52mm NL Pure release date estimate? (4 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I think the price of a 52MM NL will be above the $4000 mark.

Probably about $4500. Oooooh that hurt to say that!

 

[[email protected]]

I've used a fair few bins under the stars and the 12x42NL left the best impression for me, especially when mounted. The afov makes you feel quite immersed amongst the stars.
I have never used a WX but have read a lot of reports and opinions, it was built without limits and to be the finest astronomy binocular available.
10x is a sweet spot for astro, I'd take the WX all day.
Will be keeping an eye on CL forum, I'm sure there'll be comparisons at some point.
Id guess around £3500 for the NL.

The NL 10x52 and 12x52 only advantage for birding would be low light birding, which I don't do anymore, and they are a lot heavier than my SF 10x32 and their FOV wouldn't be any wider plus they will be much heavier.

The NL 10x52 and 12x52 would also be good for astro use, and they would have the advantage over the WX 10x50 in that you wouldn't have to use a tripod if you didn't want to because they are much lighter, and they have CF focusing, whereas the WX is IF. The WX would still be the best on a tripod for strictly astro use because it has a much wider FOV than the NL 52mm.

But since I use my 150 mm reflector telescope when I do astro I don't need an astro binocular. Good I just talked myself out of a new NL 52 mm and saved $4500. For birding in the daytime, my SF 10x32 will actually work better. Thanks for letting me think out loud.

 

[Elpha8888]

If you like 10x for astro, how about the NL 10x52 versus the 10x50 WX? The big advantage of the NL is you wouldn't have to have a tripod, but with the WX you do because of the 5 1/2 pound weight. I guess the WX will still have the advantage in FOV because the NL 10x42 has a 399 foot FOV and the WX 10x50 has a 472 foot FOV. The 10x52 FOV would probably be pretty close to the NL 10x42 FOV, but maybe less.

The WX has a WIDE FOV! It is hard to beat. If you could pick up a WX 10x50 used for around $4000 and used a tripod it would still beat the NL, but it is a big advantage not needing a tripod. The NL 10x52 would be very sweet also. I think for all around use, I would take an NL 10x52 or 12x52 over a WX.

Yes perhaps I would consider the 10x this time, I handheld the 12x42 for astro on many occasions and I found them ok but mounted it transforms them quite remarkably, you go from scanning the night sky to scanning with your jaw dropped in amazement, able to fully immerse yourself into patches of stars, quite remarkable.
Like you say if someone wants an all rounder then the 52 is looking like the option.
I have never seen a second hand WX here in the UK but I do often look.
The mounting is an issue for me, I had a set up in my car so that I could drive to some nice dark places and sit back looking through the sunroof haha that is another reason why I enjoy Canons for the freedom they can give which is a huge advantage, the Canon glass is good enough for me. I still wonder about those Siggs.

 

[agus_m]

I wonder if the Swarovski 12x52 NL would beat the Nikon WF 10x50 for astronomy? It would have the advantage of a bigger aperture and more magnification seeing deeper into the sky, and still have a huge FOV, which might be within 5 degrees of the 76.4 degree AFOV of the Nikon.

Priced probably around $4000 the NL 12x52 should be about $2000 less than the Nikon and I know it will be flat field and sharp to the edge like the WX. The NL 12x52 should be a great astronomy binocular and the weight should be easily hand holdable at about 42 oz. If you think about it, for astronomy the NL 12x52 would be a bargain.

Still an expensive little bugger though! Maybe wait and get one used when some rich boy gets tired of the weight and sells his. The NL 12x52 is going to be one awesome binocular! Can you imagine an NL 12x52 on a tripod for astronomy or spotting game? Wow. I have to start saving up.

The wx's afov is considerable larger than the ISO calculated value of 76 degrees. The actual value was measured around 85 degrees, there is a recent thread about this discrepancy on cloudy nights.

 

[[email protected]]

The Canon's are as good as the Siggs probably better. The Siggs have some weird glare problems that I started seeing all the time that cover the FOV with a milky like haze, and they are all like that. The Canon's are good for astro, but I mostly use my 6 inch Dobsonian reflector telescope on the night sky and I prefer the view of a bird through an alpha like the NL 8x32 and the SF 10x32 over the Canon's even though they are steadier, and you can see more detail with the IS. The colors, contrast, brightness and transparency are better with the alphas.

When the WX first came out, you could pick up used ones for about $3500, but now they seem to be going for about $4500 on the used market. I have no use for one now, but I am still tempted to buy one just to see how good they are. Then resell it.

 

[[email protected]]

The wx's afov is considerable larger than the ISO calculated value of 76 degrees. The actual value was measured around 85 degrees, there is a recent thread about this discrepancy on cloudy nights.

Wow! That is huge.

 

[The BulbMogul]

Does anyone have any idea when we might see these actually forsale..? I would like to snag a pair before we head back to SriLanka in late October...

 

[Canip]

The timing should work, as I understand the signals, but which model are you referring to by „these“?