• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

NL Pure x52 in hand (2 Viewers)

grackle314

Well-known member
United States
In addition to online sales, my local dealer, Optics4Birding, has the option for in-person visit for sampling optics. Yesterday they gave me a call to say some Swarovski NL Pure x52 were delivered and I could come try out. I went in late afternoon on a bright, cloudless Southern California day. I sampled the NL Pure 14x52. Since my eyes do not dilate to more than slightly above 4 mm diameter under any lighting conditions where I might use binoculars, I did not sample the NL Pure 10x52 as I would not be purchasing them for myself. With an exit pupil of 3.7 mm, the 14x52 is of interest to my eyes.

The 14x52 sampled had the forehead rest attached. My most commonly-used binocular is an NL Pure 10x42 with forehead rest. I very much like the forehead rest which gives me three point stability on the head with the binocular pressed against my glasses and forehead.

Wow, the 14x52 gave wonderful seeing and could be handheld for bird identification and viewing. The handheld shake certainly is more than my 10x42 and the weight is larger also, but not too noticeable unless making immediate change between the two. I use the Swarovski harness with the 10x42 and would expect to use the harness for the 14x52 on longer walks also. When watching a hawk on the wing at about 750-1000 m out, the 14x52 gave a more pleasant viewing than the 10x42, primarily because the bird was larger in my vision. At about 300 m out, the 14x52 gave more minute spatial detail than the 10x42. In closer than about 100 m, the 10x42 could get on flying birds while I was not quick enough to find them in the 14x52. Part of that in-close difference is because the 14x52 has a narrower field of view (279 ft/1000 yds) than the 10x42 (399 ft/1000 yds) and part was due to unfamiliarity of the 14x52 in my hands and eyes. When birds were on a tree, under 100 m the 14x52 was fine for identifying.

The 14x52 shake when handheld was tolerable to me. Clearly the view would be improved by putting the 14x52 on a tripod. My personal experience has been that 10x is not too shaky but is improved by the forehead rest, and 12x and above does need the forehead rest. For viewing birds at less than 100 m, the 14x52 would be best for stationary birds and trying to follow flying swallows or swifts at under 100 m would not be my cup of tea. And having some kind of stabilizer would be useful.

In terms of image intensity to the eyes, the 14x52 has the expected luminance increase compared to the 10x42 and this increase was great enough to see. For anyone wishing to see my further thoughts on how light entering the eyes may be calculated for binoculars used with human eyes in daylight, please see my entries in the nearby thread "Comparing 10x32 NL with 8x42 NL, some (not ground breaking) thoughts ...". The reason I did not even try the 10x52 is that it will present no more light to my eyes than my current 10x42. For those with eyes that can dilate more than 4.2 mm diameter and will use the binocular in low light conditions, the 10x52 may prove magnificent.
 
In terms of image intensity to the eyes, the 14x52 has the expected luminance increase compared to the 10x42 and this increase was great enough to see.

Thanks for review! But you mix up light gathering power to brightness. 14x52 is not expected to have higher image intensity. Actually it's the other way around. We are comparing 3,7mm exit pupil to 4,2mm. 10x42 is ~28% brighter than 14x52. The only explanation to your perception is that you compared these binos against some light source and became more dazzled by the 14x52. But the light intensity is lower.
And at daylight the eye pupil is <3mm so there is no difference between them to expect anyway.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if you will get the anniversary pricing discounts that are mentioned in
another thread.
Jerry
 
In addition to online sales, my local dealer, Optics4Birding, has the option for in-person visit for sampling optics. Yesterday they gave me a call to say some Swarovski NL Pure x52 were delivered and I could come try out. I went in late afternoon on a bright, cloudless Southern California day. I sampled the NL Pure 14x52. Since my eyes do not dilate to more than slightly above 4 mm diameter under any lighting conditions where I might use binoculars, I did not sample the NL Pure 10x52 as I would not be purchasing them for myself. With an exit pupil of 3.7 mm, the 14x52 is of interest to my eyes.

The 14x52 sampled had the forehead rest attached. My most commonly-used binocular is an NL Pure 10x42 with forehead rest. I very much like the forehead rest which gives me three point stability on the head with the binocular pressed against my glasses and forehead.

Wow, the 14x52 gave wonderful seeing and could be handheld for bird identification and viewing. The handheld shake certainly is more than my 10x42 and the weight is larger also, but not too noticeable unless making immediate change between the two. I use the Swarovski harness with the 10x42 and would expect to use the harness for the 14x52 on longer walks also. When watching a hawk on the wing at about 750-1000 m out, the 14x52 gave a more pleasant viewing than the 10x42, primarily because the bird was larger in my vision. At about 300 m out, the 14x52 gave more minute spatial detail than the 10x42. In closer than about 100 m, the 10x42 could get on flying birds while I was not quick enough to find them in the 14x52. Part of that in-close difference is because the 14x52 has a narrower field of view (279 ft/1000 yds) than the 10x42 (399 ft/1000 yds) and part was due to unfamiliarity of the 14x52 in my hands and eyes. When birds were on a tree, under 100 m the 14x52 was fine for identifying.

The 14x52 shake when handheld was tolerable to me. Clearly the view would be improved by putting the 14x52 on a tripod. My personal experience has been that 10x is not too shaky but is improved by the forehead rest, and 12x and above does need the forehead rest. For viewing birds at less than 100 m, the 14x52 would be best for stationary birds and trying to follow flying swallows or swifts at under 100 m would not be my cup of tea. And having some kind of stabilizer would be useful.

In terms of image intensity to the eyes, the 14x52 has the expected luminance increase compared to the 10x42 and this increase was great enough to see. For anyone wishing to see my further thoughts on how light entering the eyes may be calculated for binoculars used with human eyes in daylight, please see my entries in the nearby thread "Comparing 10x32 NL with 8x42 NL, some (not ground breaking) thoughts ...". The reason I did not even try the 10x52 is that it will present no more light to my eyes than my current 10x42. For those with eyes that can dilate more than 4.2 mm diameter and will use the binocular in low light conditions, the 10x52 may prove magnificent.
I’m thinking about stepping up to a 52 but don’t know how much real world benefits it would be coming from a 10x42 NL
 
I’m thinking about stepping up to a 52 but don’t know how much real world benefits it would be coming from a 10x42 NL
There’s only one way to find out for sure.

After all the spec-sheet wars, and the hand-waving arguments are over, the only way to know is to look through an example of each one.
 
There’s only one way to find out for sure.

After all the spec-sheet wars, and the hand-waving arguments are over, the only way to know is to look through an example of each one.
I absolutely love the 10x42 but most of my viewing is dusk and dawn. So, for my purposes the 52 seems like a viable option. I currently have the 42 up for sale.
 
I absolutely love the 10x42 but most of my viewing is dusk and dawn. So, for my purposes the 52 seems like a viable option. I currently have the 42 up for sale.
What do you see most of the time?

You don’t say where you are, so we have no clue, unless I missed it.
 
I ordered both 14x52 and 10x52 late June and prepaid for both in advance and still waiting with no word now much longer they will take to arrive. Actually ordered five/four NL Pures and received the 8x32 and 10x32 couple weeks ago. Previously bought the 10x42 and returned it when the 52s were announced and used that credit towards the 4 others. I saw no point in owning the 10x42 if I have the 32 and 52 version in 10x. I was able to buy all 4 Skyrover Banner Cloud APOs for less than the cost of the one NL Pure.

I already had the 8x42 and 12x42 NL Pures.
 
My take from today. I’ve been looking at higher powered bins for a while now. 8x42 serves for much of the time but is inadequate when birding open farmland etc on long hikes as I take a camera rather than scope.
Last year I tested the NL 12x42 and was very impressed as was my colleague who bought a pair. My intention was to follow suit and then the 14x52 was released which led to a big dilemma.
Anyway I tested both new 52s against the 12x today and decided to get the 12x42.
I was incredibly impressed with the 14x52. The narrower field which I was worried about didn’t seem to be as much of a problem as anticipated and it was easy to pick up birds in the sky, the image brightness and resolution was superb even in the dull light. Had I been younger with steadier hands and no arthritis I think they would have been a no brainer, but after a few minutes they were starting to feel a bit uncomfortable and hard to hold still. The 10x52 was tested as well, very impressive field of view and easier to hold steady but again became uncomfortable to hold for any length of time.
 
Try not to mention hunting here.

People hyperventilate.

That's their problem and is an absurd statement to make in a forum open to all. I don't hunt and have no desire to do so, but am appalled by the notion that anyone should be 'muzzled' on a 'birding forrum' if they hunt. In introductory Wildlife Biology class, I learned about the Pittman-Robertson... Act (1937), an 11% tax on hunting equipment (guns, ammo, archery) that has provided enormous benefits to all wildlife by providing funding to states for wildlife habitat restoration and acquisition projects, as well as monies for an incredible array of wildlife research projects, including non-game species.... and so much more. Google it!









 
Last edited:
Stick around, you'll see it. People have been made to feel very unwelcome.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not one who hyperventilates.

I don't have to Google it, I am well aware of it, but this is not the place to debate or discuss it.
 
Last edited:
My take from today. I’ve been looking at higher powered bins for a while now. 8x42 serves for much of the time but is inadequate when birding open farmland etc on long hikes as I take a camera rather than scope.
Last year I tested the NL 12x42 and was very impressed as was my colleague who bought a pair. My intention was to follow suit and then the 14x52 was released which led to a big dilemma.
Anyway I tested both new 52s against the 12x today and decided to get the 12x42.
I was incredibly impressed with the 14x52. The narrower field which I was worried about didn’t seem to be as much of a problem as anticipated and it was easy to pick up birds in the sky, the image brightness and resolution was superb even in the dull light. Had I been younger with steadier hands and no arthritis I think they would have been a no brainer, but after a few minutes they were starting to feel a bit uncomfortable and hard to hold still. The 10x52 was tested as well, very impressive field of view and easier to hold steady but again became uncomfortable to hold for any length of time.

Enjoy your 12x42!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top