Pure NL the right one for me? (2 Viewers)

[MatthiasGr]

Hi guys,

I'm no expert birder but I very much like to watch birds in our garden, go out to nature and spot animals on holiday hikes.
Especially I just like the use of Binos and coming from Photography I like a sharp and detailed picture.

I currently have Vortex Diamondback HDs in 8x32 and 12x50 and though I like the 8x32 for it's size, FOV and sharpness (at least in the middle), I'd like to upgrade a bit to enhance the optical quality.

There are soooo many opinions and reviews out there, and some of them are pretty contradictory, which is totally overwhelming. I can't order several different models at once (there aren't many stores around here with a decent selection, and they always seem to be missing key candidates).

So, I've just decided to go for the top model, the Swarovski Pure NL in 10x32. I figure I can't go wrong with that, and I'm okay with paying a bit extra for the brand if it means I don't have to deal with comparing other binoculars.
However, I'm starting to have some concerns about reports about its high sensitivity to glare. (and the strap attachment that seems to fail sometimes (user error?), and the coating but put these two aside)

I know from photography forums that people are very picky about optics, doing nothing but taking pictures from test charts to identify failures that never be relevant for real life use - so I'd like to know if these problems with the Pure NL are "real life relevant".

If this is really annoying in such a high price bino, I'd just go a step down and get a used Swaro EL or a Zeiss SFL 10x30 and miss out ~12m of FOV compared to the Pure NL.

 

[KeesJ]

I own a NL 8x32 and in my experience it is not highly sensitive to glare. I love this bino.

 

[Dutchbirder64]

I have a 10x32 NL and the glare 'problem' is overly exaggerated. Sure when you watch towards the sun you will see something but I am not bothered by it.

 

[dorubird]

I can teach you to see glare in Swaro, but it's better to stay happy dont read more 😀

There is a scenario where anyone can see glare in Swarovski binoculars, but with the condition that the pupil of our eyes to dilates more than the exit pupil of the binoculars. So the insufficient dilation of our pupils (depending on the external conditions or health) explains why some people see glare and others don't. This explains why, paradoxically, glare appears especially at sunset or on cloudy days, because then our pupils dilate more. During the day this happens very rarely and only under certain conditions. We also have to look, for example, towards a dark forest that has the light of the sky above. This is the moment when, if we look for a longer time in the FOV full of dark area of the forest, we let our eyes pupils to dilate more. At that moment our dilated pupils will capture the parasitic reflections, which are present outside the exit pupils of Swarovski binoculars. This also explains the fact that when you move the pupils of your eyes in the direction opposite to the parasitic reflection, the glare can disappears, but at the price of decentering from the optical axis. This decentering also make the convenience and naturalness of the viewed image to suffers a lot

 

[Patudo]

I strongly recommend you do everything you can to try at least a few models of particular interest to you. Maybe there are birdforum members not too far away from you, maybe you can drive a couple hours to a good optics shop (well worth the trouble) or birding spot where you might be able to try other birders' binoculars. Even 15 minutes in actual field conditions or something close to it will tell you more about a binocular than hours of reading about it.

 

[ReinierB]

Very happy with my NL 10x32!
I am a bit of a Swarovski fascinado, but I do think the Zeiss Victory SF 10x32 and Leica Ultravid 10x32 (the latter maybe not a good option if you wear glasses) are also very good options if you want a such called "alpha". Be sure the 10x32 is what you are looking for. The 10x42 would also fill a gap if you already have an 8x32 and 12x50.

Btw, the glare doesn't really matter to me and I actually love the field pro strap attachments (very firm and secure).

 

[crinklystarfish]

However, I'm starting to have some concerns about reports about its high sensitivity to glare. (And the strap attachment that seems to fail sometimes (user error?), and the coating but put these two aside.)...

If this is really annoying in such a high price bino, I'd just go a step down and get a used Swaro EL or a Zeiss SFL 10x30 and miss out ~12m of FOV compared to the Pure NL.

I'm a long-time NL owner and user. I currently own an 8x32 and a 12x42. Last year, I also loaned an NL8x42 for a couple of weeks to try that format out (it had a little too much field distortion whilst panning for my liking).

All other things being equal, the NLs I own and have tried are and have been - in my experience - more prone to glare than most other contemporary high-end binoculars. That said, it's now well documented that the worst of the effects can be offset to a large degree by careful adjustment and use.

Whether you as an individual will experience the glare at its worst, and - if you do - whether it bothers you, is a matter only you can assess and decide.

As for the strap attachment: as long as the attachment pins are correctly inserted, and there's a little free play in the strap lug (I sanded mine down a few microns on a flat plate), the system should not be a problem. I've had zero issues in this regard and, for what it's worth, wish more binoculars had a similar neat and versatile mounting option. I regularly use NLs with no strap and, in these circumstances, the system makes for a very neat solution.

The crumbling armour is undoubtedly a reality for some people (in some circumstances) but, again, I've personally had zero issues. I have no idea if it's helped, but I do wipe the armour down with a damp cloth after most days of use (something I habitually do with all my optics, irrespective of brand).

You do not mention it, but there's also the issue of a propensity for the NL's eyepieces to mist over more readily than some other brands given the 'right' environmental factors.

In spite of the well-reported empirical shortcomings, the NL 8x32 and 12x42 are, in my estimation, optically, mechanically and ergonomically still a cut above anything else currently out there. I suspect the 10x32 you favour will be just as competent.

I'm personally happy to continue with NL ownership for now, but the SFL line you mention is extremely accomplished and perhaps a little less demanding and petulant.

Hope it all works out for you!

 

[GrampaTom]

Glare? What glare?
Whatever you may see, is mostly manageable just like with any bino when dealing with the sun.
Birdforum has a problem. Most of us who come here have learned this. We deal. Dont make it yours.

 

[Rg548]

Anything over £1000 will blow your socks off.
If you look through any Swaro, Leica, Zeiss, high end Nikon, high end Vortex, and not be happy then there's no hope for you.
The optics will be fine, the fit may not.
But like Grampa Tom says, a bit of user manipulation can dilute many of the problems you hear of.
Good luck and enjoy.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I had the Swarovski NL 8x32 and the Nikon HG 8x32, and I compared them closely side by side to make a decision which one to keep. I had a lot of glare in the bottom of the FOV in the NL 8x32, which I didn't have with the HG 8x42, and it was there almost all the time no matter how I adjusted my eyes. Likewise, I also found the HG to be considerably brighter because of the bigger 42mm aperture, taking in almost twice the light of the NL. Also, the FOV of the Nikon HG 8x42 is 8.3 degrees, which is not a lot of difference from the 8.5 degrees of the NL. It only amounts to 15 feet. The NL does have sharper edges, but that extremely flat field design can cause RB problems, and then you always have to worry about the crumbling Swarovski armor also.

The Nikon HG 8x42 at 24 oz. is almost as light as the NL 8x32 at 23 oz. and you have the huge advantage of a bigger aperture which is brighter especially in low light and has much easier eye placement. The Nikon HG 8x42 also has higher 92% transmission versus the 91% of the NL 8x32. I personally don't care for the FP attachments because they caused me endless frustration. They get twisted, and then you have to figure out if it is the strap that is twisted or if it is the FP swivel that has twisted. It is like solving a Rubik's Cube. The FP system is unnecessary and a PIA IMO. I never cared for the goofy side load case or the strap of the NL either. The goofy side load case looks like you are carrying a purse instead of binoculars.

The strap is way too long and hangs around your groin, and there is no way to shorten it without ruining it. Like most Swarovski's accessories, they are all overdone. I think they do it to justify their inflated prices. The Nikon case is simple and effective, and you don't have to stuff the strap in the case every time you put your binoculars away, saving much time and aggravation. I really don't feel the Swarovski NL 8x32 is worth $1500 more dollars than Nikon HG 8x42. The big elephant in the room with the NL 8x32 and many of the other Swarovski's is glare. They are superb binoculars EXCEPT for the glare. Read Post 14 in the thread below.

"FrSt
"However, my 8x32 NL Pure model is, in my opinion, extremely susceptible to veiling glare; you don't have to look into the sun for that to happen. You could almost say that there are few situations where no stray light effects are visible. Outdoors in sunshine or on cloudy days. So, my question to the experts: Can it really be that such expensive binoculars are so susceptible to stray light? Or is it more likely that I received a decentered model? Is that even possible with regard to stray light? Apart from that, the image is absolutely brilliant. When I look at the eyepiece (closed lens cap, from a distance of 40cm) I see two reflections (false images?) of myself. Is this normal due to the concave first lens element? When I open the lens cap and hold the binoculars up to the sky, in addition to the reflections of myself, I see (several!) light reflections in the lens system as well as diffuse stray light which shows the optics inside. I tried to take a picture of it with my cell phone and attached it here. When I compare it with the pictures on Allbinos, I get the impression that it is no better at all than the simplest binoculars tested there."

Edge sharpness in Binoculars

I have a Vortex Viper 8x42 and a Nikon Monarch M7 8x30 that both provide a sharp image for about 50-60% of the radius(meassured from the center to the edge of the image as viewed in the binocular). After this the sharpness declines and the image becomes softer. Some of this softness can be...

www.birdforum.net

 

[GrampaTom]

From Denco,

"Oct 2024 - NLs are simply the best" NL's are simply the best!

Post #1
"I think I have to admit that Swarovski NL's are the best binoculars out there IMO, especially optically. I have tried over 100 binoculars and nothing wows me the way an NL does when I look through them. No other binocular has the huge FOV that is tack sharp right to the edge and comes as close to optical perfection as the NL. You might like the ergonomics or light weight of a Zeiss SFL better or the saturated colors of a Leica Noctivid, but no binocular is as close to being perfect as an NL. The NL's are also very bright and very transparent and no matter what binocular you try when you come back to them, they will wow you. Zeiss SF's are very good and are a little better with glare and CA on the edges, but they have some glare also, and they don't have the sharp edges and perfectly corrected FOV that the NL does.

FOV is very important because it makes it easier to find birds, and you can scan larger areas faster and if a bird suddenly flies to another tree you can follow them easier. The sharp edges of the NL make that huge FOV even more effective because you can see birds at the very edge of the FOV clearly. The Noctivid has great saturated colors, but it doesn't impress with it's relatively small FOV compared to the NL or SF. I think the NL has a combination of great fluorite glass and some of the best coatings in the industry that sets it apart from even other alpha level binoculars. When you look at the objectives on an NL, you see almost no reflections. It almost looks like there is no glass there. That is a testament to how good their coatings are. Not everybody agrees with Allbinos but every time they test an NL it ends up in first place even besting the Nikon WX a binocular that costs $6000 in the 10x50 class. NL's are about the most expensive binoculars out there, and they are the best. I guess it means you get what you pay for.

Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com​

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
www.allbinos.com

Last edited: Oct 19, 2024

Quote Reply
Report

 

[Scott98]

So, I've just decided to go for the top model, the Swarovski Pure NL in 10x32. I figure I can't go wrong with that, and I'm okay with paying a bit extra for the brand if it means I don't have to deal with comparing other binoculars.

This seems intuitive, just go for the most expensive one and you'll be fine, but it's a big mistake in my opinion. You should try them in person if at all possible. Or buy from a place that you return them easily. I found that all the top-priced binoculars have problems and it's important to try them and see if they work for you.

I would compare it to buying a new pair of shoes. You know how that goes.

 

[Maljunulo]

My only niggle is that I would choose the 8X32, believing that the larger exit pupil makes it less “fussy” about eye placement.

 

[Dennis Mau]

This seems intuitive, just go for the most expensive one and you'll be fine, but it's a big mistake in my opinion. You should try them in person if at all possible. Or buy from a place that you return them easily. I found that all the top-priced binoculars have problems and it's important to try them and see if they work for you.

I would compare it to buying a new pair of shoes. You know how that goes.

I agree with the above post 100%. Just because you are buying what you consider the top alpha model, doesn't guarantee that you are not going to have problems with the binoculars. You have to try them in person to see if they work for YOU. The NL 10x32 is a very risky binocular without trying it because it is prone to glare. If you are buying blind, you would have been safer with a Zeiss 10x32 SF. I know I have had them all!

 

[GrampaTom]

Having had them all is not of course the end all and be all. Claiming some authority cuz one once buys, holds for a few months, then sells and moves on to another does not qualify for actually using a thing, getting to know its quirks, learn the work arounds, adjust, bond. Buying selling and owning one at a time without being able to directly compare even just two different binocs same place, same time same atmospheric conditions makes comparisons at least questionable.

As well if one spends their time buying, looking at or through in the same location for a short while, spends time reporting, opinionating here, then sells rather than actually using the thing as intended by the designer/manufacturer, what value should we place on an option with those limitations?

This controversy is of course what the OP is reporting quite reasonably above. What service do we offer new folks coming here for advice when this continues literally year after year?

 

[Hermann]

Three reasons why I didn't get (and won't get) an NL:

1. Glare. I won't pay that sort of money for a binocular that performs badly when viewing against the light. One of my pet peeves.
2. Armour. As long as Swarovski hasn't solved the armour problem - no way. Even it they decide to supply their binoculars with a free roll of gaffer tape.
3. The FP system. A solution to a non-existing problem that created two new problems nobody had before Swarovski decided to be clever.

YMMV and all that.

Hermann

 

[Hermann]

This controversy is of course what the OP is reporting quite reasonably above. What service do we offer new folks coming here for advice when this continues literally year after year?

Who is "we"? And do we (whoever that is) need to offer new folks any sort of service?

Hermann

 

[Maljunulo]

Having had them all is not of course the end all and be all. Claiming some authority cuz one once buys, holds for a few months, then sells and moves on to another does not qualify for actually using a thing, getting to know its quirks, learn the work arounds, adjust, bond. Buying selling and owning one at a time without being able to directly compare even just two different binocs same place, same time same atmospheric conditions makes comparisons at least questionable.

As well if one spends their time buying, looking at or through in the same location for a short while, spends time reporting, opinionating here, then sells rather than actually using the thing as intended by the designer/manufacturer, what value should we place on an option with those limitations?

This controversy is of course what the OP is reporting quite reasonably above. What service do we offer new folks coming here for advice when this continues literally year after year?

What do you offer as a solution, Tom?

 

[GrampaTom]

Who is "we"? And do we (whoever that is) need to offer new folks any sort of service?

Hermann

We = Birdforum members
Need? Maybe the question is more properly should.
But we do don't we Hermann? Including you. One might make the case thats mostly what we do, the conversation among regulars being sort of played out. How much is there to say on the subject of binoculars after awhile?

I rather prefer this question, one I posed to Lee several years ago, when we were discussing the controversies that often ensue here. Lee described his marching orders as a moderator was to make sure we were behaving, keeping the controversial stuff to a manageable, respectful level. I asked, and thought he was not fond of the question, "Are you/we supposed to pursue comity at the expense of content?" We discussed the idea this a forum where each of us has the right to our opinion. Hard to argue that, EXCEPT when an opinion turns in to something else. Ironically the something else was exactly the same one we've wandered into here.

 

[GrampaTom]

What do you offer as a solution, Tom?

Thank you Richard,
In addition to the conversation with Lee mentioned just above, Ive also brought an idea up with others in BF management. Every substantial organization Ive been associated with to include the military (battle plans), a decent sized manufacturer of related consumer products (product planning), MBA school, describes a set of basic components to planning to make sure all relevant parties understand the why and the way. These are often called mission or vision statements. What do we stand for? Why do we exist?

Im led to believe Birdforum does not have one.

If all parties don't get the why of the organization, what are its aims, goals, values then how do those parties know how to behave? Anarchy ensues. It's not enough to think Rodney King's now infamous "Cant we all just get along?" is... enough.
Managing for comity over content is not enough. This takes effort. Writing a clear concise relevant value statement takes time.

Many here, I suspect will agree we have a specific problem. It's not wide spread. Though it tends to splash onto others from time to time. Many have tried to manage it. Those efforts have not always been treated respectfully by well intended moderators. Mods have lives. They dont follow us as closely as the regulars do. That said, the moderators (Ive communicated with) have no idea how to manage content, do not see it as their purview.

This making any sense?