• 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.

Prevent glare in the Swarovski NL Pure ?? (1 Viewer)

Canip

Well-known member
I had mentioned several times in earlier threads that I personally had no glare issues with my 8x42 NL (and with the 10x42 model, by the way) and that the NL was for me at least as good dealing with stray-light as the other top binoculars on the market, but I appreciate the fact that other users have experienced glare problems, even severe ones, in particular when observing against a low standing sun. Whether such problems are due to differences in handling, eye placement, individual face anatomy, position of eyecup, etc., or all of the above, I don't know.

One way to easily avoid glare caused by sunshine on the front lenses or glare occurring in similar situations (observing against bright background in the upper half of the image) is to place a sunshield on top of the barrels. Today's possibilities with 3D printers should allow plenty of designs that work. But even before the era of 3D printers, you could come across plastic devices that would fit the task, see example attached.

I applied this just for fun to the NL, since I have no glare issue in the NL (the self-attaching device gets normally used with other binoculars).

fwiw Canip
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7296.jpg
    IMG_7296.jpg
    206.7 KB · Views: 57
  • IMG_7297.jpg
    IMG_7297.jpg
    247 KB · Views: 55
  • IMG_7298.jpg
    IMG_7298.jpg
    118.6 KB · Views: 57
Last edited:

Loddar

Active member
I have had two NLs 8 to 42 and tried a lot of eyepositions and both NLs had too much problems with strayligth and veiling glare for me.
I could avoid a lot of them by screwing the eyecups 2 to 3 positions down.
Unfortunately the eyeplacement was rather difficult.
Otherwise it was the best binoculars i have use.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
I have had a 10x42 NL for a few weeks. It’s basically exceptional except for glare at times and some of the accessories (FP attachment, objective lens cover system if you don’t want them, and the ocular covers are way too tight and thus quite annoying).

Regarding glare - with higher and higher FOV the eye placement will be ever more delicate. I don’t have problems with eye placement with my NL. Blackouts / kidney-beaning are perhaps ever so slightly more present than my 10x42 EL, but not a real problem. The glare is about equivalent to the EL. Considering the massively improved FOV, equal glare is actually an improvement.

Yes there are a glare performance differences between alphas, but it is not the most important factor for ME. A binocular with less contrast, lesser ergonomics, or lesser FOV is less appealing, full stop, regardless of glare. The difference between looking within 10 vs 20 degrees of a low sun before inducing glare seems fairly pedantic to me, when there are other factors at play. Yes, my SFs handle glare better. But in reality both NLs and SFs are shockingly great bins. Honestly, the stupidly tight ocular covers on the NL bother me much more than the difference in glare handling. At least for now.
 

dries1

Member
If the SF are so great against glare, then they should out sell the NLs since so many think the NLs are glare monsters.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
If the SF are so great against glare, then they should out sell the NLs since so many think the NLs are glare monsters.

For me they are better - not miles better, but noticeably so. But of course glare is not the only factor buyers assess. I would actually guess that aside from this site and a few other fanatics it is among the least assessed factors in a purchase decision.
 

dwever

Registered User
Supporter
If the SF are so great against glare, then they should out sell the NLs since so many think the NLs are glare monsters.

The original inexplicably horrible QC of the early SF’s reported by Robert Vines and others caused me to fear Zeiss across their modern line (although I did buy an RF which is based on the HT). I never even picked up a pair of SF’s to look through them. Maybe unwarranted. My older Zeiss Marines and Noctivids seemed to be exceedingly well made and provide great images. Then, although seeming to be more of an outlier, NZbinodude’s reports of early (October ‘20) mechanical issues with NL Pures kept me from being an early adopter (although his post was called out by Gijs van Ginkel (post #30). Now that the dust has settled, the NL Pure seems robust, is optically breath-taking, and has signaled it might carry me in to the middle of the decade or further. Maybe in time we will finally see a robust top-shelf alpha with built-in compact IS. For now, the NL Pure. I’m weary of today’s rehash and straining at gnats, and I’m headed to go glass some eagles.
 
Last edited:

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Reality shows another picture: the NL pure sells much better/more than the SF is what I understand from binocular dealers.
Gijs van Ginkel

(y) Fact v Fiction.

Having read many, many binocular threads over the years and used a variety I have drawn a conclusion that a fair percentage of reported "problems / faults" are down to mass hallucination and hysteria from some readers.
 

Loddar

Active member
(y) Fact v Fiction.

Having read many, many binocular threads over the years and used a variety I have drawn a conclusion that a fair percentage of reported "problems / faults" are down to mass hallucination and hysteria from some readers.
Better than reading, try out the corresponding binoculars yourself and only then get a urpart to form
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Better than reading, try out the corresponding binoculars yourself and only then get a urpart to form
What makes you assume I haven't tried an NL Pure x8 and owned many over the years from my first pair 55 years ago and subsequently as a birder to retailing optics in an optics businessfor 10 years (2003 > 2013. I've owned approx. 35 pairs, ( mostly alpha porros and roofs, after a pair of Optolyth Touring 10 x 40 dissapointed) over that period including many familiar brands, about 15 spotting scopes ( draw tubes included ) and a couple of astronomy maksutov - cassegrain. Is that enough variety and hands on for you?

I currently use an SF 8/42, 8/32 FL and 7/42 BGAT*P* amongst my gathering of optics.

PS. What is an urpart please?
 
Last edited:

Loddar

Active member
Sorry. Google translator.
i have owend NL for some months and tested ist under a wide range of lighting conditions.
have you owend NL too? I thought you meant v.g. would only be an imagination of some user.
i had an EL 8,5 by 42 FP and avoiding straylight and v.g. is only on the same level by screwing the eyecups for 2 or 3 positions down.
loddar
 

NZbinodude

Well-known member
If it hadn't been for the issues I experienced with my 'lemon' pair, I likely would have hung onto my NL's. I loved the image through them - just a brilliant 'washed clean' look. I'm tempted to give them another chance - probably the 8x42 this time around. But the Noctivid 8x42 is also on my short list, and I'm a stickler for the Leica red dot and design.
 

Loddar

Active member
picture 1 first NL picture 2 second NL picture 3 some tested bins picture 4 difficult lighting condtions
both NLs had some loose rubber near the objectives
SLC 8 by 56 only minimal v.g. really good
NL a little more v.g but still very good but only by screwing eyecups down. Otherwise clear v.g. in picture
CL Companion some v.g. but very acceptable
EL 8 by 32 FP very clear v.g and reflexes in the picture - for me not usable in these sunny conditions.
loddar
 

Attachments

  • 3F4CB2E9-873C-4A62-B82F-70566338EE6F.jpeg
    3F4CB2E9-873C-4A62-B82F-70566338EE6F.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 41
  • EB29B9DC-F1AA-4246-88FA-116238DC26EE.jpeg
    EB29B9DC-F1AA-4246-88FA-116238DC26EE.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 46
  • EDAB580D-2588-4B90-84E7-6FB50577B42B.jpeg
    EDAB580D-2588-4B90-84E7-6FB50577B42B.jpeg
    3.6 MB · Views: 50
  • 0E486154-584E-4126-AC6A-E81485425829.jpeg
    0E486154-584E-4126-AC6A-E81485425829.jpeg
    322.7 KB · Views: 49

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
Loddar, I did give an NL 8 x 42 a thorough test and was very impressed with them but couldn't justify trading in my 18 month old SFs. Image wise, there was nothing that irritated or concerned me greatly.
 

tenex

reality-based
picture 1 first NL picture 2 second NL picture 3 some tested bins picture 4 difficult lighting condtions
I prefer not to have the sun very close to (much less in) my binocular field of view. Perhaps this is why I've never had to complain about glare.
 

Loddar

Active member
Yes. I also avoid looking in or against the sun. Often,howewer, it in the case the sun falls obliquely on the objective lenses and then arises v.g in the picture.
these situations are more common in sunny weather and the SLC is thereby better. Same as EL 8,5 by 42.
Also i am not at far the only one who has observed such a thing.
apart from it is the best binoculars to buy imo.
loddar
 

Gijs van Ginkel

Well-known member
NZbinodude, post 11,
I you are looking for a Leice binocular : try the rangefinder 8x42 with Perger prisms and openbridge: excellent optical quality and excellent handing comfort. I like it more than the Noctivid.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

henry link

Well-known member
Blocking close angle sunlight from reaching the metal parts of the objective mounting cell in the NL is possible but not very practical. The geometry is simple: the vertical distance between the metal parts at the bottom of the objective cell that cause the glare at the edge of the exit pupil from an overhead sun and the bottom of a front mounted hood used to block it is about 47mm, so to block direct sunlight from 45º or more off-axis requires a hood with a total length in front of the objective cell of 47mm. Sunlight from 22.5º off-axis requires a 94mm hood and sunlight from about 12º off axis requires a 188mm hood.

Obviously, proper baffling behind the objective cell is the way to do it, not trying to shade the cell from the front.
 
Last edited:

Robert Moore

Well-known member
I have been comparing the 8x42 NL to all my other alphas and the complete lack of any veiling glare when looking towards the sun is just incredible and way better than any of my other binoculars. It just has a remarkable transparency that is better than anything else that I have observed through. Swarovski really nailed it with this one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top