EL opinions (1 Viewer)

[Will K]

Plus the NL is gorgeous - a little work of art 😄 A bolder and more characterful design than the EL, in my humble opinion.

 

[GrampaTom]

8° to 8.5° FOV, improved focuser = $1000+.

Motorcycle modified barrels = $0 , subjective.

Why won’t you swap out your 10x42EL for the NL, it has a larger FOV, improved focuser and the Motorcycle modified barrels? it’s not consistent Tom 😜.

Sure it is. It’s called weighting Paul. Think of the whole list of attributes we call out. Then try to figure out how we each value those various things. I do it my way. You yours. They don’t have to match…

 

[Paultricounty]

Sure it is. It’s called weighting Paul. Think of the whole list of attributes we call out. Then try to figure out how we each value those various things. I do it my way. You yours. They don’t have to match…

I was asking why your not weighing those factors on the 42’s? Don’t those NL characteristics carry over to the 42?

 

[GrampaTom]

I was asking why your not weighing those factors on the 42’s? Don’t those NL characteristics carry over to the 42?

I already own the EL. We've bonded. I could sell it, take a $ hit then go buy the other more expensive NL to replace it... I could. But why? The EL works great. The differences in performance aren't worth the price. If I were starting over? Sure, it'd be the NL 42. The optical quality of my NL832 and EL1042 - the quality of the view in the center of the field where I spend my time - is essentially equal, accept that the extra 2X allows me to see more with the ELs... I know thats controversial here. It is what I see. The rest, the stuff that folks wax on about, a little bit of this and that, are not material. Im birding upwards of 3 days week in this our off season. That'll ramp up to 5 after September. Almost all of that over salt marsh, open water. Depth of field, FOV, a few ounces of weight? They're nice. The little 832 has shown me what FOV and AFOV can do for the view. I like its focuser. Flat field is totally cool, even though I spend almost no time looking to the edges. Focus depth? I look with finger on focus wheel, move my head, turn the wheel, without thinking. Dont need perfect focus when scanning checking. Do when something of interest is seen, so twist and go AHH! Cool. Its a tool. It exists to facilitate looking at stuff. I love it. I don't collect. We are different. Thats OK.

 

[Paultricounty]

I already own the EL. We've bonded. I could sell it, take a $ hit then go buy the other more expensive NL to replace it... I could. But why? The EL works great. The differences in performance aren't worth the price. If I were starting over? Sure, it'd be the NL 42. The optical quality of my NL832 and EL1042 - the quality of the view in the center of the field where I spend my time - is essentially equal, accept that the extra 2X allows me to see more with the ELs... I know thats controversial here. It is what I see. The rest, the stuff that folks wax on about, a little bit of this and that, are not material. Im birding upwards of 3 days week in this our off season. That'll ramp up to 5 after September. Almost all of that over salt marsh, open water. Depth of field, FOV, a few ounces of weight? They're nice. The little 832 has shown me what FOV and AFOV can do for the view. I like its focuser. Flat field is totally cool, even though I spend almost no time looking to the edges. Focus depth? I look with finger on focus wheel, move my head, turn the wheel, without thinking. Dont need perfect focus when scanning checking. Do when something of interest is seen, so twist and go AHH! Cool. Its a tool. It exists to facilitate looking at stuff. I love it. I don't collect. We are different. Thats OK.

Thank you for enhancing my point. We’re not so different Tom, not at all. 🙏🏼.

 

[John M Robinson]

I already own the EL. We've bonded. I could sell it, take a $ hit then go buy the other more expensive NL to replace it... I could. But why? The EL works great. The differences in performance aren't worth the price. If I were starting over? Sure, it'd be the NL 42. The optical quality of my NL832 and EL1042 - the quality of the view in the center of the field where I spend my time - is essentially equal, accept that the extra 2X allows me to see more with the ELs... I know thats controversial here. It is what I see. The rest, the stuff that folks wax on about, a little bit of this and that, are not material. Im birding upwards of 3 days week in this our off season. That'll ramp up to 5 after September. Almost all of that over salt marsh, open water. Depth of field, FOV, a few ounces of weight? They're nice. The little 832 has shown me what FOV and AFOV can do for the view. I like its focuser. Flat field is totally cool, even though I spend almost no time looking to the edges. Focus depth? I look with finger on focus wheel, move my head, turn the wheel, without thinking. Dont need perfect focus when scanning checking. Do when something of interest is seen, so twist and go AHH! Cool. Its a tool. It exists to facilitate looking at stuff. I love it. I don't collect. We are different. Thats OK.

Very well said Tom!😊

 

[GrampaTom]

Thank you for enhancing my point. We’re not so different Tom, not at all. 🙏🏼.

Re the NL/EL, I get that. But comparing my discussion/opinions of these 2 that I own, and the opinions you expressed in that 7x42 UVHD+ thing last week, we really kinda are.

 

[Paultricounty]

Re the NL/EL, I get that. But comparing my discussion/opinions of these 2 that I own, and the opinions you expressed in that 7x42 UVHD+ thing last week, we really kinda are.

No we’re really not. We were discussing the benefits of the NL over the EL, and you kind of supported my position on both of them. The UVHD thing is just another example of a person who opines about something they never tried and has no experience with the optic, in that we’re are much different.

 

[UTGrad]

Who would have thought a binocular forum would get as spicy as a muscle car forum.

 

[dries1]

For many it is cost, they can get excellent performance from the 42 ELs for almost $1000 less (that is a significant amount of cash). The 8/10X42 NLs price has risen to over $3,000. Obtaining a EL 8X32 in good shape is now rare, so obtaining a premium 8X32 a bit different, guided to go with UV, SF or NL.

 

[UTGrad]

For many it is cost, they can get excellent performance from the 42 ELs for almost $1000 less (that is a significant amount of cash). The 8/10X42 NLs price has risen to over $3,000. Obtaining a EL 8X32 in good shape is now rare, so obtaining a premium 8X32 a bit different, guided to go with UV, SF or NL.

I elected to get the EL vs the NL Pure due to cost. I ordered some grey market NL Pures but sent them back cause I want the North American warranty.

 

[safaridreaming]

I prefer the ergonomics and focuser position of the EL 32’s much more over the NL 32’s.

 

[Paultricounty]

I prefer the ergonomics and focuser position of the EL 32’s much more over the NL 32’s.

I understand what your saying, in so many ways there really isn’t that much (depending on your definition of, not much ) that separate these two. The focuser is excellent on the EL, but I feel the NL takes it to another level, really very buttery smooth and equal in both directions. I like the ergos on both , and I do like the Bicycle tire modified barrels (the 42’s have motorcycle tire modified barrels) on the NL’s. The optics are so close that that $1000+ premium for the NL for some is hard to swallow. If I didn’t have these two side by side I would’ve bought the NL’s just for the focuser and the on paper stats. Still want one, in orange😆.

 

[UTGrad]

Just got my 8.5 x 42 set in. This is plenty of glass for me. Clarity is incredible.

 

[Paultricounty]

Just got my 8.5 x 42 set in. This is plenty of glass for me. Clarity is incredible.

View attachment 1528348

That’s a fine piece of glass right there. Enjoy them.

Paul

 

[UTGrad]

I’m grateful that I’m not affected by or even really notice the “rolling ball” effect. Just another pair of binoculars to me with really good glass.

 

[Paultricounty]

Just to make sure that everyone is talking about the same thing . . .

Swarovski has used the EL designation for a series of binoculars starting in 1999 with the 8.5x42 and 10x42 models.
There are two main versions, with two changes to the more recent version
(setting aside the issue of the quality of the RA covering on the more recent production).
See the details with images in post #4 at: Swarovski EL with or without field flattener lenses


John


p.s. And for completeness:
Since 2001, the EL designation has also been used for binoculars with an integral rangefinder, primarily the EL Range and the EL Range TA.
See the details and images starting in post #5 at: Updated Swarovski Range and CL pockets.

John, Swarovski made 7x binoculars prior to the EL‘s, they were Habicht roofs in 7x. I thought they were available for a few years coinciding with the EL‘s? I thought that was one of the rational for the 8.5EL, having 1.5x spacing. Or it could’ve just been Swaro wanting to best the competition with a little more reach than the standard 8’s. 8.5’s are nothing new, i believe they go back to the 1950’s in the famous Swift Audubons.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’m grateful that I’m not affected by or even really notice the “rolling ball” effect. Just another pair of binoculars to me with really good glass.

Most people don’t notice any rolling ball (globe effect) in the EL’s. You just hear about it from the small vocal few that are infected by it, but then their infected by rolling ball in most all binoculars with field flatteners, so not EL issue. I’ve had dozens of people try my EL’s from newbies to optical Einstein’s , and nobody picks it up, unless you mention it and tell them what to look for, and even then after describing it , most still can’t discern it. Theres always some people on these forums that are over sensitive to optical aberrations that are in all binoculars in some way or another.

I have all of the so called alphas , and I can say with confidence (imo) that the EL series are still one of the best of the best manufactured binoculars today. Except for some differences in FOV, perceived color hue, they are as good in most ways as SF’s, NL’s and Noctivids. It comes down more to ergos than optics.

I find the EL to NL a very interesting conversation. The EL’s do everything excellent, they are phenomenal great binoculars. The NL’s in some ways are like phenomenal great binoculars +. It’s like an EL slightly improved in FOV, (some could say a step back on the edges), with slightly more contrast and color saturation, in a new and improved ergonomic shell. Although these steps seem profound (certainly in ergos) not really a huge jump. Unlike the differences from FL to SF or Ultravid to Noctivid. Although we could opine that Noctivids are like Ultravid HD ++. 😆. And Nikon went the other way, degrading not improving the design from an alpha EDG to the MHG. I’m just sayin.

Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

I am evidently very sensitive to it, and it was a howling nuisance in my EL SV.

I managed to just go on in spite of it.

 

[Conndomat]

Moin,

in fact the NL are an ergonomic nightmare for me, I never know where to put my fingers.

The focuser is smoother and more even than the EL but practically without turning resistance, it's just too limp for me.

Not to mention the flat eyepiece caps that are a risk of accidents for far-sighted people.

The NL is visually a dream, everything else is a nightmare, at least for me.

Andreas