NL Pure 10x42 or 10x52 (1 Viewer)

[AllanG]

I currently own pair of NL Pure 8x32’s, which I use hand held, mainly for viewing shipping at distances of 0.5 to 1.5 miles.

I would now like to increase the magnification a little and, as I’m very impressed with the performance of my current NL’s, I’m considering to purchase either the NL Pure 10x42 or 10x52’s, which would mainly be used mounted on a tripod, but would also need to be fairly stable when hand held viewing for shorter periods.

Therefore, I would welcome comments/suggestions from users of these two binos, as to which they would go for, and why?

Many thanks,

Allan

 

[claves_10]

Get a 12x power if you will use a tripod. If your only option is NL then 12x42.
If the ONLY use will be " viewing shipping at distances of 0.5 to 1.5 miles" ...go for a 14x52NL

 

[SuperDuty]

The NL 12X42 is a good choice, easy to hand hold, and would be great on a tripod.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I would go with the NL 10x52 over the NL 10x42. The FOV isn't that much different between the two, and the extra 6 oz. weight of the NL 10x52 wouldn't matter on a tripod. The NL 10x52 will also be brighter and have easier eye placement than the NL 10x42, especially in low light. As far as the NL 12x42 or NL 14x52, they will not be as bright, and eye placement will be more finicky but if you were looking for seeing detail at really long distances like spotting mountain goats they could be useful but your FOV is much smaller than the NL 10x42 or NL 10x52 so it would be harder to spot them in the first place. I would prefer the NL 10x52 for spotting the goats or animals and then using a spotting scope to see more detail. Another reason I would go for the NL 10x52 over the NL 10x42 is I have tried them both, and I saw less glare in the NL 10x52 and I feel it was probably due to the bigger EP.

LeonWang
"I just bought an NL 10x42 and I can confirm the flare issue is true. It beats my Canon 10-42 IS in every way, brighter, sharper, much smaller and lighter, a lot easier on the eyes… but there is only one thing that the Canon wins by a mile, i.e., flare resistance. Just by looking at the exit pupils, and it is quite obvious why the NL is so poor in this type of situation. The sun is already invisible, but the bottom half of the view from NL 10x42 is completely polluted by the glare (first photo). On the contrary, the exit pupils of the Canon 10x42 IS-L (second photo) are very clean."

 

[ReinierB]

I would go with the NL 10x42. I tried the NL 10x52 and of course it's nice, but if twilight viewing isn't the main purpose I would go for the NL 10x42.
I have the NL 10x32 and NL 12x42. I think 8x32 + 10x42 is a really nice couple. Imo the NL 42's have the nicest ergonomics.

 

[Bentley03]

I would now like to increase the magnification a little and, as I’m very impressed with the performance of my current NL’s, I’m considering to purchase either the NL Pure 10x42 or 10x52’s, which would mainly be used mounted on a tripod, but would also need to be fairly stable when hand held viewing for shorter periods.

I don't mount bins on tripods, so maybe not the best person to try offer you advice, your use case is not parallel to my own, but...

...my very first thought, when reading your opening post, was that if I were you, looking for a second pair of NL's to complement and use in tandem with your 8x32's, I'd be auditioning the 12x42. Mine is not the first reply on this thread to suggest that, so there is clearly a weight of opinion which might lead you to at least consider that option.

That's my reply to your opening post, which obviously sidesteps your question regarding the two larger objective 10x NL's.

But, I personally prefer the 10x52, unlike ReinierB, for the exceptionally relaxed view the larger exit pupil offers. It also offers additional light gathering capability, for certain applications. I do agree with ReinierB that the x42's handle particularly well, which is why maybe the step up to 12x makes even more sense, you might find you can handhold them more easily than you think.

 

[AllanG]

Many thanks to all for your comments/suggestions so far, however, perhaps I should just clarify that whichever bino I go for, (if any), it would be to replace my NL 8x32s……I also own the Curio 7x21 which I use on my daily walks.

I did consider the 12x42s, but as I really like the larger FOV of the 8x32, I’m not sure if the smaller FOV of the 12s would be too much of a drop for me.

Also, as I don’t tend to view at dawn or twilight, I’m not sure the extra light gained by the 52s is so important for me, however, I do view in overcast conditions, which we experience very often here in the UK! 🤣

 

[ticl2184]

I've got the 10x42 NL.
I tested the 10x52 NL at night side by side to with the 42.
I could barely perceive any difference apart from the slightly wider fov of the 42. The 52 is about 30% brighter but that is also barely perceivable..

I'm goin stick with my 42's.

Cheers

Tim

 

[Harry Stottle]

I would get the 10x52 for those gloomy dark days and evenings.
They are still small and not too heavy and if you wish to use them on a tripod the weight does not matter anyway.

 

[claves_10]

I've got the 10x42 NL.
I tested the 10x52 NL at night side by side to with the 42.
I could barely perceive any difference apart from the slightly wider fov of the 42. The 52 is about 30% brighter but that is also barely perceivable..

I'm goin stick with my 42's.

Cheers

Tim

Just a question for those that have used different objective sizes.
Don't you notice a difference in "image clarity/crispness" when the light gathered is greater??
Let me explain; Maybe is in my subconscious BUT on bright sunny days the image is more nitid, image is crispier. My perception with the same binos is a better performance on a sunny day than in a cloudy one. I get more details which is obvious thus light gathered plays important role on image sharpness delivered. Then a larger objective bino will deliver an image more nitid. ( Being the rest of variables more or less equal)
I guess to that there should a curve where more light gathered would be useless or either harmful but still.
Then back to the topic and the use of a tripod in between, I would choose a 52mm objective size bino. Not only for the cloudy days.

 

[ZacMD]

I recently picked up the 10x52's. We have quite a few pairs of bins around the house but no NL 8x42 or 10x42 at the time of the big 52's arrival. I've used them extensively since I've gotten them and carried them for about 6 hours yesterday starting around 7am. Here's a few of my thoughts....

They are big (at least relatively so for a long time bird watcher). I purchased them over the 42's for the large exit pupil for easy viewing and less eye strain. I also bird quite often in low light... I like to get out on dreary days, and often times go looking for owls in the early morning or sit back over the bay and watch the seabirds & ducks in the last few minutes of light in the day... These are very bright when compared to other alpha level 42's in the house. I've noticed the largest difference on nasty days which I thought was interesting. Looking down into the thickets yesterday watching a thrush I thought, damn, there is so much more feather detail, color, contrast. Just felt like cheating. So mission accomplished, to my eye the brightness is noticeable.

Turns out they are easy on the eyes... 6 hours was my longest continual use so far, and at no point did I have a hard time with alignment or did I get strain or headaches. I never even thought about it actually. I was curious if I would as my most common walk around pair are 7x42 UVHD+ with a 6mm exit, so good news there.

The image is exceptional as you would expect from a pair of Swarovski's, super crisp, great contrast and color... nothing to leave you wanting. It feels like a view that is best in the business. They are however not immune to the swaro glare. My wife is the big swaro fan in the house and adores her 8x32 NL's but it had been awhile since I bought a pair for myself, it doesn't bother me really, but was immediately noticed.

The feel in hand is great with the tight waist, I purchased the monpod/tripod adapter and have used them on the monopod once while watching horned lark only because I sat out in the field for a couple hours. Otherwise I have not felt like it was necessary at all.

Yesterday the family was gone and I had the whole day to myself, at the end of my walk I started to notice the weight just a little on my shoulders (after about 6 hours or a little longer wandering). I got back to the truck, had a lunch, then did just short of a 10 mile trail run. Moral of the story is I did notice the weight but it didn't keep me from completing my planned route. I had told myself it was fine to cut out early after being on my feet all morning and scouted a bailout plan on the map but it wasn't necessary.

Final thoughts on what was supposed to be a short bullet pointed post is, I'm very happy at the moment. The 10x52's make an excellent pairing with the 7x leica's I'm so fond of. I'm happy to have sprung for the extra size and weight of the 52 and would do it again. My two gripes (one of which i talked about on another post) are the lousy rain guards, and very surprisingly from the other swaro products in the house, the focus wheel is not breaking in very well and is feeling a bit sticky, and now almost feels like its got a little play back and forth. Going to wait a little while longer for full break in before reaching out to swarovski.

If you got to the end, thanks for reading my ramblings.
-Zach

 

[Bentley03]

Just a question for those that have used different objective sizes.
Don't you notice a difference in "image clarity/crispness" when the light gathered is greater??
Let me explain; Maybe is in my subconscious BUT on bright sunny days the image is more nitid, image is crispier. My perception with the same binos is a better performance on a sunny day than in a cloudy one. I get more details which is obvious thus light gathered plays important role on image sharpness delivered. Then a larger objective bino will deliver an image more nitid. ( Being the rest of variables more or less equal)
I guess to that there should a curve where more light gathered would be useless or either harmful but still.
Then back to the topic and the use of a tripod in between, I would choose a 52mm objective size bino. Not only for the cloudy days.

I have absolutely no idea if there is any science to back up your observations regarding the perceived improvement in the view through the larger objectives, but within the range of NL's, I share your perception. The 10x52 is my favourite, in terms of the view, there's absolutely no question about it, and I don't feel that's simply down to sample variation or any other variable which might influence perception. I think my 10x52 NL is probably the 'best' binocular I own, I've been totally in awe of it's qualities since I acquired it, and find the perfection of the view very addictive.

And in response to Zach's comments regarding glare, whilst I certainly acknowledge NL's are susceptible to glare, I find the x52's to be more resistant to glare than the x42's or x32's.

 

[Dennis Mau]

"And in response to Zach's comments regarding glare, whilst I certainly acknowledge NL's are susceptible to glare, I find the x52's to be more resistant to glare than the x42's or x32's."

In my opinion, absolutely true.

Like

 

[Maljunulo]

I think it’s because greater light intensity causes your pupils to contract.

When your eyes are “stopped down” their aberrations are reduced, so the image looks “better”.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I think it’s because greater light intensity causes your pupils to contract.

When your eyes are “stopped down” their aberrations are reduced, so the image looks “better”.

Good point. You are right, but I never thought about that way. Your eyes stop down in brighter light, just like stopping down a binocular to reduce aberrations. That explains why it always seems like a 8x42 is better than a 8x32 even in daylight.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Scott98]

Just a question for those that have used different objective sizes.
Don't you notice a difference in "image clarity/crispness" when the light gathered is greater??

Yes!! Everything is better with more aperture. Except of course the size & weight

 

[Patudo]

but within the range of NL's, I share your perception. The 10x52 is my favourite

Interesting - those were also my thoughts after a much briefer acquaintance. It's almost dauntingly impressive, but unfortunately (or fortunately!) just as expensive.

Just a question for those that have used different objective sizes.
Don't you notice a difference in "image clarity/crispness" when the light gathered is greater??

The biggest difference I notice is ease of view - which is a difficult quality to quantify, but anyone with a reasonable amount of experience will know just what it is. 5mm exit pupil just seems easier, more effortless, more fatigue-free. I was able to compare my 10x42 (Nikon SE) against 10x50 over the weekend and had also used the same 10x50 the Sunday before. I think the 10x42 holds its own in brightness (in sunny conditions) and sharpness, and the smaller package is most definitely easier to handle if you are pointing your binoculars up into the sky. But if judged on viewing experience alone, the 10x50 is definitely superior. I think on close targets that advantage is very much reduced and can be almost negligible, but when observing targets a mile away, how the larger exit pupil lets your eye become more relaxed and do its thing better really comes into its own.

 

[NatureLover123]

Good point. You are right, but I never thought about that way. Your eyes stop down in brighter light, just like stopping down a binocular to reduce aberrations. That explains why it always seems like a 8x42 is better than a 8x32 even in daylight.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

But as far as I understand, when it’s bright, and your eyes pupils are for example 2mm, then you would still only use 20mm aperture on a 10x.

It wouldn’t matter much if it’s a 10x52, 10x42, 10x32 or 10x25, as long as we assume the same optical quality, coatings and glass. The 25s would still have 5mm aperture-room for some comfort, in our example.

 

[Hermann]

I currently own pair of NL Pure 8x32’s, which I use hand held, mainly for viewing shipping at distances of 0.5 to 1.5 miles.

I would now like to increase the magnification a little and, as I’m very impressed with the performance of my current NL’s, I’m considering to purchase either the NL Pure 10x42 or 10x52’s, which would mainly be used mounted on a tripod, but would also need to be fairly stable when hand held viewing for shorter periods.

If you want to use a tripod anyway, you might want to get a scope instead of a 10x binocular. With a good scope you can watch the the people on the ships you're watching pick their noses ...

Seriously: Getting a 10x binocular when you already have a decent 8x32 makes no sense IMO. None whatsoever.

Hermann

 

[SuperDuty]

If you want to use a tripod anyway, you might want to get a scope instead of a 10x binocular. With a good scope you can watch the the people on the ships you're watching pick their noses ...

Seriously: Getting a 10x binocular when you already have a decent 8x32 makes no sense IMO. None whatsoever.

Hermann

That’s the reason I thought the jump to 12 made more sense, but it’s just my opinion.