NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (2 Viewers)

[paddy7]

As a long-time owner/user of the FL8x32, i was very interested in seeing what Zeiss came up with (eventually) as the successor, particularly after so many apparent delays. Now, Swarovski have done the same, replacing a popular but ageing 8x32 - and both companies seem to have produced what, in 8x32 terms, might be called monsters. And presumably, both following their own development, market research etc. lines independently - the releases are too close for any 'inspired by' factors, and i'm certain it isn't just coincidence.
For me, an 8x32 has certain advantages; weight, size, packability, perhaps FoV, without (as one ages) losing too much of that precious light.
Which of course begs the question 'why does a company produce 8x32 binoculars?' If they only just get under the specs of 8x42 (and, as seen from above, are actually larger than Leica's 7x42), why are Zeiss and Swarovski doing it? These things ain't cheap - someone has really got to want/need one to shell out that kind of cash.
There seems to be various arguments being made for the larger 8x32, but these seem to be of the 'you don't necessarily want lighter/smaller' than anything that comes from a positive - i want a larger 8x32 binocular because (INSERT ANSWER HERE).
I'm a bit confused by it to be honest, but slightly glad too. I was hoping old Mother Temptation wasn't going to start whispering 'upgrade!' in my ear; the old girl has gone very quiet lately......

 

[jan van daalen]

As a long-time owner/user of the FL8x32, i was very interested in seeing what Zeiss came up with (eventually) as the successor, particularly after so many apparent delays. Now, Swarovski have done the same, replacing a popular but ageing 8x32 - and both companies seem to have produced what, in 8x32 terms, might be called monsters. And presumably, both following their own development, market research etc. lines independently - the releases are too close for any 'inspired by' factors, and i'm certain it isn't just coincidence.
For me, an 8x32 has certain advantages; weight, size, packability, perhaps FoV, without (as one ages) losing too much of that precious light.
Which of course begs the question 'why does a company produce 8x32 binoculars?' If they only just get under the specs of 8x42 (and, as seen from above, are actually larger than Leica's 7x42), why are Zeiss and Swarovski doing it? These things ain't cheap - someone has really got to want/need one to shell out that kind of cash.
There seems to be various arguments being made for the larger 8x32, but these seem to be of the 'you don't necessarily want lighter/smaller' than anything that comes from a positive - i want a larger 8x32 binocular because (INSERT ANSWER HERE).
I'm a bit confused by it to be honest, but slightly glad too. I was hoping old Mother Temptation wasn't going to start whispering 'upgrade!' in my ear; the old girl has gone very quiet lately......

Dear Paddy,

To cure your confusion......... handle the NL32 and you are cured.

Jan

 

[henry link]

I certainly don't consider the reduced FOV of the 8x32 a "disaster", but there is no obvious reason why its FOV should be smaller than the 8x42. I can't believe the smaller FOV was done to make the 8x42 appear more attractive or to improve the 8x32 edge sharpness. For now, I'm assuming that the narrower field of the 8x32 was necessitated by something in the way Swarovski chose to scale down the NL 42mm design. I'm just curious to know what that thing is.

At the moment I'm inclined to think the prism and the eyepiece elements were downsized (to reduce size and weight) just enough to maintain the FOV of the 10x32 vs the 10x42, but too much for the 8x32 to have the same FOV as the 8x42. An x-ray like the one Arek provided for the 42mms should tell the tale.

 

[dries1]

Henry,

You think it has to do with the NLs thin waist/orientation of the prisms?

Andy W.

 

[yarrellii]

I don't think the many people who use 8x32 EL SV as their main binocular feel like they're making a major compromise optically vs their old 42mm.

This is exactly the way I think about my 8x32 EL SV. When I'm using it, given its great ease of use and bright image, I actually see them more like a "compact 8x42" or a "8x35". In my case, the 8x32 EL simply denies the possibility of a 8x42, even if it was as nice as the SLC.
I'm really curious about the view through the 8x32 NL, but honestly, seeing it along (and dwarfing) the 8x32 EL, I'm not sure I see myself using it, since for me at least, it's fully on 8x42 territory and that kind of defeats the idea behind x32. My EL are 580 g, and I feel (well, I should say my neck feels) that's on the wrong side of the limit for me, so a bigger and heavier x32... Hmmm. That's a tough call (even forgetting about the price for a second).

 

[eitanaltman]

There seems to be various arguments being made for the larger 8x32, but these seem to be of the 'you don't necessarily want lighter/smaller' than anything that comes from a positive - i want a larger 8x32 binocular because (INSERT ANSWER HERE).

Certainly not trying to tempt you, but I would answer your question “I want a larger 8x32 because _______ “ from my perspective (YMMV):

• even a larger 8x32 is considerably smaller and lighter than a 42 (with a few exceptions)
• a larger 8x32 is more comfortable to handle than a smaller binocular
• with rare exceptions (Leica UV and Zeiss FL) the premium 32mm binoculars are all on the large/heavy end of the spectrum, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. As I noted before the Leica pays a price with short eye relief and good-but-not-great FOV.

In truth, what I think most “big 32” users really want is a 36. A middle ground between 42 (which mostly are too large/heavy for my tastes) and the compact 32 (which are often too short and light). But binocular manufacturers don’t make those.

So the big, premium 32 fills the niche of premium “full sized” performance with reduced size/weight that a hypothetical 8x36 / 10x36 offering would. I don’t see how you can get the “premium” features (like huge FOV and sharp to the edge AND long eye relief too please) without it necessarily being larger and heavier, and I also think for a full-time binocular the extra size and weight improved the ergonomics while still being a considerable reduction vs the 42.

As I noted above, that niche was obsoleted for me with the 7x42 Ultravid, but before that I always gravitated towards larger 8x32’s as my favorite daily use optic.

Worth noting the NL 42 is heavier than most competitors as well. The 42mm is around 30oz / 850g which is on the heavy end vs Leica UV, Zeiss SF, EDG (all of which are 50-100g lighter). So it shouldn’t be that surprising that the 32 NL is a bit heavier than the 32 SF.

 

[Patudo]

Interesting stuff. It's pretty academic to me as I won't be in a position to own a NL in any format for a very long time, but for what it's worth...

- I agree with Eitan and others who have observed there is that difference between larger 8x32s (SV, SF, NL) and smaller 8x32s or 8x30s (CL, UVHD+) with the former often being used as a primary birding binocular. Swarovski offer both those types as does Zeiss, with the 8x32 Conquest being a lot smaller than the SF. Yarrelli's comment about x35 binoculars is interesting in that I can still remember when 7x35 was a fairly popular format. The large x32s today would seem to fill that niche, with the advantage of the 8x mag.

- it would have been interesting (to put it mildly) if the 8x32 NL had bettered the 8x32 SF's field of view, but I guess they decided that it was not possible to do so without increasing the size of the binocular too much (larger FOV requires larger prisms). 150m, sharp to the edge, with long eye relief is a pretty formidable offering in any case. It's interesting that this figure of 150m, which as Canip references was something of a standard amongst 8x30s of the past, is back with us again, and I wonder if that will remain the standard or whether FOV will continue to be pushed wider.

 

[eitanaltman]

Worth noting the “smaller” Zeiss Conquest is not a particularly small 32 and weighs MORE than the the SF, it’s about 620-630g.

The new Trinovid 32 (as well as the old BA/BN) is 630g. The Meostar 32, Genesis 33, and the original EL 32 was over 600g.

The NL 32 at 650g doesn’t seem as brick-like as some are making it out to be. The 600-650g range is pretty normal for premium 32mm binoculars.

 

[GrampaTom]

This help?

 

[SeldomSeenSpotter]

Hello everyone. I have just become a member of Birdforum so I will introduce myself first before I ask my question. At the moment I own two Bynolyt binoculars; since 2003 a Skylark 8x 28 en for a couple of years Stork 8x42. I am in the position of being able to upgrade and have been concentrating on the 8x32 models. I have followed this conversation and I see that there has been a lot of comparing between the EL en NL Pure, notably the 8x42 models. I would be interested to read your thoughts on the differences between the EL 8x32 Field Pro en NL Pure 8x32, not so much on paper, more in the field. Thanks for your input.

 

[jan van daalen]

Hello everyone. I have just become a member of Birdforum so I will introduce myself first before I ask my question. At the moment I own two Bynolyt binoculars; since 2003 a Skylark 8x 28 en for a couple of years Stork 8x42. I am in the position of being able to upgrade and have been concentrating on the 8x32 models. I have followed this conversation and I see that there has been a lot of comparing between the EL en NL Pure, notably the 8x42 models. I would be interested to read your thoughts on the differences between the EL 8x32 Field Pro en NL Pure 8x32, not so much on paper, more in the field. Thanks for your input.

Hi SSS,

Welcome to BF.
For "non-biased" users input you will have to wait after the introduction in May.

Jan

 

[Maljunulo]

Hi SSS,

Welcome to BF.
For "non-biased" users input you will have to wait after the introduction in May.

Jan

Will we have to wait until May for full reviews?

 

[SeldomSeenSpotter]

Hi SSS,

Welcome to BF.
For "non-biased" users input you will have to wait after the introduction in May.

Jan

Not long then, and something to look forward to.

 

[ticl2184]

One possibility is that just as Swaro increased the close focus of SLC a few years back so that if you wanted a Swaro with a decent close-focus you had to buy their top model, the EL, maybe Swaro are doing something similar with NL. If you want the best fov you have to buy the

Hi Lee.

The question is what sells more worldwide.
42 or 32 ...

In the UK its 32mm. They prefer the smaller lighter Binos with the larger fov.....

Or perhaps Swarovski had technical difficulties producing a larger FOV than than the 42mm...
Or perhaps its something to do with the horrible glare I found in all of the 42mm NL models, that they didn't want to pass onto the 32mm models...

Cheers
Tim

 

[PYRTLE]

Hi Lee.

The question is what sells more worldwide.
42 or 32 ...

In the UK its 32mm. They prefer the smaller lighter Binos with the larger fov.....

How do you know this? Do you have the UK sales figure to quantify this statement?

Or perhaps Swarovski had technical difficulties producing a larger FOV than than the 42mm...
Or perhaps its something to do with the horrible glare I found in all of the 42mm NL models, that they didn't want to pass onto the 32mm models...

Cheers
Tim,

Conjecture of course, almost suggestive that Swarovski launched a new range with a known fault? What happened along the way of design, and in house testing of the NL before launch and production? More likely that they did not wish to make the instrument any longer than their " brief " for the new 32mm range. Already there is criticism as to the length and bulk of this new binocular from folks who haven't handled one. Perhaps a mindset?
Though I too wonder why the super wide field of view is not equal to or greater than the Zeiss SF32mm. It was a leading feature when the NL Pure was launched and marketed.

Perhaps more to do with the internal layout etc. as mentioned by Henry Link and therefore to achieve a desirable balance when in use.

Let's all wait, be patient and see.

 

[ticl2184]

Will we have to wait until May for full reviews?

I've just ordered a pair of 8x32 NL's today..

I sincerely hope they don't have the Glare and blackout issues that I found in the 42's which I sent back and got a refund...

I imagine a 50mm NL will follow next year. Question is if the FOV will be less or more than there 42mm little brother..?

Cheers Tim

 

[ticl2184]

How do you know this? Do you have the UK sales figure to quantify this statement?

Conjecture of course, almost suggestive that Swarovski launched a new range with a known fault? What happened along the way of design, and in house testing of the NL before launch and production? More likely that they did not wish to make the instrument any longer than their " brief " for the new 32mm range. Already there is criticism as to the length and bulk of this new binocular from folks who haven't handled one. Perhaps a mindset?
Though I too wonder why the super wide field of view is not equal to or greater than the Zeiss SF32mm. It was a leading feature when the NL Pure was launched and marketed.
Let's all wait, be patient and see.

Swarovski rep told me at Birdfair in 2019.

He said they sell more 32 models compared to the 42.
I believed him.

Cheers
Tim

 

[PYRTLE]

Swarovski rep told me at Birdfair in 2019.
Tim

Thanks Tim,
Good luck with your order, I sincerely hope they work for you in terms of the dreaded "G" word.

 

[Troubador]

Swarovski rep told me at Birdfair in 2019.

He said they sell more 32 models compared to the 42.
I believed him.

Cheers
Tim

I have heard this too from two prominent dealers.

And perhaps Swaro would prefer the more expensive 42 to dominate sales.

Lee

 

[dries1]

I've just ordered a pair of 8x32 NL's today..

I sincerely hope they don't have the Glare and blackout issues that I found in the 42's which I sent back and got a refund...

I imagine a 50mm NL will follow next year. Question is if the FOV will be less or more than there 42mm little brother..?

Cheers Tim

Ok the next question is, what color did you order?

Andy W.