-
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.
Is it worth buying the new nl 52 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter stateguy
- Start date
Alaska4me
Well-known member
This is not what you wanted to hear I am afraid. Get a 8x32NL, keep your 12x42NL, and never look back. There you have it.
Will K
Too well-known member
I have to admit, that sounds about right to me too. I’ve used the 12x42 for a few years now, and I’ve been thinking that an 8x or 10x32 is the better companion. Hence my ambivalent reaction to the news. I may eat my words after getting around to checking out a 52 in person, and then I would probably choose maximum magnification. Love the chutzpah of Swaro, releasing this option, though. So I have to try it, at least!
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
I have the 12x42 and 10x32 NL for different situation. For general use, 10x better than 8x and 32mm considered the middle ground for lightweight bino. I had the 8x32 and 10x42 EL since 2013 but always wishing for 10x32 EL that time for general usage
I would get the NL 10x52. Obviously, you like high magnification and 10x would be higher than a 8x but give you a bigger FOV, better DOF, easier eye placement, it would be steadier, and it would be much brighter than your NL 12x42, especially in low light.
You would definitely see a big difference. The 10x50 EL was the best 10x50 made, and the NL 10x52 can only better with its huge FOV and slightly bigger aperture. I think the NL 10x52 is going to be a killer binocular.
I believe the NL 14x52 will be awesome also, but I like it more for astro use rather than birding. 14x is a lot of magnification to hold steady without a tripod. 10x is a lot more manageable.
Last edited:
Owlbarred
Well-known member
Well said. Well-intentioned discussion of a product that virtually no one has even seen, much less even handled, seems akin to Fool's Gold unless one is a die-hard collector.
Last edited:
I think it's definitely "worth it" especially considering you're paying the same price as Swaro's 10x42 NL but getting a 52mm - the 52 NL's are the "sweet spot" in Swaro's lineup now! 
You get more of everything Swaro and for the same price.
it's "worth it", the question is, are they appropriate for you? For day use birding I usually don't like to carry more than a 27-28 ounce binocular, these would be heavier. They'd be perfect for astronomy but the investment isn't quite right for me, given my priorities
You get more of everything Swaro and for the same price.it's "worth it", the question is, are they appropriate for you? For day use birding I usually don't like to carry more than a 27-28 ounce binocular, these would be heavier. They'd be perfect for astronomy but the investment isn't quite right for me, given my priorities
For some years I owned a Fujinon FMT-SX 16X70, and used it hand-held, for brief periods. I always thought a tripod was more bother than it was worth, and awkward to boot.
It was at its best from a car, rested on a partly-raised window.
I once saw the North America Nebula with it from a dark site in Maine, before the fog came in. It would resolve Mizar.
Last edited:
If it isn’t a rude or inappropriate question, where are you?
Someone may be able to help.
I'm not going to answer as I may incriminate myself!
Personally....I'd rather have the 12X42. A 12X42 and a 8X32 would be a good way to go!
tenex
reality-based
You probably wouldn't. The question is, buy for what purpose? The 12x is a great all-rounder. When is it not satisfying you?
Last edited:
The 10x52 NL will be a more comfortable low light binocular to use than the NL 12x42. Bigger EP with easier eye placement, they will be brighter most of the time, especially in low light, have a bigger FOV and better DOF.
I think the NL 10x52 is going to be one awesome binocular. I would try one before I just write it off! Not only that, but I bet you will like it more than the NL 12x42. There is nothing like a big 50mm aperture for comfort and performance. The 50mm is taking in 2x the light the 42mm is. The specifications don't tell the whole story.
Could you please clarify the base for this statement? If you are talking about area it is not a two time difference.
So it's roughly 1700 vs. 2700 in terms of light gathering, not twice as much but close. I too like the benefits of big aperture. Just try your 8x32's and your 8x42's and you'll get the same effect as going from 10x42 to 10x52.
I love everything about the bigger bino. The views through the 10x56 SLC have blown away any other 10x binocular day or night for me. Unfortunately it's big and heavy and somewhat ridiculous to carry around in the field with you
But this difference is smaller, I think the 10x42 NL are 30 ounces and these 10x52 are 35.9? That's not bad. Searching for birds after sunset the 50mm+ bino will show everything lit up when it's become dark in the 42's. It depends on the individual bino, but I've found eye placement and tolerance for eye movements within the FOV is better in the larger exit-pupil bino every time. This is main reason I kept the 10x56 SLC over the 10x50 UVHD
I love everything about the bigger bino. The views through the 10x56 SLC have blown away any other 10x binocular day or night for me. Unfortunately it's big and heavy and somewhat ridiculous to carry around in the field with you
But this difference is smaller, I think the 10x42 NL are 30 ounces and these 10x52 are 35.9? That's not bad. Searching for birds after sunset the 50mm+ bino will show everything lit up when it's become dark in the 42's. It depends on the individual bino, but I've found eye placement and tolerance for eye movements within the FOV is better in the larger exit-pupil bino every time. This is main reason I kept the 10x56 SLC over the 10x50 UVHD
NDhunter
Experienced observer
