• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (1 Viewer)

yarrellii said:
These two sentences, coming from someone with such a vast experience with binoculars and whose opinions are usually balanced, very well measured (and far from the exacerbated cries from brand-loyal-fanboys) really left me in awe.
Thank you Canip for taking the time and doing this comparison. The 8x32 ELSV is my favourite 8x32, so the dilemma of upgrading (which I think many 8x32 EL owners will face) is becoming an itch.

Thankfully, there are two things that help soothing the itch:
  • The astronomical price (I think I'll wait 7 - 10 years to buy a 2nd hand NL at an affordable price, the same way I did with the EL)
  • The comments about blackouts (I'm really picky about this, and is especially that easiness on the eye-position what I adore from the 8x32 EL)
  • The fact of having never looked through one. A think I'll try to avoid at all cost :D :D :D
  • (Bonus: well, and then there's the matter of weight and bulk. I already find the ELSV a bit beyond the limit, so the NL...)

On a more serious note. If someone asked you to quantify or assess the possibility of upgrading from an 8x32 EL to an NL what would you say?
Never do it if...
Do it at all cost if...
Consider it/don't if...
Click to expand...
I believe there is little reason to upgrade from 8x32 El. That's precisely why I think Swarovski is discontinuing the 32El with introduction of the 32NL. If they were to keep the 32 EL in their lineup, they would be competing with themselves. The 32EL is considerably less expensive, with little lost by buying it vs the 32NL. Unlike the 8.5 x 42 EL, which is comparatively bulky and unbalanced, the ergonomics on the 8x32 EL are nothing for most people to complain about. Being lighter and smaller, the 32EL is comfortable for most people to use, without need for the wasp waist of the NL. In fact, some may find that the "improved" ergonomics of 32NL a problem, especially if you have larger hands or wear gloves. While the Nl optics and FOV may be improved, only side by side comparison will likely reveal that little difference, for a lot of cost. Moreover, the FOV improvement is less than with the 42 NL, again making the choice of the 32NL a less compelling upgrade.
 
Last edited:
yarrellii said:
On a more serious note. If someone asked you to quantify or assess the possibility of upgrading from an 8x32 EL to an NL what would you say?
Never do it if...
Do it at all cost if...
Consider it/don't if...
Click to expand...
Well, an important question no doubt. But many do not own either the ELSV, or the SF 32 for that matter. So rather than a question of upgrade, how about a first buy of an X32? There's a decent chance an ELSV32 will still be lurking here and there, for a little while. It was after all a kind of slam the door ending. And there's used. The SF32 is still Zeiss' latest and greatest. One could probably save several hundred or more, depending, on the ELSV and looks like a couple hundred on the SF. So if you were to buy your first ...832 Canid, Gils, Yarelli?
 
If I were buying my first 8X32, and I did not have the SF, I would jump on the NL, but will not "upgrade" unless someone decides to give me an NL.

That is not going to happen.
 
Hi Canip,

excellent review as usual. And nice place to test binoculars, must be around Beatenberg? For those who don't know Switzerland: the gorgeous mountains are the famous triple Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau.

The side to side view with the SF is interesting and shows how similar both are: almost identical in size and placement of the focus wheel. Seems that Swaro has made efforts here to catch up with the SF (which introduced the forward placed focus wheel and the the large FOV to modern top binoculars) and got rid of the double hinge to make it not too obvious ;)

If I read your review, the differences of the 8x32 SF and NL come down to this:
  • NL is clearly heavier than SF
  • NL has sharper edges than SF
  • SF has a slightly larger FOV than NL, but not very noticable

Overall very similar, so the choice would likely come down to how ergonomics are percieved. Can you comment how ergonomics of the two compare for you personally?

And could you clarify this sentence?
Central sharpness is comparable, also with the SF, although I did occasionally have the feeling that the SF allowed me to read letters on far away signs a tiny bit more easily than the SF.
Click to expand...
Many thanks, Florian
 
GrandpaTom, post 42,
We have the 8x32's: Swarovski EL, Swarovski EL-SV, Swarovski NL pure, Zeiss Dialyt new, Zeiss Victory FL, Zeiss Victory SF, Leica Ultravid HD-plus.
All very good binoculars, but as far as handling and optical performance is concerned, the 8x32 NL pure is in my opinion the best/most attractive of all.
My judgment is based on using the binoculars under different circumstances, but in the coming weeks I hope to get the opportunity to perform measurements in the laboratory, but the Corona limitations make that challenging.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
dalat said:
Hi Canip,

excellent review as usual. And nice place to test binoculars, must be around Beatenberg? For those who don't know Switzerland: the gorgeous mountains are the famous triple Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau.

The side to side view with the SF is interesting and shows how similar both are: almost identical in size and placement of the focus wheel. Seems that Swaro has made efforts here to catch up with the SF (which introduced the forward placed focus wheel and the the large FOV to modern top binoculars) and got rid of the double hinge to make it not too obvious ;)

If I read your review, the differences of the 8x32 SF and NL come down to this:
  • NL is clearly heavier than SF
  • NL has sharper edges than SF
  • SF has a slightly larger FOV than NL, but not very noticable

Overall very similar, so the choice would likely come down to how ergonomics are percieved. Can you comment how ergonomics of the two compare for you personally?

And could you clarify this sentence?

Many thanks, Florian
Click to expand...

Thanks, Florian.

You are right about the testing location (and sorry for showing off a bit, I was so totally and undeservedly lucky when I could buy this little chalet 20 years ago).

And you are right with your mini-summary of the differences between NL and SF. Maybe I can add that beside the ergonomics and overall handling, the difference in the color tone and perceived contrast of the images can also be a point that can make people prefer the one or the other.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ergonomics of the SF, it is very well designed, but now that the NL is out, there is like a new „standard“, partially, I admit it, due to the innovation of the shape, and partially due to the form factor that makes the NL such a snug fit into the palm of your hand.

About the central sharpness: I used to test sharpness on the USAF 1951, employing boosters to enhance potential differences between binos. I gave this up when I realized that testing binos on black symbols, letters etc. printed on white ground gives you one result, but as soon as you bring color into the picture (no pun), things can look quite differently. So now I test by comparing binos in „real life situations“ instead, e.g by trying to decypher far-away signs on houses, street signs, company names on buildings, structured surfaces (tree bark) etc. That‘s how I came to the conclusion that some of the objects I was observing with the NL and SF appeared to be just a tiny bit more easily readable in the SF. Not a totally reliable finding (because the performance of my aging eyes can vary from day to day), more like a hint that the image characteristics of the SF may put it at a slight advantage over the NL in certain situations.

Does this make any sense?

Canip
 
Makes perfect sense, many thanks!
And congrats to haveing a chalet with such a view! Nice birding area too! I'm still trying to see Hazel Grouse in Switzerland and sometimes thought about trying this area.
 
Tks Florian.

And, btw, thank you Kimmo - Blackadder - Aquaplas - Gijs for providing you first impressions of the 8x32 and 10x32 versions.
Looking forward to further reviews if any other forum members have a chance (I know Holger Merlitz expects a testing sample, and I sure look forward to his review).

Canip
 
Well I just ordered the 10x32 NL from Euro Optic. I know that most here prefer 8x and that is what most of the reviews will focus on. I’ll be able to do a comparison between these and my 8x32 SF’s within the next couple weeks. I also owned the 10x32 SF’s for a time last fall.
 
b_reynolds_ak said:
Well I just ordered the 10x32 NL from Euro Optic. I know that most here prefer 8x and that is what most of the reviews will focus on. I’ll be able to do a comparison between these and my 8x32 SF’s within the next couple weeks. I also owned the 10x32 SF’s for a time last fall.
Click to expand...
Why did you get rid of the 10X32 SF?

Do I gather that you now have the 8X32 SF?

Why did you switch?
 
Maljunulo said:
Why did you get rid of the 10X32 SF?

Do I gather that you now have the 8X32 SF?

Why did you switch?
Click to expand...
I really wanted to move to a 10x32 binocular, as I’d always used 8x in the past. Here in Alaska I’m often glassing long distances and the extra reach would be welcome.
The 10x32 SF’s had too many ‘kidney bean’ blackout issues for me. I ‘settled’ for the 8x instead. They are more comfortable to use and the shorter eye relief actually works better for me. But, still I am at 8x.
The 10x32 NL’s have a larger fov than the equivalent SF’s, something that the 8x versions do not. As long as I get a copy of the NL that has a nice focus knob, I think these will suit me very well.
 
b_reynolds_ak said:
I really wanted to move to a 10x32 binocular, as I’d always used 8x in the past. Here in Alaska I’m often glassing long distances and the extra reach would be welcome.
The 10x32 SF’s had too many ‘kidney bean’ blackout issues for me. I ‘settled’ for the 8x instead. They are more comfortable to use and the shorter eye relief actually works better for me. But, still I am at 8x.
The 10x32 NL’s have a larger fov than the equivalent SF’s, something that the 8x versions do not. As long as I get a copy of the NL that has a nice focus knob, I think these will suit me very well.
Click to expand...
I'll be very interested in how that works out, since all 10X32 have the same size exit pupil, you may be performing the same experiment and expecting a different result.

Please let us know.
 
Maljunulo said:
I'll be very interested in how that works out, since all 10X32 have the same size exit pupil, you may be performing the same experiment and expecting a different result.

Please let us know.
Click to expand...
I will do.
I suspect they may be better though, based on how well I got on with the 10x32 EL SV’s, barring the veiling glare. I think the eyepiece design, eyecup shape and other design features effect blackout issues even more than exit pupil, as I absolutely love my Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25’s and have no issues in that regard.
 
b_reynolds_ak said:
I will do.
I suspect they may be better though, based on how well I got on with the 10x32 EL SV’s, barring the veiling glare. I think the eyepiece design, eyecup shape and other design features effect blackout issues even more than exit pupil, as I absolutely love my Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25’s and have no issues in that regard.
Click to expand...
With the NL's, blackout issues abound, unless you have both the eyecups and the IP precisely set for your anatomy and or/glasses. Most assume that just the eyecup position is crucial, but if the IP distance is set narrower than it should be, you may also experience blackouts. At least, I did with my 8x42 NL until I widened the IP distance to the point where there were almost 2 images. My eyecups with glasses were out 2 clicks, while with most other binoculars they are not out at all. Again, if not adjusted correctly for me, I had blackouts. I would doubt the EP difference is causing the eye blackouts, since even with an EP of 5.25, it is possible to have blackouts if the eyecups and IP are not set right.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert but:

I have kept using my 8.5 ELs but did change out the eyecups for NL eyecups. The increased internal eyepiece diameter (as well as more indent options) provide a net gain resulting in very easy, non critical eye placement and full view at even longer eye relief (and an impression of more immersive increased AFOV)

If the 8x32 NL improves its glare control and utilises a larger eyepiece diameter (compared to EL 8x32) without over-emphasis on increased FOV it could be a nice improvement and provide an easy view. Looking forward to reviews, some people seem negative just because its FOV is not pushing the limits.
 
nzwild, post 55,
If you investigate the binocular history between 1920 and now you will discover that the FOV of 150m/1000m is found in binoculars of many brands in this time span, so Swarovski certainly did not "push limits with the FOV" of the NL pure 32. But they certainly are at a pleasant range.
As yet I have not found any difficulty with eye placement and could not find glare . It is for me simply an excellent binocular and, due to its size and shape for me even more pleasnt to handle as its bigger sister, the NL pure 8x42, but that is a matter of hand size etc.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I'll be testing a pair of 8x32 NL's next weekend...

They will have to be substantially better than my pair of 8x32 SV's if I'm goin buy them.
There fov is only 9 metres more than my SV's.
If they have Black out issues plus excessive reflection there be staying in the shop...
I refuse to buy a pair of NL's just because there the latest thing from Swarovski.
I bought a pair of 10x42 NL and I sent them back because of excessive reflections and blackouts...


Cheers
Tim

Cheers
 
Tim, post 58,
I have exchanged my 8x32 EL for the NL pure 8x32 and do not regret it one moment. Handling of the NL is very much improved as well as the optical quality. I can not find glare or any other problems, so I am very happy with the NLpure.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
ticl2184 said:
I'll be testing a pair of 8x32 NL's next weekend...

They will have to be substantially better than my pair of 8x32 SV's if I'm goin buy them.
There fov is only 9 metres more than my SV's.
If they have Black out issues plus excessive reflection there be staying in the shop...
I refuse to buy a pair of NL's just because there the latest thing from Swarovski.
I bought a pair of 10x42 NL and I sent them back because of excessive reflections and blackouts...


Cheers
Tim

Cheers
Click to expand...
Hi Tim,
The NL 42 (both 8x and 10x) were no go for me too: glare in any conceivable situation, and any attempt to avoid it led to blackouts. I am curious to hear your opinion about the NL 32mm, when you got a chance to try them: the eyecups of the 32mm binos have a smaller diameter and that should allow for more flexibility for eye placement.
Peter
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

B
Yet another review of the 8x40 SFL
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
21K
Swissboy
Swissboy
E
Comparative review - Kowa 8x33 Genesis vs Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure
2
Replies
26
Views
11K
Paultricounty
P
G
It's all about you Everyday at Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
535
gr8fuldoug
G
G
Mother's Day Sale - HUGE Savings Through May 8th
Replies
1
Views
790
gr8fuldoug
G
G
Introducing the New NL PURE from Swarovski Optik
Replies
0
Views
2K
gr8fuldoug
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top