A strange 8x32 choice. (1 Viewer)

[Julian61]

Any reflections on this issue would be useful to me. Up to this point I have loved using Zeiss binoculars and still do - my 8x42 SFs are sublime. I bought a pair of Conquest 8x32s a little while ago and have enjoyed those too, though they lack the optical excellence of the SFs of course - they're pretty good though and I really like the fast focus on them. I have never been quite comfortable about their size and weight as I bought these as travel binoculars. I have ordered a used pair of 8x32 fls which, on paper, tick all the boxes. I've also, out of left field, been given a very good price on a pair of 10x32 NL Pures, though this would be a lot dearer than the fls. Having already looked through the NLs I do love the optics and even the ergonomics. They feel lovely in the hand despite being heavier and longer than the fls (and the Conquests that I own already). It's likely that I'll make up my mind just by comparing the two alongside each other in a couple of days' time, but I'd still be interested in anyone else's thoughts on these two binoculars. I'll only have an hour or so to make my decision. If anyone's had either or both of these, what has your experience been? With the NLs, are they compact and light enough to work as a travel binocular; with the fls, does their optical quality and general ease of use measure up to later models of all makes? (The fls clearly appear to fit my needs more appropriately, but...).

 

[ReinierB]

One strange thing is that NL 32's are a bit heavier than stated.
Stated: 640 g
Measured without strap, caps, etc: 659 g

I am thinking about adding a 8x30 or 8x25 as a lightweight alternative. However, I love the ergonomics of the NL 10x32 and the weight is nice too, compare with a 42. They blend in my hands and the focuser is smooth and on the right position. I have no experience with the FL 32's. The conquest 10x32 I tried once was nice, but the NL 10x32 has nicer colours. I think the conquest is really bright, but I prefer the warmer swarovski colours. The conquest felt a bit black-and-white to my eyes.

 

[Maljunulo]

In my limited view, optics are intended to enable us to see better, therefor I would choose the glass with the best image and accommodate to all other “deficiencies” real or imagined.

 

[dalat]

Both the 32 FL and the 32 NL are certainly very good optics, and it really comes down to personal preference, so just try and choose.
As you have a top 8x42, which only disadvantage is that it's quite large, the logical complement would be a very compact 32 bin. The FL is such a bin, while the 32 NL is somewhere between 32 FL and 42 SF in size.

Good alternatives could also be Zeiss SFL 30 or Swaro CL 30, which are both nice and compact, optically above the Conquest, but cheaper than FL/NL.

 

[grackle314]

For some travels, perhaps it is a factor of whether you might lose or damage the binocular. If so, you might be hesitant to travel, or worry while traveling, with binoculars you consider "a lot dearer" on price.

As one goes to smaller binocular, the trend is to smaller exit pupil. You have a lot of experience with 5.25 mm and 4 mm. A 10x32 will be 3.2 mm. As the exit pupil decreases, it takes longer experience with a particular binocular to get a rapid on-the-bird movement from hanging on your chest. 3 mm exit pupil is very common, this means many people find using them satisfactory over time.

Field-of-view desired is personal preference. Also, some lower cost binoculars offer large field of view but the image in the outer third may not be great. If your birding style is to get bird centered in binocular, then outer third may not matter in your overall assessment other than it is useful to find the bird initially. On the other hand, a large FOV with beautiful optics to the edge does give aesthetic pleasure in seeing Nature through the optics.

Back to your "a lot dearer" on the NL versus the others you consider. When you make your comparison, do remember to consider what you would do with the money difference between the NL and others. That money has value elsewhere that could mean the combined purchase of binocular plus some other use for the difference feels better than buying the NL. Just to let you know some bias in my view, I really enjoy the beauty of Nature through NL Pure 10x42. I also own Zeiss and Leica, all for their wonderful values as well. And I use a Swaro harness for the 10x42 as I do not like long hikes with 850 grams on my neck, and don't even notice the weight by using the harness.

 

[jring]

Hi,

cannot really speak for the NL 10x32 as I haven't tried it. But my FL 8x32 are my usual pair for going out for birding nowadays.
For me, 10x pairs are less enjoyable as holding them steady is less easy and also the smaller tfov makes finding stuff a bit tricky.
Also I usually have all the reach I want on my back, so a light pair is preferred ;-)

For somebody with steadier hands and no scope, a 10x pair might be great. Or more, in the form of a stabilized pair...

Joachim

 

[Julian61]

For some travels, perhaps it is a factor of whether you might lose or damage the binocular. If so, you might be hesitant to travel, or worry while traveling, with binoculars you consider "a lot dearer" on price.

As one goes to smaller binocular, the trend is to smaller exit pupil. You have a lot of experience with 5.25 mm and 4 mm. A 10x32 will be 3.2 mm. As the exit pupil decreases, it takes longer experience with a particular binocular to get a rapid on-the-bird movement from hanging on your chest. 3 mm exit pupil is very common, this means many people find using them satisfactory over time.

Field-of-view desired is personal preference. Also, some lower cost binoculars offer large field of view but the image in the outer third may not be great. If your birding style is to get bird centered in binocular, then outer third may not matter in your overall assessment other than it is useful to find the bird initially. On the other hand, a large FOV with beautiful optics to the edge does give aesthetic pleasure in seeing Nature through the optics.

Back to your "a lot dearer" on the NL versus the others you consider. When you make your comparison, do remember to consider what you would do with the money difference between the NL and others. That money has value elsewhere that could mean the combined purchase of binocular plus some other use for the difference feels better than buying the NL. Just to let you know some bias in my view, I really enjoy the beauty of Nature through NL Pure 10x42. I also own Zeiss and Leica, all for their wonderful values as well. And I use a Swaro harness for the 10x42 as I do not like long hikes with 850 grams on my neck, and don't even notice the weight by using the harness.

 

[Julian61]

Hi,

cannot really speak for the NL 10x32 as I haven't tried it. But my FL 8x32 are my usual pair for going out for birding nowadays.
For me, 10x pairs are less enjoyable as holding them steady is less easy and also the smaller tfov makes finding stuff a bit tricky.
Also I usually have all the reach I want on my back, so a light pair is preferred ;-)

For somebody with steadier hands and no scope, a 10x pair might be great. Or more, in the form of a stabilized pair...

Joachim

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I have to ask myself why I am replacing those Conquests and it's primarily a question of weight and size, neither of which would be addressed by the NLs (and both of which would be by the FLs). When I handled and looked through the NLs I was definitely wowed by them. Gorgeous to hold, and the optics were spectacular. I have never owned a pair of Swaros either! I didn't find any shake there despite them being 10x, but that could appear in the field and over time; I’m not getting any younger! The FLs look weathered to say to say the least, but InFocus, the sellers, describe them as being optically excellent with perfectly functioning mechanics. Your point about cost is well made. A significant amount of cash would remain in my pocket if I went FL and I wouldn’t have the fear factor to the same degree when travelling. On the other hand that binocular may well be too bashed up (the pics weren’t flattering). I may, when comparing them side by side, just love the optics of the top dollar bin too much to turn them down (though I'm offered a very good price on them...a factor in itself). FL sounds the practical option, NL, the glamorous. This is becoming a very self-indulgent ramble. But thank-you for your wise words!

 

[Julian61]

Hi,

cannot really speak for the NL 10x32 as I haven't tried it. But my FL 8x32 are my usual pair for going out for birding nowadays.
For me, 10x pairs are less enjoyable as holding them steady is less easy and also the smaller tfov makes finding stuff a bit tricky.
Also I usually have all the reach I want on my back, so a light pair is preferred ;-)

For somebody with steadier hands and no scope, a 10x pair might be great. Or more, in the form of a stabilized pair...

Joachim

There's the option of a headrest for the NLs. That would steady the image but my gut instinct at needing one isn't very positive. I'm looking for light weight portability after all. Everywhere I see FLs mentioned they come with comments of great affection; no one seems to want to part with them. That's significant in itself I think. It'll be down to their condition as they do look a bit beaten up in the pics I've been sent (though described as optically and mechanically perfect). Thank you for your comments.

 

[Julian61]

In my limited view, optics are intended to enable us to see better, therefor I would choose the glass with the best image and accommodate to all other “deficiencies” real or imagined.

I'll be very interested to compare the image in a well-used Zeiss FL with a pristine Swaro Pure. A complicating factor is the magnification with FL 8x32 and NL 10x. I guess I won't know until I've looked through and held both...not sure I'll even know then!

 

[Maljunulo]

I'll be very interested to compare the image in a well-used Zeiss FL with a pristine Swaro Pure. A complicating factor is the magnification with FL 8x32 and NL 10x. I guess I won't know until I've looked through and held both...not sure I'll even know then!

If you can’t tell which one has the better image, after you have looked through both, I guess it’s irrelevant, isn’t it?

Magnification is also irrelevant, a 10X image is not inherently “better” than an 8X image. (or the other way ‘round)

 

[tenex]

I have to ask myself why I am replacing those Conquests and it's primarily a question of weight and size

We have the 10x32 FL, and you will love the ergonomics as much as the optics. Not the tiniest (Ultravid is smaller, not to mention 8x30s) but better handling.

 

[Julian61]

If you can’t tell which one has the better image, after you have looked through both, I guess it’s irrelevant, isn’t it?

Magnification is also irrelevant, a 10X image is not inherently “better” than an 8X image. (or the other way ‘round)

It's like I said, practicality v optics. They're both going to be great optically with the NLs likely to be a bit better...but if the FLs are lighter and more compact while the others feel too heavy...well, it's a trade-off one way or the other. Lots of ifs, but it could end up being a crystal clear decision when I actually have both in the hand.

 

[Julian61]

We have the 10x32 FL, and you will love the ergonomics as much as the optics. Not the tiniest (Ultravid is smaller, not to mention 8x30s) but better handling.

I have to say that when I held and looked through the NLs I did fall in love with them!

 

[Julian61]

I have to say that when I held and looked through the NLs I did fall in love with them!

You said FL 10x. I got you mixed up with NLs. I am hoping I fall in love with FLs too. It would be so convenient!

 

[Alaska4me]

With the NLs, are they compact and light enough to work as a travel binocular...

The answer is yes they work very well as travel binoculars. I absolutely love my NL 8x32's.

 

[Julian61]

The answer is yes they work very well as travel binoculars. I absolutely love my NL 8x32's.

Inevitably for such fine binoculars, each has its admirers. In the end it will be the relationship between my unique pair of eyes and each instrument that will determine my choice. Maybe, too, the ergonomics of the binoculars which, as well, will be a question of my physical self in relation to them. Yes, cost is a factor, but only where all else is equal...and that's an unlikely outcome I think. In short, primary factor will be optical quality, secondary, ergonomics, and third, price of the instrument. I wonder if that's the experience of many birders.

 

[Maljunulo]

In short, primary factor will be optical quality, secondary, ergonomics, and third, price of the instrument. I wonder if that's the experience of many birders.

Pretty much the same for me, except there is a long gap between number one and the other two.

 

[Patudo]

That being the case, why don't you own a WX?

 

[wllmspd]

WX….. ooh the ergonomics….. ;-)

Peter