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.
-
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.
NL Pure 8x32 and NL Pure 10x32! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter master5
- Start date
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)
(I wonder why Jan also says "less bright" despite 92 vs 91% transmission... must be that Dutch weather)
John A Roberts
Well-known member
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
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
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.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Kudos to Swarovski for getting the 32 mm’s out so quickly… Zeiss, are you listening?
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...
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?]
[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:
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
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
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
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
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
Hi Thomas,
If it would have been obvious, I would/should have noticed it.
Working from memory now, I can't recall it.
Jan
Ontario
Well-known member
Last edited:
