Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 vs CL Companion 8x30 (1 Viewer)

[Dr. K]

Slightly off topic: Dr. K if / when you are inclined, as a pocket fan I am sometimes tempted by the older single hinge Zeiss Victory 8x20 for its apparently tiny size and I really like the handling of single hinge VP 8x and 10x25. How does the 8x20 compare to the Curio in terms of size, overall image quality and ease of handling? For context I do own and like the Curio as well. Thanks in advance for any input.

Mike

Hi Mike.

I really prefer the single hinge design from zeiss to any two-hinge compact that I've tried. It's so much less fiddly and more natural to reach the focus knob. The single hinge design doesn't make for easy stashing, however, just because it's not an intuitive shape for an oval or rectangular shaped pocket of pouch. The shape difference is more apparent than any difference in size - I would call them equal in size, the 8x20 vp is much smaller than the 8x25, a bit smaller than the 10x25.

Comparing the older VP 8x20 to the newer curio, I prefer the build quality and material choices of the vp - some have argued that the focus knob feels cheap or fragile on the vp, but that is not my impression. The vp has a nice rubber armor that feels good and protects it from scratches. In contrast, I don't like the chunky, cold, exposed metal slab on the curio, and the ridiculous use of a thin, exceedingly cheap-feeling plastic cover on the underside of the curio's bridge (where you don't see it in ads). Neither of them sits naturally around the neck because of the location of the strap attachments, but the vp is better.

In the end the point of the bins is the view and, though I've tried to convince myself otherwise, I prefer looking through the curio. Both appear equally sharp to my eyes, with similar fov, and tests show same excellent light transmission. To me, the curio might be a smidge brighter and I feel more relaxed using it, perhaps due to the larger exit pupil or the lower magnification. These differences are slight, however, and I suspect that anyone with either would be equally happy with them, but having both you get to be picky. In my collection, if the vp came in 7x21, there would be a contest; I would have two and no curio.

Hope that helps.

 

[Binovehje]

I’ve used the CL 8x30 for about a year and just recently bought a used pair of NL 8x32. I also own the Curios.

The NLs are of course twice the price but also has a nicer view. I never thought the CL was lacking until I got used to the NL’s wider field and longer depth of field. The CL also has a really good picture and sharp to the edges. Only a bit narrow FOV compared to the NL. The CL fit my eyes a bit better. The NL is noticeably heavier.

The problem with the CL 8x30 is the existence of the Curio. When I’m ready to take this size on me, I might as well carry the NL. If I want a smaller and lighter binoculars, the Curio really is so good that I don’t see the Companion giving me that much benefit over it. I don’t even notice the Curios being with me and I easily take them everywhere and then I always have a view that is very close to Companions view. And for bigger needs I don’t mind carrying the NL. So the Companions will be sold now.

If you think about size and weight difference between NL and CL and feel the NL 8x32 is too big, heavy and expensive, go straight to Curio for size and save up for a bigger NL.

 

[almond68]

The NL Pure 8x32 is heavier than the CL Champion 8x30, so if you are hiking and prefer your binoculars to dangle at the ready from a neck strap then the CL Champion is likely the better choice.

 

[Elkhornsun]

I prefer the 10x CL binos for general use around the house but when hiking I usually take the 10x25 Swarvo Pocket Mountain binos or a 12x50 binocular. With my old eyes a 8x bino just does not cut it.

 

[Dr. K]

Did anyone mention focus speed yet?

I just checked...

NL 8x32: ~2.65 turns
EL 8x32: ~2.5 turns
CL(b) 8x30: ~1.5 turns

for comparison...

Swaro Curio 7x21: ~2.4 turns
Nikon M5 8x42: ~1.10 turns
Nikon E 7x35C: ~1.10 turns
Nikon Eii 8x30: ~1.25 turns
Zeiss FL 7x42: ~1.25 turns
Zeiss victory 8x20: ~1 turn(!)
Zeiss victory 10x25: ~1.25 turns

I know the precise numbers are out there, but I don't have them. I tested this myself on the bins just now.

I knew that my NLs were slow, but didn't expect it to stand out this badly... maybe because I was used to the ELs when I bought them. I have lost birds to the 'chase' (finger speed vs seconds on branch), and I have recently been delighted with the seemingly miraculous ability of my new-to-me FL 7x42s to not only get to a bird, but to track it in flight through thee busy woods around my house (has me wondering what the point of the "SF" moniker is for the current Zeiss flagships). My takeaway from the comparison is that the CL did quite well, it's a fast focuser. I also played with it for a little bit, thinking about this thread, and I am reminded that it is a very handy instrument with good ergonomics and a beautiful view.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Dr. K,

Did you measure the total focuser travel from lock-to-lock, or from closest focus to infinity?
The two can differ substantially, depending on the brand and model.

For example, Canip (aka Pinac elsewhere) measured the excess travel beyond infinity
as equivalent to around:
5 diopters on an NL 8x32: Swarovski NL Pure 8×32 – Binoculars Today
6 diopters on an EL SV 8x32: Swarovski EL 8×32 SV – Binoculars Today

And, as equivalent to around:
6 diopters on an NL 8x42: Swarovski NL Pure 8×42 – Binoculars Today
6.5 diopters on an EL SV 8.5x42: Swarovski EL SV 8.5×42 (2016 model) – Binoculars Today


- - - -
Older style binoculars (including the current production Porro prism Swarovski Habicht) featured a focusing scale.
It allowed a user to preset a default distance, and so greatly minimise the amount of focuser movement needed.
See point C) Focusing, along with the images in post #7 at: Habicht 8x30W and Italian supercars (my take on the Habicht)


John

 

[Dr. K]

Hi Dr. K,

Did you measure the total focuser travel from lock-to-lock, or from closest focus to infinity?
The two can differ substantially, depending on the brand and model.

For example, Canip (aka Pinac elsewhere) measured the excess travel beyond infinity
as equivalent to around:
5 diopters on an NL 8x32: Swarovski NL Pure 8×32 – Binoculars Today
6 diopters on an EL SV 8x32: Swarovski EL 8×32 SV – Binoculars Today

And, as equivalent to around:
6 diopters on an NL 8x42: Swarovski NL Pure 8×42 – Binoculars Today
6.5 diopters on an EL SV 8.5x42: Swarovski EL SV 8.5×42 (2016 model) – Binoculars Today


- - - -
Older style binoculars (including current production Porro prisms such as the Nikon EII and the Swarovski Habicht) featured a focusing scale.
It allowed a user to preset a default distance, and so greatly minimise the amount of focuser movement needed.
See point C) Focusing, along with the images in post #7 at: Habicht 8x30W and Italian supercars (my take on the Habicht)


John

I will have to follow your links and do some learning… my quick test was lock to lock

 

[[email protected]]

A Swarovski Pure 8x32 versus the CL Companion? The ONLY advantage the CL Companion has is its smaller size and weight. If you absolutely need something smaller and lighter, that would be the only reason to get the Companion outside of price. The Pure beats the Companion in every category, especially in optics.

It has a much bigger FOV, it is brighter, more transparent, it has sharper edges, higher transmission and has way less CA. The weak spot of the Companion is the CA on the edge. It is higher than it should be for a $1200 binocular. I never thought the focuser on the Companion was as smooth or as consistent as the NL, either. A small point, but something to consider. You can't fit the Companion in your pocket, so why not just carry the NL.

 

[tenex]

Did you measure the total focuser travel from lock-to-lock, or from closest focus to infinity?

Yes... also remember that not all the other models focus as close as NL, and there's a lot of travel there, so you should really compare focus from ~10ft to infinity,