-
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 Pures Optically superior? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter israel
- Start date
I assume you mean the NL vs EL?
Firstly you've got to define optically superior. I'm sure Gijs has produced transmission data, but other quantative measures are difficult and 'superior' is a very subjective concept.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Opinions about ergonomics also are subjective: some people like the wasp waist of the NLs but others do not.
(btw., FP=the latest version of the EL, before 32mm and 42mm ELs have been discontinued). When all factors are considered (including the price: you can buy a slightly used pair of ELs for a much lower price than NL's) I prefer the ELs.
(btw., FP=the latest version of the EL, before 32mm and 42mm ELs have been discontinued). When all factors are considered (including the price: you can buy a slightly used pair of ELs for a much lower price than NL's) I prefer the ELs.
I realise that ergonomics are subjective which is why i said apart from ergonomics. interesting that you preferred the ELs. Thanks for your comments
The only advantage the NL 8x42 has over the EL 8.5x42 that I noticed was the bigger FOV and the NL had way more glare for me than the EL. If you compare the NL 10x42 with the EL 10x42 on Allbino's there is only a 2 point difference overall between them. I also prefer the EL 8.5x42 or even the SLC 8x42 overall because both show less glare than the NL 8x42, and you can get either one much cheaper. The NL 8x32 and 10x32 show much less glare than the NL 8x42 probably because they knew the NL 8x42 had glare problems, and they reduced the FOV as the Binomania article explains below. Here is the excellent article from Binomania on glare in the NL 8x42.
www.allbinos.com
www.allbinos.com
www.allbinos.com
Last year I was one of the first to test the binoculars in question in Europe. I remind readers that the Swarovski NL PURE is the current Top of the Range of the well-known Austrian house.
Those who have not yet done so could see my video review created in October 2020, after a few weeks of field tests.
Two years ago I had appreciated the brightness, the brilliance, the neutrality of the colors and the wide field of view , however as I usually do I had also mentioned some negative side that went beyond mere subjective opinions.
I had noticed, in fact, the presence of a little diffused light in the lower part of the field of view. Among enthusiasts this problem is defined as the "glare effect".
At my inter-pupillary distance of 65 mm, the glare was most noticeable with the hoods fully pulled out and especially in the presence of low sun. This glow diminished by lowering the lens hoods by a few clicks or by avoiding using them completely as eyeglass wearers usually do.
Although the Swarovski EL was not without it (in this situation it has always lost the challenges on the field against the Leica Noctivid, the Nikon EDG and the Zeiss Victory SF and HT), it seemed to me that the new model suffered more from this problem.
At the time I did some tests and I noticed how the glare could be suppressed by creating a small hood of a few centimeters. The issue was discussed not only on the forum but also in the WhatsApp group of binomania and subsequently also various users of the well-known international forum Birdforum also discussed it.
I remember having also had a small discussion with a well-known trader in the sector who accused me of not knowing how to correctly position the eyes in axis with the optical axis of the eyepieces and my doubts were also quickly cleared by Dales Forbes of Swarovski, Austria who I contacted for informing him about my impressions on the field, as I usually do with all companies in the sector.
After all, the purpose of my journalistic activity is not only to celebrate my passion for binoculars, but also to mention the negative impressions that can arise during use in the field.
Since September 2020, a lot of water has passed under the bridge: Swarovski Optik Italia has no longer replied to my emails and for this reason I thought I could not analyze another specimen for a counter-test, even if the various emails received from enthusiasts had confirmed me. what was perceived with the model seen at the time.
A few days ago, fortunately, I again had the opportunity to do a short comparison on the field. I was testing the new KOWA TSN-99 spotting scope and was approached by an enthusiast who wanted me to try his NL PURE 8 × 42 specimen. The occasion was tempting to verify with hindsight the glare effect found months earlier. With a simple use of two slightly wide neoprene tapes (which I use to fix the tripod) I have prepared two handcrafted lens hoods and I can finally confirm how the problem of the "glare" is easily solved.
For the sake of precision, I contacted Marco Franceschetti - moderator of the Binomania Forum and a great lover of binoculars - who tried to put a handcrafted lens hood created with scotch tape before the lenses of his NL PURE 8 × 42. Also in this case the disappearance of the problem was highlighted.
The same test, in fact, was also made at the time by Aaron Elia Tolloi a great enthusiastic visitor of Binomania who had started experimenting with handcrafted lens hoods, after buying a specimen.
Subsequently, "Pinac", a well-known Swiss enthusiast and creator of the site www.binocular.ch, showed a small hood thanks to a 3D printer, nothing capable of increasing the charm of these binoculars in terms of aesthetics, but which certainly seemed functional.
I believe that this glare effect may depend on the enormous field of view provided and on some "distraction" in the design phase, which - in my personal opinion - subsequently led to a limitation of the field of view in the NL PURE 8 × 32 model. Many enthusiasts expected, in fact, amazing performances as regards the 32 mm wide angle which, in practice in the 8x version is lower than that provided, for example, by the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32.
I think the presence of the glare effect in these binoculars is also the cause of a real field of view of the NL PURE 8 × 32 version much lower than what enthusiasts could have foreseen, compared to that framed by the 8 × 42. On the other hand, even with this model, some enthusiasts noticed a bit of a "glare effect" but as you may have understood I didn't have the pleasure of testing it.
In fact, the NL PURE 8 × 32 frames 150 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32 frames 155 m at 1000 m. The situation is slightly reversed in the 10 × 32 versions, as the Swarovski frames 132 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss frames 130 m.
For further impressions, I invite you to read this post as well: Nuovi Swarovski NL PURE 32 - RECENSIONI DI BINOCOLI, OTTICHE SPORTIVE ,ASTRONOMICHE ...dal 2006
With this umpteenth test of mine, what do I hope to achieve?
In reality. nothing particular, given that in Austria no one has ever responded to my criticism, I only hope for enthusiasts that a future version of this product can include the presence of a removable hood or a new shape of the optical hull that can somehow succeed - to simulate the performance of a small hood. In fact, I believe that the Swarovski NL PURE could become a reference point in the sector if the company solved this problem which for many enthusiasts or sellers could seem irrelevant but which I believe obscures the original purpose of the designers.
It remains to be seen whether in Austria they will want to admit the presence of this problem or if they will simply continue to ignore it. "
Swarovski NL Pure 10x42 W B - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars specification - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Swarovski SLC New 10x42 WB - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
The glare effect in the Swarovski NL PURE? Here's how to fix it
"PIERGIOVANNI SALIMBENI FEBRUARY 7, 2022Last year I was one of the first to test the binoculars in question in Europe. I remind readers that the Swarovski NL PURE is the current Top of the Range of the well-known Austrian house.
Those who have not yet done so could see my video review created in October 2020, after a few weeks of field tests.
Two years ago I had appreciated the brightness, the brilliance, the neutrality of the colors and the wide field of view , however as I usually do I had also mentioned some negative side that went beyond mere subjective opinions.
I had noticed, in fact, the presence of a little diffused light in the lower part of the field of view. Among enthusiasts this problem is defined as the "glare effect".
At my inter-pupillary distance of 65 mm, the glare was most noticeable with the hoods fully pulled out and especially in the presence of low sun. This glow diminished by lowering the lens hoods by a few clicks or by avoiding using them completely as eyeglass wearers usually do.
Although the Swarovski EL was not without it (in this situation it has always lost the challenges on the field against the Leica Noctivid, the Nikon EDG and the Zeiss Victory SF and HT), it seemed to me that the new model suffered more from this problem.
At the time I did some tests and I noticed how the glare could be suppressed by creating a small hood of a few centimeters. The issue was discussed not only on the forum but also in the WhatsApp group of binomania and subsequently also various users of the well-known international forum Birdforum also discussed it.
I remember having also had a small discussion with a well-known trader in the sector who accused me of not knowing how to correctly position the eyes in axis with the optical axis of the eyepieces and my doubts were also quickly cleared by Dales Forbes of Swarovski, Austria who I contacted for informing him about my impressions on the field, as I usually do with all companies in the sector.
After all, the purpose of my journalistic activity is not only to celebrate my passion for binoculars, but also to mention the negative impressions that can arise during use in the field.
Since September 2020, a lot of water has passed under the bridge: Swarovski Optik Italia has no longer replied to my emails and for this reason I thought I could not analyze another specimen for a counter-test, even if the various emails received from enthusiasts had confirmed me. what was perceived with the model seen at the time.
A few days ago, fortunately, I again had the opportunity to do a short comparison on the field. I was testing the new KOWA TSN-99 spotting scope and was approached by an enthusiast who wanted me to try his NL PURE 8 × 42 specimen. The occasion was tempting to verify with hindsight the glare effect found months earlier. With a simple use of two slightly wide neoprene tapes (which I use to fix the tripod) I have prepared two handcrafted lens hoods and I can finally confirm how the problem of the "glare" is easily solved.
For the sake of precision, I contacted Marco Franceschetti - moderator of the Binomania Forum and a great lover of binoculars - who tried to put a handcrafted lens hood created with scotch tape before the lenses of his NL PURE 8 × 42. Also in this case the disappearance of the problem was highlighted.
The same test, in fact, was also made at the time by Aaron Elia Tolloi a great enthusiastic visitor of Binomania who had started experimenting with handcrafted lens hoods, after buying a specimen.
Subsequently, "Pinac", a well-known Swiss enthusiast and creator of the site www.binocular.ch, showed a small hood thanks to a 3D printer, nothing capable of increasing the charm of these binoculars in terms of aesthetics, but which certainly seemed functional.
I believe that this glare effect may depend on the enormous field of view provided and on some "distraction" in the design phase, which - in my personal opinion - subsequently led to a limitation of the field of view in the NL PURE 8 × 32 model. Many enthusiasts expected, in fact, amazing performances as regards the 32 mm wide angle which, in practice in the 8x version is lower than that provided, for example, by the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32.
I think the presence of the glare effect in these binoculars is also the cause of a real field of view of the NL PURE 8 × 32 version much lower than what enthusiasts could have foreseen, compared to that framed by the 8 × 42. On the other hand, even with this model, some enthusiasts noticed a bit of a "glare effect" but as you may have understood I didn't have the pleasure of testing it.
In fact, the NL PURE 8 × 32 frames 150 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32 frames 155 m at 1000 m. The situation is slightly reversed in the 10 × 32 versions, as the Swarovski frames 132 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss frames 130 m.
For further impressions, I invite you to read this post as well: Nuovi Swarovski NL PURE 32 - RECENSIONI DI BINOCOLI, OTTICHE SPORTIVE ,ASTRONOMICHE ...dal 2006
With this umpteenth test of mine, what do I hope to achieve?
In reality. nothing particular, given that in Austria no one has ever responded to my criticism, I only hope for enthusiasts that a future version of this product can include the presence of a removable hood or a new shape of the optical hull that can somehow succeed - to simulate the performance of a small hood. In fact, I believe that the Swarovski NL PURE could become a reference point in the sector if the company solved this problem which for many enthusiasts or sellers could seem irrelevant but which I believe obscures the original purpose of the designers.
It remains to be seen whether in Austria they will want to admit the presence of this problem or if they will simply continue to ignore it. "
Attachments
Last edited:
Gijs ?
dries1
Member
If considering two premium glass with some similar characteristics it would be best for you to make that determination yourself because when you ask those questions here, you will get subjective opinions favoring either the NL or the EL. If you have time, read some of the historical posts on the NL and the ELs.
Dr Gijs van Ginkel - https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Both have excellent image quality, light transmission is higher in the NL (see Gijs test-pdf on link below), but the the price is also clearly superior...
If you can overlook the potential glare in some situations, the NL is nicer overall. Also handling and eye relief (with glasses) might feel better in the NL:s (but that's subjective).
Personally I'm sticking with the EL-SV for now. I would have liked to see lower weight and improved glare resistance in the NL:s, not the opposite, to motivate an upgrade.
ticl2184
Well-known member
Excellent review Pier...The only advantage the NL 8x42 has over the EL 8.5x42 that I noticed was the bigger FOV and the NL had way more glare for me than the EL. If you compare the NL 10x42 with the EL 10x42 on Allbino's there is only a 2 point difference overall between them. I also prefer the EL 8.5x42 or even the SLC 8x42 overall because both show less glare than the NL 8x42, and you can get either one much cheaper. The NL 8x32 and 10x32 show much less glare than the NL 8x42 probably because they knew the NL 8x42 had glare problems, and they reduced the FOV as the Binomania article explains below. Here is the excellent article from Binomania on glare in the NL 8x42.
Swarovski NL Pure 10x42 W B - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars specification - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.Swarovski SLC New 10x42 WB - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
The glare effect in the Swarovski NL PURE? Here's how to fix it
"PIERGIOVANNI SALIMBENI FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Last year I was one of the first to test the binoculars in question in Europe. I remind readers that the Swarovski NL PURE is the current Top of the Range of the well-known Austrian house.
Those who have not yet done so could see my video review created in October 2020, after a few weeks of field tests.
Two years ago I had appreciated the brightness, the brilliance, the neutrality of the colors and the wide field of view , however as I usually do I had also mentioned some negative side that went beyond mere subjective opinions.
I had noticed, in fact, the presence of a little diffused light in the lower part of the field of view. Among enthusiasts this problem is defined as the "glare effect".
At my inter-pupillary distance of 65 mm, the glare was most noticeable with the hoods fully pulled out and especially in the presence of low sun. This glow diminished by lowering the lens hoods by a few clicks or by avoiding using them completely as eyeglass wearers usually do.
Although the Swarovski EL was not without it (in this situation it has always lost the challenges on the field against the Leica Noctivid, the Nikon EDG and the Zeiss Victory SF and HT), it seemed to me that the new model suffered more from this problem.
At the time I did some tests and I noticed how the glare could be suppressed by creating a small hood of a few centimeters. The issue was discussed not only on the forum but also in the WhatsApp group of binomania and subsequently also various users of the well-known international forum Birdforum also discussed it.
I remember having also had a small discussion with a well-known trader in the sector who accused me of not knowing how to correctly position the eyes in axis with the optical axis of the eyepieces and my doubts were also quickly cleared by Dales Forbes of Swarovski, Austria who I contacted for informing him about my impressions on the field, as I usually do with all companies in the sector.
After all, the purpose of my journalistic activity is not only to celebrate my passion for binoculars, but also to mention the negative impressions that can arise during use in the field.
Since September 2020, a lot of water has passed under the bridge: Swarovski Optik Italia has no longer replied to my emails and for this reason I thought I could not analyze another specimen for a counter-test, even if the various emails received from enthusiasts had confirmed me. what was perceived with the model seen at the time.
A few days ago, fortunately, I again had the opportunity to do a short comparison on the field. I was testing the new KOWA TSN-99 spotting scope and was approached by an enthusiast who wanted me to try his NL PURE 8 × 42 specimen. The occasion was tempting to verify with hindsight the glare effect found months earlier. With a simple use of two slightly wide neoprene tapes (which I use to fix the tripod) I have prepared two handcrafted lens hoods and I can finally confirm how the problem of the "glare" is easily solved.
For the sake of precision, I contacted Marco Franceschetti - moderator of the Binomania Forum and a great lover of binoculars - who tried to put a handcrafted lens hood created with scotch tape before the lenses of his NL PURE 8 × 42. Also in this case the disappearance of the problem was highlighted.
The same test, in fact, was also made at the time by Aaron Elia Tolloi a great enthusiastic visitor of Binomania who had started experimenting with handcrafted lens hoods, after buying a specimen.
Subsequently, "Pinac", a well-known Swiss enthusiast and creator of the site www.binocular.ch, showed a small hood thanks to a 3D printer, nothing capable of increasing the charm of these binoculars in terms of aesthetics, but which certainly seemed functional.
I believe that this glare effect may depend on the enormous field of view provided and on some "distraction" in the design phase, which - in my personal opinion - subsequently led to a limitation of the field of view in the NL PURE 8 × 32 model. Many enthusiasts expected, in fact, amazing performances as regards the 32 mm wide angle which, in practice in the 8x version is lower than that provided, for example, by the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32.
I think the presence of the glare effect in these binoculars is also the cause of a real field of view of the NL PURE 8 × 32 version much lower than what enthusiasts could have foreseen, compared to that framed by the 8 × 42. On the other hand, even with this model, some enthusiasts noticed a bit of a "glare effect" but as you may have understood I didn't have the pleasure of testing it.
In fact, the NL PURE 8 × 32 frames 150 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss Victory SF 8 × 32 frames 155 m at 1000 m. The situation is slightly reversed in the 10 × 32 versions, as the Swarovski frames 132 m at 1000 m, while the Zeiss frames 130 m.
For further impressions, I invite you to read this post as well: Nuovi Swarovski NL PURE 32 - RECENSIONI DI BINOCOLI, OTTICHE SPORTIVE ,ASTRONOMICHE ...dal 2006
With this umpteenth test of mine, what do I hope to achieve?
In reality. nothing particular, given that in Austria no one has ever responded to my criticism, I only hope for enthusiasts that a future version of this product can include the presence of a removable hood or a new shape of the optical hull that can somehow succeed - to simulate the performance of a small hood. In fact, I believe that the Swarovski NL PURE could become a reference point in the sector if the company solved this problem which for many enthusiasts or sellers could seem irrelevant but which I believe obscures the original purpose of the designers.
It remains to be seen whether in Austria they will want to admit the presence of this problem or if they will simply continue to ignore it. "
I had similar findings but the Glare problems seems to have been resolved in 8x32 and 8x42 model in 2022.
Problem remains in 12x42, 10x42 and 10x32..
Cheers
Tim
Elpha8888
Well-known member
I have both in front of me with the EL just back from Austria fully serviced.
I have compared and spent a lot of time looking through them both, I am no expert, I just enjoy the whole experience and getting the NL has left me with no where to go, which is a good feeling as the hobby was becoming expensive.
Imo the NL is superior in all ways apart from the close focus and price.
Let's forget about the FOV and the ergonomics for a minute, looking through the NL my eyes totally relax, with the EL not so and the eye cups on the NL are also better.
I am able to move around the NLs image more freely and relaxed, on top of that I find the sharpness equal between both but... the NL while also brighter has an ethereal quality to it that I find hard to quantify, (reminds me of a Leica sharpness) it is an inviting image with a crystalline "pure" view, it has given me the experience of not looking through the binoculars but having the feeling of being there with my eyes, I never get that with the EL. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else has had this experience?
The EL is brutally sharp and flat but by comparison the image is dead.
The NL draws me to look through it, never get that with the EL.
The FOV didn't overly wow me with the NL, in fact I don't notice a huge difference between the two but I was expecting too much.
The ergonomics are a dream, they melt away in the hands. Just my thoughts, if you can, look through both side by side but for sure the NL is optically a step above the EL, it is a "SUPER ALPHA".
I have compared and spent a lot of time looking through them both, I am no expert, I just enjoy the whole experience and getting the NL has left me with no where to go, which is a good feeling as the hobby was becoming expensive.
Imo the NL is superior in all ways apart from the close focus and price.
Let's forget about the FOV and the ergonomics for a minute, looking through the NL my eyes totally relax, with the EL not so and the eye cups on the NL are also better.
I am able to move around the NLs image more freely and relaxed, on top of that I find the sharpness equal between both but... the NL while also brighter has an ethereal quality to it that I find hard to quantify, (reminds me of a Leica sharpness) it is an inviting image with a crystalline "pure" view, it has given me the experience of not looking through the binoculars but having the feeling of being there with my eyes, I never get that with the EL. It would be interesting to hear if anyone else has had this experience?
The EL is brutally sharp and flat but by comparison the image is dead.
The NL draws me to look through it, never get that with the EL.
The FOV didn't overly wow me with the NL, in fact I don't notice a huge difference between the two but I was expecting too much.
The ergonomics are a dream, they melt away in the hands. Just my thoughts, if you can, look through both side by side but for sure the NL is optically a step above the EL, it is a "SUPER ALPHA".
Would you describe which EL/NL youre looking through please? Directly comparing say 8.5x42 and 8x42 or 10 vs 8, or 32 vs 42 might explain some of your observations. Thanks
ticl2184
Well-known member
What NL's have you got...?
I've tested about about a dozen of each pairs apart from the 12x42's. Something has definatly changed since spring this year. The glare has been reduced plus the image softness improved. The eye relief is better with less blackouts and the field flatness is almost perfect...
I agree, there's a snap when you look through the NL. It's noticeably brighter and sharper than the EL's.
Cheers
Tim
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Sorry, I have the NL 8x42 and the EL 8.5x42 pre field pro. I have briefly compared my EL with a new field pro and found that possibly the newer field pro was marginally brighter although I wasn't in an ideal testing condition. I did choose the pre field pro for that closer focus.
What I also found a little surprising was that the ELs magnification increase made very little difference to my viewing experience between NL and EL.
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Hi Tim, that's very interesting, I would be quite surprised if changes were made. My NLs are 8x42 and they were made this year although I do not know the month. I would like to try the 12x42 as a lot of my viewing is on the night sky.
I have tried both the EL and NL on the stars and my findings are the same, the NL brings the sky more alive so to speak.
Hermann
Well-known member
Well, going by past precedents it actually wouldn't be surprising at all. At least Canon, Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss updated various models in the past without making any fuss about it, for instance the coatings. I'm sure they still do it.
Hermann
henry link
Well-known member
That could be because the the magnifications are not exactly on spec. Gijs measured the 8x42 NL he tested at 8.20x, I measured mine at 8.23x. Gijs' measurement of the 8.5x42 EL was 8.47x, so there's probably just not as much real difference in the magnifications as in the specs.
I'm certainly interested in Tim's subjective observation of an improvement in the glare performance of the 8x42 NL. I'll take my old pair and a loupe along the next time I visit a Swarovski dealer and see if I can find any change in the internal reflections.
Elpha8888
Well-known member
The surprise would be if they had been updated only a few years after release? I'd be pretty annoyed after spending £2.4k only for an update 2 years later. This is all just speculation of course,
Regards
