10x42 pure and el 10x50 (1 Viewer)

[Jerry S]

So with the fov of the 10x42 nl pure has that made the el 10x50 obselete? What benefit has the el 10x50 got over the 42mm objective, obviously the 10x50 is a little cheaper but is heavier and a bit bigger .

 

[PeterPS]

So with the fov of the 10x42 nl pure has that made the el 10x50 obselete? What benefit has the el 10x50 got over the 42mm objective, obviously the 10x50 is a little cheaper but is heavier and a bit bigger .

My short answer is NO. I have owned both the NL 10x42 and the EL 10x50 and still own the latter:
-eye placement of 10x50 is much easier for me, in particular I can avoid any traces of glare in the view with the 10x50 whereas I had big problems with the NL 10x42 (the bigger EP should play a role here, besides other more subtle aspects of the ocular design).
-I own the SV 50mm model, I am not a fan of the FP/NL strap, lugs, objective caps and armor and was glad to find a very late example at an US retailer a few years ago---I can live with the strap connecting system of the FP/NL (I own the 8x32 FP) but I prefer the standard, robust and reliable system of the SV and the armor of the latter model appears to be much more robust than the biodegradable one of FP/NL.
-I prefer the cylinder-like tubes of the 10x50 to the squashed can/wasp waist of the NL---the latter tubes might be fine for those with smaller hands but their sharper edges felt like cutting in my hand web after holding the binos for a while.
-for me the difference in the FoV of about 13% (115m vs 133m) was not enough to compensate for the rather significant issues I had with the NL (especially eye placement to avoid both blackouts and glare).

 

[ReinierB]

My short answer is NO. I have owned both the NL 10x42 and the EL 10x50 and still own the latter:
-eye placement of 10x50 is much easier for me, in particular I can avoid any traces of glare in the view with the 10x50 whereas I had big problems with the NL 10x42 (the bigger EP should play a role here, besides other more subtle aspects of the ocular design).
-I own the SV 50mm model, I am not a fan of the FP/NL strap, lugs, objective caps and armor and was glad to find a very late example at an US retailer a few years ago---I can live with the strap connecting system of the FP/NL (I own the 8x32 FP) but I prefer the standard, robust and reliable system of the SV and the armor of the latter model appears to be much more robust than the biodegradable one of FP/NL.
-I prefer the cylinder-like tubes of the 10x50 to the squashed can/wasp waist of the NL---the latter tubes might be fine for those with smaller hands but their sharper edges felt like cutting in my hand web after holding the binos for a while.
-for me the difference in the FoV of about 13% (115m vs 133m) was not enough to compensate for the rather significant issues I had with the NL (especially eye placement to avoid both blackouts and glare).

I wonder, now you have kept the EL 10x50. Do you have a lighter pair as well when you don't like 1 kg?

The advantage of the EL 10x50 is the bigger exit pupil. So it should be better in low light. Bigger exit pupil is also more comfortable, but the weight and the ergonomics of the NL 10x42 are more comfortable.
The FOV of the EL 10x50 is already quite decent.

 

[PeterPS]

I wonder, now you have kept the EL 10x50. Do you have a lighter pair as well when you don't like 1 kg?

The difference of <150g between the 10x50 and the 10x42 is not significant when you use them on a good harness. My lighter option of 10x is the Zeiss 10x32 FL---excellent binos still competing with the best 10x out there.

The advantage of the EL 10x50 is the bigger exit pupil. So it should be better in low light. Bigger exit pupil is also more comfortable, but the weight and the ergonomics of the NL 10x42 are more comfortable.
The FOV of the EL 10x50 is already quite decent.

 

[Jerry S]

My short answer is NO. I have owned both the NL 10x42 and the EL 10x50 and still own the latter:
-eye placement of 10x50 is much easier for me, in particular I can avoid any traces of glare in the view with the 10x50 whereas I had big problems with the NL 10x42 (the bigger EP should play a role here, besides other more subtle aspects of the ocular design).
-I own the SV 50mm model, I am not a fan of the FP/NL strap, lugs, objective caps and armor and was glad to find a very late example at an US retailer a few years ago---I can live with the strap connecting system of the FP/NL (I own the 8x32 FP) but I prefer the standard, robust and reliable system of the SV and the armor of the latter model appears to be much more robust than the biodegradable one of FP/NL.
-I prefer the cylinder-like tubes of the 10x50 to the squashed can/wasp waist of the NL---the latter tubes might be fine for those with smaller hands but their sharper edges felt like cutting in my hand web after holding the binos for a while.
-for me the difference in the FoV of about 13% (115m vs 133m) was not enough to compensate for the rather significant issues I had with the NL (especially eye placement to avoid both blackouts and glare).

I get that you have had glare from your nl pures but that is not a common problem with them ( not in my case anyway , you go on to say what you didnt like with your nl pures , re the thinner barrels etc but that for many is a bonus not a problem . My question was about the fov between the two and the weight saving ! Thanks for your reply Peter

 

[[email protected]]

I get that you have had glare from your nl pures but that is not a common problem with them ( not in my case anyway , you go on to say what you didnt like with your nl pures , re the thinner barrels etc but that for many is a bonus not a problem . My question was about the fov between the two and the weight saving ! Thanks for your reply Peter

I would take the EL 10x50 over the NL 10x42, even though the NL 10x42 has a larger FOV. The EL has sharper edges which make up for the slightly smaller FOV and the EL is a lot brighter in low light due to the much bigger aperture and the EL is not much heavier than the NL. The EL fits my hands better than the NL also. I prefer the shape of the tubes more, allowing me to grasp them more securely. With all the negative feedback about the NL armour cracking and coming off, I wouldn't touch them until Swarovski solves the problem. There are many older EL 10x50 binoculars around and the armour is still in good shape.

 

[Jerry S]

I would take the EL 10x50 over the NL 10x42, even though the NL 10x42 has a larger FOV. The EL has sharper edges which make up for the slightly smaller FOV and the EL is a lot brighter in low light due to the much bigger aperture and the EL is not much heavier than the NL. The EL fits my hands better than the NL also. I prefer the shape of the tubes more, allowing me to grasp them more securely. With all the negative feedback about the NL armour cracking and coming off, I wouldn't touch them until Swarovski solves the problem. There are many older EL 10x50 binoculars around and the armour is still in good shape.

Ive had a 10x32 since last year and the armour is still as good as when i bought them, i regularly use deet as well although i wasnt aware of the connection until last week , since posting my ad i had received a brand new el 10x50 el from uttings. Today they were sent back in exchange for the 10x42 nl . After long term use of the nl 10x32 i wasnt all that impressed with 10x50 , i found them heavy and not as comfortable grip( for me) . If i find they are more suitable to what i want i will list my 10x32pures on ebay .

 

[ReinierB]

You are not really happy with the NL 10x32? Is the exit pupil too small to really like it?

 

[Stuarts vision]

10 in a 32 format is too much imo.

 

[[email protected]]

Ive had a 10x32 since last year and the armour is still as good as when i bought them, i regularly use deet as well although i wasnt aware of the connection until last week , since posting my ad i had received a brand new el 10x50 el from uttings. Today they were sent back in exchange for the 10x42 nl . After long term use of the nl 10x32 i wasnt all that impressed with 10x50 , i found them heavy and not as comfortable grip( for me) . If i find they are more suitable to what i want i will list my 10x32pures on ebay .

Most users with the cracked armour have said they did not use any DEET, so I am thinking it is something else causing it. Possibly UV from the sun and the environment drying out the armour. The Canon armour melting problem sounds more a a DEET problem because the chemicals in DEET are dissolving the armour.

The Swarovski's are cracking, which sounds like oxidation. The sun is an incredibly powerful oxidizer and will dry things out and crack them if the material is not ozone resistant. Swarovski could have changed their armour formulation to a less ozone resistant material. You better keep those NL's in the shade or use them under a tree.

 

[[email protected]]

10 in a 32 format is too much imo.

I agree. I had both the NL 10x32 and NL 10x42, and optically I much preferred the 10x42, although I eventually sold them because they were too heavy and bulky for me at over 33 oz. They sold in one day though because hunters love the 10x42.

 

[james holdsworth]

Lol, I think he meant he wasn’t impressed with the 10x50..

 

[Jerry S]

Most users with the cracked armour have said they did not use any DEET, so I am thinking it is something else causing it. Possibly UV from the sun and the environment drying out the armour. The Canon armour melting problem sounds more a a DEET problem because the chemicals in DEET are dissolving the armour.

The Swarovski's are cracking, which sounds like oxidation. The sun is an incredibly powerful oxidizer and will dry things out and crack them if the material is not ozone resistant. Swarovski could have changed their armour formulation to a less ozone resistant material. You better keep those NL's in the shade or use them under a tree.

I will certainly keep an eye on them! Thankyou for this update 👍🏻

 

[tenex]

10 in a 32 format is too much imo.

And yet they continue to be made and bought, isn't that strange... Having happily used them for 20+ years, I wonder what this "o" is worth, what actual experience it's based on. Reiner is quite right to wonder what Jerry is trying to improve upon.

 

[ReinierB]

Yes, the only reason I can think of is that the OP is not really happy with the small exit pupil of 3.2mm.
I can imagine that. A 10x32 doesn't shine in dimlight. At daylight a 10x32 is fine. I love the size of it and I like 10 power. I wouldn't take a 10x32 as my only bin. I have a 8x42 for dimlight, although I sometimes regret it is not a 10x50. As I said, I like 10 power.

 

[Jerry S]

Lol, I think he meant he wasn’t impressed with the 10x50..

I certainly wasnt , when your carrying a gun , a tripod , a thermal scope and rucksack you know youve got them

 

[Jerry S]

Yes, the only reason I can think of is that the OP is not really happy with the small exit pupil of 3.2mm.
I can imagine that. A 10x32 doesn't shine in dimlight. At daylight a 10x32 is fine. I love the size of it and I like 10 power. I wouldn't take a 10x32 as my only bin. I have a 8x42 for dimlight, although I sometimes regret it is not a 10x50. As I said, I like 10 power.

The question is about weight saving and bulk of 10x50 and nl pure 10x42 not 10x32 which apparrently in the nl pures are the same weight

 

[Jerry S]

Yes, the only reason I can think of is that the OP is not really happy with the small exit pupil of 3.2mm.
I can imagine that. A 10x32 doesn't shine in dimlight. At daylight a 10x32 is fine. I love the size of it and I like 10 power. I wouldn't take a 10x32 as my only bin. I have a 8x42 for dimlight, although I sometimes regret it is not a 10x50. As I said, I like 10 power.

I have the 10x32 nl but to be fair the el 10x50 was a cut above at twilight but the weight when carrying gun rucksack and tripod is tireing. Was hoping to get a weight saving with the 10x42 and gain some extra viewing at dusk

 

[ReinierB]

I have the 10x32 nl but to be fair the el 10x50 was a cut above at twilight but the weight when carrying gun rucksack and tripod is tireing. Was hoping to get a weight saving with the 10x42 and gain some extra viewing at dusk

So you are keeping your NL 10x32 and want to add a lowlight performer?
I get that. I have a 8x42 for that, but sometimes long for a 10x50 because I like 10 power. A NL 10x42 isn't that much of a difference, is what I think. An EL 10x50 or maybe a SLC 10x56 or Habicht 10x40 would be nice.
I like NL pure, but I want to have something different because especially at difficult light I see glare. I am a fan, bit not enough fan having two nl's. My wallet wouldn't like the idea either. I see quite a lot secondhand EL 10x50's offered.

 

[Jerry S]

So you are keeping your NL 10x32 and want to add a lowlight performer?
I get that. I have a 8x42 for that, but sometimes long for a 10x50 because I like 10 power. A NL 10x42 isn't that much of a difference, is what I think. An EL 10x50 or maybe a SLC 10x56 or Habicht 10x40 would be nice.
I like NL pure, but I want to have something different because especially at difficult light I see glare. I am a fan, bit not enough fan having two nl's. My wallet wouldn't like the idea either. I see quite a lot secondhand EL 10x50's offered.

I have ordered the 10x42 nl pure ,i have the el 10x50 and its a lump compared to my 10x32 nl pures . On the web it shows the 10x42 as same size as 10x32 . We will see ,