• 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.

NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (2 Viewers)

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Roughly $525 US more than the 8X32 SF.

I paid $2249.
Typically, most Swaro dealers reduce the list price by about 10 percent. So you might be looking at $2499 for the 8 x 32 NL.. So the difference between the NL and SF is roughly $250.
 

tenex

reality-based
Well, this is exciting, and yet NL 32... is even bigger than EL 32, barely smaller than NL 42 and with less FOV? It's all about the weight then. I've been a 32mm (Leica!) guy for a long time, but with NL I'd take the 42 in a heartbeat (though I'm managing to resist so far).

(I wonder why Jan also says "less bright" despite 92 vs 91% transmission... must be that Dutch weather)
 

John A Roberts

Well-known member
Australia
I cropped and enlarged the image from Diego, per Eitan in post #56, to make the comparison of the three Swarovski models clearer

I also lightened the image slightly to make the details clearer, but that's made the colour look like that of the EL O-Range!
So also see a Swarovski image that better shows the burnt orange


John
 

Attachments

  • EL SV x32 vs NL x32 vs NL x42.jpg
    EL SV x32 vs NL x32 vs NL x42.jpg
    361.8 KB · Views: 112
  • Burnt Orange.jpg
    Burnt Orange.jpg
    278.9 KB · Views: 108

Maljunulo

Well-known member
(I wonder why Jan also says "less bright" despite 92 vs 91% transmission... must be that Dutch weather)
With due respect all around, I doubt there is a human being alive who can see the difference between 91% and 92% assuming similar spectral distribution.
 

tenex

reality-based
Yes, I'm not sure how much a <7oz difference really matters, and without much reduction in size. Back to daydreaming about NL 42, and trying to imagine which...

With due respect all around, I doubt there is a human being alive who can see the difference between 91% and 92% assuming similar spectral distribution.
There may still be someone here who doesn't know this, but it's not me. Jan said NL32 seemed "less bright", and I wondered why because not only is the claimed transmission not significantly less, it's 1% more. (I did not suggest that difference should be visible either, merely not "less bright".)
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Yes, I'm not sure how much a <7oz difference really matters, and without much reduction in size. Back to daydreaming about NL 42, and trying to imagine which...


There may still be someone here who doesn't know this, but it's not me. Jan said NL32 seemed "less bright", and I wondered why because not only is the claimed transmission not significantly less, it's 1% more. (I did not suggest that difference should be visible either, merely not "less bright".)
Jan said that it was a dull day. Would a smaller EP with the 32 Nl make it seem less bright under those conditions than with the 42Nl?
 

tenex

reality-based
That is why I mentioned the weather... but really, I was hoping for the person who actually has the NL32 and made the comment to answer the question. Otherwise a thread like this decays very quickly.

[Edit: I thought my question was obvious, but I'll try again: how likely it is that even on a cloudy day one's pupil would dilate enough to make a 32 seem noticeably "less bright" than a 42 with similar claimed transmission?]
 
Last edited:

Ries

Well-known member
Netherlands
Jan said that it was a dull day. Would a smaller EP with the 32 Nl make it seem less bright under those conditions than with the 42Nl?
A 32 just gathers less light than 42 so there's less to transmit...it will usually be less bright than higher diameters
 

CharleyBird

Well-known member
England
Well, this is exciting, and yet NL 32... is even bigger than EL 32, barely smaller than NL 42 and with less FOV? It's all about the weight then. I've been a 32mm (Leica!) guy for a long time, but with NL I'd take the 42 in a heartbeat (though I'm managing to resist so far).

(I wonder why Jan also says "less bright" despite 92 vs 91% transmission... must be that Dutch weather)
I'm sure the view will be as wonderful as the x42. Disappointing that it's larger than the 7x42 UV though. Fingers crossed a new Noctovid will be more pocket size

Leica UV 7x42​
Leica UV 8x32​
Swaro NL 8x32​
Swaro NL 8x42​
141​
116​
144​
length​
158​
120​
116​
130​
width​
131​
68​
56​
65​
height​
71​
770​
535​
640​
weight​
840​
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
Well, this is exciting, and yet NL 32... is even bigger than EL 32, barely smaller than NL 42 and with less FOV? It's all about the weight then. I've been a 32mm (Leica!) guy for a long time, but with NL I'd take the 42 in a heartbeat (though I'm managing to resist so far).

(I wonder why Jan also says "less bright" despite 92 vs 91% transmission... must be that Dutch weather)
Comparing the 42 with the 32, the image in the NLPure 32 is just like as it is in the NL42. Black is deep black, full of contrast and differences in shape popping up, but the 32 has just that little less brightness which the 42 gives. Something logic when ones compares the 42 with a 32.
Not to critisize the 32, just an observation.

Jan
 

leonardo_simon

Well-known member
shame about the weight creep -- for me 8x32 is attractive as something light to take hiking etc and the EL 8x32 already was on the higher end of weights compared with competitors at that format
 

Thomas_M

Active member
I'll have them in my hands this afternoon.
Any questions/remarks?

Jan
The Zeiss Victory SF 42 and also the NL pure 8x42 suffer somewhat from a sort of globe effect, the angular magnification drops from the center to the outermost part of the image (a change from pincushion to straight lines or even barrel distorsion). I would be interested how the NL 32 mm behave in this respect

Thomas
 

pm42

Well-known member
shame about the weight creep -- for me 8x32 is attractive as something light to take hiking etc and the EL 8x32 already was on the higher end of weights compared with competitors at that format
Indeed. I have the SF 8x32 and I hardly use it because it is so big. I prefer carry more weight and enjoy a 8x42 that is not really bigger.
 
Last edited:

jan van daalen

Well-known member
The Zeiss Victory SF 42 and also the NL pure 8x42 suffer somewhat from a sort of globe effect, the angular magnification drops from the center to the outermost part of the image (a change from pincushion to straight lines or even barrel distorsion). I would be interested how the NL 32 mm behave in this respect

Thomas
Hi Thomas,

If it would have been obvious, I would/should have noticed it.
Working from memory now, I can't recall it.

Jan
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top