• 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? (1 Viewer)

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
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.
It’s all here...

Not a myth this time, Jerry. Compared to most binoculars the internal baffling of the 8x32 ELSV is demonstrably poor. See photos of the internal reflections that cause its glare problems in this thread:

Distortion and Glare in the Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision

The "glare issue" will be gone only when the baffling has been improved to eliminate those reflections. That should be easy enough to establish by examining and photographing the interior from the eyepiece end like the photos in the thread above.

Subjective opinions about whether the glare in the 8x32 ELSV is better now won't be helpful. We already know that some people have said they never saw it in the older ones, even though the reflections that cause the glare must unavoidably enter a properly dilated and centered eye when the lighting conditions are right.

Henry
 

dries1

Member
There are many SV 8X32 owners out there using the glass each day. As such the NL will become popular with the masses of future viewers. So the small number complaints of glare here on BF do not matter in the grand scheme of things. I also tend to find defenders of the other brands sometimes the most vocal/critical here on BF
 
Last edited:

DSY

New member
United States
My NL 8x32 experience has been glare free so far, but I have found it is possible to provoke some glare by improperly setting the eye relief or by tipping the binoculars upward at least 10 degrees and thereby I can “look around“ the field stops in the eyepieces to provoke some crescent shaped glare near the bottom of the field of view. Otherwise I don’t see any glare at all.
 

Aquaplas

Well-known member
Austria
How would the Guys compare the 8x32 NL to the 8x42 NL? Picture Quality, and Weight? Is there a big Difference from the Weight when hanging on the Neck?
 

pm42

Well-known member
How would the Guys compare the 8x32 NL to the 8x42 NL? Picture Quality, and Weight? Is there a big Difference from the Weight when hanging on the Neck?
I have both: optically & mechanically, they are the same, as good as it gets.
I will keep the 8x32 because binoculars are not the only tools I have to carry in the field as I also practice photography.

If it was my main tool, I would keep the 8x42 because of bigger exit pupil, etc. But the 8x32 is more than good enough and I doubt I'll ever by in a situation where the 8x42 would show me something I do not see in its smaller sibling.

I do not wear them on the neck but one the shoulders with a Rick Young Outdoor harness and it makes a lot of difference.
 

zzzzzz

Well-known member
From Binoculars Today…

“To glare or not to glare – that seems the question. As already on the x42 NLs, the waves surge high on the subject of glare and stray-light. While some users maintain there is little to no glare in the 8×32, others claim that there is virtually no observing without serious stray-light effects. Even renowned experts such as Holger Merlitz found the NL to be wanting in terms of stray-light suppression.

BINOCULARS TODAY’s verdict: it all depends on how you hold and use the binocular. Depending on factors such as your face anatomy, you may need to pay a bit of attention to the proper positioning of your eyes behind the eyepieces. Testing the binocular over many days, we found that you can trigger lots of glare when observing e.g. against a low-standing sun, but you can also totally eliminate glare by adjusting eyecups and properly positioning your eyes behind the eyecups. Compare the NL to a pure-bred racehorse or a sophisticated racecar: learn how to get the best out of it, and you will be highly rewarded with wonderfully wide, crisp, edge-sharp images with an excellent panning experience, superior contrast and color fidelity.

The best 8×32 BINOCULARS TODAY has ever held in hand (we found the otherwise excellent Zeiss SF 8×32 to be rather unexciting when compared side-by-side with the NL), but perhaps not a binocular for the indiscriminate user who cannot be bothered to adjust eyecups and IPD appropriately.”

 

dries1

Member
If the SF 8X32 is unexciting, what are these people looking through.
Is this recognized(Binoculars Today) as a trusted news source, truthfully I have never heard of it, or is it like Optics Exotica .
 

zzzzzz

Well-known member
If the SF 8X32 is unexciting, what are these people looking through.
Is this recognized(Binoculars Today) as a trusted news source, truthfully I have never heard of it, or is it like Optics Exotica .
Yes Canip aka (Pinac) can be trusted his assessments are usually spot on.

Reviews of all the top 8x32 models can be found here 8×32 – Binoculars Today

See the individual evaluation score card at the bottom of each review for comparison.

Attachments NL and EDG
 

Attachments

  • DE388E93-7A98-48FF-B5C2-D7D136FDFC63.png
    DE388E93-7A98-48FF-B5C2-D7D136FDFC63.png
    105 KB · Views: 42
  • BB85050E-413A-433A-A905-FDE5CD33ABCF.png
    BB85050E-413A-433A-A905-FDE5CD33ABCF.png
    107.5 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:

zzzzzz

Well-known member
If the SF 8X32 is unexciting, what are these people looking through.
Is this recognized(Binoculars Today) as a trusted news source, truthfully I have never heard of it, or is it like Optics Exotica .
Nothing like Optics Exotica binocular reviews
 
Last edited:

dries1

Member
Well, yes if it is by Canip it is well above board - ignorance on my part and reading your post in haste. I guess I thought that the optical performance of SF and the NL in 8X32 are fairly close in performance as is the SF in 8X42 to the NL, just different ergonomics/color presentation.
As for optica exotica's presentations - yes he is quite over the top, good for a chuckle here and there.

With respect to glare, I guess some are more adverse to it than others, or as suggested how quick can a viewer adapt, how patient are they in adaptation to using the NL. I just have experience with the 8X42, and getting along with it just fine.

It would be curious to see some posts when the SVs 8X32 first rolled out, what was said about them back then.
 
Last edited:

Canip

Well-known member
zzzzzz (post # 168),

thanks for that quote „…. we found the otherwise excellent Zeiss SF 8×32 to be rather unexciting when compared side-by-side with the NL ….“

Shocking - but the emphasis in that phrase is on „side-by-side“ !

The SF 8x32 is one of the finest 8x32 on the market in my view (see my brief review Re: Zeiss SF 8x32 im Vergleich mit Leica Trinovid 7x35 ).

Unfortunately (for Zeiss), Swarovski has taken a habit of coming out with innovative designs and stealing Zeiss‘ thunder (remember the 8x42 NL came out just slightly BEFORE Zeiss could bring their long announced SF 8x32).

And: everyone, please always keep in mind that binoculars are AFOCAL instruments, i.e. the focal point is in our eyes!! And our eyes are not the same. So it is inevitable we come to different conclusions about binoculars.

Canip
 
Last edited:

4 The Birds1

Active member
Just a thought.
Hope this is not too personal.
It is baffling that some experienced observers see no glare in the NL , while others do.
At least some of you who don't have a problem with glare (Canip) or see no glare (Gijs) would appear to be more seasoned.
Could it be possible that your pupils do not dilate as widely any more, and are therefore not or less affected by NL's leak?
Achim
 

Canip

Well-known member
Achim,
that’s actually a very interesting thought!
My pupils dilate to 6.2 mm (last measurement in January).
Would that be sufficient to be affected by stray-light?
Canip
 

Hermann

Well-known member
My pupils dilate to 6.2 mm (last measurement in January).
Would that be sufficient to be affected by stray-light?
Yes. Definitely. However, as the veiling glare problem appears on bright days as well, the question is rather how much your pupils contract in bright light.

My own take is that some people are more susceptible to actually "seeing" veiling glare than others. Similar to CA: Some people "see" it, others don't.

Hermann
 

Hermann

Well-known member
I do not understand how light falling on one's retina cannot be "seen".

Can someone explain this to me in simple terms?
I can think of two possible reasons:

1. Differences between the anatomy of different people. Maybe some people get the ideal position to avoid "seeing" glare more easily than others, and without making an effort.

2. Differences in how people's brain processes the image. Maybe that's similar to people who never even "saw" CA - and once it was explained to them they started "seeing" it almost everywhere. Others don't seem to "see" it even if they try hard. Or at least they "see" it only faintly. I fall into that category. CA doesn't bother me in binoculars unless it's very, very obvious. Scopes are a different matter.

Wild theories with no objective proof, of course. However, there must be some reason why people don't "see" glare - and others do. It can't all be wishful thinking on the part of those who just paid a lot of money for the latest "state of the art optics".

That said, I'm convinced light areas around the exit pupil are bad news. At least as far as I'm concerned. It usually means that's a binocular that doesn't work for me. I don't like veiling glare. Not at all.

Hermann
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
That said, I'm convinced light areas around the exit pupil are bad news.
Hermann
I am too, but I don't have a fraction of the experience that many in here have, but I would expect that from $100 glasses, but not from $3000 ones.

Thanks for the reply.
Richard
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Few thoughts... questions really.

This thing called glare, especially when linked to a binocular seems a will of the wisp. Its there for some and not for others. If its not there for someone, then how can they relate to it? Its like being born blind or deaf. If you've never (or don't) experience sight or sound, how do you know what it is?

Isn't glare everywhere? I don't need binoculars to be effected by it. What about sunlight bouncing off the car in front's glass, rearview mirror or chrome bit? Or how bout, when fly fishing, wading thigh deep in water, trying to see the fly, and fish take, with sun bouncing off the water's surface? In those situations I put on polarized sunglasses. Reading these posts and wondering, this winter while out chasing migratory waterfowl, late in the day, with the sun sliding towards the Golden Gate, do west, looking in that direction glare was awful. It was awful to my naked eye. When I put my 1042 ELs up to see, it was improved. Turning 180 degrees, it wasn't there. Is this, what folks who see glare, are talking about?

Supposing after years of use, of binoculars and other items used to see things way off, like spotting scopes or rifle scopes, in all kinds of terrain, weather, light conditions, where what's available is all there is, one just automatically figures out how to work around it. Isn't glare just a natural thing, that's everywhere that most of us, just learn to deal with?

What if folks come here, looking for "wisdom" on binocular performance don't know about glare, as a thing produced within a pair, read about it, then become convinced its a thing, something they need to look for, even though its actually a normal part of the human eye/brain, sun, etc?

Not for the first time, what about cataracts? Glare, especially at night with oncoming headlights or streetlights is a classic symptom. What do cataracts do to the natural glare of sunlight, when looking through binoculars? What if folks reporting they see it, are actually peering through their own deteriorating natural human lens AND don't know it?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top