• 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.

Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (2 Viewers)

It is not too late to cancel the order on the NL 8x42 if it has a problem with veiling glare. Historically Swarovski have problems with glare. Maybe the Zeiss SF 8x32 handles glare better. FOV isn't that much smaller and it is much lighter and smaller. The SV 8x32 and the SV 8.5x42 had more veiling glare than the rest of the alphas in my experience. Swarovski doesn't seem to be able to design a binocular without glare. It is frustrating because they are so good in many other ways. I figured with all the negative feedback about glare in their EL line they would have solved the problem in the NL.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused about Arek's review, which reports reflections from the focusing lens cell and from the interior in front of it when the focuser is moved back toward prisms. However, his photo of the interior taken from the eyepiece does not show those reflections.

I assembled the photos below from Allbinos material and lightened them a bit to enhance detail. The one on the left is Arek's photo of the 12x42 NL and the one on the right is from the Allbinos review of the 10x42 SV.

The narrow bright ring that surrounds the exit pupil in the SV photo is what I expect to see from a poorly baffled focusing or objective lens cell or one of the prism apertures. Those are the classic causes of veiling glare in binoculars. The other interior reflections in both binoculars are so far from the exit pupil that they would be relatively harmless. Even the bright reflection you see in the 12x42 NL from about 3:00 to 5:00 is at the edge of about a 7mm circle, so wouldn't enter the eye under most conditions. Perhaps the photo somehow failed to capture the focusing cell reflection, which could be lost in the overexposed exit pupil.

In any case, we now have two reliable observations of veiling glare from Arek and Kimmo, but from Arek's photo it doesn't look to be anything like as bad as the veiling glare in the SVs. For now I'm sticking with my pre-order of the 8x42 and will provide details and photos of its glare performance when I receive it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2460.jpeg
    IMG_2460.jpeg
    112.8 KB · Views: 123
Last edited:
Chosun Juan said:
Stephanie,

Do you know if stray light control is made inherently more difficult due to Swarovski's generous randpupille design ?

Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

If by randpupille design you mean minimizing the pupil vignetting at the edge of the field of view then that would require larger diameter lens elements in some locations which in turn might allow more stray light paths to get through to the observers eye. This is all part of the design trade-offs and compromises that the optical designer has to wrestle with and one reason it takes years to design the current crop of high performance binoculars.

Very useful enlargements of the exit pupil pics Henry, thanks for creating those.

I agree with Henry that the disturbing looking bright arc of stray light outside of the 3.5mm diameter exit pupil would not normally get into the users eye pupil directly since it is out at around 7mm diameter. Only for a dark adapted user could this be an issue and then the object field is going to be mostly dark so the amount of light leaking through to the eye would be minimal.

However it remains to be seen if this internal reflection might scatter enough light inside the binocular from a bright source (sun, moon, streetlamp or other) that it creates any noticeable veiling glare in the image. Field testing is the real measure. Looking forward to Henry's evaluation of the 8X42 NL!

Stephanie
 
All of the latest alphas seem to have at least some issues with flare/glare...even the Noctivid which was unexpected. Nikon EDG seem to be the way to go for a glare free view...or Leica UV. My Zeiss 7x42 FL is pretty good as well and beats the SV with a margin.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/noctivid8x42/noctivid8x42.html

But maybe you shouldn't exaggerate the problem in real life usage. Most people probably don't notice it or even care.

I'm not giving up on the NL quite yet, but I will have to try the 8x as well. A larger exit pupil will be a bit more forgiving. With my 8.5x SV:s I can avoid any glare in most extreme light conditions by moving the bin/exit pupil around a bit. But I really was opting for a 10x bin this time...though the 32mm SF is not out of the game quite yet either.

I just don't understand why at least blackening inside the tubes would be so difficult to include for 3k dineros.
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo said:
All of the latest alphas seem to have at least some issues with flare/glare...even the Noctivid which was unexpected. Nikon EDG seem to be the way to go for a glare free view...or Leica UV. My Zeiss 7x42 FL is pretty good as well and beats the SV with a margin.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/leica/noctivid8x42/noctivid8x42.html

But maybe you shouldn't exaggerate the problem in real life usage. Most people probably don't notice it or even care.

I'm not giving up on the NL quite yet, but I will have to try the 8x first. A larger exit pupil will be a bit more forgiving. With my 8.5x SV:s I can avoid any glare in most extreme light conditions by moving the bin/exit pupil around a bit.

I just don't understand why at least blackening inside the tubes would be so difficult to include for 3k dineros.
Click to expand...


HT, the best of any bin I’ve tried
 
It also doesn't make sense to me how intrusive veiling glare could still be a problem with a flagship, cost-no-object binocular.

A Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 for $300 produced in China? Sure. But a "super alpha"? I understand perfection is not attainable but it seems like there's some low hanging fruit left untouched which would make it not THAT difficult to get to "pretty good" from "meh" performance levels.

And this has been a persistent complaint with Swarovski, it seems like they could solve (or at least greatly mitigate?) this one remaining issue that holds them back from near optical perfection.

I have a Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 and a Trinovid "BR" 10x42 both of which I find to be excellent. Not perfect, but very good. There is basically zero glare in most viewing, and in the harshest of lighting conditions (i.e. staring at something in the direction of the setting sun) there is a bright glare crescent on the very edge of the exit pupil, for for some reason it doesn't "flare" into the FOV and obscure a large swatch of the image circle. It stays well contained towards the rim, and if there's enough light you can kind of shift the eye a bit to the opposite side of the exit pupil and it disappears. I only see complete veiling glare across the entire image when I'm at the verge of staring *directly* at the sun, so I'm ok with that as a "early warning system" for impending doom :D
 
"Looking forward to Henry's evaluation of the 8X42 NL!"

Me too. I just wonder if I should wait before I buy one. I guess I can return it and get the 8x32 SF if Henry or others say the NL has too much veiling glare. Hopefully we will get some reviews on the SF pretty soon from Arek to see how the veiling glare compares between the NL and the SF.
 
Last edited:
AltaVista said:
If by randpupille design you mean minimizing the pupil vignetting at the edge of the field of view then that would require larger diameter lens elements in some locations which in turn might allow more stray light paths to get through to the observers eye. This is all part of the design trade-offs and compromises that the optical designer has to wrestle with and one reason it takes years to design the current crop of high performance binoculars.

Very useful enlargements of the exit pupil pics Henry, thanks for creating those.

I agree with Henry that the disturbing looking bright arc of stray light outside of the 3.5mm diameter exit pupil would not normally get into the users eye pupil directly since it is out at around 7mm diameter. Only for a dark adapted user could this be an issue and then the object field is going to be mostly dark so the amount of light leaking through to the eye would be minimal.

However it remains to be seen if this internal reflection might scatter enough light inside the binocular from a bright source (sun, moon, streetlamp or other) that it creates any noticeable veiling glare in the image. Field testing is the real measure. Looking forward to Henry's evaluation of the 8X42 NL!

Stephanie
Click to expand...

Stephanie - thanks,

Yes, I believe that is the aim - providing that 'ease of view' (tolerance for misalignment/ positioning) that the SV's are famous for. As it is a German term and somewhat of Swarovski's secret sauce design recipe, I'm not 100% that is the optical engineering translation, but it is to do with the 'edge bundle'

You would be interested in this discussion of when the term first emerged here on BF:- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw2TmEwPfRCci8W-KI-o6kP6

Are there then mechanical design ways, etc of combating the extra stray light paths that are the compromise of this design choice ? (a mostly welcome one in practical use I find - such as in not perfectly aligned snap viewing where the rarity offers you ~0.5sec of fleeting view ! :)

For safety sake (if there is such a standard/ accepted practice) - what would be an appropriate angle from the sun to start to see it's effects in various forms of image degradation ? (given that in practice people roar around all over the sky, bins to eyes, perhaps chasing a sound, or glimpse, without always knowing exactly where the sun is - at least I do). Conversely what sort of an angle without glare/ loss of contrast/ colour, is regarded as great performance for a binocular ?






Chosun :gh:
 
Congratulations to Swaro for breaking new ground, the $3000+ mainstream binocular.
Much more conventional and much less expensive that superb Nikon WX, it represents the emergence of a new super alpha category.
Barring some really unexpected flaw, this glass should cement Swaro's dominance in sport optics.
 
Chosun,

IMO, the simple solution is to place the baffles very close the the source of the offending internal reflections. For instance, knife edged baffles attached directly to the backs of the objective lens or focusing lens cells if that's where the reflections are coming from. Trying to baffle those reflections from too far behind them (by using the prism apertures as baffles for instance) is what leads to excessive off-axis vignetting.

Henry
 
Last edited:
I read the review from Allbinos of the 12x42 NL and it was very thorough. One thing Alek mentions more than once is the poor blackening of the interior of the Swarovski NL. I have noticed this myself on other Swarovski binoculars and have mentioned it before on the forum.
My mention is because in my experience when observing with a flashlight (torch) inside the objective the
differences are real, Swarovski uses not a very flat black paint but something more semi-gloss. I also find
it very strange. The only thing I can think of is that their reasoning is that flat paints can powder or flake off more easily, and cause internal specks on lenses, etc.
For those that can compare with other binoculars, look for yourself.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
NDhunter said:
I read the review from Allbinos of the 12x42 NL and it was very thorough. One thing Alek mentions more than once is the poor blackening of the interior of the Swarovski NL. I have noticed this myself on other Swarovski binoculars and have mentioned it before on the forum.
My mention is because in my experience when observing with a flashlight (torch) inside the objective the
differences are real, Swarovski uses not a very flat black paint but something more semi-gloss. I also find
it very strange. The only thing I can think of is that their reasoning is that flat paints can powder or flake off more easily, and cause internal specks on lenses, etc.
For those that can compare with other binoculars, look for yourself.

Jerry
Click to expand...
Jerry. Interesting point. I am going to look for that.
 
I don`t think the veiling glare issue bothers the majority of Swarovski buyers, I remember having a discussion about it with two Birders at the Somerset levels, both like me at the time using an 8x32SV trying to see a Great White Egret, I was complaining about the VG so they offered me to try theirs, same issue but they just did`nt/could`nt see it and refused to accept Swarovski would allow such a problem on their premium offering.

Given the sheer number of 32mm SV`s out there in the field its not affecting sales.
 
I`v read plenty of good comments about the ergonomics of the NL, what about the balance ?, have they taken weight out of the objective end like the SF ?, I find I can hold the SF up seemingly indefinitely without strain, this is one of its greatest attributes IMHO, is the FRP more about helping with the weight and fatigue that it imparts quite quickly more than stabilisation ?
 
NDhunter said:
I read the review from Allbinos of the 12x42 NL and it was very thorough. One thing Alek mentions more than once is the poor blackening of the interior of the Swarovski NL. I have noticed this myself on other Swarovski binoculars and have mentioned it before on the forum.
My mention is because in my experience when observing with a flashlight (torch) inside the objective the
differences are real, Swarovski uses not a very flat black paint but something more semi-gloss. I also find
it very strange. The only thing I can think of is that their reasoning is that flat paints can powder or flake off more easily, and cause internal specks on lenses, etc.
For those that can compare with other binoculars, look for yourself.

Jerry
Click to expand...

I've had that thought also, but has that been a problem in any of the alphas that has been produced over the years?

I'm not a chemist but I assume it's some kind of anodizing that is used and not regular "paint" so the risk for "flakes" would perhaps be minor? And I guess some kind of treatment is used, even inside the tubes, so why not make it darker?

"Anodic films are generally much stronger and more adherent than most types of paint and metal plating, but also more brittle. This makes them less likely to crack and peel from ageing and wear, but more susceptible to cracking from thermal stress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodizing
 
Torview said:
I don`t think the veiling glare issue bothers the majority of Swarovski buyers, I remember having a discussion about it with two Birders at the Somerset levels, both like me at the time using an 8x32SV trying to see a Great White Egret, I was complaining about the VG so they offered me to try theirs, same issue but they just did`nt/could`nt see it and refused to accept Swarovski would allow such a problem on their premium offering.

Given the sheer number of 32mm SV`s out there in the field its not affecting sales.
Click to expand...

98% of binocular buyers are probably not visiting the birdforum binoculars section...:smoke:

Personally I wouldn't change my SV:s for any other alpha, since there are a lot of factors to consider, and glare is just one of them. It's still the best overall bin, for my needs, others might disagree. But if paying 3k, it would be nice with at least some improvement in glare handling as well.

Torview said:
I`v read plenty of good comments about the ergonomics of the NL, what about the balance ?, have they taken weight out of the objective end like the SF ?, I find I can hold the SF up seemingly indefinitely without strain, this is one of its greatest attributes IMHO, is the FRP more about helping with the weight and fatigue that it imparts quite quickly more than stabilisation ?
Click to expand...

I suspect the massive bridge will move the balance point further back to the eyes.

Weight is a double edged sword. It contributes to stability but increases fatigue and perhaps 30-50 grams less would have been more optimal for a 42mm bin. The SF is for sure superb in that department.
 
I'm looking forward to my NLs. Never used them. Bought a pair of 10s. Traded my SF 10s in to be able to afford them. The SFs were the best binoculars I've ever used. period. Hoping Swarovski lives up to the hype. I believe them.
I have several Swarovkis. I own the 15x56 SLCs, the 8x25 CLs, and the BTX 85. All wonderful.
 
NL's are balanced such that the center of gravity is pretty exactly where the body shape directs your hand, meaning the narrow part of the "waistline" of this new form factor. The form is very successful in my view, although how well it fits depends on you hand size.

- Kimmo
 

Similar threads

J
Brief comparison between Swarovski AX Visio 10x32 vs EL 10x32 Swarovision
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
tehri
tehri
Owlbarred
A day afield with 8x42 NLs after 20 years using 8x32 EL and EL SVs.
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Gray C
Gray C
A
NL Pure 8x32 field of view
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Jason Bugay Reyes
Jason Bugay Reyes
SuperDuty
An interesting comparison.
Replies
19
Views
3K
Swedpat
S
F
Why the terrible minimum focus distance on the ELs?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Tringa45
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top