dwever
Well-known member
First the NLPure 42mm, then the EL Range TA, now the 32’s, very impressive having replaced the top of their line in eight months in all but the 50’s.
-
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
Yea but.
The SV32 pushed length, weight, and mass limits. Surely THE reason folks buy 32s.
Then along came the SF32, pushing some limits further, to the point some asked why a (this), 32?
Last summer's NL bomb dropped on top of that long awaited SF32 implied the game was on.
Now this.
Are we the recipients of 2 companies trying to out market each other, which in so doing forgot... us?
Haste makes waste?
Time will tell.
I don't believe, although the size and weight has gone up with the 32 NL, that Swarovski has forgotten the end user. Size and weight isn't everything. More important, IMO, are the superb ergonomics and balance of the NL's, which more than make up for the size or weight increase. While I have yet to try the 32NL, my experience with the 42 NL has been rather edifying. Compared to the EL's that I tried, including the 8 x 32 El and the 8.5 x 42 El, my 8x42 Nl bests them in terms of handling and ease of holding steady even without the headrest, not to mention the better optics. They really seem much smaller and lighter than they actually are.
leonardo_simon
Well-known member
not when round your neck struggling up a mountain path..... actual weight important then!
I suppose we can differ on what works for everyone. I use a harness for hikes, which makes any weight difference not noticeable for me. Moving my own body weight up that path is more of an issue, than the weight of the binoculars. Now, if I could reduce my own weight some, that would make a difference.
leonardo_simon
Well-known member
which of course is the 'elephant in the room'. yes I wish I was fitter too......
Well yes. My experience with the 42 as well. But that is the 42. On paper, these 32s raise some questions....
Could it be, these 32s just cement the choice of the NL42?
Those are only part of the reasons I bought the SF 32, because I wanted something lighter than the 42 I was using. A 32 must, of necessity, be smaller and lighter than a 42.
I did not think in terms of "limits" when considering my choice.
Had the SF not been available, I probably would have opted for the EL SV 32 and tried to find the older one without the oddball strap pins.
In addition to this, the optics were a huge factor, and I would not even dream of not buying or using them because of their "weight and mass".
It is truly said that we are all different.
Uhuh.
Of course, but how much, 6 oz, 8 oz, to matter? That enough? Then the optics vs mass tradeoff question, right?
All I cared about was that it was lighter, and it is. (600 gm. instead of 840 gm.)
I did not haggle over how much lighter.
There was no "enough" in the equation.
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks Jan. I'm curious about the dimensions to see if they offer some hints as to why the FOV in the 8x32 isn't larger. Hopefully Arek will provide us with an x-ray. That should reveal the size and spacing of the lenses and prisms and the diameter of the eyepiece field stop compared to the 8x42. The clear aperture of the prism waist might be the limiting factor.
I'm also curious about the 1% increase in light transmission. That might be explained by thinner lenses and smaller prisms.
Henry
eitanaltman
Well-known member
It's amusing to me that we've reached the point where a perfectly corrected 8.5 degree FOV is disappointing 
With respect to the size/weight issue, I think it's a mistake to implicitly lump all 32mm binoculars into one functional category. Not everyone needs their 32 to be small and compact, that's more of a factor if you're using it as a travel / backup option.
I'll bring up the EDG 32 again, which seems the most similar to the NL 32 in size/weight/shape. The EDG is an exceptionally ergonomic binocular, the longer barrels, the contour, and even the extra weight make them feel really nice in the hand. And if I'm carrying them out in the field (not trying to pack them in a suitcase) the extra size doesn't really matter, and frankly the difference between 600g and 650g is not nearly as important as superior optics / ergonomics.
And 650g is still a significant weight savings over a 800g+ 42, when I had both a 32 and 42mm EDG on hand, it surprised me how much lighter and more compact the EDG felt.
If the goal of buying the 32 is "I want something as small as possible", then obviously the largest 32's aren't going to be appealing. But some people use an 8x32 as their primary, full-time birding optic, and the extra size/weight is actually a feature, not a bug. I find the more compact 30/32mm options to be too small to use for hours on end, but a larger 32 is very comfortable to hold and use for me. Plenty of people use the 8x32 SV as their primary bin, and I don't hear many complaints about it being too big and heavy.
The smaller size/weight creates optical compromises too; Leica is pretty much the only company to have a tiny/light binocular that is premium alpha quality optically, but even there with the 32mm Ultravid they sacrificed eye relief and a huge FOV. Having all of that requires longer focal lengths and larger oculars.
I think it's wiser to think of these big/premium 32's like the SF, SV, and NL as 42 replacements, not competitors for the small/light 30/32mm class. Swaro would probably tell you to get the CL Companion or Pocket if you need something small and light for secondary use. The NL isn't a travel bin, it's a frontline full-time use optic.
With respect to the size/weight issue, I think it's a mistake to implicitly lump all 32mm binoculars into one functional category. Not everyone needs their 32 to be small and compact, that's more of a factor if you're using it as a travel / backup option.
I'll bring up the EDG 32 again, which seems the most similar to the NL 32 in size/weight/shape. The EDG is an exceptionally ergonomic binocular, the longer barrels, the contour, and even the extra weight make them feel really nice in the hand. And if I'm carrying them out in the field (not trying to pack them in a suitcase) the extra size doesn't really matter, and frankly the difference between 600g and 650g is not nearly as important as superior optics / ergonomics.
And 650g is still a significant weight savings over a 800g+ 42, when I had both a 32 and 42mm EDG on hand, it surprised me how much lighter and more compact the EDG felt.
If the goal of buying the 32 is "I want something as small as possible", then obviously the largest 32's aren't going to be appealing. But some people use an 8x32 as their primary, full-time birding optic, and the extra size/weight is actually a feature, not a bug. I find the more compact 30/32mm options to be too small to use for hours on end, but a larger 32 is very comfortable to hold and use for me. Plenty of people use the 8x32 SV as their primary bin, and I don't hear many complaints about it being too big and heavy.
The smaller size/weight creates optical compromises too; Leica is pretty much the only company to have a tiny/light binocular that is premium alpha quality optically, but even there with the 32mm Ultravid they sacrificed eye relief and a huge FOV. Having all of that requires longer focal lengths and larger oculars.
I think it's wiser to think of these big/premium 32's like the SF, SV, and NL as 42 replacements, not competitors for the small/light 30/32mm class. Swaro would probably tell you to get the CL Companion or Pocket if you need something small and light for secondary use. The NL isn't a travel bin, it's a frontline full-time use optic.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
To slightly contradict my post above, I can see where you are coming from because my Leica UV 7x42 has basically obsoleted the large 8x32 for me as a primary binocular. It's the same size and barely heavier than a large, premium 32mm, but I get a 6mm exit pupil instead of 4mm! It's like best of both worlds for me, I can deal with a somewhat narrower AFOV and a not-flat field as a tradeoff
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Part of the reason that this is possible, is due to Swarovski completing a building programme at Absam, in the fall of last year
The construction took well over 2 years at a cost €27 million, and comprises both a new production building and a new administrative one
The production building which is intended to meet future demand '. . . hous(es) a cutting-edge anodization plant for aluminum surface finishing,
facilities for optical component production and device assembly, as well as a technical center.'
For more details and some exterior images see: https://www.swarovskioptik.com/int/...e-new-administration-and-production-buildings
John
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
The 8x32 UV is still nice though... and the 10 is better. I don't expect ever to find a 10x32 I prefer to my UV. (The NL did have me wondering, but as it turns out, no.)
Well, at least more accurate. I thought EL 32 was already unnecessarily large myself. Whatever SF and NL 32 are, I don't need it. I'd be very interested to see 42-vs-32 sales figures, especially for NL where the size difference is minimal.
But isnt it more accurate to say these larger 32s are competitors with some 42s? The NL32 is .5" shorter, 6.7 oz lighter, 10mm smaller in each tube diameter, than the NL 42s. That comes at a price in optical performance, that admittedly may be minimal, (time will tell). The eventual choice then becomes do I give up any noticeable optical performance, for a half inch of length and less than a half pound. Given how light the 42NL seems, do to balance and shape/ergos, I wonder. At least the EL 32s were a full half pound lighter, and 1" shorter than the EL 42. I watched the several videos posted earlier. Putting the guy's obvious excitement at experiencing these firsts of a kind, to one side, they were more impressively small in his (their) hands than I could tell by paper specs.
All that said, it's fun to play here, but I am looking forward to getting my hands and eyes on an example, hopefully alongside the 42 at same time.
Jason Bugay Reyes
Well-known member
Have you tried putting it across your body on one shouldered and vice versa when you feel tired on your neck? That's what I normally do when I'm on a longer walk up and down the hills etc
As in MOST instances, numbers probably don't tell the whole story.
So some seem to think the FOV of the NL 8X32 is a little on the lowish side. Maybe it is. Let's consider it's primary competitor the SF 8X32. It's FOV is not much more than its 8X42 big brother. ALSO the FOV of the SF 8X32 is not truly edge to edge flat field. ALSO eyecup position DOES have to be about perfect to avoid some kidney beaning here and there. I was re-introduced to this as recently as this AM. NOW if Swarovski has remedy for the kidney beaning AND offers a 450ft(15ft less than the SF) true edge to edge flat field FOV that certainly sounds like something worthwhile to me.
So some seem to think the FOV of the NL 8X32 is a little on the lowish side. Maybe it is. Let's consider it's primary competitor the SF 8X32. It's FOV is not much more than its 8X42 big brother. ALSO the FOV of the SF 8X32 is not truly edge to edge flat field. ALSO eyecup position DOES have to be about perfect to avoid some kidney beaning here and there. I was re-introduced to this as recently as this AM. NOW if Swarovski has remedy for the kidney beaning AND offers a 450ft(15ft less than the SF) true edge to edge flat field FOV that certainly sounds like something worthwhile to me.
Last edited:
