• 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 8X42 pros/cons (1 Viewer)

chill6x6

Well-known member
Hey everyone!

Now that some of you have had your NL 8X42s and have used them for a while I'm interested in what you think about them. I'm happy to hear your overall assessment but also I have a few specific questions if you can answer them.

1. ER with glasses? No issues? Sunglasses is ok!

2. Critical eye box? There has been some mention of needing a perfect eye position to avoid blackouts. Is this so?

3. What do think of it compared to its competition? Say SF 8X42, SLC 8X42, SV 8.5X42, Noctivid 8X42, etc..

4, Any other pros/cons you may have?

Looking forward to your comments and thanks!
 

dries1

Member
Chuck,

Since I do not wear glasses, I cannot suggest what the ER is like for eyeglass use. If you have viewed the SF 8X42 you sort of know what the FOV is like, the grip/shape is very different to the others mentioned. Perhaps when the NL 8X32 is out you could view both of them, since you are a fan of 8X32 as well as 8X42. This one glass where it pays to get a feel with individual use.
 

dwever

Well-known member
1. ER with glasses? No issues? Sunglasses is ok!
Without glasses the NLPure is iMax immersive in a way I’ve never experienced b4; but glasses and sunglasses are perfectly fine too. Alaska was still covered in snow when I bought my NL pure 8X42, and using sunglasses worked wonderfully and I would often forget they were on (There is a popular brand of prescription frames called Silhouette, and I find they are harder to use with any binocular because they get pushed around so easily).

2. Critical eye box? There has been some mention of needing a perfect eye position to avoid blackouts. Is this so?
I am at a complete loss on this one. I just walked to my dresser picked up the NLPures, looked through them out the window and had an immediate perfect view. Twice.

3. What do think of it compared to its competition? Say SF 8X42, SLC 8X42, SV 8.5X42, Noctivid 8X42, etc..
As you know, shortly after their release I bought the NVD 8X42 after borrowing your 10X42 NVD. Thanks again! The NL Pure is superior on most any measure for me with the exception of panning. The NL Pures pan just fine, but the NVD’s are a little more settled making the sweep. The NVD’s image also looks beautiful to a fault in that they seem to oversaturate some of the color spectrum just a little; the NL Pures are more, well, pure in color reproduction and their clarity is ridiculously good. Roger Vines is not guilty of hyperbole in his review.

4, Any other pros/cons you may have?
Again, I wish there was a little more resistance in the focus wheel and the bridge adjust, but there would be a price to pay stiffening up the focus wheel: you would lose the amazing way in which the NL Pures just snap in to focus. So the light focus wheel touch is certainly by design.
At one point I thought my NL Pure’s focus wheel was loosening up. Then it occurred to me I had been working on an optic earlier (Mark 5 HD 3.6-18) just that morning where reticle focus, parallax, and zoom are all stiff by design and I had fooled myself when returning to the NL’s. Turns out the NL Pures are the same as ever. I think.

I’ve had my NL Pure 8X42’s since March 18. Because of the NL Pure, I finally no longer regret selling my NVD 8X42 or UVHD+ 7X42.

Best wishes on an acquisition!
 
Last edited:

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Yeabut... Chuck,

Its good of you to ask others for their opinions, but as THE 832 guy, with plenty of 42 experience, what do YOU think about them?

Some argue, 7 ozs, and a half inch of length, saved from the last couple x32 entrants is important. Inferred by some though, is the shape, ergos, balance and optical performance of the NL42s maybe flips that paradigm.

Your thoughts, please?

GTom
 
Last edited:

chill6x6

Well-known member
Yeabut... Chuck,

Its good of you to ask others for their opinions, but as THE 832 guy, with plenty of 42 experience, what do YOU think about them?

Some argue, 7 ozs, and a half inch of length, saved for the last couple 32 entrants is important. Inferred by some though, is the shape, ergos, balance and optical performance of the NLs maybe flips that paradigm.

Your thoughts, please?

GTom
Hey Tom,

So.....I have yet to venture into the NL world. My experience with these is ZERO. I'm thinking it may be best to just concede the increased weight of the 8X42 and just go with it.
 

Robert Moore

Well-known member
I wear glasses like you and the ease of view with the NL for me is even better than my 10x50 Swarovision. I think you would really love them but best to try them for yourself.
 

quincy88

Well-known member
Hey Chuck,
I have the 10s, so don't can't speak to the view of the 8s. But I can speak to the ergonomic, which they share. They are really comfortable to hold and to use. The narrow-waisted barrels are nice and lends a feeling daintiness and refinery in your hands. The overall shape is really where the improvements are though. The bridge is far enough back from the end of the barrels that you can easily wrap three or four fingers around each barrel with length to spare. Then the focus wheel has the best placement that I've tried (tied with the SFs) so your hands stay relaxed and your finger automatically falls on the wheel. They remind me of the SFs without the front hinge. I was never sure what that hinge was doing there, so for me it is a welcome omission.
I'm looking forward to your photos comparing the NLs to other models if you get a pair.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
So, Im wonderin....

There are those here, who love their 8X32s. Most will know Chuck's preference for his SV832. There's the described notion of a sort of schism among X32 fans. Some goes the thinking, like the truly smaller, lighter, (older), versions, like the Zeiss FLs, or Leica Ultravids. While others accept the almost X42 length, to get a smaller girth, 7-8 oz. weight savings, and better optical features of the newer, SV, SF32s. Along came the NL42 with different shape, intriguing ergos, rearwards balance, widest field of view and frequently described better, sharper, optical quality. Does the NL 42 challenge the reasons for a 32 for some? Now the NL32 joins the group of longish X32s, with advantages yet to be known.

In the video above, around 1:45 in, an interesting case is made. To paraphrase, "if you carry a large camera or spotting scope, the smaller package of a X32 binocular is a plus. If however you just carry binoculars when birding, the weight issue is much less and the optical advantage of the X42 is preferred."

The winter migration is winding down here in the Bay Area. Ive been out on average, 2 days week since October. I see other birders, daily. Where I go, most are hikers, who bird. In the beginning there were a few who came with scopes and cameras in hot pursuit of new species for their list (as Jan alluded to last week). Those have not been the majority. The single most seen bino, (and I try to do this surreptitiously) is the EL 10x42. It shocks me when I see one of these around someone's neck and think how small, they appear. Ive yet to see any of the above listed X32s! There is one fellow, who carries a long lensed camera, a back pack, and has a small, maybe 30mm Nikon around his neck and stuffed in an upper shirt pocket. Nikon is the #2 brand. Theres been a couple Zeiss Conquest 42s. 3 SLC 842s. Kind of amazing.
 

dwever

Well-known member
In Alaska, even w/the weight of remote environment appropriate gear, the optical advantages of the 8x42 are hands down well worth it on a harness or in an upper pocket.
 

Attachments

  • 086F304F-1712-47F0-893D-341B2F363C7F.jpeg
    086F304F-1712-47F0-893D-341B2F363C7F.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 86
  • B15987E5-89E8-4CAB-A767-C4E3715C869F.jpeg
    B15987E5-89E8-4CAB-A767-C4E3715C869F.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 86
  • FFF10F39-BEA4-4BDD-8309-1872DCD83316.jpeg
    FFF10F39-BEA4-4BDD-8309-1872DCD83316.jpeg
    2.3 MB · Views: 84
Last edited:

chill6x6

Well-known member
So.... The reason I asked some pointed questions concerning the NL 8X42 is...I'm going to get either the 32mm or the 42mm 8X in the near future. It looks as if the only advantage to the 32mm is size/weight and not FOV as it usually is. I have the 32mm with the most FOV, the SF 8X32. So I am kind of leaning in the direction of the 42mm. Of course I DO realize FOV isn't everything. The 32mm MAY simply be more of a SV 8X32 with more FOV and a better focus adjustment. That may be all one needs.
 

DrewskiMT

Birder Hunter Observer
So.... The reason I asked some pointed questions concerning the NL 8X42 is...I'm going to get either the 32mm or the 42mm 8X in the near future. It looks as if the only advantage to the 32mm is size/weight and not FOV as it usually is. I have the 32mm with the most FOV, the SF 8X32. So I am kind of leaning in the direction of the 42mm. Of course I DO realize FOV isn't everything. The 32mm MAY simply be more of a SV 8X32 with more FOV and a better focus adjustment. That may be all one needs.
Sorry to barge in here everyone.
Hey Chuck, looooong time listener, first time caller!... I am going back and forth on exactly the same dilemma but a couple price brackets down: 8x32 ConquestHD and 8x42 Monarch HG. Is this less expensive decision, and the logic and rationale behind the choice analogous to your NL 8x32 vs NL 42 decision?
I am leaning 8x42 HG for exit pupil and eye relief for glasses, but should I be swinging the other way? Everyone is welcome to chime in. I can’t afford both.

PM me if you want to keep chill6x6s thread clean and on topic. My apologies for the Derail. And thank you all for your optics wisdom!
 

Grando

Well-known member
For what it's worth, when I looked through the 10x32 Conquest HD and the 10x42 Monarch HG I thought the Monarch was noticeably better. (Mind you, I did then also try the Leica Trinovid 10x32 and preferred that to the Conquest – though I still think I'd probably go for the HG out of those three; the very close focus of the Trinovid would be tempting for insects, though...)
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
Sorry to barge in here everyone.
Hey Chuck, looooong time listener, first time caller!... I am going back and forth on exactly the same dilemma but a couple price brackets down: 8x32 ConquestHD and 8x42 Monarch HG. Is this less expensive decision, and the logic and rationale behind the choice analogous to your NL 8x32 vs NL 42 decision?
I am leaning 8x42 HG for exit pupil and eye relief for glasses, but should I be swinging the other way? Everyone is welcome to chime in. I can’t afford both.

PM me if you want to keep chill6x6s thread clean and on topic. My apologies for the Derail. And thank you all for your optics wisdom!
The good news is that both are very nice binoculars. Both binoculars have been problem free for me for the most part. The Conquest HD does generally have stiff eyecups right out of the box. I had to work mine in and out several times to smooth out. Since that, no issues. ER is fine for me with both binoculars. I will say the MHG 8X42 has been one problem free and user friendly binocular right out of the box. Just open the box and use it. Though close, I'd probably have a slight lean towards the MHG.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top