Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure – High expectations, but twice disappointed. (1 Viewer)

[BabyDov]

Henry,
Thanks for your observations. I was looking at the OPs photos in the wrong way. I see now that his photos show the CA only at the edge of the NL image. I had thought incorrectly that where the CA was obvious, it was at the center. With a large flat FOV, your eye has a difficult time seeing the edges without forcing your eyes to either side while viewing. It's a bit uncomfortable for me to do that, when focusing on subject matter in the center 80 percent of the view. Perhaps, that's why I don't see CA, at all, with my NL's.

 

[Robert Moore]

My 8x42 NL is the best of any binocular I have ever owned for chromatic aberration and believe me I am very sensitive to it. The full moon on axis is just sublime.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

The amount of CA shown in those pictures doesn't look unusual to me. There is always some CA at the edges of field and it is generally worse with wide-angle eyepieces. To minimize CA, the top lines of Zeiss and Kowa are usually good choices, while Leica should be avoided. Swaro ranks somewhere in between ...

Cheers,
Holger

 

[jan van daalen]

Post 4,

There goes your rat smell........

Jan

 

[pm42]

To minimize CA, the top lines of Zeiss and Kowa are usually good choices, while Leica should be avoided. Swaro ranks somewhere in between ...

My Zeiss SF seems to have more CA than my NL Pure. But in both case, it is so small that it is hard to notice.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

My 8x42 NL is the best of any binocular I have ever owned for chromatic aberration and believe me I am very sensitive to it. The full moon on axis is just sublime.

As is my 12x42,excellent correction.

What John James Audubon would make of all this moaning and what he wouldn't give for a pair of current binoculars!
Do any of you actually spend anytime looking at birds.
Pete.

 

[Maljunulo]

Those who embark on a search for flaws and dissatisfaction will inevitably find both.

I see no noticeable CA in my 8X32 SF.

 

[BabyDov]

The OP clearly "sees" something they do not want to see in their binocular. The notion that an opinion, based on personal observation, is irrelevant sounds quite silly, especially on this forum. Until there's scientific certainty regarding happiness I'll listen to opinions with an open mind.

I agree that we have a right to our own opinion. However, I respectfully disagree that we don't "want to see" what the OP sees.

I do see in the photos the CA that the OP sees. So do most of us, I think. But, as Henry pointed out, the CA is only in the periphery where it is usually inconsequential and typical for the Nl. That the OP has different expectations than Henry or many of us, is certainly the OPs right.

Furthermore, we all may see differently. As much as I may want to see CA, through my Nls, I just can't. Perhaps that's not a good thing, especially after my upcoming cataract surgery, when I may.

 

[Rg548]

As is my 12x42,excellent correction.

What John James Audubon would make of all this moaning and what he wouldn't give for a pair of current binoculars!
Do any of you actually spend anytime looking at birds.
Pete.

I had mentioned in a previous post, If the more we spend, the more we look for problems.... That one went on quite a bit as it happens, but interestingly, here we are again.
Perhaps if they were a £500 pair of binocs, which will be awesome for birding, or whatever, they would be much more acceptable.
One of the stand out bins in my search was the opticron DBA. Just unbelievable for the money, and perhaps I should have bought them, and been happy.
Oh... add in the Conquest to that list too. Great value for money!!
But when we push to a few THOUSAND pounds/dollars, maybe our expectation of perfection is significantly raised.
I've said before, my CL8x25's are more 'impressive' than my Victory 8x56FL's..... purely because I can't quite believe how good those little Swaro's are for the size and the money. The Zeiss, however, are exactly what I expect from a top line Alpha.
A friend came over, who has no interest in binos, looked through my Zeiss and said 'they're nice'
Picked up my CL8x25..... his response.... 'holy crap.... those are outrageous' !!

I think it's natural to critically examine something so incredibly expensive.
It's interesting to hear Henry's comments, as it would appear the NL's are infact OK, and this guy seems to know a bit.
Perhaps perfection can't quite be achieved even at that money.

Sell the NL's, get some £1000 binos, and be blown away with the amazing quality, and go on holiday with the change😀

 

[eronald]

I had mentioned in a previous post, If the more we spend, the more we look for problems.... That one went on quite a bit as it happens, but interestingly, here we are again.
Perhaps if they were a £500 pair of binocs, which will be awesome for birding, or whatever, they would be much more acceptable.
One of the stand out bins in my search was the opticron DBA. Just unbelievable for the money, and perhaps I should have bought them, and been happy.
Oh... add in the Conquest to that list too. Great value for money!!
But when we push to a few THOUSAND pounds/dollars, maybe our expectation of perfection is significantly raised.
I've said before, my CL8x25's are more 'impressive' than my Victory 8x56FL's..... purely because I can't quite believe how good those little Swaro's are for the size and the money. The Zeiss, however, are exactly what I expect from a top line Alpha.
A friend came over, who has no interest in binos, looked through my Zeiss and said 'they're nice'
Picked up my CL8x25..... his response.... 'holy crap.... those are outrageous' !!

I think it's natural to critically examine something so incredibly expensive.
It's interesting to hear Henry's comments, as it would appear the NL's are infact OK, and this guy seems to know a bit.
Perhaps perfection can't quite be achieved even at that money.

Sell the NL's, get some £1000 binos, and be blown away with the amazing quality, and go on holiday with the change😀

My local FNAC shop has some $350 Nikon Monarch which are unbelievably good for the price.

Edmund

 

[E_S]

I am extremely happy with my NL 10x42s even though they do show a hair more CA than my (3x cheaper Kowa Genesis). Way stronger contrast on the NLs, very relaxing, wide, sharp across the field image. The CA is never a bother because when it does show up, it is way off center, on the edge of the image. I would not be happy with CA in the center and would have returned them if that were the case.

Regarding the often-mentioned glare issue, I did observe glare in certain situations with the NLs, but I also observed glare in some situations with the Kowas when the NLs were working just fine.

 

[NZbinodude]

My Leica Noctivids aren't immune to CA, but it's not all that noticeable if I focus my attention on whatever it is I'm looking at (bird, deer, tree etc), as opposed to actively searching for CA - in which case it magically pops up everywhere and becomes bothersome.

It's almost silly to think that I sometimes spend more time looking at/for optical imperfections, versus enjoying the view through my binos. This forum has corrupted me (tongue in cheek).