• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Swarovski NL 14x52 and SLC 15x56 - a brief comparison (1 Viewer)

PatR, interesting input, thank you.

I "gave up" on spotting scopes for two reasons: carrying around stuff with a tripod is not something I enjoy anymore and one eyed viewing is tiring for me. The very best scopes with the best eye relief are of course less straining on the eyes but none came close to the pleasure of viewing through the Swarovski BTX.

However, two weeks ago I ended up selling off my Swarovski BTX. Well, of course with some regrets, but to someone who hopefully will get more use out of it. But I would rather have fond memories of the BTX (and I do) instead of having it collecting dust at home.

So, no more tripod and no more BTX. For local walks or extended hikes a monopod and a high mag bino is the best compromise. :)

When the Pure NL 14x52 was announced I was intrigued, a little more magnification in a compact package? Awesome!
But, after trying it out I felt almost relieved going back home to the Meopta 12x50, which still is my best "compromise".
Also, the price of the 14x52 is not worth the little extra reach, coupled with the drawbacks.

At my lookout near home I feel that the 12x often falls short and I did not bring the BTX often enough due to the bulk.
When the compact ATC was announced I was impressed by the small size and seemingly great optics in a small package, however the one eyed viewing put me off, especially since I still had the BTX.

I might be looking into the ATC as a light weight scope option with support/monopod, just like you do now.
It is worth looking into seeing if I can readjust to one eyed viewing as it will be in shorter stints.
Much as I love the BTX the option to zoom in and out is good to have at times. :)

But did you always carried the BTX on your birding walk? I won't trade the BTX for any other scopes and uses it mostly for waterbirds and raptors. ATC56 for walking the rainforest
 
Hey Jason!

No. Most of my time in the forest is either biking or running. Birding is less frequent and for that I use 8X and 12X binos for the walks.

Wide open or coastal scenery is what I would use the BTX for, and for that it is fantastic.
Last trip up north of Sweden is where I used the BTX for the last time but to be honest the bird life was pretty sparse and at the only open spot I could use the BTX there were some beautiful Loons to watch and follow around but not much else to see.

"Giving up" the BTX has nothing to do with the binocular, I really enjoy the view. It is just that I almost never got around to using it.
 
Hey Jason!

No. Most of my time in the forest is either biking or running. Birding is less frequent and for that I use 8X and 12X binos for the walks.

Wide open or coastal scenery is what I would use the BTX for, and for that it is fantastic.
Last trip up north of Sweden is where I used the BTX for the last time but to be honest the bird life was pretty sparse and at the only open spot I could use the BTX there were some beautiful Loons to watch and follow around but not much else to see.

"Giving up" the BTX has nothing to do with the binocular, I really enjoy the view. It is just that I almost never got around to using it.
Sorry Henrun, all I said about the shaky 14x52’s was blown out of the water by a chance encounter with an old friend who had a brand new pair with the headrest and the winged eyecups fitted. Transformation! No more shakes.

So I raided my beloveds purse and received them today. Just stunning.
 
PatR: good to hear. My wifes purse is not as easy to raid I am afraid. :)

I had very good success with the 12x42NL and headrest. It felt quite stable, at least on par with a regular 10x bino.

I have had some quality time with my Meopta Meostar 12x50 and with some practice I have become quite good at hand holding it. It is of course steadier on the monopod. The conclusion is that I am very happy with the Meopta and I think I have the best hand held reach I can get with the 12x50 coupled with the incredible glare resistance of the Meostar and as far as image quality, I can't ask for more. I tried upgrading once, but eventually went back to it.

It is always nice to fondle some new optical gadgets when they arrive on the market but I can't justify the cost of the 14x52NL. I did take a glance through the Leica 15x56 Geovid R. Crisp, but CA was too high for me.
 
Let me start with a question.

According to Swarovski‘s website, the diameter of the exit pupil in the 14x52 NL is 3.6 mm. Now, as this is a 14x52 binocular, the exit pupil should actually measure 3.7 mm (52 : 14 = 3.714286), right? So either of the two values 14 and 52 seems not exactly correct.

So, what‘s going on?

On my first encounter with the new NLs (First image of NL x52's!, posts # 24 and 33), I had measured an exit pupil of 3.5 mm on the then available sample, and measuring objective diameter and magnification, I had found to have a 14.6x51 binocular in my hand.

Measuring the exit pupil on my present sample, I get 3.6 mm, in line with Swarovski’s specs, and the objective diameter and magnification are 51 mm and 14.2x, respectively (I reconfirmed photographically the magnification to be roughly 5% lower than 15x). So this is a 14.2 x 51 NL Pure.

Am I too pedantic?? Yes, most likely.

That‘s also why I am still not a fan of the FieldPro system and the tightness of the eyecaps - I replaced them with generic no-brand eyecaps.
Understand why my wife sometimes thinks I should loosen up a bit?

Holding the two binoculars in hand, what strikes me more than the weight difference (with full gear, SLC 1‘320 g vs. NL 1‘164 g, or just over five ounces) is the difference in size and ergonomics. See pic 1. There may be different opinions about which of the two fits better in one‘s hand. For me, it‘s very clearly the NL.

On the other hand, the difference in AFOV appears larger than what might be expected. I had always enjoyed the 62 degrees AFOV of the SLC; just don‘t place it next to an NL and you won‘t miss anything. But if you then grab the NL, the term „widefield“ gets an entirely new meaning. I find the 70 degrees of the NL truly impressive and immersive.

But I am rather not going to repeat now what I had said in my earlier posts quoted above (second paragraph). For me, the more detailed inspection and usage of the NL since my review of mid June confirmed basically what I had said earlier.

But I re-examined things in light of the Rokslide review (Swarovski's NL Pure 14X52 vs SLC 15x56 Binocular Review), and below are my remarks regarding their findings.

Build quality
Matt Cashell of Rokslide finds the NL beats the SLC in “optical performance, build quality, and handheld performance”. I would agree with the first criterion (e.g. CA correction), but don’t know why the NL has a better build quality than the SLC, based on my samples.

Handheld useability?
Matt maintains that “high magnification binoculars are just not useable handheld for me. The magnified shake in the SLC 15x56 washes away the detail benefits of the increased magnification…but the NL is just different.”
Is it?
Matt mentions the trick with grasping the hat bill of the baseball cap to the top of the binocular and stabilizing the eyepieces with the thumbs. This, he says, got him a “fully useable handheld image for a short time. It was almost shocking.”
Did he try that trick (which, by the way, I have been using myself for many years) also with the SLC? I guess not, because if he had, he would have found that this method of holding the bino works actually better with the SLC than the NL, due to the different positions of the focus wheel. With the NL, the bill of the cap gets in the way, and focusing is odd. It works better with the SLC. Still, even this does not give you a fully useable handheld image in my opinion in either of the two binos, unless you don’t really want to see any fine detail, but then why use a high mag bino? For me, a 14x or 15x bino belongs mounted on a tripod, unless it has IS (I even mount 12x and 10x binos and, occasionally 8x – to those of you who find that ridiculous I recommend trying it once and you will be amazed at the difference it makes in detail recognition).
What about the headrest (available for all NL models)? Yes, it helps, but for me personally not more than the baseball cap trick just described and therefore not enough to forego tripod mounting. I will be interested to hear how other users feel about using the headrest.
Whether the different ergonomics help improve shake is perhaps a personal decision to be made by each user for him or herself. I clearly prefer the NL.

Magnification
Matt found that “the 14x52 NL Pure appeared to have more magnification than the 15x56 SLC“, and he wonders why. I can only think that the much wider AFOV caused that effect in Matt’s eyes. My measurements revealed that the SLC magnifies roughly 5% more than the NL, and that is what I feel when using the two binos.

CA / Color fringing
According to Rokslide, in the center of the image there is no CA in the NL and only a “tiny hint … in certain high contrast situations” in the SLC. At the edge of the field, “some minor fringing”, but notably less in the NL.
I agree with both findings. Here, the NL wins.

Contrast
Matt found in “deeper shadow areas” that the NL showed “rich colors with great differentiation among shades”, while he appreciated “the 15x56 SLC’s punchy contrast and vivid colors”. I found both binoculars show a very nice image with excellent contrast; perhaps my eyes are not as good as Matt’s, but I could not detect a substantial difference between the two binos (both the NL and SLC confirmed here how good they really are!).

“Resolution” (I think what’s meant in Rokslide’s review is “sharpness”)
For close range and using the USAF chart, Matt found that the NL resolved one smaller element than the SLC; in long-range testing, the NL “resolved one line better on the eye chart”. It seems that Matt did not use a booster for these tests.
Neither did I, and I did not use the USAF or an “eye chart “either.
What I did instead was observing some advertising signs, signposts, license plates and billboards at various distances, between about 20 and 80 meters, which I chose in such a way that the text and numbers were not immediately readable in either binocular. I then used either binocular alternatively to try and decipher some parts of the text and numbers. It took me quite a bit of time to do that, over several days and with different lighting conditions, but with the two binoculars always side-by-side. An example of a billboard that I used is shown in pic 3.
There were moments of doubt when I was not sure which bino showed more, and that’s when I stopped for a moment to let my eyes rest.
But overall, for my eyes the SLC showed just slightly more detail than the NL. It is well possible that this is due to the slightly (ca. 5%) higher magnification of the SLC, which would mean that the two binos are more or less of equal “sharpness”. This is not about declaring the SLC a winner and the NL a loser, but I think the SLC stands its ground very well in this discipline, and I cannot share Rokslide’s opinion that the NL is noticeably sharper.

Influence of atmospheric turbulence?
In Matt’s test, the NL seems to have “cut through the atmospheric disturbance (sic) better” than the SLC.
In my setup, I compared the two binoculars in a mixed alpine environment (see pic 4) and could again not find the NL ahead of the SLC in detail recognition over a very long distance (5-15 miles) in a slightly hazy and quite turbulent atmosphere.

Low light performance
According to the Rokslide review, “the two binoculars had similar general illumination performance”, but “the increased resolution benefit of the 14x52 NL Pure was maintained, or even more apparent, as the light faded.”
For me, both binoculars exhibit a substantially equal performance in low light; given the very slightly larger exit pupil of the SLC, anything else would have surprised me. But of course, I used my eyes and Matt used his, so his MMV.

So where does this leave me?

For me, the NL 14x52 (like the 10x52) is nothing less than superb. If you can – and want to – afford it, I am pretty sure you will be as impressed as I am. But the direct comparison with the big SLC showed me again (I seem to forget over time!) how good the SLC still is, even compared to the newest and best competition. For me, with the latest generation SLC (all sizes) Swarovski had already reached an excellence that is hard to improve. The NL has lots of arguments for it against the SLC, but the latter has no reason to hide in terms of optical performance.

fwiw Canip

P.S. Oh, did I not mention glare (nor did Rokslide)?
Well, this was – and is - a non-issue in my tests and in the usage of both the x52 NLs. I have serious trouble triggering glare in the big NLs; I am sure some users will see glare, but I am equally sure the NL’s can be handled glare-free.
Wow, fantastic write up.
 
I think the biggest advantages of the NL over the SLC, is the ultra-wide 70 degree AFOV, and to maintain sharpness and fidelity to the outer edges of that 70 degree field. That's exceptional optical gymnastics, and Swarovski has another winner on their hands, IMHO.

The SLC does not have to do this, since it only goes out to 63 degrees AFOV, which is average at best, circa 2024.

The Zeiss 15x56 Conquest HD with the same Abbe-Koenig type prism design as the SLC, in comparison, has a 69 degrees AFOV (more comparable to the 70 degrees of the NL than the 63 degree of the SLC), even if the outer edges of that 69 degree view, softens up (I am basing this on hearsay, since I have not tried out the Zeiss in hand).

Contrarily, the SLC does not have to sharpen up that "outer edges of the 69 degree view", since that portion of the view does not even exist in the SLC's relatively narrow 63 degree field. I have always wondered, if the SLC really has a 69 degree wider field, like the Zeiss, but Swarovski deliberately decided to mask off the outer edges and restrict it down to 63 degrees, due to the optical aberrations and the softness that's inherently present in those outer edges. Even though from a user's standpoint, I would not mind having that slightly compromised outer edges, since it does provide me "context", along with the immersive ultra-wide view, which a narrow 63 degree field would not.

There's a world of difference between an immersive 70/69 degree AFOV, and the view that's provided by a 63 degree instrument.

Additionally, the NL is a sublime handler, based on my current 8x42NL, but even that is highly personal, since I have known folks who are uncomfortable holding the NL over long periods.
 
I beg to differ, the Zeiss Conquest is not as good as the 15x56 SLC. I have owned both and have
compared them closely. It seems you are just judging these on specs. alone. It does not work that
way. And I do not play favorites.

As far as the new NL goes, I'm sure it is very good. But, before it came along, the SLC has been the King,
and I have tried them all.
Jerry
 
I beg to differ, the Zeiss Conquest is not as good as the 15x56 SLC. I have owned both and have
compared them closely. It seems you are just judging these on specs. alone. It does not work that
way. And I do not play favorites.

As far as the new NL goes, I'm sure it is very good. But, before it came along, the SLC has been the King,
and I have tried them all.
Jerry

Agreed - I tried both before buying the SLC, and whilst the Conquest's only major flaw was CA and not a bad instrument the SLC is much better.
 
Let me start with ...
Canip, I read your OP eagerly as soon as it was posted. The comparison was and is really useful to me. I may be one of those who pressed you for it! Now visiting the thread to read it again am surprised to find I have not written in to say: Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Great write up on a staggeringly good pair of bino’s, thank you for sharing.

I am thrilled with mine and watching the many raptors that populate our valley has been an absolute delight. They are ‘heavier’ if you put them on a scales and compare them against a 10x42, but the longer and slimmer barrels make holding them just as easy and the addition of the winged eyecups as well as the forehead rest has transformed them for me. My initial rejection of them due to shake was almost eliminated by those two simple rubber eyecups.

The FOV is reduced but it hasn’t bothered me, the view is still superb and even in less than good light levels, remains astonishingly bright.

I tried them on a mono/tri pod with the Swarovski rubber band mount I use on the 10x42’s but it restricted the IPD movement and was too small to secure properly. I ordered the Swarovski tripod mount and it is an excellent if expensive addition. It just works and allows complete adjustment and the stability it affords on a mono/tripod is astonishing. Rock solid.

I haven’t unduly noticed the weight using the standard strap but may consider the bino harness as a means to protect and carry a few odds and ends.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top