Rg548]

Great write up !!
Yeah, that's a lot on a teachers salary, and you've got to make the right choice.
They are all superb in their own way.
I find it hard to justify the huge extra cost of the very best.
Wide flat field views are hard to achieve, and is why the NL's are so expensive.
Personally, I am not a flat field or wide field fanatic, I prefer Leica's superb Ultravids over Pures, but that's just me.
Swaro EL's and Leica Ultravids would never leave me wanting something better, and there is a big saving to be made.
I actually prefer my Meopta Meostars over Pures, they cannot compete with the Pures FOV or the flat field optics, but the view is a nicer one to my eyes!!
They are so good they have stopped me splashing out on Ultravids, even though I'm a huge Ultra fan.

Just points for thought, you can get incredible quality optics for £800 to £1000 less than Pures.
That flat field expansive view is gonna spank the wallet!!!
Having said that, it is money NOT well spent if you are always going to want that top tier.... you will always be looking for the upgrade!!

Finally.... if this is such a big purchase for you, which it sounds like it is, you may get too precious about them, and not fully enjoy them.
I had a pair of Conquests a while back, and was happy just to lob them on the car seat, place them on the ground if i needed etc.
Probably should have kept them, they were great, and for the money spent, simply astounding.


Enjoy the buying experience however it turns out.

 

[Rg548]

As you mentioned the Vortex Crossfires.... Have you looke throught the best Vortex UHD's
They are about the £1500 to £1600 mark and are absolutely superb.
AK prisms too!!

 

[Will K]

Interesting that you didn't dwell on the optics much - more on ergonomics, comfort, build, etc. Emphasizes the need to actually try these things in person. The optics of all them are excellent.

I'm different - for me the SF had the best feel and comfortable grip. I'm struggling a bit with blackouts still but the ease and comfort of holding them is what will probably make me keep them. I love the way the underside of the top bridge is perfectly flat in the Zeiss and it feels best on my fingers. The space between the barrels is wide so my hands grip & move around easily. It's so comfortable I typically walk around holding them in my hand to take the pressure off the neck strap. I believe they're several ounces lighter than the other two as well. This stuff makes them longer and more bulky...definitely the least compact of the 3.

The underside of the NL bridge looks flat also, unless that bird outline irriates your fingers! Can't see under the Noctovid bridge...maybe it's a flat surface as well?

Yeah, the high optical quality goes without saying (mostly) with these three models, and when you reach this stage, ergonomics can make a huge difference in your personal relationship with a pair of binos.

The SFs are lighter, I believe; that's partly why I'm curious to try the SFLs, too. I can't recall the underside of the bridge on the Noctivids; I think the overall shape was more conducive to holding them nearer the objective lenses, but, like you, I often rest my middle finger on the underside of the rear bridge. (That is one reason why I'm so ambivalent about the Vortex Crossfires, incidentally - the underside has a serrated metal grip edge around the Vortex logo, and it very uncomfortable to hold them that way!) The Swarovski logo is noticeable to the touch while using the binos, but in a good way, I think!

 

[Will K]

Great write up !!
Yeah, that's a lot on a teachers salary, and you've got to make the right choice.
They are all superb in their own way.
I find it hard to justify the huge extra cost of the very best.
Wide flat field views are hard to achieve, and is why the NL's are so expensive.
Personally, I am not a flat field or wide field fanatic, I prefer Leica's superb Ultravids over Pures, but that's just me.
Swaro EL's and Leica Ultravids would never leave me wanting something better, and there is a big saving to be made.
I actually prefer my Meopta Meostars over Pures, they cannot compete with the Pures FOV or the flat field optics, but the view is a nicer one to my eyes!!
They are so good they have stopped me splashing out on Ultravids, even though I'm a huge Ultra fan.

Just points for thought, you can get incredible quality optics for £800 to £1000 less than Pures.
That flat field expansive view is gonna spank the wallet!!!
Having said that, it is money NOT well spent if you are always going to want that top tier.... you will always be looking for the upgrade!!

Finally.... if this is such a big purchase for you, which it sounds like it is, you may get too precious about them, and not fully enjoy them.
I had a pair of Conquests a while back, and was happy just to lob them on the car seat, place them on the ground if i needed etc.
Probably should have kept them, they were great, and for the money spent, simply astounding.


Enjoy the buying experience however it turns out.

Thanks very much!

If I ever do get the NLs, I'll certainly share my experience on BirdForum. It might be next year, now, because this month I've already splashed out on a Vortex Razor spotting scope and a Gitzo tripod. My credit card needs a rest!

I have, indeed, tried the Vortex UHDs. They were certainly impressive, but I feel as though if one is going to spend four figures on a pair of binos, then you need to justify it to yourself by knowing that you now own the very best (for you). I think I'd rather spend £2500 on the NLs than £1500 on the Razor UHDs, Ultravids, or similar. I may feel differently next year.

I got the Razor scope because I found a great deal, by the way, and I prefer it to all other scopes that I've tried, with the exception of those which are more than twice the price (Swaro ATX and Zeiss Harpia, to be specific).

 

[Trinovid]

...I'd rather spend £2500 on the NLs than £1500 on...Ultravids, or similar.

A set of x42 Ultravids would be a pretty damn good deal. Just saying, you know...

 

[Trinovid]

I did recently have the opportunity of getting the Noctivid in 8x42 for £1200; I’ve been wondering if I should have snapped that up.

Not even in the market for an 8x42, but a Noctivid at that price; I'd have taken it without even thinking all that hard!

 

[kimmik]

The choice could come down to colour preference, both exterior and view in use.

Zeiss - blue logo, greenish yellow image
Leica - red logo, pinkish image
Swaro - green exterior, blueish magenta image.

Seems to be their signature colour profile in the current lines.

 

[Woen]

Got one second hand for sale here in the Netherlands. Seller is a renowned optics specialist and very trustworthy.
Rooijmans foto 12X42 NL Pure

 

[crinklystarfish]

I’m going to save up and buy the NLs in 12x42. (Should be about £2550, unless anyone knows of a used one on the market somewhere? Cash like that is a big deal on a teacher’s salary.)

My income is low but life is short and good optics can seriously enhance it so I stretched financially. I've been using a 12x42 Pure for over 18 months now just about every day in all habitats. I wrote a bit of a precis on another thread but essentially: if you can find the sweet spot in terms of ER and IPD that circumvents (most of the) glare / kidney beaning - and figure out a grip that gives good stability, then once you've experienced a 12x42 Pure you might find it hard to go back.

For me, for general birding / wildlife / land & seascape watching, it's been pretty much the only optic I've needed - or indeed wanted - to have with me. Given that it really is a highly rewarding and entirely plausible do-it-(almost)-all solution, it wouldn't be hard to make the case that the same £2500 would soon disappear on the purchase of a combination of two bins + scope of the better known high-quality but value-for-money alternatives. And it would be doubtful that the combination would bring the same 'wow factor'... and you're not forever juggling gear and cleaning multiple lenses.

You may or may not be able to save the extra expense of the headrest. I accept that some seem to get along with it but I found it a complete waste of time. For me, it made absolutely no difference to steadiness, plus it adds bulk / complication and; furthermore, is a simple liability if you're given to wearing hats (I am).

Of course, the 12x42 Pure could never realistically out-compete a high-end, wide FoV 8x for specialised work demanding that format, nor could it realistically compete with a decent spotting scope for that last scrap of detail in far-off subjects. Much will depend on interest and use but, for me anyway, it's been £2500 that I couldn't really afford well spent.

 

[Will K]

My income is low but life is short and good optics can seriously enhance it so I stretched financially. I've been using a 12x42 Pure for over 18 months now just about every day in all habitats. I wrote a bit of a precis on another thread but essentially: if you can find the sweet spot in terms of ER and IPD that circumvents (most of the) glare / kidney beaning - and figure out a grip that gives good stability, then once you've experienced a 12x42 Pure you might find it hard to go back.

For me, for general birding / wildlife / land & seascape watching, it's been pretty much the only optic I've needed - or indeed wanted - to have with me. Given that it really is a highly rewarding and entirely plausible do-it-(almost)-all solution, it wouldn't be hard to make the case that the same £2500 would soon disappear on the purchase of a combination of two bins + scope of the better known high-quality but value-for-money alternatives. And it would be doubtful that the combination would bring the same 'wow factor'... and you're not forever juggling gear and cleaning multiple lenses.

You may or may not be able to save the extra expense of the headrest. I accept that some seem to get along with it but I found it a complete waste of time. For me, it made absolutely no difference to steadiness, plus it adds bulk / complication and; furthermore, is a simple liability if you're given to wearing hats (I am).

Of course, the 12x42 Pure could never realistically out-compete a high-end, wide FoV 8x for specialised work demanding that format, nor could it realistically compete with a decent spotting scope for that last scrap of detail in far-off subjects. Much will depend on interest and use but, for me anyway, it's been £2500 that I couldn't really afford well spent.

Thanks. I hope I'll feel the same way as you!

 

[crinklystarfish]

I earnestly wish you well.

The grip I've found that delivers the very best stability is in line with your intuition. Somewhat contrary to popular NL-Pure orthodoxy, I've found that a grip towards the ocular end, which basically sees the web of the thumb and index finger tightly cradling the strap pivots, is the way to go.

That said, I fully acknowledge such things are littered with so many variables to render personal solutions virtually pointless.

Just to be clear, I'm absolutely no Swarophile and am (I hope constructively) critical of some of optical shortcomings of the 12x42, and of the practicalities of the accessories supplied with NL Pures, which are arguably basically useless - unless your primary objective is to demonstrate to the wider world you are a Swarosucker.

All considered, though, it's been the case for me that I almost resentfully acknowledge when using an 12x42 NL, that almost wherever you are, and whatever you're 'glassing', that you can almost instantly be 'on it' - and when you are, then there's little out there that can bring more joy.

 

[Will K]

I earnestly wish you well.

The grip I've found that delivers the very best stability is in line with your intuition. Somewhat contrary to popular NL-Pure orthodoxy, I've found that a grip towards the ocular end, which basically sees the web of the thumb and index finger tightly cradling the strap pivots, is the way to go.

That said, I fully acknowledge such things are littered with so many variables to render personal solutions virtually pointless.

Just to be clear, I'm absolutely no Swarophile and am (I hope constructively) critical of some of optical shortcomings of the 12x42, and of the practicalities of the accessories supplied with NL Pures, which are arguably basically useless - unless your primary objective is to demonstrate to the wider world you are a Swarosucker.

All considered, though, it's been the case for me that I almost resentfully acknowledge when using an 12x42 NL, that almost wherever you are, and whatever you're 'glassing', that you can almost instantly be 'on it' - and when you are, then there's little out there that can bring more joy.

Thanks!

I must admit: no pair of binoculars I have ever used has possessed the same 'magic' quality as can be found when looking through the NL Pures. I keep coming back to that word - 'cinematic' - when describing them to people.

I'm primarily interested in optics for the optics themselves, and the powers of 'supervision' that they provide. I'd imagine that most people here are into binoculars because they like to watch birds, etc., whereas I'm into birds because I like to use optics - I have to use them look at something! I wonder if that is a common experience?

Perhaps all that does indeed mean that I'm a 'Swarosucker'. They'll get my money, one day!