Initial user impressions of the NL x52’s (1 Viewer)

[Robert Moore]

What position do you set your eyecups? Thanks in advance.

All the way out and than the first click down without my glasses and all the way down with my glasses on.

 

[Robert Moore]

Thanks for this. I’m also very interested in whether your opinion on the hand-holdability of the 14x52 changes once the excitement of a new toy wears off. Personally, I’d never found anything more than 10x suitable for hand use until the 12x42 NL, but I feel it may be too much to hope that the 14x52 will work for me (the SLC 15x56 certainly doesn’t).

I can actually hold the 14x as still as the 12. I think the extra length and weight make it more stable. I am usually sitting down on my porch most of the time when I am using them so that probably helps also.

 

[Elpha8888]

I can actually hold the 14x as still as the 12. I think the extra length and weight make it more stable. I am usually sitting down on my porch most of the time when I am using them so that probably helps also.

Hi Robert, have you been able to test them under the stars yet? Wondering how they stack up against the 12x42s, those were a wonderful binocular for astro

 

[Robert Moore]

Hi Robert, have you been able to test them under the stars yet? Wondering how they stack up against the 12x42s, those were a wonderful binocular for astro

I went out last night with them tripod mounted and was very pleased with them. Same super tight star images and high contrast with black background as in 12x but with more reach. Excellent just as I had hoped. Sky was not very transparent so can’t wait for a good night. I was able to get a clean split on Beta Scorpii at 13.7 “ and Albireo looked excellent. Very clean golden and blue and perfectly round no smearing.

 

[Elpha8888]

I went out last night with them tripod mounted and was very pleased with them. Same super tight star images and high contrast with black background as in 12x but with more reach. Excellent just as I had hoped. Sky was not very transparent so can’t wait for a good night. I was able to get a clean split on Beta Scorpii at 13.7 “ and Albireo looked excellent. Very clean golden and blue and perfectly round no smearing.

Excellent, thanks Robert and just as id hoped and expected from Swarovski, for me the finest glass under the stars.
With the 12x they were very immersive and mounted I could sit for hours scanning different areas hope to try the 10 and 14x soon.

 

[tenex]

I feel it may be too much to hope that the 14x52 will work for me (the SLC 15x56 certainly doesn’t).

With the SLC, I've learned to keep the elbows underneath and support the weight with the thumb and heel of the palm instead of in the fingers. I wonder how that would work with the slimmer shape of the NL.

 

[Maljunulo]

When I had my Fujinon 16X70, I used to hold it way out by the objectives, and that helped a lot.

I always wished I had a smaller nose with that glass.

 

[[email protected]]

I was going to buy a NL 10x52 because I heard it didn't have the veiling glare at the bottom of the FOV that all the other smaller NL's have had for me and Holder Merlitz and Binomania.

I have since tried the two larger NL's the 10x52 and 14x52, and unfortunately I can confirm I see the same type of glare, so Swarovski did not solve this problem even though they knew it existed.

If Swarovski can't do it, it must be very difficult to design a SWA flat field binocular that is sharp to the edge without glare.

It is too bad because outside of the goofy accessories like the FP system, strap, rain guard and side load case optically I consider the NL's as close to perfection as I have seen in a SWA flat field binocular that is sharp to edge.

Not everybody sees the glare in the NL and to some it is a non-issue while to others like me, it is a dealbreaker, but as always the best thing is to try the binocular yourself.

 

[Swedpat]

I was going to buy a NL 10x52 because I heard it didn't have the veiling glare at the bottom of the FOV that all the other smaller NL's have had for me and Holder Merlitz and Binomania.

I have since tried the two larger NL's the 10x52 and 14x52, and unfortunately I can confirm I see the same type of glare, so Swarovski did not solve this problem even though they knew it existed.

If Swarovski can't do it, it must be very difficult to design a SWA flat field binocular that is sharp to the edge without glare.

It is too bad because outside of the goofy accessories like the FP system, strap, rain guard and side load case optically I consider the NL's as close to perfection as I have seen in a SWA flat field binocular that is sharp to edge.

Not everybody sees the glare in the NL and to some it is a non-issue while to others like me, it is a dealbreaker, but as always the best thing is to try the binocular yourself.

I can confirm I saw glare in NL 8x42 and agree this could have been better. It's a pity it is not solved with the new 52mm.
But for me it is still not a dealbreaker.
And I found that the headrest really helped to stabilize the image, so I really consider to go up to 10x.
Therefore if I get a NL Pure again the 10x52 is very attractive. But the eye relief is stated as 1mm shorter, which is not good. Maybe it is still sufficient. I know I need to try to really know.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

When I saw that the price of the new NL52 was the same as the NL42 at its launch, I started to worry.

More ultra expensive ED glass and lens diameter for the same price ? bad signal.
Afterwards Allbinos made a note about the inside of the binoculars saying that the surfaces are matt but rather gray than pitch black.
Rather than seeking perfection they seem designed at a price point.......If they apply Vantablack paint to the interior I wouldn't mind paying more for them.
I know there are people who do not see the flare or who use combinations of eyecups settings and eye positions to avoid it, I tried it but it only reduces glare minimally.
It is surprising how more indulgent they are with some manufacturers than with others, Leica only requires a perfect adjustment of eyecups and interpupillary distance to reduce the levels of chromatic aberration to a minimum but for many it is unacceptable but they don't mind observing incorrectly with the NL to avoid glare.
I have been lucky enough to be able to observe with the 10x52 and 14x52 and YES there is a perfect eye position to avoid glare completely.
Putting your eyes inside your pocket.

I went to the store hoping to upgrade my 15X56 SLCs who are 10 years old but I'm going to keep them and also i gonna keep my 4 months old SLC 10X56 until they solve the problem something that will never happen since it would be admitting a mistake and no one would buy the old units.

Regards.

 

[[email protected]]

When I saw that the price of the new NL52 was the same as the NL42 at its launch, I started to worry.

More ultra expensive ED glass and lens diameter for the same price ? bad signal.
Afterwards Allbinos made a note about the inside of the binoculars saying that the surfaces are matt but rather gray than pitch black.
Rather than seeking perfection they seem designed at a price point.......If they apply Vantablack paint to the interior I wouldn't mind paying more for them.
I know there are people who do not see the flare or who use combinations of eyecups settings and eye positions to avoid it, I tried it but it only reduces glare minimally.
It is surprising how more indulgent they are with some manufacturers than with others, Leica only requires a perfect adjustment of eyecups and interpupillary distance to reduce the levels of chromatic aberration to a minimum but for many it is unacceptable but they don't mind observing incorrectly with the NL to avoid glare.
I have been lucky enough to be able to observe with the 10x52 and 14x52 and YES there is a perfect eye position to avoid glare completely.
Putting your eyes inside your pocket.

I went to the store hoping to upgrade my 15X56 SLCs who are 10 years old but I'm going to keep them and also i gonna keep my 4 months old SLC 10X56 until they solve the problem something that will never happen since it would be admitting a mistake and no one would buy the old units.

Regards.

"I have been lucky enough to be able to observe with the NL 10x52 and NL 14x52 and YES there is a perfect eye position to avoid glare completely.
Putting your eyes inside your pocket."

I can guarantee you your SLC 10x56 has less glare than the NL 10x52, so keep your SLC if you are concerned about glare. SWA=Glare. I had the SLC 8x56, and it was one of the most glare resistant binoculars I have ever had. Heavy though!

 

[[email protected]]

I can confirm I saw glare in NL 8x42 and agree this could have been better. It's a pity it is not solved with the new 52mm.
But for me it is still not a dealbreaker.
And I found that the headrest really helped to stabilize the image, so I really consider to go up to 10x.
Therefore if I get a NL Pure again the 10x52 is very attractive. But the eye relief is stated as 1mm shorter, which is not good. Maybe it is still sufficient. I know I need to try to really know.

If you can tolerate the glare in the NL's they are the most perfect SWA flat field sharp to the edge binocular available.

 

[tenex]

More ultra expensive ED glass and lens diameter for the same price ? bad signal.

Not really, just odd timing. NL 52 was launched with the reduced price that all the existing models now have too.

Can you describe situations in which glare becomes a problem for you, and how they're so frequent? I seem to have chosen glare-resistant models myself, but some conditions would induce it in any binocular. (I'm not tired of my SLC 56s yet, and do hope you continue to like yours.)

 

[Maljunulo]

When off-axis sunlight fell on the objectives of my EL SV 10X42, the result was not good.

 

[[email protected]]

Not really, just odd timing. NL 52 was launched with the reduced price that all the existing models now have too.

Can you describe situations in which glare becomes a problem for you, and how they're so frequent? I seem to have chosen glare-resistant models myself, but some conditions would induce it in any binocular. (I'm not tired of my SLC 56s yet, and do hope you continue to like yours.)

Your SLC 56s are about the most glare resistant binocular out there. Hold on to them.

 

[PeterPS]

When off-axis sunlight fell on the objectives of my EL SV 10X42, the result was not good.

You have finally seen the light! Those who don't see glare in EL/NL are lucky: facial features help, and people wearing glasses can avoid glare more easily by sliding the bino a bit down.

 

[henry link]

If you can tolerate the glare in the NL's they are the most perfect SWA flat field sharp to the edge binocular available.

Swarovski certainly could have saved themselves some grief if they had just reduced the diameter of the baffle directly behind the NL objective lens cell by about 1mm, maybe even half a millimeter. However, even as things are now the 8x42 NL's glare can be essentially eliminated by very carefully reducing the eyecup length by small increments until you reach the position just behind where the onset of kidney beaning begins for your particular face. This position is unlikely to fall exactly on a click stop, but going to the trouble to find it results in an essentially glare free binocular.

 

[PeterPS]

Swarovski certainly could have saved themselves some grief if they had just reduced the diameter of the baffle directly behind the NL objective lens cell by about 1mm, maybe even half a millimeter.

That's clear to you, me and others, any idea why Swaro chose not to do it?

However, even as things are now the 8x42 NL's glare can be essentially eliminated by very carefully reducing the eyecup length by small increments until you reach the position just behind where the onset of kidney beaning begins for your particular face. This position is unlikely to fall exactly on a click stop, but going to the trouble to find it results in an essentially glare free binocular.

A small correction: the bino is not glare free, it's just that you have manged to avoid seeing it by tweaking the eyecup length.

 

[henry link]

That's clear to you, me and others, any idea why Swaro chose not to do

Not a clue.

A small correction: the bino is not glare free, it's just that you have manged to avoid seeing it by tweaking the eyecup length.

Well, wouldn't you agree that no binocular is really glare free in the sense that glare producing light can always get in through the objective lens. Once in, the light then needs to be blocked by properly sized and positioned baffling so that it doesn't reflect back into the eye.

In the NL bringing the eye close to the eyepiece appears to have the effect of slightly reducing the apparent size of the baffling compared to the apparent size of the objective lens so that the baffle effectively acts like it's slightly smaller, exactly what's needed.

 

[dries1]

Have had the NL 8X42 for a while now, I do not wear glasses. I find the eyecups out from fully collapsed, on the third or fourth setting give me clear viewing, depending on the time of the day.