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

[eitanaltman]

But isnt it more accurate to say these larger 32s are competitors with some 42s?

Yes, absolutely, that's exactly what I was trying to say by calling them a "replacement" for a 42 for some people. I think they are competing more with 42's than they are with the really small/light 30/32's. I don't think the many people who use 8x32 EL SV as their main binocular feel like they're making a major compromise optically vs their old 42mm.

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.

The "on paper" specs can understate how much smaller a binocular feels. There's always the "creep" of just a few ounces more, just another inch longer.... but then why a 42? The 10x50 is "only" a bit larger and heavier than the 10x42 SV right?

I can tell you that with the EDG, where the on paper difference is even smaller -- the 32mm EDG is "only" 140 grams / 5 ounces lighter than the 42, and also about 0.5" shorter -- in the hand the 32 feels substantially smaller and slimmer to me. The 42mm EDG at ~790g is a bit too heavy for my tastes, honestly. For others it's probably nice and light. I also prefer the hand feel and ergonomics of the 32mm EL SV to the 42mm versions.

And shaving off~7 ounces is quite a bit when you're talking about a ~29-30oz starting point. To each their own, but I notice a major difference carrying around a 23oz binocular vs a 30oz binocular. That's a >20% weight savings. And by the same token "only" 10mm smaller in diameter means a >20% decrease in circumference. Again, it feels more substantial than it sounds (to me at least).

But by the same token, there's also a major difference between a 23oz binocular and a 17oz binocular like the CL 8x30. I would bet the optical gap between the 8x30 CL and the 8x32 NL is at least as large as the gap between the 8x32 NL and the 8x42 NL. So we all get to choose where we land on the size / weight / exit pupil / performance scale.

 

[Troubador]

Really weird that the FOV of the 32 NL is actually less compared to the 42mm big brothers...

Unprecedented.

Cheers
Tim

One possibility is that just as Swaro increased the close focus of SLC a few years back so that if you wanted a Swaro with a decent close-focus you had to buy their top model, the EL, maybe Swaro are doing something similar with NL. If you want the best fov you have to buy the 42.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

As in MOST instances, numbers probably don't tell the whole story.

Let's consider it's primary competitor the SF 8X32. It's FOV is no more than its 8X42 big brother.

Chuck, SF 8x32 has 155m fov and SF 8x42 has 148m fov so the SF32's fov is 10% bigger by area. So at any distance the slice of the world that you see every time you look through the 32 is 10% bigger than through the 42.
FOV isn't everything of course.

Lee

 

[Canip]

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 no 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.

I hear you, Chuck. But still:
I have more than half a dozen 8x30s / 8x32s in my collection with a FOV of 150m or more, so the NL 8x32 cannot be seen as "outstanding" in that respect (although I bet that its edge sharpness is in fact outstanding), as the 8x42 is outstanding among its competitors with its 159m.
But I admit that, as you say, numbers often don't tell the whole story.
So temptation remains ... especially for the orange version, which would much help my EL-O-Range not feel so lonely among all the green and black binos in my cupboard ...

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Let us see how terrible it is that the NL pure 8x32 has "only" 150m/1000m FOV.
If my calculator works well (the battery is old, so...):
(a) NL pure 8x32:
FOV =150/1000m= 15m/100m=1,5m/10m all completely sharp over the whole FOV (Jan van Daalen)
(b) The SF 8x32:
FOV= 155m/1000m=15,5m/100m=1,55m/10 m (edges not completely sharp and they show a colored ring around the edge of the field, (observations by Jan van Daalen and Gijs van Ginkel)
Most of my birding observations take place between 10 and 100m, so I am not missing a lot by using the NL pure 8X32 in stead of my SF 8x32.
The question now is: is this difference a disaster for birders.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Let us see how terrible it is that the NL pure 8x32 has "only" 150m/1000m FOV.
If my calculator works well (the battery is old, so...):
(a) NL pure 8x32:
FOV =150/1000m= 15m/100m=1,5m/10m all completely sharp over the whole FOV (Jan van Daalen)
(b) The SF 8x32:
FOV= 155m/1000m=15,5m/100m=1,55m/10 m (edges not completely sharp and they show a colored ring around the edge of the field, (observations by Jan van Daalen and Gijs van Ginkel)
Most of my birding observations take place between 10 and 100m, so I am not missing a lot by using the NL pure 8X32 in stead of my SF 8x32.
The question now is: is this difference a disaster for birders.
Gijs van Ginkel

I wouldn't call it a disaster Gijs, but nevertheless, at any distance, the SF8x32 will deliver a fov approximately 7% bigger in area than the NL with edges quite sharp enough for your peripheral vision to notice and identify most objects. If you are scanning big areas of sky, or sea or lakes or hillsides this extra area can be useful.
This will be important to some observers and of no consequence to others.

Lee

 

[alan kennedy]

I wouldn't call it a disaster Gijs, but nevertheless, at any distance, the SF8x32 will deliver a fov approximately 7% bigger in area than the NL with edges quite sharp enough for your peripheral vision to notice and identify most objects. If you are scanning big areas of sky, or sea or lakes or hillsides this extra area can be useful.
This will be important to some observers and of no consequence to others.

Lee

I was set on trying and probably buying SF32, but now I have an unexpected choice. Can't be bad.

 

[Troubador]

I was set on trying and probably buying SF32, but now I have an unexpected choice. Can't be bad.

Absolutely. Make sure you try them both. Planning to take my SF8x32 to North Uist in July.

Lee

 

[pbjosh]

I have no doubt it will be optically excellent. Past 145-150m FOV for an 8x it’s a bit of a wash, for me. Sure more is nice but I don’t feel much difference in use.

I’m guessing the more noticeable differences between the NL 32 and SF 32 will be ergonomic - a bit of weight difference, the FP system (positive, negative, or non issue depending), the integral objective covers (ditto), and I hope that they managed to make a rain guard / ocular cover that fits - my NL 42mm racing guard is so tight it’s a pain to put on and take off and pulls up an eye cup or both at least half the times I remove it.

The view between the two will be a matter of preference. I find the 42mm NL and 32mm and 42mm SF all fantastic and have a hard time choosing a winner among them. However I have never cursed the attachment lugs nor the lens covers of my SFs. The NLs are a bit of a let down there, at least this far. Maybe the ocular cover will stretch or I’ll learn to use it without extending the eye cups.

I’ll agree with the many who opine that the orange color is very nice. Not sure I would buy an orange bin for birding but it sure catches the eye.

 

[chill6x6]

Chuck, SF 8x32 has 155m fov and SF 8x42 has 148m fov.

Lee

OOPS! LOL! Thanks Lee!

 

[leonardo_simon]

I have the bino guard pro for my ELs

it’s far more convenient than the ocular covers

 

[dries1]

pbjosh,

The rain-guard for the NL will get easier in use over time. Mine was like what you described, however it is now broken in.
I am sure the NL 8X32 will break the sales records, and I am sure they will be an ample supply.

Andy W.

 

[jan van daalen]

FWIW, the counter so far is 5x 8 and 2x 10.
No orange, only green.

Jan

 

[Kammerdiner]

I've used the 8.5 SV for eleven years and the 8x32 SV for nine years. The 8.5 is better, but it's eight ounces heavier and yes it makes a difference.

As a backpacker, well we weigh things gram by gram. I don't think either the 42mm or the 32mm is worth packing. Maybe the 30mm CL, very nice. Smaller than that sort of pisses me off. I have maybe five 20-26mm binos and they all piss me off. Lol.

 

[GrampaTom]

Let us see how terrible it is that the NL pure 8x32 has "only" 150m/1000m FOV.
If my calculator works well (the battery is old, so...):
(a) NL pure 8x32:
FOV =150/1000m= 15m/100m=1,5m/10m all completely sharp over the whole FOV (Jan van Daalen)
(b) The SF 8x32:
FOV= 155m/1000m=15,5m/100m=1,55m/10 m (edges not completely sharp and they show a colored ring around the edge of the field, (observations by Jan van Daalen and Gijs van Ginkel)
Most of my birding observations take place between 10 and 100m, so I am not missing a lot by using the NL pure 8X32 in stead of my SF 8x32.
The question now is: is this difference a disaster for birders.
Gijs van Ginkel

AHHHMen (and women)!

 

[Hermann]

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.

The question is whether you NEED a flat field.

I don't.

Hermann

 

[Maljunulo]

The question is whether you NEED a flat field.

I don't.

Hermann

I tend to be a bit simple-minded about such things and if i need to see something at the edge of the field, I move the glass to put it in the center.

So far I have not been bothered by any softness of the edges of my 8X32 SF but I haven't tried them on stars.

 

[GrampaTom]

In a few, I'm gonna head out to my favorite birding spot to check out the state of the migration, in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge. I remain hopeful my 77 year old, 75," 3040 oz, frame, can handle my 6.3," 42 mm, 29.6 oz binos with their limited 14' smaller 100 yard FOV, then the NL842s, (I sorta lusted for till these 32s). I'm pretty sure the 3 bridges will still be there, so I can rest my elbows to deal with the hand shake at 10X. I hope the +/- 4 mile walk will get those 10,000 steps my health app recommends. And i really hope I run into that cute 60ish, 5'3" lady with the 6.9", 35 oz, 12 x 50 Els dangling around her neck again, Ive written about elsewhere.....

 

[jan van daalen]

In a few, I'm gonna head out to my favorite birding spot to check out the state of the migration, in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge. I remain hopeful my 77 year old, 75," 3040 oz, frame, can handle my 6.3," 42 mm, 29.6 oz binos with their limited 14' smaller 100 yard FOV, then the NL842s, (I sorta lusted for till these 32s). I'm pretty sure the 3 bridges will still be there, so I can rest my elbows to deal with the hand shake at 10X. I hope the +/- 4 mile walk will get those 10,000 steps my health app recommends. And i really hope I run into that cute 60ish, 5'3" lady with the 6.9", 35 oz, 12 x 50 Els dangling around her neck again, Ive written about elsewhere.....

Swaro love in motion

 

[dries1]

In a few, I'm gonna head out to my favorite birding spot to check out the state of the migration, in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge. I remain hopeful my 77 year old, 75," 3040 oz, frame, can handle my 6.3," 42 mm, 29.6 oz binos with their limited 14' smaller 100 yard FOV, then the NL842s, (I sorta lusted for till these 32s). I'm pretty sure the 3 bridges will still be there, so I can rest my elbows to deal with the hand shake at 10X. I hope the +/- 4 mile walk will get those 10,000 steps my health app recommends. And i really hope I run into that cute 60ish, 5'3" lady with the 6.9", 35 oz, 12 x 50 Els dangling around her neck again, Ive written about elsewhere.....

You did not provide the OP frame wt.