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

[tenex]

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).

"Trinovid Ultra", although that name doesn't seem to have lasted long and seems in retrospect confusing. Transmission is very good, so if you find the view "a bit dark" you might indeed want a larger objective in low light, or even a lower contrast model... though if you suspect it's age-related, you may sadly find those a bit dark too.

Those old Leica 8x32 BA probably only have about 80% light transmission

"Probably"? This is just a careless guess. Even some Trinovids from the 1960s reached 80% according to Gijs van Ginkel; your favorite authority Allbinos measured 87% for the Leica BN they tested, which sounds about right, and BAs can't have had much less. Our BN is still a joy to use today, and seems slightly less bright than the latest UVHD+ only in direct comparison.

 

[soloflyfisher]

"Trinovid Ultra", although that name doesn't seem to have lasted long and seems in retrospect confusing. Transmission is very good, so if you find the view "a bit dark" you might indeed want a larger objective in low light, or even a lower contrast model... though if you suspect it's age-related, you may sadly find those a bit dark too.

I don't find my older Leica 10X42 BAs (purchased in the late 1980s) quite so dark. So, while I suspect age is part of the problem, I do really think a larger objective lens is probably worth trying again. I also think I miss the 10X magnification. So I'm starting to narrow this down to 10X42 vs 10X52.

 

[[email protected]]

"Trinovid Ultra", although that name doesn't seem to have lasted long and seems in retrospect confusing. Transmission is very good, so if you find the view "a bit dark" you might indeed want a larger objective in low light, or even a lower contrast model... though if you suspect it's age-related, you may sadly find those a bit dark too.


"Probably"? This is just a careless guess. Even some Trinovids from the 1960s reached 80% according to Gijs van Ginkel; your favorite authority Allbinos measured 87% for the Leica BN they tested, which sounds about right, and BAs can't have had much less. Our BN is still a joy to use today, and seems slightly less bright than the latest UVHD+ only in direct comparison.

The older Leica BN's and BA's lost about 9% light transmission right off the top due to silvered prism coating instead of dielectric, so they are going to appear dimmer than modern glass like the NL or UVHD+. But as Surveyor put's it, there are other advantages to the transmission curve of the BN and BA's. It could partly explain why so many people like the BN and BA's. These transmission figures were directly from Leica.

"But Anyway, and this is strictly my own personal opinion, is that the photopic region of the transmission curve (500-600 nm) may control the apparent or perceived brightness, that the overall band-pass (370-780 nm) may improve the contrast and that the peak transmission and the overall shape of the band-pass response may set the color temperature of the overall curve and set the color bias for average viewing and there are probably many more interactions that I have not even considered. If this is indeed the case, you can see why your Trinovid, while appearing dimmer (5% at 550 nm) than others, may well have better contrast and a more pleasing texture (color temp. and bias), within about 2% (370-780 nm) of the Ultravid. It is my personal opinion that contrast has as much, or more, impact on the low light performance of a binocular as the overall brightness does."

Coatings questions

OK, I'm in the Leica forum this time, and will try this again! My 8x42 Trinovid BA loses 9% of the light right off the top due to the silvered, rather than dielectric prism coating, but would like to discuss and ask about the antireflective coatings. Astronomers are constantly staring into...

www.birdforum.net

 

[takitam]

I would recommend an 8x32 or 7x35 if you plan to walk with them a lot.

If you think that most of your observations will happen from inside a stationary car, and the binocular will not be carried on walks, then 10x52 should be a great choice. It is not just a bit brighter, it also should provide better comfort during longer observations, and this comfort is what quality bins are all about for me.

On a car safari 10x should be better than 8x as it gives more reach, and should be stable enough when you can stabilize your elbows on a car roof. But it is not a format I would recommend for casual observations. As long as you are mostly in a car and don't carry your bins on your neck all day, they should be perfect.

 

[tenex]

The older Leica BN's and BA's lost about 9% light transmission right off the top due to silvered prism coating instead of dielectric, so they are going to appear dimmer than modern glass like the NL or UVHD+. But as Surveyor put's it, there are other advantages to the transmission curve of the BN and BA's. It could partly explain why so many people like the BN and BA's. These transmission figures were directly from Leica.

Your first statement (boldfaced above) is taken from someone else's claim (in post #1 of the thread you linked), and it is false. Silver coatings are quite good, managing around 95% reflection; the improvement with dielectric coatings is less than 5%. If you don't know what you're talking about, check your facts before you post. Random copying is no more helpful than random guessing. The graph here shows transmission of 10x42 BN running around 86-87%, roughly agreeing with the 87% result at Allbinos -- not the "80%" you claimed "probable".

 

[soloflyfisher]

Without debating the accuracy of the data, I guess I'd take it on faith that a modern alpha is probably going to have at least slightly better light transmission than an older alpha. I also know that a larger objective lens is going to gather more light and a larger exit pupil will probably also help with brightness.

If brightness were the only consideration, buying the 10X52 NL Pure would be a slam dunk. I love the combination of 10X magnification, a large objective, and a large exit pupil. See no downsides in any of those things on their own.

The issue, of course, is all those things come with more size, more weight, less close-focus, and a narrower field of view. For many years I birded with 10X42 Leica BAs that were quite heavy (about 31 oz/890 grams, if the Allbinos data is right) and had less FOV and close focus than the new NL Pure 10X52s. I loved those binoculars—though I admit the weight got to me if I birded all day, which is one reason I downsized to the 8X32s (another reason is that I also took my binoculars to football games and the bulk of the 10X42s was really inconvenient in a stadium seat, particularly when all bundled up in winter).

As of now, the 10X52s are the exciting option to me and the one my heart is leaning toward. I don't think I'll regret anything about purchasing them other—but this could be a killer—their weight. My fear is I'll spend nearly $5,000 CAD on them and then find them too heavy to carry around.

 

[Bentley03]

As of now, the 10X52s are the exciting option to me and the one my heart is leaning toward. I don't think I'll regret anything about purchasing them other—but this could be a killer—their weight. My fear is I'll spend nearly $5,000 CAD on them and then find them too heavy to carry around.

I think your mind is made up, so make sure wherever you purchase them from has a generous returns policy, so that if it's (almost) immediately apparent you've made a mistake, due to the weight, you can downsize without losing more than the cost of the return postage.

This is very subjective, but if I could choose the view through any of the NL's as being my favourite, it would be the view through the 10x52, it is really (REALLY) special. It also has better suppression of stray light, in my opinion. It is the NL which, for me, feels 'just right' in every way. But it's heavy, as you know.

The 10x42 NL I find has the best balance in the hands, of any of the NL's, the 10x32 NL I struggle a little to hold steady (I generate too much tremor through the binocular), which is why my most used 10x binocular is my 10x32 EL FP, which I am able to hold rock steady.

 

[Patudo]

Bit late to this thread, sorry. IMO, having tried one at the last Birdfair, the 10x52 is somewhat large and heavy for general birding - it can be employed for that purpose but I suspect if you use it regularly, for long-ish sessions on foot, you'll sooner or later find yourself thinking a smaller binocular would be nice. Sensational binocular for long distance stationary (you being stationary, not necessarily the targets) observation from a good viewpoint though - for that purpose they truly shine.

I have this feeling the 8x32 BA might not seem so dark under the blazing East African sun, where indeed it might actually take off the edge of the harshest reflections somewhat. Worth bringing along for the Mrs, or as a spare.

close focus of 10.8 ft (rather than 6.6 ft).

PS. I'd think for a lot of the wildlife there it would be a distinct advantage to need to be a fair ways from them!

 

[soloflyfisher]

PS. I'd think for a lot of the wildlife there it would be a distinct advantage to need to be a fair ways from them!

Hah. So forget the binoculars and bring a scope . . .

 

[Bentley03]

Hah. So forget the binoculars and bring a scope . . .

Definitely not! But, in terms of this specific application, I (personally) wouldn't want to take anything as large as a 10x52 on a game drive. Back at the lodge or camp in the evening, absolutely, but bouncing around all over the hills, plains and valleys of Africa in the back of a 4WD with cart springs, you're going to knock yourself (or someone else) out with those monsters!

Ok, I'm exaggerating, and yes, I've seen people use all sorts of binoculars out there, but my own choice of binocular on game drives is a 10x32 (EL or UVHD+ usually). And, as Patudo infers also, your BA's may just be the better option for this specific application.

 

[Thotmosis]

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.

As you like your BA’s so much why take a risk by buying a NL with field flatteners that maybe dont work for you. Maybe take the safe road and get yourself a Ultravid 10x42. More magnification, bigger exit pupil and Leica colors. Just an idea.

 

[Thotmosis]

I have this feeling the 8x32 BA might not seem so dark under the blazing East African sun, where indeed it might actually take off the edge of the harshest reflections somewhat.

My experience with the ultra bright 10x40 Habicht on Crete in one summer made me take Leica 8x32 the next summer. Sometimes a binocular can be too bright, just my experience of course. Maybe i have sensitive eyes.

 

[soloflyfisher]

As you like your BA’s so much why take a risk by buying a NL with field flatteners that maybe dont work for you. Maybe take the safe road and get yourself a Ultravid 10x42. More magnification, bigger exit pupil and Leica colors. Just an idea.

And not a bad idea. If I do decide on 10X42, I think Leica and Zeiss have to be in the running too—and I've always been slightly biased toward Leica over the other two alpha brands.

 

[Canip]

Sometimes a binocular can be too bright, just my experience of course.

My experience too. Most obvious, of course, in snowy landscapes with sunshine and at the beach. I recently switched from my EL SV 8.5x to an old Kern 8x30 when observing in freshly snow-covered mountains in the Alps.
Steiner offers binos that adapt to the brightness (Navigator Autobright 7x50c | With Compass | 7x50 | 23520920), but I doubt that‘s the ultimate solution, at least for me.

 

[Thotmosis]

My experience too. Most obvious, of course, in snowy landscapes with sunshine and at the beach. I recently switched from my EL SV 8.5x to an old Kern 8x30 when observing in freshly snow-covered mountains in the Alps.
Steiner offers binos that adapt to the brightness (Navigator Autobright 7x50c | With Compass | 7x50 | 23520920), but I doubt that‘s the ultimate solution, at least for me.

Thanks, never heard about this “sunlight-adaptive lens technology” but if it works … than it can be really handy on a ship or in other circumstances. But i most likely would follow your route and take a beautiful Kern 8x30 from Helvetia if i had one. Preferable a pair with those cool leather objective and oculairs covers 👍. Right now i would grab my Leitz 7x35 in snowy mountains. Or my small KOMZ 6x24 Porro with yellowish view.

 

[Canip]

Thanks, never heard about this “sunlight-adaptive lens technology” but if it works…

I suspect it works like these adaptive spectacles which habe been around for a long time, they seem to stay somewhat dark all the time after a few months of use.
But I don’t know really.
I have tested Steiner‘s „BluHorizons“ bino (Steiner BluHorizons 8×22 – Binoculars Today) for which Steiner also claims some sort of „autobright“ feature. I found them unusable.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

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.

I have friends using 10x50 EL for general birding in different habitats. So far no problem at all and it shines during dusk and dawn. So the NL 10x52 would be much better than the former as per your requirements.

NL has 390 ft/1000 yards with 68 degree apparent field of view (afov)
EL has 345 ft/1000 yards with 66 degree apparent field of view (afov)

But I would get the NL 12x42 because it strikes the balance between 10x52 and 14x52 in terms of weight and afov Swarovski NL Pure 42 vs 52

 

[ReinierB]

NL has 390 ft/1000 yards with 68 degree apparent field of view (afov)
EL has 345 ft/1000 yards with 66 degree apparent field of view (afov)

The difference is bigger. The afov of the EL 10x50 is 62 degrees. Lovely glass though.

I would take the NL 10x42 as being the most versatile. NL 10x52 and NL 12x42 are also really nice. First world dilemma.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

10x52 is for those who like to watch birds in forests and/or at sunrise and sunset. And don't forget the easier eye placement.

In this case I'd use a monopod often. In fact I use one for my 10x42 Leica already, because of the stabilized view and scanning is a lot more easier.

Probably 10x52 is the best format of all, if you can handle the weight.

 

[soloflyfisher]

On magnification—I've been using my 8X binoculars as my main pair for a while now, but I do miss the 10X. I never noticed any problems with image shake with the 10X, even though my old Leica 10X42 BAs are quite heavy at about 32 oz / 890 grams. I know a lot of people love the 12X42s, but I wonder about image shake with that magnification—and I'd be even more concerned about it with the 14X52s. So I guess I'm still leaning toward 10X . . . and the real decision is mostly whether I will be okay with the heavier (but likely brighter) 10X52s or would be happier with the smaller, lighter 10X42s.

Hoping some dealer here in Toronto will get them in stock so I can actually hold them and look through them. But for now, no one I've called has them in stock.