For me, it's the protruding nodules I don't like. I'll take the sleek, longer SF's all day long. It's just personal, you must try these in your own hands. For me the SF's are a masterpiece of ergonomics and feeling good in the hands. I probably like the optics of the Nikon EDG better, but the ergo factor of the SF's outweighs that. I really don't like what Swaro does with adding "features". None of my birder friends seem to mind though!I don’t want to rehash too much but your continued insistence it’s not an issue is perfectly fine. For you and others who use the bins a certain way. But not for all. The FP system is far more annoying than simple lugs and I’m not the only birder I know with this opinion. It’s not the end of the world but it’s a genuine if minor annoyance for many of us
-
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.
8x32 NL Pures vs SF 8x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hgalbraith1949
- Start date
Will K
Too well-known member
Glad I'm not the only one!
I've berated the SF's all over this forum, but determined to keep a copy of at least one format in my wardrobe of binoculars, I kept my 8x32's, which I find to be the most agreeable of the four, in terms of 'fit' for me, and viewing comfort, even if, with my glasses, eye relief was a smidge too short and those eyecups skated all over the rims of my glasses. They were still compromised in use, for me.
BUT, I'm in a transition period of several weeks, following cataract surgery in my left eye, and more comfortable in everyday life without glasses, than with. So, I've been rummaging in my wardrobe for those binoculars which I own which garner little love from me when I use them with glasses, and have to say that my 8x32 SF's have been a revelation. They appear to be a perfect fit, ease of use and ease of view is far better than just acceptable, and I've now (finally) bonded with them completely. I really am thoroughly enjoying them and they are currently my most used binoculars.
So, for me, SF's work far better without glasses, than with. I'm now wondering if the 10x42's will be an equally good fit for me without glasses. Might need to find out...
OT, but the other glass which for me stands out as being infinitely more enjoyable without glasses than with, is my 8x42 Noctivid. It could (now) just be my absolute favourite of all.
I'm now doubly delighted to have had cataract surgery, it's allowed me to discover my binoculars in a new light (no pun relating to my shiny new eye intended!).
Procedures for two tears and a detached retina, all in my left eye, accelerated cataract and I needed to have cataract surgery far sooner than would otherwise have been the case. The formation of cataract in my right eye is under way, but I suspect it'll be quite a few years before I'm referred for another replacement lens. I'm strongly considering getting it done privately, there's a definite difference in brightness and colour rendition between the two eyes, and the opportunity to abandon glasses for distance appeals enormously. We'll see, but the enthusiasm of people I've encountered such as yourself, is encouraging me to make that investment, if I can't encourage our NHS to do my other eye.
For those of you still being bother by the Field Pro strap lugs, here's a solution I am using to solve it once and for all.
www.birdforum.net
How to solve the twisted straps issue with Field Pro lugs once for all
I know this has been an nagging issue for many ever since the Field Pro was introduced by Swarovski. I came up with this a couple of years ago since I bought a pair EL. Because the FP have been out for many years, I thought people would have already had good solutions for this issue. But lately...
www.birdforum.net
The time when my eyes "didn't match" drove me crazy. Even taking the lens out of my corrective glasses didn't help much. The second one was a real relief.
I could, and presumedly still can, see much deeper into the violet end of the spectrum. It is amazing how yellow your lenses can get.
I wish you luck. Eyes are fun, especially when we have binoculars to supplement them.
I could, and presumedly still can, see much deeper into the violet end of the spectrum. It is amazing how yellow your lenses can get.
I wish you luck. Eyes are fun, especially when we have binoculars to supplement them.
Harry Stottle
Well-known member
My wife's colour vision changed after cataract surgery, she now finds everything has a blue tint.
Did you have the SF and the EL32 at the same time? Did you find that the EL or the SF has more space for the fingers between the two bridges? I haven't been able to find a measurement. Thanks for any insights.I'll be honest...I have them both. I'd see if you can't go somewhere and try the SF FIRST. If you like it and it works for you, get it. On paper, it's the better binocular. It's slightly lighter and has slightly more FOV. Personally, I like the NL better. I think it's a little more user-friendly with eye placement and of course has the edge to edge sharpness Swarovski is known for.
I don't own SF, but pre-FP 8x32 EL is approx 55mm between the bridges
With my (narrow) IPD of 61 mm, I find the space for fingers basically the same on both (and it‘s not much).
It might be me misinterpreting the question - but doesn't IPD only impact the space between barrels rather than space between bridges?
My 8x32 SF and 10x32 EL.
Distance between bridges is approximately 2 inches or 5cm, with the distance between bridges literally 1mm less on the SF's. Personally, I don't notice the difference, my 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers wrapping comfortably around the right barrel, although there's no more space to spare. For me, these binoculars in x32 format are the best handling of all the alphas, but obviously opinions will differ.
Hope that helps.
James
You really have to try them in person. On paper the SF has better specs, but I had the opportunity to try them both at Birdfair and found I like the ease of view and haptics on the NL better, and it wasn’t a small difference.
And yes, FieldPro is incredibly annoying, and the standard Swarovski strap garbage with its dangling strap loose ends.
And yes, FieldPro is incredibly annoying, and the standard Swarovski strap garbage with its dangling strap loose ends.
ragin-cajun
Well-known member
SF was nice glass but those eye cups? Deal breaker for me.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Purely for sh1ts and giggles ... since you don't need glasses now, have a look through an old 10x50 porro, like a Zeiss Jena, if you can find one in good condition. If you don't need glasses a short eye relief binocular with a wide field of view, like many of those, might really suit you. The glass/plastic of your glasses is rarely, I think, as good as the glass in your optics: when I've tried looking through my old porros with glasses (just to see what they were like) I have always noted the image seemed darker. There are some pretty good older binoculars out there, and if you don't need glasses the world is your oyster with those. You're welcome to try mine if you happen to be in Central London.
Boogieshrew
Well-known member
I compared these two recently. Ended up buying the NL 8x32s because the Zeiss didn't quite have enough eye relief for my glasses. Deal breaker!
Having seen marked rolling ball in the EL 8x32s, I was expecting to see RB in the NLs but didn't.
I did see RB in the Zeiss though which I also wasn't expecting.
Is that usually the case for others? I don't recalling reading about RB in the Zeiss anywhere. Perhaps my eyes are weird? 😄
Having seen marked rolling ball in the EL 8x32s, I was expecting to see RB in the NLs but didn't.
I did see RB in the Zeiss though which I also wasn't expecting.
Is that usually the case for others? I don't recalling reading about RB in the Zeiss anywhere. Perhaps my eyes are weird? 😄
