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

[Yarkho]

Go with what you like, or in other words, "feels right". Once you are in the field for hours, this matters.

Optics, as great as they might be, are to some degree secondary (unless there is something wrong* with the bino). Yes, this comes from me.
* - this may vary from person to person. Personally, I can't stand even the faintest trace of CA center-field.

 

[MatthiasGr]

Now it came down to the Companion vs the SFL 10x30.
I have absolutely no clue what to take.

Companion I can get for 1090€, the SFL for 1300€
Companion has nicer eyepieces (the SFL once didn't feel high quality..)
Companion looks and feels a bit more sturdy - most likely because the coating is harder and not as sticky as the SFL
The Field Pro attachments are a plus for me personally as I detach the strap when I have the Bino at home for watching birds through the windows.

SFL is a bit brighter and sharper
SFL has better FOV and close focus
SFL is a bit lighter and more compact (but still good to hold)

When it comes to the focus wheel - I'd like to have a mix between the long turning of the Companion and the very short one on the SFL - but I assume there's no real problem when you get used to it and don't switch between these two extremes.

I spent an hour this afternoon with the Companion and the SFL on a nearby hill with open landscapes, and I really got to test both binoculars thoroughly.
It was so much better than just looking at a test chart in a store, and the decision that had been really tough before became clear pretty quickly – I’m keeping the Companion.

What bothered me the most about the SFL was the shape of the tubes - they just felt too bulky.
The Companion isn’t really thinner, but it feels way more slim (especially with those thumb grooves). Plus, I’m not a big fan of that 'sticky' soft surface.

One thing that stood out right away: with the SFL, I often saw black spots when tracking birds in the sky (I think you call it kidney bean effect or blackout?), but with the Companion, I never saw this happen.
Overall, using the Companion was way easier and more enjoyable – seems like the eyecups fit my eye sockets perfectly.

Besides this, the FOV was really no concern at all, not that much difference that I would rate it over ergonomics.


I definitely learned a lot during this selection process.
One can read for hours online or watch YouTube videos, but in the end, 20-30 minutes of hands-on experience is essential and really leads you to the right binoculars.

Thanks a lot for the advice!
I hope I could give some useful input back for the community and future bino buyers.

 

[MatthiasGr]

Go with what you like, or in other words, "feels right". Once you are in the field for hours, this matters.

Optics, as great as they might be, are to some degree secondary (unless there is something wrong* with the bino). Yes, this comes from me.
* - this may vary from person to person. Personally, I can't stand even the faintest trace of CA center-field.

From my experience now, I'd say this is the best answer to my initial question and nothing to add.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

I spent an hour this afternoon with the Companion and the SFL on a nearby hill with open landscapes, and I really got to test both binoculars thoroughly.
It was so much better than just looking at a test chart in a store, and the decision that had been really tough before became clear pretty quickly – I’m keeping the Companion.

What bothered me the most about the SFL was the shape of the tubes - they just felt too bulky.
The Companion isn’t really thinner, but it feels way more slim (especially with those thumb grooves). Plus, I’m not a big fan of that 'sticky' soft surface.

One thing that stood out right away: with the SFL, I often saw black spots when tracking birds in the sky (I think you call it kidney bean effect or blackout?), but with the Companion, I never saw this happen.
Overall, using the Companion was way easier and more enjoyable – seems like the eyecups fit my eye sockets perfectly.

Besides this, the FOV was really no concern at all, not that much difference that I would rate it over ergonomics.


I definitely learned a lot during this selection process.
One can read for hours online or watch YouTube videos, but in the end, 20-30 minutes of hands-on experience is essential and really leads you to the right binoculars.

Thanks a lot for the advice!
I hope I could give some useful input back for the community and future bino buyers.

Enjoy your Companion. Had it for a few years (8x30) and my go to binocular for birding on the hilly terrain in the rainforest and for bird photography 😍

 

[ReinierB]

Good choice!
I would have chosen the Companion as well.

 

[tehri]

I spent an hour this afternoon with the Companion and the SFL and the decision became clear pretty quickly – I’m keeping the Companion.

Great choice of optics, Matthias, and not forgetting the design here which is really very successful and unique !!
Maybe you've already seen this video, but I'll give you the link just in case... It's the best, I think, concerning these Companions !!
Paul (fieldsport cymru) talks about them really well and with real enthusiasm, naturally, with his heart and that is really pleasant to see, to listen to !!
Now that you own this instrument and appreciate it, you will love this video, and spend 10 minutes of pleasure !

 

[Yarkho]

MatthiasGR I think you chose wisely, the CL Companion is a good binocular. May it bring you memorable views!

 

[LeonWang]

I just got myself a NL 10x42 and I can confirm the flare issue is true. It beats my Canon 10-42 IS in every way, brighter, sharper, much smaller and lighter, a lot more easy on the eyes… but there is only one thing that the Canon wins by a mile, i.e., flare resistance.

Just by looking at the exit pupils, and it is quite obvious why the NL is so poor in this type of situation. The sun is already invisible but bottom half of the view from NL is completely polluted by the glare (see the second photo). On the contrary, the exit pupils of the Canon (third photo) are very clean.

I guess nothing in this world is perfect, and I still love it and it is a keeper despite the flaw.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I just got myself a NL 10x42 and I can confirm the flare issue is true. It beats my Canon 10-42 IS in every way, brighter, sharper, much smaller and lighter, a lot more easy on the eyes… but there is only one thing that the Canon wins by a mile, i.e., flare resistance.

Just by looking at the exit pupils, and it is quite obvious why the NL is so poor in this type of situation. The sun is already invisible but bottom half of the view from NL is completely polluted by the glare (see the second photo). On the contrary, the exit pupils of the Canon (third photo) are very clean.

I guess nothing in this world is perfect, and I still love it and it is a keeper despite the flaw

Nice pictures of the exit pupils in the NL 10x42, and they clearly demonstrate why the NL has veiling glare in the bottom of the FOV even when the sun is invisible. I had all the NL's and the NL 8x32 and NL 8x42 are even worse than the NL 10x42. I closely compared the NL 8x32 and the Nikon HG 8x42, and I was going to keep one or the other regardless of price and I kept the Nikon because it was brighter, had easier eye placement and didn't have the irritating glare the NL had almost all the time in the bottom of the FOV. The NL has beautiful optics as you say with a huge FOV and tack sharp edges, but it is spoiled by the glare. It is really a shame. If the NL didn't have the glare that is the binocular, I would be using.

 

[LeonWang]

Nice pictures of the exit pupils in the NL 10x42, and they clearly demonstrate why the NL has veiling glare in the bottom of the FOV even when the sun is invisible. I had all the NL's and the NL 8x32 and NL 8x42 are even worse than the NL 10x42. I closely compared the NL 8x32 and the Nikon HG 8x42, and I was going to keep one or the other regardless of price and I kept the Nikon because it was brighter, had easier eye placement and didn't have the irritating glare the NL had almost all the time in the bottom of the FOV. The NL has beautiful optics as you say with a huge FOV and tack sharp edges, but it is spoiled by the glare. It is really a shame. If the NL didn't have the glare that is the binocular, I would be using.

Yeah, I can understand why you love the Nikon. Nikon seems to know the best when coming to the ease of eye placement. I have gone through four 8x binoculars and settled down on a Nikon 8x32 EDG II. It actually surpasses my expectations in nearly every aspects, truly amazing!

I am most sensitive to CA and rolling ball effect, equally important is the easy eye placement, and the Nikon EDG 8x32 shines in all three. It is the only binocular that I have tried that is completely free of rolling ball effect while sharp all the way to the edge, and I don't know how could Nikon achieve that.

Somehow I am more tolerant of flare, and in some situation it could even add to the artistry . That's why I keep the 10x42 NL, which is so comfortable in everyway.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yeah, I can understand why you love the Nikon. Nikon seems to know the best when coming to the ease of eye placement. I have gone through four 8x binoculars and settled down on a Nikon 8x32 EDG II. It actually surpasses my expectations in nearly every aspects, truly amazing!

I am most sensitive to CA and rolling ball effect, equally important is the easy eye placement, and the Nikon EDG 8x32 shines in all three. It is the only binocular that I have tried that is completely free of rolling ball effect while sharp all the way to the edge, and I don't know how could Nikon achieve that.

Somehow I am more tolerant of flare, and in some situation it could even add to the artistry . That's why I keep the 10x42 NL, which is so comfortable in everyway.

The NL 10x42 is not too bad for flare. I could tolerate it, but I sold it because I moved away from 10x to 8x for the steadier and brighter image, better DOF, and bigger FOV. The NL 8x32 and NL 8x32 are worse for flare. I like the Nikon EDG 8x32 also, but a big FOV is one of my number one priorities because I can find and follow birds easier. That is why I like the Nikon 8x42 HG better than the Nikon EDG 8x32 because it has an 8.3 degree FOV versus the 7.7 degree FOV of the EDG. The Nikon HG 8x42 also has the advantage of the bigger 42mm aperture for easier eye placement and a brighter image, especially in low light, yet it is about the same size and weight as the EDG 8x32. The EDG does have one of the smoothest focusers of any binocular, less CA than the HG, and it has sharper edges than the HG, so it makes up some for the smaller FOV. I wouldn't say either the EDG or HG is better, it just depends on what your priorities and preferences are.

 

[Snett_dweller]

. The NL has beautiful optics as you say with a huge FOV and tack sharp edges, but it is spoiled by the glare. It is really a shame. If the NL didn't have the glare that is the binocular, I would be using.

Would you though? You’ve posted multiple times - in this thread alone - that Swarovski armour is terrible (over 30% here have major issues, I think you said) and the strap attachment is rubbish, and they bang into your crotch unless you hack at the strap.

Why earth would you use an NL, even if the glare wasn’t a problem?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Would you though? You’ve posted multiple times - in this thread alone - that Swarovski armour is terrible (over 30% here have major issues, I think you said) and the strap attachment is rubbish, and they bang into your crotch unless you hack at the strap.

Why earth would you use an NL, even if the glare wasn’t a problem?

The glare was a deal killer on the NL 8x32, but I could tolerate the armour and the Field Pro system for the otherwise stellar optics.

 

[MatthiasGr]

I need to revise my choice after a month.

Used the Companion nearly every day and I thought that the poor FOV would not matter much, but I always grabbed my (now my wife's) Vortex 8x32 with 140m FOV for comparison (against the 108m of the CL) and was a bit disappointed.
Also I was a surprised that I didn't see much more details with the 10x compared to the 8x. The difference in magnification was only very noticeable in close distance of 10-20m.

Well, I got some NL Pure in 8x32 pretty cheap, had them in the field for a day and it was just night and day. Much sharper, incredible FOV and until now no major problem with glare.

So I sent back the Companion and will stay with my initial choice for now, however not 10x but 8x. (That is a huge surprise for me..)

 

[ReinierB]

I understand. I swapped the Companion 10x30 for the NL 10x32. I also prefered the ergonomics, the more comfortable eyecups, the larger afov and the longer strap. Double the price, but for me worth it.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

I understand. I swapped the Companion 10x30 for the NL 10x32. I also prefered the ergonomics, the more comfortable eyecups, the larger afov and the longer strap. Double the price, but for me worth it.

I just received the NL 8x42 🤯 !!!

That’s all I can say…makes me want to get NL styled trousers (pants to any Americans) that nip in!

 

[GrampaTom]

I just received the NL 8x42 🤯 !!!

That’s all I can say…makes me want to get NL styled trousers (pants to any Americans) that nip in!

we know trousers. Whats "nip in"?

 

[dorubird]

I need to revise my choice after a month.

Used the Companion nearly every day and I thought that the poor FOV would not matter much, but I always grabbed my (now my wife's) Vortex 8x32 with 140m FOV for comparison (against the 108m of the CL) and was a bit disappointed.
Also I was a surprised that I didn't see much more details with the 10x compared to the 8x. The difference in magnification was only very noticeable in close distance of 10-20m.

Well, I got some NL Pure in 8x32 pretty cheap, had them in the field for a day and it was just night and day. Much sharper, incredible FOV and until now no major problem with glare.

So I sent back the Companion and will stay with my initial choice for now, however not 10x but 8x. (That is a huge surprise for me..)

Victory SF 8x32 has an even larger field of view than NL Pure 8x32 (8.8 vs 8.5) but not huge difference! Have fun with your NL Pure 8x32!

 

[Yarkho]

How does one get NL Pure "pretty cheap", pray tell?

I recently picked up the CL Pocket 8x25 to go with my NL 10x42. I have also took the opportunity to look through NL Pure 8x32. Fantastic glass. The FOV difference alone makes a huge impression, however at twice the weight of the bino compared to the CL Pocket.

 

[Thotmosis]

I understand. I swapped the Companion 10x30 for the NL 10x32. I also prefered the ergonomics, the more comfortable eyecups, the larger afov and the longer strap. Double the price, but for me worth it.

Hi Reinier, what is your current bino setup? I read that you sold the Habicht and NL 10x52?