Anyone using the new Swarovski NL Pure 10X52s for general birding? (1 Viewer)

[soloflyfisher]

I'm headed to Kenya in March and want new binoculars for the trip. Currently I'm using Leica 8X32 BAs, but would like something a bit brighter and maybe with higher magnification. I'm really tempted to buy the new NL Pure 10X52s. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to order them without having a chance to hold and look through them first.

I really like the 10X magnification combined with a large exit pupil that the 10X52s provide. I'm okay with the FOV. My concerns though are weight and a close focus of 10.8 ft (rather than 6.6 ft). In open areas in Kenya, I'm sure they'll be great. But I'm a bit unsure whether they'll be good for forest birding. I'm only bringing one pair of binoculars with me, so whatever I buy I'm going to have to use in all situations.

Anyone have any thoughts on—or experience with—the 10X52s as general all-round birding binoculars? The 8X42s would be a safe choice, I know. But if I want 10X magnification, the extra light gathering capacity of the 10X52s might make them more attractive than the 10X42s even if they are slightly heavier and have a little less close focus.

 

[tenex]

The difference in low light would be quite modest, so I'd guess you'd be happier with 10x42. There's a reason it's the most common format (in the wider world than birding) and with NL you get the FOV more typical of 8x also. It's an obvious choice though I can understand the 52 sounding more exciting.

 

[soloflyfisher]

The difference in low light would be quite modest, so I'd guess you'd be happier with 10x42. There's a reason it's the most common format (in the wider world than birding) and with NL you get the FOV more typical of 8x also. It's an obvious choice though I can understand the 52 sounding more exciting.

Normally, the FOV would be a determiner, but in this case the 10X42s have a FOV of 399ft at 100yds, while the 10X52s have a FOV of 390ft at 1000yds, so it's hardly a difference. I think the real trade off is 4.2 ft less close focus and 6 oz more weight in return for the greater light-gathering capability of the 52 mm objective and a 24% larger exit pupil.

If FOV were the big concern, I'd definitely go with the 8X42, since it has a FOV of 477ft at 1000yds, but I seem to think 390 is sufficient even with fast moving small birds.

 

[[email protected]]

I would personally use an NL 8x32 for Kenya. You will like the weight and size, the big FOV, you won't notice much difference in low light and the 8x will be a lot easier to hold steady, especially when in a safari vehicle.

 

[rodneyAB]

I recently held and looked through the 10x52..and the 10x42..and the 10x32. There is something with the 10x52 that 'feels' special. To my eyes the 10x42 had the 10x view, and handled better, and the 10x32 is sweet in 'light weight' and svelt in the hand and carries well. I walked away without really wanting the 10x52..I figured I'd be wanting to carry a monopod..and definitely a chest pack. A week later I bought the NL8x42 for the exit pupil, to complement my NL8x32. I really like the ease of carry of the NL32, but that NL42 sure is nice.

 

[crinklystarfish]

I think the real trade off is 4.2 ft less close focus and 6 oz more weight...

Plus the extra bulk.

...in return for the greater light-gathering capability of the 52 mm objective and a 24% larger exit pupil.

Maybe not so significant for the vast majority of the real-world situations that will actually be encountered on the trip.

I agree that 10x is no bad thing given the likely mix of open country and closed habitat, but aren't persuaded that x52 is the sensible choice: even if the idea of ownership is rather exotic. I get a sense you already lean towards this conclusion, anyway.

It would be a boring but spectacularly functional NL 10x32 or 10x42 all day long for me in these circumstances.

 

[ReinierB]

I have the NL 10x32, the NL 12x42 and the NL 10x52.
All splendid. At bright daylight exit pupil of 3.2mm/3.5mm is sufficient. When it gets darker I prefer >4mm.
I think, if you only want to take one with you, I will vote for the NL 10x42 as well. The most allround. The NL 10x52 is really nice. I like 10 power and I like exit pupils of 5mm or more. So there was an attraction to the NL 10x52 that I couldn't resist. I haven't been with it in the field a lot. While hiking/walking I prefer the 10x32. Open field/wetland, I prefer the NL 12x42.
The NL 10x52 is my low light glass.

You might consider the NL 12x42 as well. Wildlife watching in Kenya is mostly during the day and in open fields when the animals are far away.

 

[Scott98]

I love big aperture and I'd prefer a 10x50 over a 10x42 for everything but weight. The bigger exit pupil means less blackouts and easier eye placement. Brighter, more vibrant colors, better resolution. My 10x56 SLC are incredible for birding. But 50's are heavy to carry all day for birding, too big & heavy for me.

If I was looking for a 10x50 for birding I'd seek one of the lighter ones. Like Maven makes a 31-ounce 10x50 and there are others. Also I hate doing forest birding with 10x...big FOV doesn't help - it's the short depth of field I don't like on close viewing w/ 10x. I'd probably just buy a nice pair of 8x42 for this trip.

I like the idea of the 10x52 for birding, but I would only choose that for short sessions. That's what I do with the 10x56. If I'm driving around different birding spots it's easy to jump out of the car w/ the big ones and view for 5 minutes. A 27-ounce 42mm is my weight limit for long birding tours.

 

[soloflyfisher]

Thanks for all the replies. Many good suggestions. I'm not sure I've made up my mind yet—but maybe leaning to the 8X42s as the most rational choice despite my emotional desire to buy the 10X52s

At my increasing age, I find my current 8X32s too dark, so really want the larger light-gathering capacity and larger exit pupil. But I worry I'll regret the extra weight and less close focusing ability of the 10X52s. The 10X42s also maybe should be in the running. I like the size of the 32s, but worry they don't solve my brightness issue.

 

[Scott98]

Thanks for all the replies. Many good suggestions. I'm not sure I've made up my mind yet—but maybe leaning to the 8X42s as the most rational choice despite my emotional desire to buy the 10X52s

At my increasing age, I find my current 8X32s too dark, so really want the larger light-gathering capacity and larger exit pupil. But I worry I'll regret the extra weight and less close focusing ability of the 10X52s. The 10X42s also maybe should be in the running. I like the size of the 32s, but worry they don't solve my brightness issue.

I might consider an 8x40 Zeiss SFL for these reasons. I have the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I still am considering the 8x40 SFL for next year (every year in August I have an opportunity to buy Zeiss binos for 10% discount and tax-free).

The 40mm SFL's are the same weight as most 32's and give you all the benefits of more aperture and larger exit pupil. The body is very compact and low-profile as well. It would be more comfortable on a neck strap for hours than any of the 8x42's I would think. They're very sharp and just a tiny bit behind the most expensive binos on color correction and edge sharpness.

 

[[email protected]]

I might consider an 8x40 Zeiss SFL for these reasons. I have the Zeiss SF 8x42 and I still am considering the 8x40 SFL for next year (every year in August I have an opportunity to buy Zeiss binos for 10% discount and tax-free).

The 40mm SFL's are the same weight as most 32's and give you all the benefits of more aperture and larger exit pupil. The body is very compact and low-profile as well. It would be more comfortable on a neck strap for hours than any of the 8x42's I would think. They're very sharp and just a tiny bit behind the most expensive binos on color correction and edge sharpness.

The ergonomics are great on the 40mm SFL, but they are not the optical equal of an EL 8.5 x42, much less an NL because they don't have the quality of glass. So if you want the best optics, I would stay with the EL, NL or SF.

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for all the replies. Many good suggestions. I'm not sure I've made up my mind yet—but maybe leaning to the 8X42s as the most rational choice despite my emotional desire to buy the 10X52s

At my increasing age, I find my current 8X32s too dark, so really want the larger light-gathering capacity and larger exit pupil. But I worry I'll regret the extra weight and less close focusing ability of the 10X52s. The 10X42s also maybe should be in the running. I like the size of the 32s, but worry they don't solve my brightness issue.

What are your current 8x32's? There are a pair of EL 8x32's and a pair of EL 8.5x42's in the Bird Forum classifieds. Either one would be great for Kenya.

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-8x32-el.462911/

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-el-8-5x42-sv.462947/#post-4710996

 

[tenex]

The difference in low light would be quite modest, so I'd guess you'd be happier with 10x42. There's a reason it's the most common format (in the wider world than birding) and with NL you get the FOV more typical of 8x also. It's an obvious choice though I can understand the 52 sounding more exciting.

Normally, the FOV would be a determiner, but in this case the 10X42s have a FOV of 399ft at 100yds, while the 10X52s have a FOV of 390ft at 1000yds, so it's hardly a difference...

I wasn't suggesting FOV as a consideration between 10x NL models, which wouldn't make sense, but in comparison to typical 10x bins.

 

[soloflyfisher]

What are your current 8x32's? There are a pair of EL 8x32's and a pair of EL 8.5x42's in the Bird Forum classifieds. Either one would be great for Kenya.

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-8x32-el.462911/

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-el-8-5x42-sv.462947/#post-4710996

Mine are Leica 8X32 BAs—about 20 years old, but top of the line Leicas when purchased (Ultravids? I honestly don't remember what they were called). They are fine binoculars but as I age I find the image a bit dark. Hence the desire to move to a larger objective lens (and maybe larger exit pupil, though I understand that the problem may be that my own pupils don't dilate as much as they used to, so the extra exit pupil diameter might be wasted). I also have an even older pair of Leica 10X42s (purchased in the late 1980s), which I still use occasionally, though these have what I think is a bit of fungus on one lens. I do often miss the 10X magnification when I use my 8X32s.

 

[[email protected]]

Mine are Leica 8X32 BAs—about 20 years old, but top of the line Leicas when purchased (Ultravids? I honestly don't remember what they were called). They are fine binoculars but as I age I find the image a bit dark. Hence the desire to move to a larger objective lens (and maybe larger exit pupil, though I understand that the problem may be that my own pupils don't dilate as much as they used to, so the extra exit pupil diameter might be wasted). I also have an even older pair of Leica 10X42s (purchased in the late 1980s), which I still use occasionally, though these have what I think is a bit of fungus on one lens. I do often miss the 10X magnification when I use my 8X32s.

Those old Leica 8x32 BA probably only have about 80% light transmission, so if you moved up to a modern 8x32 NL with about 92% transmission you will notice a big difference in brightness, and you might not have to move up to a 42mm. I find very little brightness difference even in low light between a good 8x32 and a good 8x42, and it is a lot easier carrying a smaller, lighter binocular.

 

[Bentley03]

I'm headed to Kenya in March and want new binoculars for the trip. Currently I'm using Leica 8X32 BAs, but would like something a bit brighter and maybe with higher magnification. I'm really tempted to buy the new NL Pure 10X52s. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to order them without having a chance to hold and look through them first.

I really like the 10X magnification combined with a large exit pupil that the 10X52s provide. I'm okay with the FOV. My concerns though are weight and a close focus of 10.8 ft (rather than 6.6 ft). In open areas in Kenya, I'm sure they'll be great. But I'm a bit unsure whether they'll be good for forest birding. I'm only bringing one pair of binoculars with me, so whatever I buy I'm going to have to use in all situations.

Anyone have any thoughts on—or experience with—the 10X52s as general all-round birding binoculars? The 8X42s would be a safe choice, I know. But if I want 10X magnification, the extra light gathering capacity of the 10X52s might make them more attractive than the 10X42s even if they are slightly heavier and have a little less close focus.

My 2p...

Don't overthink this. The trip is the motivation to upgrade your binoculars, and it seems pretty clear you've set your heart on a pair of NL's. Whatever format of NL you would choose as your everyday binocular if you weren't going to Kenya, will be perfect for your trip to Kenya.

 

[PatR]

Thanks for all the replies. Many good suggestions. I'm not sure I've made up my mind yet—but maybe leaning to the 8X42s as the most rational choice despite my emotional desire to buy the 10X52s

At my increasing age, I find my current 8X32s too dark, so really want the larger light-gathering capacity and larger exit pupil. But I worry I'll regret the extra weight and less close focusing ability of the 10X52s. The 10X42s also maybe should be in the running. I like the size of the 32s, but worry they don't solve my brightness issue.

Some really excellent suggestions above and whilst it is difficult to recommend as we are all different in expectation, acuity and facial structure. But if I was off to Kenya again I would take my NL Pure 10x42's and the Curio's.

The 10x42 is a sweet bino, remarkably bright and with an FOV that is astonishing. I did manage to compare it to the 10x52 and decided that it was not worth the upgrade/loss in part ex.

This test is interesting:

26 Best Binoculars For Hunting | Backwoods Pursuit

Looking for the best binoculars on the market and aren't quite sure which ones to purchase? Maybe you are looking for the best binoculars for hunting or the

backwoodspursuit.com

as it ends with the 3 Alpha 10x42's and sums up my experience testing all three side by side. Not a fag paper between them optically, I just preferred the 'feel' and the FOV of the Pure's.

Good luck and have a wonderful trip.

 

[Tringa45]

Not a fag paper between them optically

Pat,
I think that was an unfortunate formulation for some transatlantic members.
I heard of one compatriot getting a bunch of fives when he asked for a fag in the US!
The barrier of a common language as they say.

John

 

[PatR]

Pat,
I think that was an unfortunate formulation for some transatlantic members.
I heard of one compatriot getting a bunch of fives when he asked for a fag in the US!
The barrier of a common language as they say.

John

LOL!

Probably the same reaction when I was on an exchange tour with the US Army and asked my female Ops Sgt for a rubber..........

"I hope you mean an eraser Sir!

 

[Scott98]

you meant cigarette right? We yanks still know what it means .....some of us