NL 14X52 vs SLC 15X56 a new review from Rockslide posted today. (1 Viewer)

[GLOBETROTTER]

Swarovski's NL Pure 14X52 vs SLC 15x56 Binocular Review - Rokslide

Swarovski NL Pure 14x52 Binocular Review. Matt compares the Swarovski NL Pure 14x52 to their SLC 15x56 to help you decide.

www.rokslide.com

 

[Owlbarred]

Swarovski's NL Pure 14X52 vs SLC 15x56 Binocular Review - Rokslide

Swarovski NL Pure 14x52 Binocular Review. Matt compares the Swarovski NL Pure 14x52 to their SLC 15x56 to help you decide.

www.rokslide.com

Thanks for sharing. A revealing side-by-side comparison which the NL won in all measurements/categories -- sometimes by a wide margin -- except price. The comparative pictures were particularly telling and useful. As good as they are, as expected, the tested SLC clearly ranked below the NL.

 

[NDhunter]

Thanks for posting, a well-done review. Make sure you take note one important thing is that the
reviewer and most users find difficulty in hand holding the big eyes 15x binoculars, but for a quick glance
for a few seconds.
Plan on using a tripod.
This new NL 14x52 sounds like it is super. The 15x56 SLC is well regarded as the tops, but now has
its younger brother taking over it seems. And as mentioned, price vs. performance is important, as some
could not afford the uber model, and would find it unnecessary.
Jerry

 

[Maljunulo]

Before anyone has an attack of the vapors, do we need to mention that the review is directed toward hunters?

 

[Conndomat]

...do we need to mention that the review is directed toward hunters?

Yes, the test for Birder is still pending...

Andreas

 

[Dennis Mau]

This statement made me laugh for obvious reasons," The entire binocular is covered in Swarovski’s excellent micro-textured green rubber armor that provides great grip, whether dry or wet."

No mention at all about glare in the NL versus the SLC, either. That is one area I know for a fact that the SLC is superior. Also, did you catch the line at the bottom of the review. It makes me wonder if Rockslide is helping Swarovski get people to trade their SLC 15x56 in to buy an NL 14x52.

*Swarovski is a Rokslide sponsor.

 

[Owlbarred]

Before anyone has an attack of the vapors, do we need to mention that the review is directed toward hunters?

So what? That's a bogus statement. The optical comparison presented has the same implications for birders (and other users) as it does for hunters. Do the optics (the main comparison of the the review) somehow magically change because a birder, rather than a hunter, is using the binoculars?

 

[tenex]

"Additionally, the NL resisted mirage better. I consistently felt like I could cut through the atmospheric disturbance better with the NL"?
This should not be true of bins of similar format. Then again, he also "feels" that the NL has more magnification, "getting him closer"... where does he get the idea that such remarks belong in an optics review?

And if he can handhold the NL more successfully than the SLC, he just hasn't worked out how best to hold the (borrowed) SLC.

 

[Canip]

In my (brief!) comparison between the NL and the SLC (see separate thread here), when mounted, the SLC showed at least the same level of details on far away targets (billboards with text) as the NL, so I will need to do more testing before I could subscribe to Rokslide‘s conclusion about „resolution“.

 

[dalat]

Yes, the test for Birder is still pending...

Andreas

I don't think this test is needed, not really a birding format.

 

[John A Roberts]

FWIW, the NL 14x52 unit in Matt's test is a very early one - numbered 7th in series production:


(The later unit is from a retailer's site: Swarovski NL Pure 14x52 Fernglas )

The dot sometimes indicates a pool unit loaned by Swarovski to reviewers for testing.
So whether it's optically a typical performer or a particularly 'cherry' one 🤷‍♂️


John

 

[Dennis Mau]

In my (brief!) comparison between the NL and the SLC (see separate thread here), when mounted, the SLC showed at least the same level of details on far away targets (billboards with text) as the NL, so I will need to do more testing before I could subscribe to Rokslide‘s conclusion about „resolution“.

There is no way the NL 14x52 would out resolve the SLC 15x56. That doesn't even make sense. Two high quality binoculars with almost the same magnification and aperture like these two are not going to have significantly different resolution. If anything, the SLC 15x56 would out resolve the NL 14x52 because its magnification is higher. I think this review's intention is to motivate people to trade their SLC's in on an NL.

 

[dalat]

"Additionally, the NL resisted mirage better. I consistently felt like I could cut through the atmospheric disturbance better with the NL"?
This should not be true of bins of similar format.

Isn't that dependent on the objective diameter? The 4 mm difference in diameter could perhaps make a difference here indeed.

 

[adhoc]

In my (brief!) comparison between the NL and the SLC (see separate thread here)....

Canip: How do we get to that? (Seems you forgot to link there?) Thanks.

 

[Maljunulo]

So what? That's a bogus statement. The optical comparison presented has the same implications for birders (and other users) as it does for hunters. Do the optics (the main comparison of the the review) somehow magically change because a birder, rather than a hunter, is using the binoculars?

I agree with you, but I have seen some extreme reactions to anything to do with hunting.

Again: I agree.

 

[Patudo]

Before anyone has an attack of the vapors, do we need to mention that the review is directed toward hunters?

"No animals were harmed in the making of this review".

That review is a useful read though, in that it highlights the differences in how the hunting crowd use, and prioritise in, binoculars - tripod mounting, performance at what for most birders would be very long distance, and in low light. 14x is also a very specialist magnification for birding and few of us would seriously use one - although I suppose one could imagine such a device being used for eg. seawatching.

some quick thoughts on points brought up in the review:

ergonomics/steadiness - the NL, between its size, form factor and headrest, is definitely ahead in this respect, although I think the 15x56 SLC in particular was probably intended to spend most of its life on a tripod. If you can observe from a seated position, brace your elbows on your knees and employ the headrest, perceived shake for the 14x52 should reduce (for me) to something comparable to my 12x50 Nobilem porro. You would still need a tripod to extract ultimate performance from this thing though.

ability to cut through atmospheric disturbance - I can't speak about the NL 14x52 vs SLC 15x56 specifically, but have definitely had a similar perception on targets at distance, but most often where coatings were significantly superior (multi-coated vs single-coated) which ought not to be the case with regard to the NL and SLC. Detail at distance is a demanding test for binoculars, IMO - virtually all the binos I've tried produce a great image up close (say 20-50m) but not all are as good on targets 1km or more away. Brightness and contrast greatly help in mitigating atmospheric effects on targets 1km or more away. The NL coatings are probably slightly better, but I have to wonder whether there was some extra enthusiasm there. I'll reserve judgement till I can try both binoculars side by side though!

 

[Maljunulo]

"No animals were harmed in the making of this review".

That is certainly reassuring.

Thank you for your kindness and consideration.

 

[dalat]

Denco, I wasn't talking about resolution but about "I consistently felt like I could cut through the atmospheric disturbance better with the NL"

 

[tenex]

Isn't that dependent on the objective diameter? The 4 mm difference in diameter could perhaps make a difference here indeed.

With a contracted pupil in daylight? I'm not sure, do you know? (and it does seem quite a small difference)

 

[Canip]

Canip: How do we get to that? (Seems you forgot to link there?) Thanks.

First image of NL x52's!

Eye relief is listed as only 17mm...10x42 NL Pure has 18mm and as the eyecup (for once!) goes as down as possible and it didn't give me enough for total comfort, it seems likely that these x52 models will be even slightly worse for someone like me (who needs about 19-20mm real eye...

www.birdforum.net