-
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.
It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter karmantra
- Start date
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:
While it's all here, they are speaking about the 32EL. Should we extrapolate from the EL, that with certainty, this is also true with the 32 NL? I would not think so.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I was responding to gcole’s question, that’s all, no inference.
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.
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.
Ontario
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.”
“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.”
Ontario
Well-known member
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
Last edited:
Ontario
Well-known member
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.
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:
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
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
Well-known 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
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
Hermann
Well-known member
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 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
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
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?
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:
