Would you get an NL Pure 32mm if you already had a 42, or maybe something else? (2 Viewers)

[Will K]

I've been fantasising about getting an 8x or 10x32 NL to complement my 12x42. It is just hypothetical, because I can't afford it at the moment. Maybe next year.

In the meantime, it might be interesting to think about the pros and cons of this choice. I love the ergonomics of both NL sizes, and, personally speaking, I find that the NL glass gives me everything I could possibly need. The 12x42 is a little heavy, though, and it would be nice to have a smaller and lighter option.

I've never owned a Leica or Zeiss, so I'd also be curious to have some variety in my optics, but do you think an NL 32 is the obvious choice for someone who already likes the NL 42? Would you consider other options, such as an Ultravid, CL, or a Victory Pocket, for example?

Thanks!

 

[mauriciolacruz]

Why not? Especially if you already like the x42.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I’m in an ongoing love affair with Swarovski ELs
I bought a new pair of 10x42s in 2012.
Last autumn I bought a second hand (by coincidence also made in 2012) pair of 8x32s. I just love the view through an EL, can’t think why I would switch allegiance.

So my expectation is that someone owning a pair of NL 10x42 would also be interested in a pair of NL 8x32s

Interestingly I have just traded in my EL 10x42s for a pair of 2014 EL 8.5x42s as a future proofing exercise (68 years old yesterday)

 

[ReinierB]

If I were you I would try the Zeiss SFL 8x40 or 10x40 for a bigger exit pupil AND more lightweight to complement your 12x42. An NL 32 is of course very nice as well.
I have a NL 10x32 and it is really nice! However, I also really like the comfort of a bigger exit pupil of my 8x42.

 

[Mike Crawley]

If your comment wrt SFLs is aimed towards me - good point.
I tried a pair of 10x40 SFLs for about an hour on Scilly last October. Nice but preferred my ELs

 

[Will K]

Yes, the SFLs do look interesting. They've certainly got excellent lightness, although I can't recall how 'bulky' they seem compared to NL 32s.

I've not had much time behind them, as yet. More research needed!

 

[ReinierB]

A pocket bin is a nice complement as well. I am considering one as well.
It all depend on your needs. Really lightweight or just something more compact.

 

[Will K]

A pocket bin is a nice complement as well. I am considering one as well.
It all depend on your needs. Really lightweight or just something more compact.

I don't like the idea of something that is too small. That's why, if I do go for a pocket model, I would be drawn toward the Victory, which is a bit more of a 'handful' than others with similar specs.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I also have a pair of Hawke Endurance ED 8x25 compact binoculars.
Only about £100, decent for the price and only for very occasional use.

 

[Will K]

I also have a pair of Hawke Endurance ED 8x25 compact binoculars.
Only about £100, decent for the price and only for very occasional use.

My optical tastes have been thoroughly spoilt by alpha glass, unfortunately!

I'd only really consider carrying something that had top-quality edge-sharpness, light transmission, CA control, etc.

My wallet does not thank me for that.

 

[rodneyAB]

I love the ergonomics of both NL sizes, and, personally speaking, I find that the NL glass gives me everything I could possibly need.

do you think an NL 32 is the obvious choice for someone who already likes the NL 42?

Thanks!

Yes.

 

[Richard D]

Worth considering used EL 8x32, much cheaper and you don't lose much...

 

[Will K]

I find the rolling ball effect on the ELs rather unpleasant, unfortunately. The one or two I have tried - I couldn’t get on with them. The NLs are much easier on the eye.

 

[Mike Crawley]

My optical tastes have been thoroughly spoilt by alpha glass, unfortunately!

I'd only really consider carrying something that had top-quality edge-sharpness, light transmission, CA control, etc.

My wallet does not thank me for that.

alpha glass ? that made me chuckle

I very deliberately bought a cheap-ish pair of compact binoculars knowing that I would use them rarely. Bright days on family walks or pottering around National Trust properties it’s difficult to recognise any difference between my Hawke compacts and much more expensive types.

But it’s your money and therefore your choice

 

[Mike Crawley]

I find the rolling ball effect on the ELs rather unpleasant, unfortunately. The one or two I have tried - I couldn’t get on with them. The NLs are much easier on the eye.

I haven’t witnessed a “rolling ball effect” which is why I’m still a happy user after 11 years

 

[Will K]

alpha glass ? that made me chuckle

I very deliberately bought a cheap-ish pair of compact binoculars knowing that I would use them rarely. Bright days on family walks or pottering around National Trust properties it’s difficult to recognise any difference between my Hawke compacts and much more expensive types.

But it’s your money and therefore your choice

There are other factors involved, of course, but I totally understand

Bino specs don't make much difference, in the grand scheme of things. Not as much as money, at least.

 

[wllmspd]

I was hypothesising about “pocket” jocular recently and noted down the specs of all the decent models I could find. My 6.5x papillo are “compact” but not pocketable… unless you like bulging pockets! Just picked up a Leica 8x20bca secondhand. Minimally small, yes the ergonomics aren’t as easy as a full size and I normally like very wide fields, but for an “always available” pair they work well. Showed the family a peregrine on a local tower block today - no complains from anyone. For a pair to go birding I favour an 8x30 or similar, wide and light, find stuff before you poke the scope at it.

Peter

 

[Will K]

I think 30-32mm would be about right, so long as the weight is reasonable. If I want to really carry something on a day out and don't mind feeling it on my chest, I'll just take the NL 42s.

I was impressed by a 25mm Ultravid though. That's a nice little bino.

 

[Richard D]

I think 30-32mm would be about right, so long as the weight is reasonable. If I want to really carry something on a day out and don't mind feeling it on my chest, I'll just take the NL 42s.

I was impressed by a 25mm Ultravid though. That's a nice little bino.

I would suggest trying the Swaro CL 8x25s - I think optically you'd find them good enough but I suspect you might find the relatively narrow FoV an issue if you're used to the NLs. Obviously 8x32's aren't great for dark woodland birding or evening use but might be a good compromise. Have you completely ruled out 10x32's?

 

[brocknroller]

I've been fantasising about getting an 8x or 10x32 NL to complement my 12x42. It is just hypothetical, because I can't afford it at the moment. Maybe next year.

In the meantime, it might be interesting to think about the pros and cons of this choice. I love the ergonomics of both NL sizes, and, personally speaking, I find that the NL glass gives me everything I could possibly need. The 12x42 is a little heavy, though, and it would be nice to have a smaller and lighter option.

I've never owned a Leica or Zeiss, so I'd also be curious to have some variety in my optics, but do you think an NL 32 is the obvious choice for someone who already likes the NL 42? Would you consider other options, such as an Ultravid, CL, or a Victory Pocket, for example?

Thanks!

As the English poet William Cowper wrote in 1795, "Variety's the very spice of life."