NL 10x32 vs SF 10x32 (1 Viewer)

[jcnguyen09]

Don't mean to pitch one against another ! However, I would like to add a 10x32 into my arsenal but could not decide on which one to choose. The spec looks pretty much similar. Would appreciate your opinion.
John N.

 

[wsrose]

On paper, the SF 32 seems marginally better and the price comes in just a tad cheaper than I've seen the NL 32s. Optically, they're both so fantastic, it's hard to judge them against each other. I lean towards Zeiss primarily out of brand loyalty, but I REALLY like the ergonomics of the NL line. You'd definitely be extremely pleased with either model.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

On paper, the SF 32 seems marginally better and the price comes in just a tad cheaper than I've seen the NL 32s. Optically, they're both so fantastic, it's hard to judge them against each other. I lean towards Zeiss primarily out of brand loyalty, but I REALLY like the ergonomics of the NL line. You'd definitely be extremely pleased with either model.

What makes you feel that the10x32 SF is better on paper?

 

[jaymann]

What makes you feel that the10x32 SF is better on paper?

you can search around and buy SF 10x32 for 1800 ish. with the quality control issues going on at Swaro, i dont think you should pay extra 500 for NLs

 

[GrampaTom]

Quality control issues????

 

[wsrose]

What makes you feel that the10x32 SF is better on paper?

Slightly better eye relief (19mm vs 18mm), better close focus (6.4 ft vs 6.6 ft), about two oz lighter, a few extra mm on the max IPD. To be blunt, this is nitpicky stuff, but if you're looking to weigh one vs the other this is the kind of thing you're looking for.

I think the SF wins at 32, and the NL wins at 42.

 

[jaymann]

Quality control issues????

loose rubber armor, focus, flaring, dust in lenses and irregular coatings.

 

[jaymann]

Also zeiss offers discounts via Expertvoice that is a huge plus.

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Well I’ll have both shortly to compare side by side. It’s so hard to evaluate on paper, by specs, to know how they’ll work for you personally. I know the differences between the 8 and 10 x32 SF’s are large enough that I love the 8 and cannot get on with the 10. I think even if the other bino in a comparison is better in multiple ways on paper, but fails to deliver in one area that really matters to you, such as flare or blackouts, the other bino wins out.

 

[jan van daalen]

loose rubber armor, focus, flaring, dust in lenses and irregular coatings.

.....and if I order them now, I can't get them before week 32.......

Jan

 

[Maljunulo]

Slightly better eye relief (19mm vs 18mm), better close focus (6.4 ft vs 6.6 ft), about two oz lighter, a few extra mm on the max IPD. To be blunt, this is nitpicky stuff, but if you're looking to weigh one vs the other this is the kind of thing you're looking for.

I think the SF wins at 32, and the NL wins at 42.

Is this a comparison of binoculars or a comparison of specifications?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

jayman, post 7,
Did you experience these quality issues yourself on NL's you had or is it a collection of remarks on this forum?
I ask it, since I have now investigated two different types of NL in detail and none of the issues you describe turned up.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

I believe that issues with a new model glass can come up, in the NLs as in the SFs, things can happen in production, though not common place in the premium sphere, and are always resolved. So any issues with the NLs are overblown IMO. Like any glass if they don't work with ones ergonomics, eye-sockets, vision whatever, try something else, but just because a glass does not work for someone, no need to bash it.

 

[jaymann]

jayman, post 7,
Did you experience these quality issues yourself on NL's you had or is it a collection of remarks on this forum?
I ask it, since I have now investigated two different types of NL in detail and none of the issues you describe turned up.
Gijs van Ginkel

rubber armour and flare for NLs, fungus and flare for Els, coatings and internal debris issue with SLC

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

jayman, post 14,
You must be struck by a lot of misfortune, I have not found these problems in any of the Swarovski binoculars produced since 1970 we have investigated, except for mistreated ones.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[wsrose]

Is this a comparison of binoculars or a comparison of specifications?

It is a comparison of specifications, because the binocular quality is so close as to be nearly imperceptible to me. Both produce excellent images, both would work very well for nearly any birder, but I was able to get a clear crisp image from the Zeiss a little closer than I was able to with the Swarovski, and I prefer the color in the Zeiss. I prefer the clickstops and the ergonomics in the Swarovskis. I honestly and truly believe it's a matter of preference and your individual eyes.

 

[jcnguyen09]

Thank you all for your insights. I ended up with a NL 10x32. The only major reason is that with NL I can use the FRH that help to stabilize the image and get a good eye position since I wear glasses. It's true that for any new line of new products, Zeiss or Swarovski, the Quality control is not as solid as the past. However, I have no worry about these, since both were very good in resolving any defect or mis-shape if we happend to get one. However, I agree that it should not happen that way, it should be better not worse. The optics of both were very compatible. The older zeiss glasses were a par behind the swarovski but not anymore, no more dull color rendition on the Zeiss. I can tell the difference among the glasses on early SF x42 and Swarovski but not anymore. Zeiss did very well to bring up the coating that is in par with current Swarovski glasses in both their SF x32 and latest SF x42. However, the best color rendition is still with Leica in my experience.

 

[Maljunulo]

The older zeiss glasses were a par behind the swarovski but not anymore, no more dull color rendition on the Zeiss. I can tell the difference among the glasses on early SF x42 and Swarovski but not anymore. Zeiss did very well to bring up the coating that is in par with current Swarovski glasses in both their SF x32 and latest SF x42. However, the best color rendition is still with Leica in my experience.

I don't know anything about "older" Zeiss, but I can say that my 8X32 SF is absolutely brilliant compared to my 10X42 EL SV purchased in 2014.

Colors, shading, contrast and white rendition are all noticeably better.

I used to be amazed by the EL, but the little SF definitely surpasses it.

Just my observations, and I realize that I am a sample of one (1).

 

[jcnguyen09]

I don't know anything about "older" Zeiss, but I can say that my 8X32 SF is absolutely brilliant compared to my 10X42 EL SV purchased in 2014.

Colors, shading, contrast and white rendition are all noticeably better.

I used to be amazed by the EL, but the little SF definitely surpasses it.

Just my observations, and I realize that I am a sample of one (1).

Absolutely the 8x32 SF is briliant! If I was looking for 8x32 power, I could go with the SF. 10x in this 32 format is a different story. As I said, the FRH that helps to reduce the vibration and to place the eye position to reduce the black beans that pulled me on the direction of the NL.

 

[Maljunulo]

............. place the eye position to reduce the black beans that pulled me on the direction of the NL.

Evidently a combination of fiddling with IPD and eyecups has made my black beans go away, as long as I don't move the eyecups very far around my eye sockets. They were very annoying at first.

If I hold them where I first jam them in there, everything is fine and I can even look around most of the field of view.

As I said .......... we have adapted to one another.