Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

[cottonbase]

Usually can get Google Translate to work with these. Not here. Any tips?

Download it then upload to here. It does a decent job.

Enable ad blocker first!

 

[recon493]

I recently acquired the NL Pure 8x42. My pre-purchase time was spent on this very forum in a fog of long threads about the NL Pures and whether or not it would be worth the fairly large sum of money. I was able to walk around with them this morning and can safely say that I am extremely pleased. Now that I am a new member, I want to also give my first impressions.

For reference, my better glass prior to this is a 2003 8x32 EL and also the Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50. I cannot say that I have an extremely discriminating eye but could already tell the difference between my previous glass and the more common binoculars (Orion 10x50's, Swift 8x42's).

Now that I have inserted the NL Pure 8x42 into the collection, I will most likely be selling my other equipment. I most appreciate the wide field of view and the crispness of everything as objects snap into focus. Between that and the edge to edge clarity, it will just remind the user that you are holding glass that is not holding you back.

I go back and forth in using my eye glasses. The eyecup adjustment has a hydraulic feel to the rotation and with the associated click stops (6 steps of them). Eye relief is excellent. I was at 3 clicks out for full field of view with "my" glasses on.

The big concern (and prearrival excitement) was the diopter adjustment knob. I hunted the web for negative feedback on this new feature and was planning to go to Leica or Zeiss otherwise. I can safely say that I am totally sold on the NL diopter adjustment. It is not going to get accidentally moved and it is so much more convenient than pulling out the central knob of my older EL's. It provides infinity adjustment as well (no clicks).

Ergos are great. I still adore the feel of the smaller 8x32 ELs. The NL Pure body just feels great in the hand. I hope their armor lasts. It arrived with a broken front objective cap. The rubber hinge was already torn which I had already seen in the forums. The dealer contacted SONA to send a replacement. I fear their rubber (cap tether/hinges and protective armor) is one step above toilet paper. We shall see. (so far this is my only gripe).

My reading suggested that any of the top 3 will provide the "wow". I bet you will not regret any of them. Just go find nature and view. I will end with saying that I stepped outside this morning and got immersed in views as I tested the NL's smooth focus wheel from close to far, which opened up spiders to a deer 100 yards away. Oddly, Birdnet, no birds landed. Regardless, I easily lost an hour and a half thinking of nothing other than the views. Amortize the amount of time of inhaled joy you get in holding your quality glass. Even at half of minimum wage, your binoculars will pay for themselves by keeping your heart healthy and spirit up. I have hired the 8x42 NL Pures. In 20 years they will have paid for themselves.

Thanks for letting me post as a newbie.

 

[Swedpat]

I am one of those people who doesn't care about FOV. I care about razor-sharpness in the middle, great ER, high diopter value at infinity. I don't care for close focus distance. Don't care about glare either.

Never test drove a NL and no plans to. 12x42 makes no sense at all. It badly needs a 50mm+ objective. I think 10x rhymes well with 50mm and 12x deserves an even bigger objective, as least 56mm.

I am perfectly happy with EL and Zeiss 8x42 SF and 10x54 HT, not sure what NL gets me that I don't already have.

While 50mm objective would be better I don't understand why it should badly need it.
12x42 corresponds to 18x63. Or 24x84.
These configurations don't badly need 75mm or 100mm objective. At least not if your main use is in pretty low light conditions. But the 12x42 is not a night time binocular, and much larger aperture would make it much heavier and less suited for handhold use.
Some user claimed that the eye relief is the same with all magnifications in the 42mm series. If that's correct I seriously consider to get even the 12x42.

 

[pm42]

While 50mm objective would be better I don't understand why it should badly need it.

Agree but when someone says "I've never tried something, don't plan to" followed by "but I'll explain why I know better than those who did", one can think that we are far away from any reasonable point of view. This is like a virgin explaining that sex is not that good.

BTW, I tried the NL 12x42 and whilst I have no need of such a magnification, I was impressed.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ed, post 919,
No I use them in the orginal state.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[ReinierB]

I've come around to agreeing with Canip that the glare in the 8x42 NL is tamable, but for me it has required very precise positioning of the eyecup length and removing the objective covers so that their fastening tabs don't intrude into the entrance pupil. I've found that I need exactly 19mm between the top of the rubber eyecup and the binocular body; even a fraction of a millimeter shorter and I begin to experience blackouts and FOV vignetting, even a fraction of a millimeter longer and the glare starts to increase.

My particular sweet spot setting of the eye cups falls between the the first click in from fully extended and the second click in. This spot will be different for everybody with different facial features. I expect it will often fall somewhere between clicks and therefore many users will wind up with more glare than they could have.

If it weren't for the glare I would have found one click in to be perfectly fine, but 1.5-2mm further in eliminated almost all the glare I was experiencing. It's worth the effort to find that spot.

Henry

Thank you! I will try it as well!

 

[ReinierB]

I answered here, because the other thread was closed by the moderator.