• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (2 Viewers)

Sfphoto, yes the FOV difference is noticable. For some reason the image is more immersive. The ergonomics feel good but i have a strong feeling that people with big hands with feel that the bino's are so compact that it becomes awkward to properly wield it. The 42 MM feels way better in that deparment because on that model the slim waist feels like you can get a really firm grip. On the 32MM it almost feels to slim.

BabyDov, Yes i bought the 8x32. You are correct, i cannot comment on glare yet. We have had a truly horrific spring here in the Netherlands with only strong northern winds and alot of rain and cold. So no sun whatsoever.
I will try that, it might help with the blackout.

Thanks for the replies.
 

tenex

reality-based
The feeling of being able to snap to a bird on any distance is what i missed in the EL.
I'd like to hear more about this from NL users (32 or 42). I didn't have a chance to test for it myself. I suppose it's a measure of how perfectly aberrations are corrected around the center field?

Thanks for the photo, Canip. They really are quite orange. (Like EL Range?) "Burnt orange" can be a strange color...
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
I'd like to hear more about this from NL users (32 or 42). I didn't have a chance to test for it myself. I suppose it's a measure of how perfectly aberrations are corrected around the center field?

Thanks for the photo, Canip. They really are quite orange. (Like EL Range?) "Burnt orange" can be a strange color...
Burnt orange is more brownish orange and the ELRange orange is the same color as in the safety device orange colors.

Jan
 

Aquaplas

Well-known member
Austria
I tried yesterday the 10x32. The Fov is amazing. The Handlong too. Also sharpness and clearity. The clearity is the same effect than from my NL 8x42. But not the Contrast. The Contrast on my 8x42 is higher. Dont know is it the smaller pupil from the 10x32 vs my 8x42 or is it the 32mm Objective?!? Hope I can see trough the 8x32NL next Time. The NL 10x32 is better then the EL 10x32 in Clearity. Also the Fov is amazing. This Formfaktor is i think perfekt for carring and Handlyng. #
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
I bought one last Saterday, but the time to test ot thourougly is too short.
First impressions:
Handling even more comfortable as that of the NL pure 8x42
Optical quality excellent, no glare observed, no remnants of color diffraction, crystal clear image and very good color reproduction, sharp over the whole FOV. Quality of eyecups very good.
Investigation will be continued.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
@Gijs van Ginkel Dat is opvallend. Ik vind juist dat door het compacte formaat het voordeel van de welving in de 32 een beetje wegvalt. Maar goed dat is natuurlijk subjectief.

I find the 32 to be too compact for the slim waist to be as impactfull as the 42.

Sorry for the dutch, i tried to translate it.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
I bought one last Saterday, but the time to test ot thourougly is too short.
First impressions:
Handling even more comfortable as that of the NL pure 8x42
Optical quality excellent, no glare observed, no remnants of color diffraction, crystal clear image and very good color reproduction, sharp over the whole FOV. Quality of eyecups very good.
Investigation will be continued.
Gijs van Ginkel
Are yours the 8 x32 Nls? If so, is the contrast as good as with the 8x42Nl?
 

Canip

Well-known member
To glare or not to glare - that is - maybe - the question.

If the NL 8x42 was called by some the best 8x42 they ever had in hand, I can say that the NL 8x32 may be the best 8x32 I have ever seen.

But what about glare? In the various discussions about the 42 NL series, glare seems to have become the subject of some heated debates, and people have been giving each other a glare. Those who called the issue of glare in the 42 NLs a hype have been glaring defiance at those who insisted that there was glare.

So what about the 32 NL series?

I took a new 8x32 NL Pure for 3 days to the mountains, together with an NL 8x42 and an SF 8x32 for comparison (pics).

Here are my first impressions, and I can make this relatively brief, since there are many similarities between the NL 8x32 and the NL 8x42, and the latter has been widely reviewed and described by now.

Build quality: excellent finish and build; on the tested 8x32 there were none of the quality deficiencies described in some posts about the 8x42. The objective covers don’t stick as firmly in the tubes as in the 8x42, which may be an advantage if you want to take them off rapidly. Eyecaps sit too firmly on the eyecups for my taste (as in many Swaros); and I am not a fan of the FieldPro system (and probably never will be).

Balance and ergonomics: very similar to the 8x42 NL, very well balanced, perfect position of the focus wheel. The 8x32 may rest even better in your hands than the 8x42 if you have small hands.
The weight: with strap and front and eyepiece covers, 200g or 30% more than the same size SF 8x32; the difference is considerable, you might almost be tempted to underestimate the solidity of the SF (which would be a mistake).

Mechanics: impeccable. Central hinge, eyecups, focus mechanism, diopter adjustment lever all work smoothly and precisely, like on the 8x42 NL. Very nice focus action, compared to my ELs and SLCs, and even a bit smoother than on my SF 8x32. There are about 5 dpt extra travel of the focus wheel beyond the infinity position; the SF trumps that with at least 6 dpt. Dpt adj lever: the “0” position is correctly set at 0 dpt. The lever operation needs some getting used to, but then works perfectly.

Optics:
The size of the FOV appears the same as in the SF (according to specs, the SF has 155m, the NL 150m; if you mount both glasses side by side on tripods, you can spot the difference, otherwise probably not). The 8x42 with its 159m shows a bit more field, but even here the difference becomes only visible if you actually look for it.

Image characteristics: very much similar to the NL 8x42. Nice clear image taking you into the scenery.
Central sharpness is comparable, also with the SF, although I did occasionally have the feeling that the SF allowed me to read letters on far away signs a tiny bit more easily than the SF. Perhaps due also to the slightly warmer image of the SF which in some viewing conditions seems to provide a bit more color and perhaps a nuance more contrast (I need to confirm that further).
Off-axis sharpness: for my eyes much better (and I repeat: much better) in the NL 8x32 than in the SF 8x32, which also makes the panning experience in the NL more pleasing. The SF also exhibits some interesting distortion characteristics (as far as can tell, not typical rolling ball) which Holger Merlitz once mentioned somewhere and which I had dismissed at the time, the NL in contrast feels just right when panning.
Color fidelity: both NLs appear quite neutral, the image in the paper test rather white or “cool”, cooler than the SF which exhibits a nuance of warmth (which in some situations may be an advantage).
CA: I could not detect anything worth mentioning in the center of the field, a tiny bit more further off-axis; a lot here depends on your eye placement. Could it be that the SF is even a nuance better in this respect?
Brightness: because of the cooler image characteristics, the NL appears sometimes slightly brighter than the SF. Hard to say how reliable that impression is.

And finally: stray-light (just admit that you have been waiting for it).

According to my experience and to the best of what I have been able to verify, the 8x32 NL Pure exhibits the same stray-light performance as its larger brother, the NL 8x42.
This will be good news for some and bad news for others.

The NL exhibits some reflections on bright light sources just outside the field of view; not too bad, but at least noteworthy. The SF is better here, but on the other hand exhibits brighter spikes.

Glare: I could find glare at the lower part of the image when observing against a low standing sun, with sunlight hitting the objective lenses. It happened when I did not position my eyes correctly behind the eyepieces, and when I chose one of the outer positions of the eyecups. Same as in the 8x42 NL!!

I would therefore repeat what I said with regard to the 8x42: I can provoke glare in the NL 8x32, but I can also avoid it quite easily. I can use the NL totally glare-free if I want.
With proper eye placement and eyecup settings, the image is glare-free.

I know this will not be satisfactory for some. I remember one forum member making a remark like: in a premium product such as the NL, you should not have to make adjustments to your viewing position (to which I remember replying that when you drive a luxury car, you DO adjust the sitting position, don’t you?).

Of course, other things like face anatomy, observing habits, etc. will have an influence on whether or not someone will actually experience glare with the NL or not.

I personally believe a lot depends on whether people will be willing to give it a try. I just hope people will do that before dismissing them without even looking (as seems to have been the case sometimes, judging from some posts, with the 42 NLs).

To sum up:
The 8x32 NL overall combines splendid ergonomics, superb mechanics and a wonderful bright and sharp image with excellent panning experience.
For me, glare can totally and easily be handled. It’s not worse than in some other premium binoculars (and yes, there are some with an even better stray-light suppression).

I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot.

fwiw
Canip
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7454.jpg
    IMG_7454.jpg
    849.5 KB · Views: 203
  • IMG_7460.jpg
    IMG_7460.jpg
    549.9 KB · Views: 195

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
To glare or not to glare - that is - maybe - the question.

If the NL 8x42 was called by some the best 8x42 they ever had in hand, I can say that the NL 8x32 may be the best 8x32 I have ever seen.

But what about glare? In the various discussions about the 42 NL series, glare seems to have become the subject of some heated debates, and people have been giving each other a glare. Those who called the issue of glare in the 42 NLs a hype have been glaring defiance at those who insisted that there was glare.

So what about the 32 NL series?

I took a new 8x32 NL Pure for 3 days to the mountains, together with an NL 8x42 and an SF 8x32 for comparison (pics).

Here are my first impressions, and I can make this relatively brief, since there are many similarities between the NL 8x32 and the NL 8x42, and the latter has been widely reviewed and described by now.

Build quality: excellent finish and build; on the tested 8x32 there were none of the quality deficiencies described in some posts about the 8x42. The objective covers don’t stick as firmly in the tubes as in the 8x42, which may be an advantage if you want to take them off rapidly. Eyecaps sit too firmly on the eyecups for my taste (as in many Swaros); and I am not a fan of the FieldPro system (and probably never will be).

Balance and ergonomics: very similar to the 8x42 NL, very well balanced, perfect position of the focus wheel. The 8x32 may rest even better in your hands than the 8x42 if you have small hands.
The weight: with strap and front and eyepiece covers, 200g or 30% more than the same size SF 8x32; the difference is considerable, you might almost be tempted to underestimate the solidity of the SF (which would be a mistake).

Mechanics: impeccable. Central hinge, eyecups, focus mechanism, diopter adjustment lever all work smoothly and precisely, like on the 8x42 NL. Very nice focus action, compared to my ELs and SLCs, and even a bit smoother than on my SF 8x32. There are about 5 dpt extra travel of the focus wheel beyond the infinity position; the SF trumps that with at least 6 dpt. Dpt adj lever: the “0” position is correctly set at 0 dpt. The lever operation needs some getting used to, but then works perfectly.

Optics:
The size of the FOV appears the same as in the SF (according to specs, the SF has 155m, the NL 150m; if you mount both glasses side by side on tripods, you can spot the difference, otherwise probably not). The 8x42 with its 159m shows a bit more field, but even here the difference becomes only visible if you actually look for it.

Image characteristics: very much similar to the NL 8x42. Nice clear image taking you into the scenery.
Central sharpness is comparable, also with the SF, although I did occasionally have the feeling that the SF allowed me to read letters on far away signs a tiny bit more easily than the SF. Perhaps due also to the slightly warmer image of the SF which in some viewing conditions seems to provide a bit more color and perhaps a nuance more contrast (I need to confirm that further).
Off-axis sharpness: for my eyes much better (and I repeat: much better) in the NL 8x32 than in the SF 8x32, which also makes the panning experience in the NL more pleasing. The SF also exhibits some interesting distortion characteristics (as far as can tell, not typical rolling ball) which Holger Merlitz once mentioned somewhere and which I had dismissed at the time, the NL in contrast feels just right when panning.
Color fidelity: both NLs appear quite neutral, the image in the paper test rather white or “cool”, cooler than the SF which exhibits a nuance of warmth (which in some situations may be an advantage).
CA: I could not detect anything worth mentioning in the center of the field, a tiny bit more further off-axis; a lot here depends on your eye placement. Could it be that the SF is even a nuance better in this respect?
Brightness: because of the cooler image characteristics, the NL appears sometimes slightly brighter than the SF. Hard to say how reliable that impression is.

And finally: stray-light (just admit that you have been waiting for it).

According to my experience and to the best of what I have been able to verify, the 8x32 NL Pure exhibits the same stray-light performance as its larger brother, the NL 8x42.
This will be good news for some and bad news for others.

The NL exhibits some reflections on bright light sources just outside the field of view; not too bad, but at least noteworthy. The SF is better here, but on the other hand exhibits brighter spikes.

Glare: I could find glare at the lower part of the image when observing against a low standing sun, with sunlight hitting the objective lenses. It happened when I did not position my eyes correctly behind the eyepieces, and when I chose one of the outer positions of the eyecups. Same as in the 8x42 NL!!

I would therefore repeat what I said with regard to the 8x42: I can provoke glare in the NL 8x32, but I can also avoid it quite easily. I can use the NL totally glare-free if I want.
With proper eye placement and eyecup settings, the image is glare-free.

I know this will not be satisfactory for some. I remember one forum member making a remark like: in a premium product such as the NL, you should not have to make adjustments to your viewing position (to which I remember replying that when you drive a luxury car, you DO adjust the sitting position, don’t you?).

Of course, other things like face anatomy, observing habits, etc. will have an influence on whether or not someone will actually experience glare with the NL or not.

I personally believe a lot depends on whether people will be willing to give it a try. I just hope people will do that before dismissing them without even looking (as seems to have been the case sometimes, judging from some posts, with the 42 NLs).

To sum up:
The 8x32 NL overall combines splendid ergonomics, superb mechanics and a wonderful bright and sharp image with excellent panning experience.
For me, glare can totally and easily be handled. It’s not worse than in some other premium binoculars (and yes, there are some with an even better stray-light suppression).

I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot.

fwiw
Canip
If you aren't sure that the 8x42Nl is better, image-wise, than the 8x32Nl, would you recommend the 8x32 Nl instead, considering its lesser weight and cost?
 
Last edited:

Canip

Well-known member
If you aren't sure that the 8x42Nl is better, image-wise than the 8x32Nl, would you recommend the 8x32 Nl instead, considering its lesser weight and cost?
Yes, unless you intend to use it a lot in twilight. I found the 8x42 (as you would expect) noticeably brighter at dusk.
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Yes, unless you intend to use it a lot in twilight. I found the 8x42 (as you would expect) noticeably brighter at dusk.
In your opinion, for someone considering Swarovski, who could stretch his budget to buy the 8 x32 Nl, but couldn't afford the 8x42 Nl, should he even consider the 8.5 x42 El which is a even a few hundred dollars less? In other words, would he be better off gaining low light performance and slightly more magnification at a lower cost with the El, even though he would be giving up something on ergonomics, FOV, and marginally better optics?
 
Last edited:
In your opinion, for someone considering Swarovski, who could stretch his budget to buy the 8 x32 Nl, but couldn't afford the 8x42 Nl, should he even consider the 8.5 x42 El which is a even a few hundred dollars less? In other words, would he be better off gaining low light performance and slightly more magnification at a lower cost with the El, even though he would be giving up on something on ergonomics, FOV, and marginally better optics?
In my honest opinion i think the NL is worth the bigger expense. The total package of the ergonomics, balance and mechanism is just a step above the EL.
 

Canip

Well-known member
In your opinion, for someone considering Swarovski, who could stretch his budget to buy the 8 x32 Nl, but couldn't afford the 8x42 Nl, should he even consider the 8.5 x42 El which is a even a few hundred dollars less? In other words, would he be better off gaining low light performance and slightly more magnification at a lower cost with the El, even though he would be giving up on something on ergonomics, FOV, and marginally better optics?

My modest opinion: Yes, of course he should consider the EL.
First, a few hundred dollars are a few hundred dollars.
Second, the EL is still a wonderful instrument, and when he tries it, he may personally prefer it's handling, or its optics, or both.
So if he has a chance to do so, he should consider both and then decide which one he likes best.
 

b_reynolds_ak

Well-known member
I’m very interested to see who buys a 10x32 NL and can directly compare to the SF. Most people are lamenting the lack of FOV of the 8x NL compared to the 42 mil or the 8x32 SF. But, when you look at the 10x32 NL, it has a LARGER fov than the 10x32 SF! 396ft vs 390 for the SF.
I wanted a new 10x32 last year and really wanted to love the SF. The fov was great, but blackout issues forced me into the 8x32, which I love as well, but have up for sale now in the classifieds.
Thanks for the great reviews already everyone that’s posted.
 

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
... I can say that the NL 8x32 may be the best 8x32 I have ever seen.


I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot.
These two sentences, coming from someone with such a vast experience with binoculars and whose opinions are usually balanced, very well measured (and far from the exacerbated cries from brand-loyal-fanboys) really left me in awe.
Thank you Canip for taking the time and doing this comparison. The 8x32 ELSV is my favourite 8x32, so the dilemma of upgrading (which I think many 8x32 EL owners will face) is becoming an itch.

Thankfully, there are two things that help soothing the itch:
  • The astronomical price (I think I'll wait 7 - 10 years to buy a 2nd hand NL at an affordable price, the same way I did with the EL)
  • The comments about blackouts (I'm really picky about this, and is especially that easiness on the eye-position what I adore from the 8x32 EL)
  • The fact of having never looked through one. A think I'll try to avoid at all cost :D :D :D
  • (Bonus: well, and then there's the matter of weight and bulk. I already find the ELSV a bit beyond the limit, so the NL...)

On a more serious note. If someone asked you to quantify or assess the possibility of upgrading from an 8x32 EL to an NL what would you say?
Never do it if...
Do it at all cost if...
Consider it/don't if...
 
On a more serious note. If someone asked you to quantify or assess the possibility of upgrading from an 8x32 EL to an NL what would you say?
Never do it if...
Do it at all cost if...
Consider it/don't if...
Consider it. I did the upgrade because the NL is almost like its made for me. If you are very content with your EL, i dont think there is a reason to upgrade.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top