It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

Post 133

Would someone please post a summary of why the exit pupil on the left is either "better than" the one on the right,or why the obvious differences are irrelevant to the overall performance of the instrument?

I can see the argument that as long as your pupil is not open far enough to accept any of the stray light rays, they are of no consequence.

Is this a. true, or b. the whole story?

Why would I be better off buying the one on the left?

 

[Canip]

……. — your cents (sic) ……

You are absolutely right, I don‘t know where I got the wrong idea that the expression is „just my 2 cent“ - thank you for your „sic“ 😁👍

 

[Maljunulo]

I suppose you could say " ....... my two-cent opinion." but it sounds a bit odd, and "Here is my two cents." definitely
requires the plural form.

(just my opinion)

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Post 133

Would someone please post a summary of why the exit pupil on the left is either "better than" the one on the right,or why the obvious differences are irrelevant to the overall performance of the instrument?

I can see the argument that as long as your pupil is not open far enough to accept any of the stray light rays, they are of no consequence.

Is this a. true, or b. the whole story?

Why would I be better off buying the one on the left?

To me, the bright spots indicate stray light and perhaps a tendency for more glare. I believe the baffles within the optic have a lot to do with this. Now that I have had both days of overcast as well as bright sun, I can confirm that this is indeed the case. The NL exhibits more veiling glare along the bottom of the image than the SF’s do. I can see glare in the SF in some circumstances as well, but it is definitely less than the NL. This is observed as a milky crescent obscuring the lower view in both.
However I do love the image the NL gives me and the glare seems less of an issue than with the 32 mil EL’s.

 

[james holdsworth]

Henry has well documented why and how glare occurs as indicated by the reflections near the exit pupil. Search out one of these threads for a complete explanation.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

james holdsworth, post 145,
I have read Henry's post carefully and I have seen the picture he published. That indicates that glare can occur, but it is not necessarily the case. I have investigated and experimented extensively with regard to the glare matter with the Nl pure 8x32 and the Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 and I do not find any indication of glare whatever I have tried. We see on this forum quite a few pictures as proof of glare, whereas these photogrpaphs are often made with a telephone camera, mostly a fair distance from the eyepiece, that does not give me any information about glare, only that one can see reflections around the exit pupil, which disappear completely when you put the binocular behind your eyes, I have tried that numerous times, since I am puzzzled where all these post regarding glare originate. I will try to investigate that further, but for the moment I have not observed any glare in the NL pure and the Victory SF and I am quite happy with it.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[PeterPS]

james holdsworth, post 145,
I have read Henry's post carefully and I have seen the picture he published. That indicates that glare can occur, but it is not necessarily the case. I have investigated and experimented extensively with regard to the glare matter with the Nl pure 8x32 and the Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 and I do not find any indication of glare whatever I have tried. We see on this forum quite a few pictures as proof of glare, whereas these photogrpaphs are often made with a telephone camera, mostly a fair distance from the eyepiece, that does not give me any information about glare, only that one can see reflections around the exit pupil, which disappear completely when you put the binocular behind your eyes, I have tried that numerous times, since I am puzzzled where all these post regarding glare originate. I will try to investigate that further, but for the moment I have not observed any glare in the NL pure and the Victory SF and I am quite happy with it.
Gijs van Ginkel

You posted the same comment many times, by now we all know that you don't see any glare in your NLs. There is no doubt in my mind that the NLs have serious glare issues, even more serious than the 8x32 EL which was called a "glare monster", and I can help you see the "light": look at a dark landscape (such as a forest) under the sun when the sun is close to the horizon; slowly bring the binos to your eyes, when they're about 10cm from your face start looking at the bottom of the EPs, keep bringing them closer and closer and you will see the milky haze at the bottom of the EPs. When you squeeze them in your eye sockets, that haze/glare might or might not disappear, depending on your facial features---for you the haze seems to fall outside your eye pupils, for many it does not even after a lot of fiddling with the eyecup length and IPD---it's that simple.

 

[FrST]

james holdsworth, post 145,
I have read Henry's post carefully and I have seen the picture he published. That indicates that glare can occur, but it is not necessarily the case. I have investigated and experimented extensively with regard to the glare matter with the Nl pure 8x32 and the Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 and I do not find any indication of glare whatever I have tried. We see on this forum quite a few pictures as proof of glare, whereas these photogrpaphs are often made with a telephone camera, mostly a fair distance from the eyepiece, that does not give me any information about glare, only that one can see reflections around the exit pupil, which disappear completely when you put the binocular behind your eyes, I have tried that numerous times, since I am puzzzled where all these post regarding glare originate. I will try to investigate that further, but for the moment I have not observed any glare in the NL pure and the Victory SF and I am quite happy with it.
Gijs van Ginkel

That image was taken with an Fuji XT-4 and a 16mm f1.4 prime lens at close focus distance (it focuses fairly close resulting in a magnification of 0.21). Still the image is cropped of course, but you can see the stuff around the exit pupil quite well I would say. Those reflections DO NOT disappear when you move something in front of the eyecup. That is simply not true! They might (and apparently mostly do) move out of your sight. Especially, when the eyes are well aligned to the exit pupils. I am getting that, and I am also getting better with that in practice and thus do see less glare... But by looking down, or shifting the binoculars up, I can spot them easily as glare.

It probably does not matter, this discussion loops endless, thus really seems rather pointless - I also get that now.

In the first place, I wanted to know if my sample was maybe defective/decentered, that is apparently not likely given the excessive discussion all-around.

Nevertheless, I learned quite a bit from the good (but rare) comments, which helped me understanding and avoiding glare, thus thanks for that.

I really like the haptics of NL 8x32 and general image quality as well as the extremely smooth panning experience, I am still not shure if I would trade the latter for less glare for example - but glare in the NL is a somewhat bitter pill for me!

 

[SeldomPerched]

You are absolutely right, I don‘t know where I got the wrong idea that the expression is „just my 2 cent“ - thank you for your „sic“ 😁👍

Actually that wasn't what I meant: I was only thinking you might think I was misspelling 'sense and experience'. I wouldn't dare to correct your singulars and plurals!

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

PeterPs, post 147,
I see no reason to deny that some users observe glare, I do not despite all the experiments you describe. If I get some time I will try to make some photographs to see if I can find it and I will report it when it turns up. I have done the experiment you describe and with some binoculars glare is shown, but in my hands it did not with the 8x32 NL. I have reported before that I was struck by just that phenomenon you describe, not with the NL but with the Kowa 6,5x32, so I know very well how that looks like.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Ontario]

Problem solved = no internal reflections🙄

 

[Ontario]

NL Pure 8x32 review

 

[Ontario]

Has anyone tested the NL 8x32 for prism spikes?

Roger Vines Zeiss 8x32 SF review

"Viewing a very bright security light generated four long dim prism spikes, but no ghosts with the light in field and no flare when viewing around it."

 

[gcole]

I have been reading all these opinions/situations of those who do and do not experience the dreaded Glare Monster with these two most expensive 8x32 Binoculars now on the market. The most expensive 8x32 at the moment that I own/use is the Meostar B1.1 8x32 which I paid New $850 last year, at the time close to top retail price wise. Even at this price a third of the Swarovski and Zeiss. I have yet had a issue with Glare being a problem with the Meostar 8x32. What gives ? .... I know many here think the little Meostar is a sub par Alpha and that can be debated all day but if Meopta can make a really good 8x32 that can handle glare really well at a third of the cost of Zeiss/Swarovski’s top of the line 8x32’s, maybe Zeiss and Swarovski should have been paying more attention to their research/development with hands on actual use. What is really the main culprit which is causing glare to be a problem on such expensive binoculars ?. Is it all bad internal design and which source of light is actually causing/starting the glare problem ?, the incoming light from the objective lens or the outside reflections on the eye lens.

 

[Canip]

Has anyone tested the NL 8x32 for prism spikes?

Roger Vines Zeiss 8x32 SF review

"Viewing a very bright security light generated four long dim prism spikes, but no ghosts with the light in field and no flare when viewing around it."

The spikes in the NL are slightly less prominent than in the SF.

Canip

 

[Maljunulo]

Interesting review.

I had never heard of Blaser, so I went to their website, and immediately saw why.

 

[jaymann]

Interesting review.

I had never heard of Blaser, so I went to their website, and immediately saw why.

was your impression of blaser positive or negative? are you talking about rifles or optics? My impression of binoculars was not good. I saw lot of chromatic abrasions. I can get a lot discounts from blaser but they quality if not impressive at the lower price too.

 

[Maljunulo]

was your impression of blaser positive or negative? are you talking about rifles or optics? My impression of binoculars was not good. I saw lot of chromatic abrasions. I can get a lot discounts from blaser but they quality if not impressive at the lower price too.

I just took a very quick look at the binoculars, but only because I had never heard of the company, so I formed no impression.

 

[jaymann]

I just took a very quick look at the binoculars, but only because I had never heard of the company, so I formed no impression.

Their optics look like overpriced Minox

 

[Maljunulo]

I am a snob, so I have no interest in "lesser" brands or models.

I am fortunate enough to have the means to buy them, the eyesight to appreciate them, and the leisure to enjoy them.

(but only one at a time, and years in between)