• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

First image of NL x52's! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice scope and mount. Is that the Tak FC100N? Where did you snag that GTO Mount? Those are to come by, aren't they? That has to be about the best 100mm scope around.
I bought the mount from a friend of one of my astronomy buddies. He only used it a couple times it is still like new. They are hard to come by I haven’t seen many over the years on Astro Mart. Scope is Takahashi FC 100 F8. This scope has one of the best star test I have seen. Probably not as good as Zeiss APQ 4” F 10 but very close. It’s one of the top performers in the 4” category for sure.
 
Expanding on post #99, perhaps of interest to some in relations to various holds that can used with binoculars . . .

Quite.

And as far as the NL range in particular goes, this earlier thread shows my own optimised grip. For me, anyway, it's very steady indeed.

 
I bought the mount from a friend of one of my astronomy buddies. He only used it a couple times it is still like new. They are hard to come by I haven’t seen many over the years on Astro Mart. Scope is Takahashi FC 100 F8. This scope has one of the best star test I have seen. Probably not as good as Zeiss APQ 4” F 10 but very close. It’s one of the top performers in the 4” category for sure.
The F8 and F10 Takahashi are probably the best scopes around. That AP mount is impressive. Nice grab and go!
 
As many are aware, Swarovski will soon be releasing 10x52 and 14x52 versions of the NL Pure series, likely later this month.
See the recent posts at: NL >=50 mm versions?

Googling around this morning I came across the following (unintentionally accessible prior to the official release date?):

View attachment 1584868
Cropped and adjusted from: Nouveauté SWAROVSKI NL PURE 10x52 & 14x52 - 1268
There are no other details at the link.


John
Looks really nice. Looking forward to laying my hands on one.
 
I bought the mount from a friend of one of my astronomy buddies. He only used it a couple times it is still like new. They are hard to come by I haven’t seen many over the years on Astro Mart. Scope is Takahashi FC 100 F8. This scope has one of the best star test I have seen. Probably not as good as Zeiss APQ 4” F 10 but very close. It’s one of the top performers in the 4” category for sure.
I had the exact same 600GTO for years! It's a fantastic mount and can go up to a 6-inch f/8 if you want. Eventually I replaced it with a Mach1, only because the Mach1 splits into 2 pieces of less than 20 pounds each which I need.

The price of the 52mm NL was a big question for me - they're going to have to cost more than the 42's I thought. That would push the price into incredibly high territory - I see Swaro has sovled this by pricing them the same as the 42's. Excellent choice Swaro! I love the strategy.

Self-discipline is still holding firm here...but if I get to try them at the local bird store there could be trouble :)
 
The 12x42 was excellent and had extremely sharp stars. I am hoping the 14x52 will be even better as it should be. If I can hold it still with forehead rest for daytime use than that’s another plus. I could hold the 12 with no trouble.
 
The 12x42 was excellent and had extremely sharp stars. I am hoping the 14x52 will be even better as it should be. If I can hold it still with forehead rest for daytime use than that’s another plus. I could hold the 12 with no trouble.
can't wait to hear what you think of them! I could easily end up with a pair of the 10x52's....7 ounces lighter than the 10x56 SLC and only 4mm less, and better edge sharpness. I would need to try them somewhere first.....
 
Yesterday I ordered a foot-long sub at Chicago’s Pizza, I was getting ready to sit down and look at the latest posts in the NL 52 threads while I waited on the sandwich, had been thinking about whether the 52 would be any better than my 12X42 when I looked down at the receipt and saw this, so now the question has been definitively answered. 🤔😳😂😂😂IMG_4694.jpeg
 
Hi mzksiak (post #110),

Thanks for the link to Arek's initial assessment of the NL 10x52.

It can also be found in English on the Allbinos site: Swarovski NL Pure 10x52 – first impressions - Swarovski NL Pure 10x52 - first impressions

View attachment 1586176


John
This fact alone would make the new NL 10x52 worth upgrading from the smaller NL's. From Allbinos.

"It's worth adding that the 52 mm models show a better performance against bright light if you compare them to the 42 mm devices, mentioned at the beginning.

During the day you don't notice any visible contrast loss, and at night only the brightest lampposts have some ghosting and sometimes also small spikes on the edge of the prisms."
 
The NL 52 : First impressions of the two models (cont'd, see post # 24))

C. Looking THROUGH the new NLs

The immediate overall first impression when the x42 NLs came out was something like “wow, such a wide field and such great sharpness fully across it”. Since then, we might have taken these wide flat fields almost for granted; still, the new NLs impress with their wonderful, wide, bright, sharp and contrast-rich image in natural colors. For me, the new models are fully “in line” with the x42 NLs; if you liked them, you will like the x52 NLs. Of not, if you didn’t like the color tone and image properties then, or if you prefer the saturated image in a UVHD+ 10x50, you might perhaps not be too impressed with the new NLs. But I was. Swarovski at its best!

Usable eye relief is more or less comparable to what you get in the x42 NLs, perhaps just slightly less, but should be okay.

I am not going to talk about glare, since this will almost certainly be the subject of another thread with hundreds of posts and emotional debates. I found the x52 NLs behave well in the usual stray-light situations, slight crescent shaped reflections at the bottom of the image can be provoked when a very bright light source (strong LED torch at full power) is positioned just at the top of the FOV, so a similar thing might happen when you stare at the sun, but as you perhaps know, you are not supposed to do that anyway. Otherwise, I found the NL well baffled; almost ne perceptible spikes.

CA is well corrected, the 14x surprised me when comparing it with the SLC 15x56 which already exhibits a decent CA performance, but the NL is clearly better.

For my eyes, panning produces a very slight globe effect, something to be expected with the limited amount of distortion and the width of the field of view. The effect appears clearly less pronounced than in my EL SVs and also less visible than in the x42 NLs. Overall, I found panning very comfortable in both new NLs.

Central sharpness NL 14x52 vs SLC 15x56: handheld, the NL beats the SLC in detail recognition, due to the size, weight and ergonomics which lead to clearly less jitter. I would probably still want to mount the 14x since I tend to do that with most binos 10x and over (in stationary situations). Looking at far away street signs and the like, the NL gave me more clues as to what I was reading than the SLC. Mounted, the SLC clearly catches up, not so much because of the higher magnification (it is neglectable). As mentioned earlier, my test sample of the 14x52 was actually a 14.6 x 51 binocular, so the SLC did not really win in terms of magnification. This could mean that if you are looking for a high mag bino that you prefer to use hand-held, the 14x52 NL with foreheadrest might be the thing for you.
The FOV in the NL is of course distinctly wider than in the SLC.

Both x52 NLs produce an immersive, almost nature-like viewing experience when the eyecups are in the right position for your style of holding the bino and placing it before your eyes. You pick the bino up and are immediately taken in by the brightness and sharpness of the image. What amazed me was that I had to check on several occasions whether I was holding the 42 or the 52 NL in my hand, due to the slim build and compact size of the 52s.

These for me are clearly two of the best binoculars you can get at the moment. Perhaps you will find even better performance in individual optical disciplines. But taken as a whole, as the sum of its properties, I found the “big” NLs superb.

Is the better the enemy of the good? Should you sell your EL SV 10x50 and SLC 15x56 and upgrade to the 10x52 and 14x52 NL?

Swarovski Optics will probably hate me for saying this, but:
Upgrade if you are obsessed with wide-field optics and find the SLC too big and heavy. Otherwise, think twice. The air gets thin at the top, so performance improvements become gradual rather than dramatic. The new NLs ARE fabulous binos, but so are the EL SVs and SLCs.

fwiw Canip
Dear Canip, thank you for your great review. I am actually in doubt which of those ones I should get. But as the price is quite different, I am still in doubt how much better these NL pures are compared to the old SLC's. Would you happen to know how bino's do when star gazing? All the best, Thorsten
 
Dear Canip, thank you for your great review. I am actually in doubt which of those ones I should get. But as the price is quite different, I am still in doubt how much better these NL pures are compared to the old SLC's. Would you happen to know how bino's do when star gazing? All the best, Thorsten
The NL's are superior to the SLC's in just about every way, especially FOV size and edge sharpness. The NL's are wonderful for stargazing because they have a flat field and are sharp to the edge, so stars don't distort at the edges of the FOV like the SLC.

Probably the best NL for stargazing right now is the NL 12x42, and these new bigger NL's should be even better with the bigger apertures. I think either one would be very good, but I would probably pick the NL 14x52 for the higher magnification, and you could still probably hand hold it.
 
Post #115.

Hi Thorsten,

For stargazing the darkness of the sky is much more important than the binocular.

Amongst my astronomer friends, most use binoculars costing £100 or £200.

I would be ashamed to bring my 12x50 Ultravid or Canon 18x50 IS or Zeiss 15x60.

But observing alone, I would think any 10x50 Porroprism or roof prism of good optical quality is O.K.

It could be an SLC or a Soviet 10x50 costing £50.

If really interested in astronomy I would suggest a Canon 15x50 IS. or a good 15x70, not the rubbish cheap Chinese 15x70s that are almost always out of collimation.

If one happens to have a £2,000 or £3,000 binocular then use that.

But the gain over a good £200 Porroprism binocular for stargazing is small.

I use everything from 2x opera glasses to a good 20x80.

The main thing astronomers are interested in is their telescope.

A good 200mm Dobsonian is a good start at a fraction the cost of the Swarovski binoculars.

Regards,
B.
 
"A good 200mm Dobsonian is a good start at a fraction the cost of the Swarovski binoculars."

That is what I have. You just use the binoculars to scan the Milky Way. You use the telescope to get up close and personal with the celestial objects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top