• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

NL Pures Optically superior? (1 Viewer)

The Zeiss Zeiss Victory T*P* 40mm was their flagship model when it came onto the market. It was the successor of the Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. There were four major criticisms of this model: The new strap attachments, the armour, problems with glare and CA. Within two years Zeiss changed the strap attachments back to a more traditional strap attachment and changed the baffles. People who complained about the strap attachment could have their binoculars modified. Zeiss then changed the baffles as well.

That model was short-lived BTW, it was replaced by the FL with much better CA correction and different armour.

See above. BTW, the original grey SF, the successor of the FL, also had (at least) two major changes shortly after its introduction: The focuser was modified, and shortly after Zeiss changed the armour to the current black one.

I did not say you were unhappy with your NL. You indicated that you were unhappy with a manufacturer supposedly making changes to a model within a short period of time after releasing it. I explained this sort thing happens quite regularly. And it does.

"Impending explosion"? You got that wrong, yet again ... 😀

Good for you ... 👍

Hermann
"The Zeiss Zeiss Victory T*P* 40mm was their flagship model when it came onto the market. It was the successor of the Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. There were four major criticisms of this model: The new strap attachments, the armour, problems with glare and CA. Within two years Zeiss changed the strap attachments back to a more traditional strap attachment and changed the baffles. People who complained about the strap attachment could have their binoculars modified. Zeiss then changed the baffles as well."

Hallelujah!
So after all of that we have a 1950s Zeiss with two changes, strap position and baffles within two years, which I'll take your word for btw and criticisms are not changes.
It doesn't imo compare to the updates mentioned that may have happened to the NL. These were seriously major updates that were kept under the radar? hence my "surprise"!

"Not really. I rather think you're miffed because you paid a lot of money for a binocular only to find Swarovski may have made some changes quite soon after releasing it. Whether they actually did remains to be seen."

Not at all miffed, I've said over and over I'm utterly impressed with my specimen. I have only praised the NL on this thread. My NL is also recent so the changes would be irrelevant to mine. I have it's birthdate from Swarovski.
I'm not sure where you are finding my negativity for the NL from?

"I did not say you were unhappy with your NL. You indicated that you were unhappy with a manufacturer supposedly making changes to a model within a short period of time after releasing it. I explained this sort thing happens quite regularly. And it does."

No, I did not indicate I was unhappy with the manufacturer, I said I was surprised.
I also agreed that manufacturers make changes and that I would be surprised if the updates Tim mentioned with the NL were implemented by Swarovski, hence me asking for some examples after you said manufacturers do this all the time.
This led us on a goose chase to the 1950s Zeiss that had a strap change and a baffle update. If you think that is comparable then so be it, I still do not and I will remain "surprised" if Swarovski updated these NLs as mentioned.
Best wishes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hallelujah!
So after all of that we have a 1950s Zeiss with two changes, strap position and baffles within two years, which I'll take your word for btw and criticisms are not changes.
A 1950s Zeiss? Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
This led us on a goose chase to the 1950s Zeiss that had a strap change and a baffle update.
1950s? Nonsense. Try to at least get your facts right.

I consider this conversation closed.

Hermann
 
"The Zeiss Zeiss Victory T*P* 40mm was their flagship model when it came onto the market. It was the successor of the Dialyt 10x40 BGAT*P. There were four major criticisms of this model: The new strap attachments, the armour, problems with glare and CA. Within two years Zeiss changed the strap attachments back to a more traditional strap attachment and changed the baffles. People who complained about the strap attachment could have their binoculars modified. Zeiss then changed the baffles as well."

Hallelujah!
So after all of that we have a 1950s Zeiss with two changes, strap position and baffles within two years, which I'll take your word for btw and criticisms are not changes.
It doesn't imo compare to the updates mentioned that may have happened to the NL. These were seriously major updates that were kept under the radar? hence my "surprise"!
The reference to a Dialyt replacing a Dialyt was a typo: it should have read as above, with a Zeiss Victory T*P* 40mm replacing the Dialyt. I undertook to make this correction for Hermann but didn't spot that you had already quoted the original, which I have now amended.

Lee
MODERATOR
 
I have binos from Swarovski, Vortex, Pentax, and Nikon and the difference between the $2700 Swarvos and the $250 Vortex with the same magnification and same size objectives is far less than the purchase price would indicate.
You are talking total sense and citing logic - bins are 160 years old ........ IMHO I do not believe that there have been big stepped changes in decades .......... we are looking at a very very minor evolution of an old design ...... = FoV improvements, added field flattener lenses to appeal to the current trend of edge sharpness, coatings to give hue, contrast or tiny transmission improvements .........

No doubt that current top end bins are very nice (should be after 160+ years and costing £2500+), but ...........

Marketing departments, internet forums and disposable income to burn, have a lot to answer for ;) ........ if I believed everything I read on BF, there is a 20% improvement every time a S, L or Z new bin is released.
 
After 20 years or more with a Trinovid 8x32 BA, I tried more recent bins such as the SF, NL Pure and SFL.
I do not know if the changes are big but I found them more than significant and a good reason to upgrade.
= ~3 pairs of bins in a lifetime ........ I don't believe you are being too extravagant :)
 
Apart from how good the light transmission or resolution of the NL's may be, I still find the view unsettling, though, I have only used the 10x42's.

The EL Swarovision was non-usable for my eyes due to Rolling Ball. I find the NL's similarly unusable for my eyes. I assume it still has field flatteners? Perhaps the wide angle view is accentuating the unsettling effect? Dunno.

Swarovski seems determined to set them selves apart from other binoculars - and often, in my view, with gimmicks - be it color, styling, accessories, field flatteners, overly wide FOV, etc. I'm also quite certain Swarovki's are not up to the durablitiy of, say, Leica.

I've owned Swaro's in the past, but they have completely lost me...
Determined to set themselves apart , some would consider a good thing. I feel swarovsk’s setting themselves apart has raised the bar and has influenced the the other top brands to improve and evolve there products. Of course we all know that each of us have different experiences with different optics. Some would say and do so often that Leica (and I’m a fanboy) has way to much CA and edge distortion, I guess it comes down to what you like.

Field flatteners , wide FOV, neutral color rendition (styling is another matter) are all trend setters, and have motivated Zeiss and Leica to follow (yes I said follow) with those attributes in there products. With Zeiss SF wide FOV, field flatteners and Leica Noctivid, field flatteners and double hinge (just like EL). As far as unusable, I haven’t met $2000-$3000 binoculars that were unusable 🤪🙏🏼

Paul
 
SLCs turned out to be my choice, although I've briefly tried several NL models and found them excellent; nothing struck me as immediately problematic about the view, even in panning. My problem is that I'm unwilling to buy one for $3k just to own long enough to figure out whether there actually is something I prefer about a more classic optical design, or I just find them excellent enough. I'd rather spend the time and money enjoying beautiful views in my SLCs. I felt like I was seeing every single feather on Great Blue Herons the other day.

I agree with Paul that Swarovski challenged a rather lazy Zeiss and Leica in a very useful way, although I'd include SLCs in that along with EL/NLs, whose ergonomic "innovations" (open bridge, FieldPro etc) I have more reservations about. And didn't Nikon introduce the first field flattener?
 
Last edited:
Determined to set themselves apart , some would consider a good thing. I feel swarovsk’s setting themselves apart has raised the bar and has influenced the the other top brands to improve and evolve there products. Of course we all know that each of us have different experiences with different optics. Some would say and do so often that Leica (and I’m a fanboy) has way to much CA and edge distortion, I guess it comes down to what you like.

Field flatteners , wide FOV, neutral color rendition (styling is another matter) are all trend setters, and have motivated Zeiss and Leica to follow (yes I said follow) with those attributes in there products. With Zeiss SF wide FOV, field flatteners and Leica Noctivid, field flatteners and double hinge (just like EL). As far as unusable, I haven’t met $2000-$3000 binoculars that were unusable 🤪🙏🏼

Paul
They should work on improving durability/functionality (ever use Swaro's below zero F?) rather than optical gimmicks that don't relate to how the human eye works in the real world.
 
They should work on improving durability/functionality (ever use Swaro's below zero F?) rather than optical gimmicks that don't relate to how the human eye works in the real world.
I have five swarovski’s , all are top notch, as good as almost any binoculars produced. Ive had more problems with the last three Zeiss binoculars bought. Other than the porros, I use my Swaros temperatures in 20 degrees weather, below that I don’t want to go out, and they work very well. I have seen no durability issues whatsoever in my little collection as well as about a half dozen other people who I have the pleasure to hike with who use Swaros. As far as gimmicks, I don’t see any , and if there are , no more than any other brand.

Sounds like you had an issue or maybe your a brand loyalist , I kind of got that impression when you said NL’s are unusable.

But it’s all good here, we all can agree to disagree. 🙏🏼
 
Sounds like you had an issue or maybe your a brand loyalist , I kind of got that impression when you said NL’s are unusable.
A "brand loyalist" who loves other Swaros? Many have objected to rolling ball in ELSVs; Mac must be very sensitive to have this issue also with NLs, and need classic pincushioning. Pretty straightforward, no cause for suspicion.

...how the human eye works in the real world.
Interesting theories have been advanced here, but the first thing that strikes me is how much this varies individually. If there was some sort of fundamental physio/neurological problem with flat-field optics, I'd expect more people to have it, and sales to be poor.
 
A "brand loyalist" who loves other Swaros? Many have objected to rolling ball in ELSVs; Mac must be very sensitive to have this issue also with NLs, and need classic pincushioning. Pretty straightforward, no cause for suspicion.


Interesting theories have been advanced here, but the first thing that strikes me is how much this varies individually. If there was some sort of fundamental physio/neurological problem with flat-field optics, I'd expect more people to have it, and sales to be poor.
I was referring more about the statement of lack of build quality.
Optically I agree with you , if more people suffered from the flat field idiosyncrasies they wouldn’t be selling so well or be so popular. The Zeiss SF also would fall into that category of a globe effect binoculars. Because someone is very sensitive to that design, doesn’t make it a bad design, it’s just a bad design for them.

I may be very wrong here, but I can’t count how many times someone says , that brand of binoculars are made like crap and the optics are not that good, later to find out they only buy or have the other brand that they like. I have a nice little collection of all these premium binoculars, and I can find small faults with all of them, but I haven’t found one premium binocular that is unusable.

Paul
 
I was referring more about the statement of lack of build quality.
Optically I agree with you , if more people suffered from the flat field idiosyncrasies they wouldn’t be selling so well or be so popular. The Zeiss SF also would fall into that category of a globe effect binoculars. Because someone is very sensitive to that design, doesn’t make it a bad design, it’s just a bad design for them.

I may be very wrong here, but I can’t count how many times someone says , that brand of binoculars are made like crap and the optics are not that good, later to find out they only buy or have the other brand that they like. I have a nice little collection of all these premium binoculars, and I can find small faults with all of them, but I haven’t found one premium binocular that is unusable.

Paul
Unusable? Damning with faint praise, maybe.... Ha
 
I was referring more about the statement of lack of build quality.
Optically I agree with you , if more people suffered from the flat field idiosyncrasies they wouldn’t be selling so well or be so popular. The Zeiss SF also would fall into that category of a globe effect binoculars. Because someone is very sensitive to that design, doesn’t make it a bad design, it’s just a bad design for them.

I may be very wrong here, but I can’t count how many times someone says , that brand of binoculars are made like crap and the optics are not that good, later to find out they only buy or have the other brand that they like. I have a nice little collection of all these premium binoculars, and I can find small faults with all of them, but I haven’t found one premium binocular that is unusable.

Paul

Sometimes limitations of a format are confused to be deficiencies in a maker or model. I see these frequently on forums.

E.g. 10x32 will always be somewhat prone to blackouts due to small exit pupil, especially in bright daylight.
 
This is a very interesting discussion and covers a lot of ground on the NL’s and EL’s. There certainly seems to be less consensus than I would’ve thought.

I’ll throw my 2 cents in. Ill only relate to the NL and EL’s I had the experience of side by side comparison. For me the 8x32 NL & EL are almost identical with on axis image quality. Only two aspects separate these two, the FOV and an ever slightly less flat field. Image resolution, brightness were imperceptible to myself and four other observers. Some thought the EL was brighter and sharper , and others felt the NL was, it was almost an even split. Two people noticed globe effect in both the NL and EL, but were not troubled by it, one person said it was unacceptable for them in the EL. As far as glare , it was a toss up between the two.

As far a super alpha , I don’t know how to grasp that. It seems to me that the differences were less in the optics and more in the individual. Most thought the eye box was better in the EL, more comfortable.

Just another observation, I have the 10x42 and had tried the 10x42 EL months before I purchased the NL, I don’t recall having any memory of finding the right eye box position in the EL. With the NL’s I noticed the minute I picked them up there was a small learning curve to find the sweat spot with no kidney beans.

The ergonomics and focuser preference was all for the NL. All would choose the NL if money was not the issue, yet all agreed that the EL was a superior bang for the buck.

Paul
 
Last edited:
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.
I actually prefer the view through the SLCs, but I guess I am in the minority here?

Apart not having the flat field of view the optics on the SLCs are identical in my opinion to the ELs. Maybe I am biased because I do not like a flat field of view?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top