NL >=50 mm versions? (2 Viewers)

[Brummie]

Seems like any top tier 12 power binocular should have a good quality built-in tripod/monopod adapter installed at the factory, a lot of the used 12X42 NL have them installed, I’d say that’s pretty telling.

I haven't tried it, but my understanding of the issue with installing the studs on the NL42s is that the threaded socket is very shallow - only around 3 turns. Seems it wasn't designed to be used to install a stud, and such use may be precarious. I don't need a stud pre-installed, I just would want the 1/4"-20 socket to be sufficiently deep that it will be secure.

I'm potentially in the market for the NL 10x52, rather than the 12x52. But I'd still definitely want to mount it because for me the two advantages over a 10x42 would be (i) night sky, and (ii) having the option of using it with a zeiss tripler (I'd expect the image quality at 30x52 to be significantly better than 30x42).

 

[SuperDuty]

I haven't tried it, but my understanding of the issue with installing the studs on the NL42s is that the threaded socket is very shallow - only around 3 turns. Seems it wasn't designed to be used to install a stud, and such use may be precarious. I don't need a stud pre-installed, I just would want the 1/4"-20 socket to be sufficiently deep that it will be secure.

I'm potentially in the market for the NL 10x52, rather than the 12x52. But I'd still definitely want to mount it because for me the two advantages over a 10x42 would be (i) night sky, and (ii) having the option of using it with a zeiss tripler (I'd expect the image quality at 30x52 to be significantly better than 30x42).

Makes good sense to me.

 

[SuperDuty]

I will say though, I was disappointed in the 10X50 SV in comparison to my 10X42 SV, that was back in probably 2015 or 2016, overall I preferred the image of the 42, theoretically that shouldn’t have been the case, I thought they looked more dull, and they definitely had a lot more CA on the edge, that’s what I saw, other people won’t agree I’m sure. A lot of times I don’t fully understand the allbinos reviews, but these these two were actually pretty close to what I saw.

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[Brummie]

I haven't compared the EL 10x42 and 10x50, but apart from those two scenarios I mention, I wouldn't expect to see any appreciable difference. Even in terms of dusk use, my eyes don't see a lot of difference between comparable 40 and 50mm binoculars. It's only when trying to pick out faint night-sky objects that I can clearly detect an advantage.

If a 50mm is actually worse than its 40mm equivalent in regular use, then certainly not worth it. I hope that's not the case with the NLs, but I guess there will always be some sample variation.

 

[dries1]

I have the SV 10X50, and though heavier I preferred it to the 10X42 SV, larger FOV and better light gathering overall IMO. If mounting glass there is also the SLC 10X56 to consider, or the WX 10X50 which may be priced near the new to be NL 10X52?

 

[Brummie]

I have the SV 10X50, and though heavier I preferred it to the 10X42 SV, larger FOV and better light gathering overall IMO. If mounting glass there is also the SLC 10X56 to consider, or the WX 10X50 which may be priced near the new to be NL 10X52?

In my case, when I say I'd want to mount the 10x52, I don't mean all the time - I'd want them to perform both mounted and hand-held.

I have a pair of SLC 15x56, which I enjoy owning because they're a lovely optical instrument, but I struggle to find practical reasons to carry them. They need to be mounted, and for almost the same weight, I could carry a combination of compact scope and bins [I think a SF32 + ED50 is less than the weight of a SLC56, and a SFL30 + ATC is only 20% more - a negligible difference when you factor in the tripod as well].

I was actually thinking of getting the WX 10x50 (only if I happen to going to Japan in the next couple of years, and can pick them up for a good price) as a dedicated night sky and earth observation binocular (not for wildlife or field use). The NL 10x52 potentially presents a different option - a field binocular that would replace a 10x42, which I can also use as an ersatz fieldscope with the tripler and which offers excellent night sky views. They're very different animals, but I couldn't ever justify having both.

 

[Tringa45]

I will say though, I was disappointed in the 10X50 SV in comparison to my 10X42 SV, that was back in probably 2015 or 2016, overall I preferred the image of the 42, theoretically that shouldn’t have been the case, I thought they looked more dull, and they definitely had a lot more CA on the edge, that’s what I saw, other people won’t agree I’m sure. A lot of times I don’t fully understand the allbinos reviews, but these these two were actually pretty close to what I saw.

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Swarovski EL 10x50 Swarovision - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

I was interested in a 10x50 SV early in 2012 but it was not available due to alleged production difficulties and I settled for the 10x42 EL (mid 2011 production).
There were I think anti-reflective coating improvements (5 to 7 layer?) from Swarovision to Field Pro, so it's surprising that in Allbino's tests the 10x42 SV had better transmission than the 10x50 FP.
Apparently any coating improvements could not make good the additional glass path of the larger binocular.
Perhaps the importance of attributes such as coatings and HT glass is often subject to exaggeration on this forum.

John

 

[tenex]

I have a pair of SLC 15x56, which I enjoy owning because they're a lovely optical instrument, but I struggle to find practical reasons to carry them.

I love using mine, and just had it out yesterday by a local lake where Bald Eagles are nesting and the nearby path is closed, so the extra magnification was welcome for viewing them as well as any waterfowl out on the lake. It was also a windy afternoon and the weight of the 56 helped to keep it steady.

The highlight though was while observing one eagle standing off at some distance on the lake shore, when a juvenile Red-Tailed Hawk flew in to perch right on a tree in front of us, to check us out. I've occasionally had one fly low overhead, but never just stare at me at eye level from that close (about 13ft/4m, the minimum focus of the SLC). Those golden eyes seemed huge. It must only have been a minute or so but felt much longer; then it flew off to the top of another tree where it was facing in the eagle's direction.

NL 52s sound very attractive in 12x or even higher, though I intend to avoid the temptation.

 

[Tringa45]

Those golden eyes seemed huge. It must only have been a minute or so but felt much longer; then it flew off to the top of another tree where it was facing in the eagle's direction.

I guess he didn't like your big eyes.

John

 

[hayesavelive]

Does anyone have a guess when these 52mm NLs might actually come out? Do you think it will just be some random Monday and it shows up on their website? Or do they usually release stuff like this at a big conference, like how new TVs get released at CES every year? I see there is an event called Global BirdFair coming up in July, and many optics companies including Swarovski are listed as exibitors...

 

[Arne Bischoff]

It seems the NL Pure 52 is listed at at least to French(ish) online-shops.

- German retailer Foto Erhardt has a site at its French subsidiary without any information for the 10x52 variant: https://www.foto-erhardt.fr/jumelle...ptique-swarovski/swarovski-nl-pure-10x52.html

- French retailer Achatnature lists both a 10x52 and an 14x52 version on its "product news page". Both versions have product sites with prices of 3,500 and 3,550 EUR respectively. French retail prices usually already include 20 % VAT. If the prices would be accurate, this would be a really pleasent surprise: Nouveaux produits

Jumelles SWAROVSKI NL PURE 10X52

achatnature.com

Jumelles SWAROVSKI NL PURE 14X52

achatnature.com

The EL50 is no longer in production and sold with quite significant discounts already.
It's still a bit speculative of course, but I find both the pricing and the magnifactions plausible. I guess, the new NL52 is hitting the shelfs soon.

 

[Brummie]

14x52?!?

I love the NL 12x42 because it's the only 12x binocular I've found to be really usable handheld. I still think a 14x52 would be too much for me handheld, but it would be fun to try.

The prices, if right, are welcome, but I guess that will still translate to US prices at the $4,000 mark. I'm interested in size, weight and FOV specs when they're available. Also interested in tripod adapter compatibility, but I doubt they will make that clear in initial specs, particularly if they go the infuriatingly standard route of not designing it to accommodate standard 1/4-20 adapters.

 

[Arne Bischoff]

14x52?!?

I love the NL 12x42 because it's the only 12x binocular I've found to be really usable handheld. I still think a 14x52 would be too much for me handheld, but it would be fun to try.

The prices, if right, are welcome, but I guess that will still translate to US prices at the $4,000 mark. I'm interested in weight and FOV specs when they're available. Also interested in tripod adapter compatibility, but I doubt they will make that clear in initial specs, particularly if they go the infuriatingly standard route of not designing it to accommodate standard 1/4-20 adapters.

I am with you. 14 times would be too much for me. But IF (and this is a big if) the NL52 is gonna replace both the the EL50 and the SLC56, it suddenly makes sense. Same when you compare it to big hunting or astro glasses like the Vortex Razor UHD which are also quite commonly available in higher magnifications. And Swaro did something similar with the NL 12x42 which was quite an unusual and high-powered configuration by the time of release. I wonder if Swaro integrates a mounting solution for a 14x bino, too.

If (another big if) the price should be true, the EL 10x52 could replace both my NL 12x42 and EL 8,5x42. Two excellent glasses, but everytime I go out with either one, I wonder if not the other would have been the better choice. The definition of a first world problem. I know it.

 

[Brummie]

If (another big if) the price should be true, the EL 10x52 could replace both my NL 12x42 and EL 8,5x42. Two excellent glasses, but everytime I go out with either one, I wonder if not the other would have been the better choice.

Once you're down the rabbit hole of wanting THE BEST set up, those questions are probably never going to leave you.

 

[Ignatius]

It seems the NL Pure 52 is listed at at least to French(ish) online-shops.

- German retailer Foto Erhardt has a site at its French subsidiary without any information for the 10x52 variant: https://www.foto-erhardt.fr/jumelle...ptique-swarovski/swarovski-nl-pure-10x52.html

'Aucun article correspondant. Swarovski NL Pure 10x52'

 

[Arne Bischoff]

'Aucun article correspondant. Swarovski NL Pure 10x52'

Look at the URL! The point is. They built a site, they listed the product name and they indexed it. Of course it does not contain any information. But no one builds a shopsite for a product that does not exist. Trust me. There is gonna be a corresponding article soon!

 

[tenex]

I am with you. 14 times would be too much for me. But IF (and this is a big if) the NL52 is gonna replace both the the EL50 and the SLC56, it suddenly makes sense.

Welcome to Birdforum! With this introduction it does seem possible now that SLC 56's days are numbered, or maybe it will come in a plainer box with brown armor. One line to rule them all! But don't give up on the idea of 14x too quickly, especially if you like the 12x42. It's not so big a jump, and all the ergonomics (including FHR if you use that) will be similar. As nicely as I think SLC 15x56 handles, NL 14x52 will surely be easier still.

If (another big if) the price should be true, the EL 10x52 could replace both my NL 12x42 and EL 8,5x42. Two excellent glasses, but everytime I go out with either one, I wonder if not the other would have been the better choice. The definition of a first world problem. I know it.

I don't quite see this... if true, why didn't you already get NL 10x42? I've been using 10 and 15x for 30+ years now (8 and 15 initially but never mind) and it still strikes me as the perfect combination.

 

[NDhunter]

Lots of mystery yet it seems. The 15x56 SLC is the best Big Eyes binocular on the market, and
has been for years. Hunters are the largest customer base for this size. I don't think a 14X NL
will cut it for those looking for that size. Mostly tripod mounted, a head rest, not.
Jerry

 

[tenex]

Presumably 14x is splitting the difference between the 12 and 15x models it's likely to replace? And the FOV will surely be impressive, more like other 12x.

Recent models seem to be varying the traditional parameters, first from 56mm to 54, now 52. And 14x instead of 15... but are people who use big glass really concerned with small savings in size/weight, especially when it's often not around their necks?

 

[Brummie]

Is the NL 14x52 intended to replace the SLC 15x56 as the premium mounted big-eye binocular, or is the idea similar to the 12x42 - i.e. to push the boundary of what can be done with a handheld binocular through the improved ergonomics and headrest? I don't know. I'm sure some people will be able to use them handheld, but I'm not sure I'm one of them.

If the NL52s are consistent with the NL42s on FOV, then I'd expect the 14x52 to have almost 300', which is close to the 10x binoculars I used to use when I was a young field biologist.