Initial user impressions of the NL x52’s (1 Viewer)

[CharleyBird]

"Others, who have never seen let alone held/used them, will chip in with their thoughts and opinions and I break wind in their general direction as they are about as useful as an ashtray on a Harley D."

This was funny and true, one has to admit.

Well the spec of a Harley on paper immediately rules it out for my birding...
it's not waterproof
😉

 

[CharleyBird]

Could I ask owners of the 10x52 or 14x52 how they are carrying them over a few hours, say for example a three hour walk?
Are you using the neck strap only? Swapping to bandolier style if they become heavy on your neck? Or do you use a harness?

Their large shape and size fit my largish hands very naturally (better than the standard x42 models), but I can't hold the 14x steady enough.

 

[Canip]

Are you using the neck strap only?

Yes (I am used to carrying stuff around my neck since my army days).

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Could I ask owners of the 10x52 or 14x52 how they are carrying them over a few hours, say for example a three hour walk?
Are you using the neck strap only? Swapping to bandolier style if they become heavy on your neck? Or do you use a harness?

Their large shape and size fit my largish hands very naturally (better than the standard x42 models), but I can't hold the 14x steady enough.

The forehead rest did not help too?

 

[CharleyBird]

The forehead rest did not help too?

I have used the 12x42 for over two years, one year without the forehead rest, one year mostly with, and now again without.
It made no or negligible difference in stability for me because of the way I hold binoculars, and I am happy holding the 12x without.
I always found the forehead rest uncomfortable because it doesn't quite adjust enough for me.
Such is the importance of personal haptics.

 

[tenex]

Are you using the neck strap only?

For several hours at least, I'm comfortable carrying SLC 56 (6oz heavier than NL 52) on a well-shaped neckstrap that puts the weight on the shoulders not the back of the neck. (If it doesn't suit you, a harness should.) FWIW, I've also learned to handle 15x, so don't leap to conclusions from first impressions, especially if you've been managing 12x already.

 

[Bentley03]

Could I ask owners of the 10x52 or 14x52 how they are carrying them over a few hours, say for example a three hour walk?
Are you using the neck strap only? Swapping to bandolier style if they become heavy on your neck? Or do you use a harness?

Their large shape and size fit my largish hands very naturally (better than the standard x42 models), but I can't hold the 14x steady enough.

Neck strap only, 5 hours plus on several occasions, and the 10x (for me) are an absolute dream, in terms of being able to hold them steady. I don't use forehead rest, but I'll fit it to the 14x soon to see if I can (finally) perceive a difference between with and without. I reckon I'm at the point of being able to hold the 14x as steady as my 12x50 EL, and considerably steadier than the 15x56 SLC. In the hand, the x52's work for me (fortunately!).

I also sense, despite Dennis's comments earlier in this thread, that these x52's have the best control of light of any of the NL range. I'm suffering zero flare, glare or stray light interference in the view, apart from what you would anticipate in difficult situations.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Neck strap only, 5 hours plus on several occasions, and the 10x (for me) are an absolute dream, in terms of being able to hold them steady. I don't use forehead rest, but I'll fit it to the 14x soon to see if I can (finally) perceive a difference between with and without. I reckon I'm at the point of being able to hold the 14x as steady as my 12x50 EL, and considerably steadier than the 15x56 SLC. In the hand, the x52's work for me (fortunately!).

I also sense, despite Dennis's comments earlier in this thread, that these x52's have the best control of light of any of the NL range. I'm suffering zero flare, glare or stray light interference in the view, apart from what you would anticipate in difficult situations.https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/894944-swarovski-nl-pure-8x32-glare-galore-on-the-left-side-mostly/page-2

I tested the NL 10x52 and 14 x52 in bright sunlight, and they were slightly better than the other NL's for glare probably due to the bigger EP, but still IMO showed a significant amount of veiling glare and much more than comparable alpha's like the SF and Noctivid.

I sold all my NL's because of veiling glare and so did Erik Bakker who is an administrator and major contributor to Cloudy Nights. Needless to say, he is very knowledgeable about optics.

The SF's also have less CA than then NL's so if you don't like glare, prefer a bit warmer Leica like view, and you are sensitive to CA get an SF. Zeiss has always kicked Swarovski's butt when it comes to CA, starting with the FL because they use higher fluorite content glass.

Here are some comments on glare in the NL's from Cloudy Night's, comments on CA in the SF and NL from Allbinos, The Holger Merlitz review of the NL 8x32, a thread on glare in the NL Pure and the Binomania article on how to reduce glare in the NL 8x42.

Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 2 - Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - posted in Binoculars: I see the subject of glare in the Swarovski NL Pure line has already been discussed, but maybe this is something new. I got my Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 this week and I noticed the glare right...

www.cloudynights.com

Binoculars rankings - 8x32 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB

Prevent glare in the Swarovski NL Pure ??

I had mentioned several times in earlier threads that I personally had no glare issues with my 8x42 NL (and with the 10x42 model, by the way) and that the NL was for me at least as good dealing with stray-light as the other top binoculars on the market, but I appreciate the fact that other users...

www.birdforum.net

Binomania.it - Recensioni di binocoli, strumenti ottici e digitali per l\'osservazione naturalistica, astronomica e il tiro sportivo

Il primo sito web italiano con oltre 1000 recensioni di strumenti ottici e digitali...dal 2006!

www.binomania.it

Allbinos
"Add to that a sensationally corrected astigmatism, distortion and coma. Also, chromatic aberration correction result, one of the best in the whole history of our tests, is achieved despite such a wide field of view. If you don't like CA effects, the Victory SF 8x32 is definitely your pair of binoculars because it fares distinctly better than all binoculars produced by its main rival, Swarovski. Swarovski binoculars have noticeable problems with chromatic aberration on the edge of the field, which is often narrower than the field of the Zeiss."


aznuge
"I remember the feeling I had when I first saw significant glare in my 8x42 NL's. Pretty devastating - how could such high-end bins show glare like this? It was late afternoon almost three years ago. I was starting to observe birds at feeders in a tree in my backyard in a direction toward the northwest. It was a cloudy day, so no direct sunlight. But a huge and intense glare (veiling glare as I now understand it) jumped into my FOV in an imposing fashion. The clouded over sun was in the range of 10 to 30 degrees off axis toward the west.

I wanted to understand this phenomenon better, especially after getting involved in this thread some months later. I wondered if any other of my bins would show anything like the NL 8x42s did in terms of glare. So I decided on an artificial glare test that I could do at home. It involved a darkened room, a point source of light, and mounted binoculars approaching the point of light from different angles, and recording the angle away from the source that glare first appears.

All the binoculars that I tested this way showed glare. The angular range of this "zone of glare" was 20 to 38 degrees from the point source of light, the highest being the NL 8x42. Although I didn't use lasers (intriguing idea), this point source test gave satisfying results in terms of establishing practical expectations for seeing glare in the field for a particular binocular. And in practice it bears out fairly closely.

With the insight of ihf for the analysis, these trends were evident: porros vs roofs group differently, with porros tighter and smaller for zone of glare (ZOG); within the groups, the wider the FOV, the larger the ZOG. I'll show some detail in a little while..."


Erik Bakker
"Individual fit of the eyes and face of the observer to a binocular is an important factor in this. That said, many Swaro’s are prone to veiling glare. My Habicht 8x30 porro suffered from that very substantially for me. Making it hard to use and enjoy with brighter skies above the object of interest, especially during dusk and dawn. And none of my Swaro’s liked a half full or fuller moon in the outer parts of their fields. My NL 10x42 also suffered from that and some veiling glare, but I could mitigate that a bit at times with repositioning my eyes carefully. In the end, I sold all my Swaro’s, in part because of the glare issues, but they also do have wonderful strong points, so if those matter more/most and the glare is not much of a personal bother, owners are very happy with their Swaro’s. The SLC 56’s do better in that respect, as does the 7x42 Habicht porro."


Loddar
"I have had two NL's 8 to 42 and tried a lot of eye positions, and both NL's had too many problems with stray light and veiling glare for me.
I could avoid a lot of it by adjusting the eyecups 2 to 3 positions down. Unfortunately, the eye placement was rather difficult. Otherwise, it was the best binoculars I have used."

 

[CharleyBird]

I tested the NL 10x52 and 14 x52 in bright sunlight, and they were slightly better than the other NL's for glare probably due to the bigger EP, but still IMO showed a significant amount of veiling glare and much more than comparable alpha's like the SF and Noctivid.

I sold all my NL's because of veiling glare and so did Erik Bakker who is an administrator and major contributor to Cloudy Nights. Needless to say, he is very knowledgeable about optics.

The SF's also have less CA than then NL's so if you don't like glare, prefer a bit warmer Leica like view, and you are sensitive to CA get an SF. Zeiss has always kicked Swarovski's butt when it comes to CA, starting with the FL because they use higher fluorite content glass.

Here are some comments on glare in the Nl's from Cloudy Night's and comments on CA in the SF and NL from Allbinos.

Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

Page 1 of 2 - Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 Glare Galore! (on the left side mostly) - posted in Binoculars: I see the subject of glare in the Swarovski NL Pure line has already been discussed, but maybe this is something new. I got my Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 this week and I noticed the glare right...

www.cloudynights.com

Binoculars rankings - 8x32 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

"Add to that a sensationally corrected astigmatism, distortion and coma. Also, chromatic aberration correction result, one of the best in the whole history of our tests, is achieved despite such a wide field of view. If you don't like CA effects, the Victory SF 8x32 is definitely your pair of binoculars because it fares distinctly better than all binoculars produced by its main rival, Swarovski. Swarovski binoculars have noticeable problems with chromatic aberration on the edge of the field, which is often narrower than the field of the Zeiss."

"I remember the feeling I had when I first saw significant glare in my 8x42 NL's. Pretty devastating - how could such high-end bins show glare like this?! It was late afternoon almost three years ago. I was starting to observe birds at feeders in a tree in my backyard in a direction toward the northwest. It was a cloudy day, so no direct sunlight. But a huge and intense glare (veiling glare as I now understand it) jumped into my FOV in an imposing fashion. The clouded over sun was in the range of 10 to 30 degrees off axis toward the west.

I wanted to understand this phenomenon better, especially after getting involved in this thread some months later. I wondered if any other of my bins would show anything like the NL 8x42s did in terms of glare. So I decided on an artificial glare test that I could do at home. It involved a darkened room, a point source of light, and mounted binoculars approaching the point of light from different angles, and recording the angle away from the source that glare first appears.

All the binoculars that I tested this way showed glare. The angular range of this "zone of glare" was 20 to 38 degrees from the point source of light, the highest being the NL 8x42. Although I didn't use lasers (intriguing idea), this point source test gave satisfying results in terms of establishing practical expectations for seeing glare in the field for a particular binocular. And in practice it bears out fairly closely.

With the insight of ihf for the analysis, these trends were evident: porros vs roofs group differently, with porros tighter and smaller for zone of glare (ZOG); within the groups, the wider the FOV, the larger the ZOG. I'll show some detail in a little while..."

"Individual fit of the eyes and face of the observer to a binocular is an important factor in this. That said, many Swaro’s are prone to veiling glare. My Habicht 8x30 porro suffered from that very substantially for me. Making it hard to use and enjoy with brighter skies above the object of interest, especially during dusk and dawn. And none of my Swaro’s liked a half full or fuller moon in the outer parts of their fields. My NL 10x42 also suffered from that and some veiling glare, but I could mitigate that a bit at times with repositioning my eyes carefully. In the end, I sold all my Swaro’s, in part because of the glare issues, but they also do have wonderful strong points, so if those matter more/most and the glare is not much of a personal bother, owners are very happy with their Swaro’s. The SLC 56’s do better in that respect, as does the 7x42 Habicht porro."


View attachment 1594218

View attachment 1594235

And yet:
Sep 18, 2023

I tried all the NL's and I had problems with glare in all of them unless I got the eye cups adjusted exactly right,

I also find no glare viewing through all of the NL models including the latest x52 in everyday viewing, when they are adjusted for my haptics.
The view is well worth making the effort.

 

[Surly]

Not everyone can see that glare in the NL. No way does the Vortex compare to the NL to my eyes let alone build quality. I had the 12x50 UHD and compared it to my 12x42 NL pure. Not even close. But I did so extensively a lot of nights tripod mounted looking at the sky. NL is the closest binocular that I have seen that acts like an APO refractor.

I currently have 10x42 NLs and have not experienced any glare. Must have to be in the perfect angle to replicate it

 

[Surly]

And yet:
Sep 18, 2023

I also find no glare viewing through all of the NL models including the latest x52 in everyday viewing, when they are adjusted for my haptics.
The view is well worth making the effort.

I agree, I must have gotten lucky as I have not experienced this. Either that or the shape of my face relative to the eye piece is ideal.

 

[Surly]

Not a clue.



Well, wouldn't you agree that no binocular is really glare free in the sense that glare producing light can always get in through the objective lens. Once in, the light then needs to be blocked by properly sized and positioned baffling so that it doesn't reflect back into the eye.

In the NL bringing the eye close to the eyepiece appears to have the effect of slightly reducing the apparent size of the baffling compared to the apparent size of the objective lens so that the baffle effectively acts like it's slightly smaller, exactly what's needed.

Interesting, I have the eye piece turned out all the way without glasses.