-
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.
How do you feel about your NL 8x42 a year or two down the line? (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter SeldomPerched
- Start date
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Not true, IMO - a binocular with slow focus and long travel is pretty useless for me if being used for insects and birds.
henry link
Well-known member
They should have figured out how glare works by now, but there are many older reviews that are clueless on the subject. Check out the photo below of the interior of the right side of a Zeiss 8x56 Dialyt from Allbinos' review. Those are real false pupils alright, but they form about 5mm beyond the edge of a 7mm exit pupil. They could never enter the pupil of an eye even if it were fully dilated and besides that they also move behind the eyepiece field stop when the eye is positioned at the eyepiece, so they're completely harmless, held at bay by both a belt and suspenders. Under the photo the text incorrectly states "Clear false pupils are a problem", apparently without anybody checking to see whether they actually are a problem.
Real glare problems invariably come from interior reflections at or very near the exit pupil edge and often don't even show up in these Allbinos photos because the bright arcs of reflection at the exit pupil edge bleed together with the overexposed image of the exit pupil.
Attachments
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
hopster
Well-known member
It does depend at what distance you are viewing and how important the DOF is.
hopster
Well-known member
Shakiness of image and DOF? 12x is not always appropriate and I speak as someone who has one and loves to use it for certain environments.
SanderBird82
Well-known member
And then you miss the insane 159 m FOV
hopster
Well-known member
Yes of course that can be nice sometimes but there are plenty of circumstances where DOF is more important than FOV.
SanderBird82
Well-known member
But 8x42 NL Pure has also the most DOF.
hopster
Well-known member
I am only saying that 12x is not appropriate for all viewing situations and that narrow DOF is one of the main reasons.
when I said this, I did not have the 8x42NL. I enjoy the use of the 8x42, but the 12x42 can have pleasant out of focus background when used up close, this a feature I like. The 12x42 when mounted on monopod is excellent in open rolling grasslands following the glide of Northern Harrier over considerable distance in travel. This same locale lets the STC shine. Use of the 8x42 here is fine, but not as pleasurable with this specific bird as is the 12x42, which has great DOF over further distances.
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
12x42 the best combo with ATC/STC scopes 🤤
Owlbarred
Well-known member
Re: the poster's original question about the satisfaction of year-plus owner's of 8x42 NL:
I could not be more pleased with mine -- the haptics and optics are sublime. The fantastically wide FOV -- clear to the edges -- the smooth, close focusing (2m), and wonderful balance are inspirational afield. Incredibly versatile binoculars and still a thrill to use afield after 18 months.
I could not be more pleased with mine -- the haptics and optics are sublime. The fantastically wide FOV -- clear to the edges -- the smooth, close focusing (2m), and wonderful balance are inspirational afield. Incredibly versatile binoculars and still a thrill to use afield after 18 months.
Last edited:
I was definitely NOT satisfied with my NL 8x42. The NL 8x42 had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality for me. When it was Dr. Jekyll it had a nice big FOV with sharp edges but then without any warning it would turn into Mr. Hyde even when it wasn't that sunny out and ugly glare would pop up in the bottom right side of the FOV no matter how precisely I adjusted the eyecups to the nearest mm with a micrometer or how careful I was about placing it squarely against my eye sockets. I had the same type of glare Holger Merlitz reported in his review, so we both must have similar size eye sockets. I had no regrets when I returned it. Likewise, I didn't even kiss it goodbye. I just moved on with other binoculars. Holger is one of the most respected optics reviewers out there and if he says the NL's have glare they have glare. Jeez the guy wrote a book on binoculars, he knows what he is talking about!
Holger Merlitz
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eye cup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. The fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection."
Holger Merlitz
"Stray light: The tendency to develop stray-light in some situations remains the only considerable weakness in both binoculars. In difficult light conditions, bright spots are emerging around the edges of the exit pupils, which tend to create partial whiteouts (in most cases a crescent-shaped glare in the lower half of the field) when the eye-pupils accidentally get in contact with them. A careful setting of eye cup positions and a certain discipline in the way and angle at which the instrument is held in front of the eyes go a long way to avoid these whiteouts in the vast majority of situations. Observer's reports vary wildly about the severeness of the glare, ranging from 'irrelevant' to 'irritating'. The fact is that there exist binoculars (including the Zeiss 8x32 SF) with a superior resistance against stray light. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection."
Last edited:
Dennis wouldn't it be good to include the final summarizing paragraph that puts the thing into perspective? The paragraph you quote (yet again) equivocates as I read it. Indeed does offer a bit of perspective. Some will, some wont. It also summarizes my experience, as Im one who is not troubled by glare in the way you have promoted it over the years.
For the record,
"In my opinion, the NL Pure represents a successful evolutionary step above the El WB. Among its improvements are most of all its haptic, its expanded field of view, as well as its rather pleasant panning behavior. It is nonetheless just an evolutionary step forward and differences in optical performance are usually subtle if visible at all. Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection. On the downside, I am having some issues with the SF's ease of view (hard to find a proper eye-cup setting to view over the entire field) and its somewhat unpleasant panning behavior. Moreover, it appears that the colors offered with the SF display a somewhat lower saturation when compared to the NL. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior." Underline and bold is mine.
It is said, "Repeat a thing often enough it becomes fact." Should it?
For the record,
"In my opinion, the NL Pure represents a successful evolutionary step above the El WB. Among its improvements are most of all its haptic, its expanded field of view, as well as its rather pleasant panning behavior. It is nonetheless just an evolutionary step forward and differences in optical performance are usually subtle if visible at all. Who already owns the EL WB would hardly gain from an upgrade to the NL Pure, since both are virtually playing in the same league. The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection. On the downside, I am having some issues with the SF's ease of view (hard to find a proper eye-cup setting to view over the entire field) and its somewhat unpleasant panning behavior. Moreover, it appears that the colors offered with the SF display a somewhat lower saturation when compared to the NL. At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior." Underline and bold is mine.
It is said, "Repeat a thing often enough it becomes fact." Should it?
Owlbarred
Well-known member
The original poster's question (and the thread's title) concerned the 8x42 NL, not the 8x32 NL. Regardless, as GrampaTom's (GT) tour de force post (# 116) noted (and quoted), Holger Merlitz's review was praiseworthy of even the 8x32 NL:
"At the end of the day, it remains a matter of individual preferences which of these high end binoculars would suit somebody's needs best. To me, the NL Pure appears perfect, with the only exception being its occasionally erratic stray light behavior." Underline and bold is mine."
As GT noted (post #116): "Repeat a thing often enough it becomes fact." Should it?" My response: Absolutely not!
I found the NL 8x42 to have more glare than the NL 8x32. I believe the NL 10x42 was the best of the NL's for glare for me. Furthermore, I agree with Holger. The NL Pure is the most perfect binocular I have ever tried, with the only exception being the glare or as he calls it erratic stray light behavior.
Last edited:
Similar threads
