The NL 52 : First impressions of the two models (cont'd, see post # 24))
C. Looking THROUGH the new NLs
The immediate overall first impression when the x42 NLs came out was something like “wow, such a wide field and such great sharpness fully across it”. Since then, we might have taken these wide flat fields almost for granted; still, the new NLs impress with their wonderful, wide, bright, sharp and contrast-rich image in natural colors. For me, the new models are fully “in line” with the x42 NLs; if you liked them, you will like the x52 NLs. Of not, if you didn’t like the color tone and image properties then, or if you prefer the saturated image in a UVHD+ 10x50, you might perhaps not be too impressed with the new NLs. But I was. Swarovski at its best!
Usable eye relief is more or less comparable to what you get in the x42 NLs, perhaps just slightly less, but should be okay.
I am not going to talk about glare, since this will almost certainly be the subject of another thread with hundreds of posts and emotional debates. I found the x52 NLs behave well in the usual stray-light situations, slight crescent shaped reflections at the bottom of the image can be provoked when a very bright light source (strong LED torch at full power) is positioned just at the top of the FOV, so a similar thing might happen when you stare at the sun, but as you perhaps know, you are not supposed to do that anyway. Otherwise, I found the NL well baffled; almost ne perceptible spikes.
CA is well corrected, the 14x surprised me when comparing it with the SLC 15x56 which already exhibits a decent CA performance, but the NL is clearly better.
For my eyes, panning produces a very slight globe effect, something to be expected with the limited amount of distortion and the width of the field of view. The effect appears clearly less pronounced than in my EL SVs and also less visible than in the x42 NLs. Overall, I found panning very comfortable in both new NLs.
Central sharpness NL 14x52 vs SLC 15x56: handheld, the NL beats the SLC in detail recognition, due to the size, weight and ergonomics which lead to clearly less jitter. I would probably still want to mount the 14x since I tend to do that with most binos 10x and over (in stationary situations). Looking at far away street signs and the like, the NL gave me more clues as to what I was reading than the SLC. Mounted, the SLC clearly catches up, not so much because of the higher magnification (it is neglectable). As mentioned earlier, my test sample of the 14x52 was actually a 14.6 x 51 binocular, so the SLC did not really win in terms of magnification. This could mean that if you are looking for a high mag bino that you prefer to use hand-held, the 14x52 NL with foreheadrest might be the thing for you.
The FOV in the NL is of course distinctly wider than in the SLC.
Both x52 NLs produce an immersive, almost nature-like viewing experience when the eyecups are in the right position for your style of holding the bino and placing it before your eyes. You pick the bino up and are immediately taken in by the brightness and sharpness of the image. What amazed me was that I had to check on several occasions whether I was holding the 42 or the 52 NL in my hand, due to the slim build and compact size of the 52s.
These for me are clearly two of the best binoculars you can get at the moment. Perhaps you will find even better performance in individual optical disciplines. But taken as a whole, as the sum of its properties, I found the “big” NLs superb.
Is the better the enemy of the good? Should you sell your EL SV 10x50 and SLC 15x56 and upgrade to the 10x52 and 14x52 NL?
Swarovski Optics will probably hate me for saying this, but:
Upgrade if you are obsessed with wide-field optics and find the SLC too big and heavy. Otherwise, think twice. The air gets thin at the top, so performance improvements become gradual rather than dramatic. The new NLs ARE fabulous binos, but so are the EL SVs and SLCs.
fwiw Canip
www.eurooptic.com
outdoorsmans.com
