-
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.
10 and 14X52 NL compared to the 12X42 NL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SuperDuty
- Start date
I had all the 42mm NL's and I tried the new 52mm NL's and I had veiling glare in the bottom of the FOV and I could not eliminate it by adjusting the eye cups, so I wouldn't recommend any of them even though they are very good in many other ways.
I sold all mine because of the glare. Holger Merlitz and Binomania found the same veiling glare problem I did, so I am not alone in my criticism. Seeing glare can vary from person to person, so you may or may not have a problem with it.
www.binomania.it
www.cloudynights.com
I sold all mine because of the glare. Holger Merlitz and Binomania found the same veiling glare problem I did, so I am not alone in my criticism. Seeing glare can vary from person to person, so you may or may not have a problem with it.
Binomania.it - Recensioni di binocoli, strumenti ottici e digitali per l\'osservazione naturalistica, astronomica e il tiro sportivo
Il primo sito web italiano con oltre 1000 recensioni di strumenti ottici e digitali...dal 2006!
www.binomania.it
Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
Page 1 of 2 - Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - posted in Binoculars: I see the subject of glare in the Swarovski NL Pure line has already been discussed, but maybe this is something new. I got my Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 this week and I noticed the glare right...
ajfossey
Well-known member
For birding, my choice of optics will depend on whether I’ve also taken a scope and of course habitat (woodland or open country). My regular binoculars of choice include 8x32 EL, 8.5x42 EL, 10x32 EL, 8 & 10x42 NLs, 10x42 SF, 10x42 Noctivid and 12x50 EL
I had the opportunity to test the 14x52 yesterday while using my own 10x42 NL. They also let me compare against the 12x42 NL in-store. Handheld there was just no compelling reason for my even considering walking away with the 14s (I was kind of surprised). Any benefit of extra magnification was eroded by my inability to secure a steady enough view, even when bracing my elbows on a hide shelf. I’ve no doubt that on a tripod, they would be more impressive.
The 14s were good, but the steadiness and view through the 12x42 was far more tempting to me (I’ve looked through these before and always felt them to be excellent). I wished I’d had my own 12x50s with me to compare. I may just have walked away with the 12x42s. I was again surprised how steady I could hold them.
For the record, I rarely encounter rolling ball, veiling glare or any other distortion effects in any of my optics. I guess I’m either immune or able to filter out these distractions on a subconscious level.
I had the opportunity to test the 14x52 yesterday while using my own 10x42 NL. They also let me compare against the 12x42 NL in-store. Handheld there was just no compelling reason for my even considering walking away with the 14s (I was kind of surprised). Any benefit of extra magnification was eroded by my inability to secure a steady enough view, even when bracing my elbows on a hide shelf. I’ve no doubt that on a tripod, they would be more impressive.
The 14s were good, but the steadiness and view through the 12x42 was far more tempting to me (I’ve looked through these before and always felt them to be excellent). I wished I’d had my own 12x50s with me to compare. I may just have walked away with the 12x42s. I was again surprised how steady I could hold them.
For the record, I rarely encounter rolling ball, veiling glare or any other distortion effects in any of my optics. I guess I’m either immune or able to filter out these distractions on a subconscious level.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
For pure optical magic, the 12 x 42 NL is hard to beat.
Last edited:
Binofreund
Member
can only speak for NL 10x52 vs NL 12x42. The 10x52 has the clearer image of the two, details pop-up immediately (e.g. structure on tree barks) - switching to the 12x42 I feel right away the lower wight and the narrower field of view. Also, image is slightly more warm. Interestingly, I don't see more details with the 12x42 (and my 12x42 had been serviced and is really good collimated) - so I guess the resolution of 52mm matters.
The NL 12x42 has been my favorite bino for roughly 2 years now - the 10x52 just arrived. Time will tell, but for sure the 12x42 will remain an amazing bino for me.
The NL 12x42 has been my favorite bino for roughly 2 years now - the 10x52 just arrived. Time will tell, but for sure the 12x42 will remain an amazing bino for me.
I've tried all three, albeit quite briefly. I find them quite difficult to compare directly as each magnification is different, and each format is different and best suits different tasks.
12x42 - despite the 12x mag, this is probably the best all-rounder: small size, rapid focuser (would need to check to be absolutely certain but have this feeling it has a quicker focus speed than the x52 range) makes it the most usable for birds that are closer in, while high magnification gives very good reach, with the headrest and ergonomics helping to mitigate shake/wobble. In an ideal world I'd rather not use 12x for very close cover but... for getting a good look at eg. birds high up in trees it could be very useful. Probably the closest thing I can liken it to is to a very powerful 10x42.
10x52 - has the best image quality, dauntingly good even by the outstanding standards of today's binoculars, combining outstanding field of view with generous exit pupil/easy eye placement. Easy to handle for a x50mm, but still behind a good modern x42mm in that respect, not really ideal for fast-action close-in birding, but in its element when scanning further afield at more leisurely pace. This is definitely the one I'd choose out of the three (in the absence of a 12x52), but your requirements may differ.
14x52 - although when I tried handholding this I found it surprisingly hand-holdable thanks to the ergonomics and in particular the headrest, I'd hesitate to buy it for purely handheld use - at least not without a really serious trial. Has to be the most specialised of the range, most of those purchased (those that make it out of the collectors' cabinet anyway) will probably spend a lot of time tripod mounted. I can't deny this would tempt me if I could afford it, as I probably would be able to follow birds further away with it than anything else, but you'd need to give it a really serious trial (as well as try things like Fujinon's 14x40 in the field) before blowing such a sum. In terms of pure image quality (as opposed to utility for particular jobs, which is probably more important) it and the 12x42 are both close to the 10x52 but the latter is a little ahead.
They are all great binoculars in their own right, it's amazing what modern optics are capable of these days.
12x42 - despite the 12x mag, this is probably the best all-rounder: small size, rapid focuser (would need to check to be absolutely certain but have this feeling it has a quicker focus speed than the x52 range) makes it the most usable for birds that are closer in, while high magnification gives very good reach, with the headrest and ergonomics helping to mitigate shake/wobble. In an ideal world I'd rather not use 12x for very close cover but... for getting a good look at eg. birds high up in trees it could be very useful. Probably the closest thing I can liken it to is to a very powerful 10x42.
10x52 - has the best image quality, dauntingly good even by the outstanding standards of today's binoculars, combining outstanding field of view with generous exit pupil/easy eye placement. Easy to handle for a x50mm, but still behind a good modern x42mm in that respect, not really ideal for fast-action close-in birding, but in its element when scanning further afield at more leisurely pace. This is definitely the one I'd choose out of the three (in the absence of a 12x52), but your requirements may differ.
14x52 - although when I tried handholding this I found it surprisingly hand-holdable thanks to the ergonomics and in particular the headrest, I'd hesitate to buy it for purely handheld use - at least not without a really serious trial. Has to be the most specialised of the range, most of those purchased (those that make it out of the collectors' cabinet anyway) will probably spend a lot of time tripod mounted. I can't deny this would tempt me if I could afford it, as I probably would be able to follow birds further away with it than anything else, but you'd need to give it a really serious trial (as well as try things like Fujinon's 14x40 in the field) before blowing such a sum. In terms of pure image quality (as opposed to utility for particular jobs, which is probably more important) it and the 12x42 are both close to the 10x52 but the latter is a little ahead.
They are all great binoculars in their own right, it's amazing what modern optics are capable of these days.
Nice writeup. Made the voices in my head start up again, but I am ignoring them.
If I had a wealthy uncle, and he said "I'll buy one of them for you, you pick which one." and I absolutely had to choose, I'd probably get the 12X42.
This is what we should be discussing, rather than the antics of the resident troll.
NOTICE: I am not trolling for a wealthy uncle.
***********************************************
Really!
Honest!
Last edited:
FWIW, I was able to try the 10x42 and 12x42 NL for the first time, both w/ headrest. I like the headrest - I found the 10x seemed more stable with it. I still didn't like to go higher than 10x - I didn't like the shakiness of the 12x, or the tight depth of field, it's just not for me.....10x52 would be perfect 
tehri
Well-known member
What exactly do you mean, Buddy ?... Do you want us to write to your uncle ? We can happily do that for you !! 😉
Last edited:
Maybe I should delete that, lest it be seen as trolling for a loose wealthy uncle.
(I added a notice that I was not trolling)
Mark Wright
New member
I own both the NL Pure 10x42 and 14x52 and my choice for each was simple. I've always found that 8x42 is FOV at the expense of magnification and 12x42 is magnification at the expense of FOV (plus the magnification being just a bit too powerful when birding in closer woodland settings). The 10x42 is the sweet spot between the 8x and 12x, as you get both that extra magnification and a FOV to rival most 8s! This also makes it okay for closer woodland birding thanks to that FOV. At £2K+, getting a 10x made more sense than getting both an 8x and 12x. My 10x42s have been my main grab'n'go binoculars for that reason; perfect when hiking in the Scottish Highlands and Peak District or the Alps on the French-Swiss border.
Now the 14x52s - wow! I can handhold these when using the forehead rest for short bursts, but prefer them on my tripod for long-distance birding across open land and water settings during longer durations. The reason I bought these is because my partner and I went birding by a lake a short while ago and whilst we could pick off the IDs of lots of different birds, there was one on an island in the distance which neither her Kowa 8s nor my NL Pure 10s could decipher. I therefore decided to invest in a second pair of NL Pures and figured that the 12x42 would not make as much of a difference to my 10x42s as the 14x52s. Thanks to the objective lens being 52, I get an amazingly bright and crisp image with the 14x (better than the light gathering in the 12x42s, which I noticed was darker in low light conditions compared to the 10s), not to mention a decent field of view (e.g., I was able to track a bird in flight with these thanks to the forehead rest and super grip-friendly ergonomics). However, these 14x52s are ideal on a tripod for open land/water viewing and I prefer these to the more expensive 30x spotting scopes due to the field of view and less eye strain by using both eyes.
So, if I was to recommend owning TWO NL Pures, the 10x42 and 14x52 nail it! If I was to pick just one, then it's 10x42 all the way for overall balance of optical crispness, light, magnification, FOV and weight.
Last edited:
TheBlackGrouse
Well-known member
That's the way to use these binoculars. Personally I prefer a monopod, easy to pack, lightweight and fast setup, a tripod is more stable though.
Scanning with the 14x52 is fast and, very important for me, you are able to find raptors too because you ''stay in the landscape'' instead of zooming in with a scope.
Using both eyes gives me the same details as a 20 - 25 scope and I'm still trying to find out why I see so much more birds with the 14x52. Probably setup-time is a factor, it's that short, on an average birding day, I use the 14x52 much more than my former spotting scope. Therefore I have more hours with the larger magnification.
Last edited:
Absolutely spot on. The 10x42 is a stunning all-rounder and for me the master of all…….up to 10x when my 14x takes over and seamlessly extends my viewing pleasure.
Both are fitted with winged eyecups and the forehead rest and are a perfect range combination, whether handheld or mono/tri pod mounted.
But if it was just the one, the 10x42 is the top dog for all the reasons you mention.
