Initial user impressions of the NL x52’s (3 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

The rain guard on the nl binoculars have little rubber nodules inside I just shave them off with a scalpel and they work fine

Another solution, but you shouldn't have to do stuff like that with a $3K binocular. Same way with adjusting the eye cups to 1/16 of an inch to avoid glare and blackouts.

It is kind of like buying a Ferrari and having to trim the fenders with an x-acto knife, so the tires fit the wheel wells. I don't think you should have to modify an expensive binocular to make it work properly.

Accessories are an important deciding factor in a binocular purchase. If you have to modify everything including adjusting the eye cups to 1/16 of an inch to avoid glare, replace the case, replace or modify the rain guards, replace the objective covers and replace the strap I start thinking maybe I should buy a different binocular.

All those disadvantages of the NL begin outweighing the advantages of a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges.

With the Nikon MHG, you take it out of the box, and you're ready to go birding. You don't have to extensively modify it before you go birding, and that is the way it should be.

 

[OrangeO]

You don't need the rain guard to be as tight as the NL's are. The Nikon HG has a looser fitting rain guard, and it works fine in the field. Many NL owners use an EL rain guard on their NL because it fits looser.

The trouble with the NL is when you take the rain guard off it is so tight it moves the eye cups, and then you have to adjust them again to 1/16 of an inch to avoid glare and blackouts!

Swarovski accessories like their binoculars are vastly overpriced. The Swarovski objective covers break off if you set your binocular down too much with the objective side down, and it doesn't take too many times to do it!

I got tired of the glare in the bottom of the FOV in my NL 8x32 and changing the eye cup positions. With the Nikon HG 8x42 I have a brighter binocular with easier eye placement, no glare, and it is the same weight as the NL 8x32, and you sacrifice very little FOV.

The difference between the 8.5 degree FOV of the NL 8x32 and the 8.3 degree FOV of the MHG 8x42 is really insignificant. If I want a huge FOV, I just grab my E2 8x30 with it's 8.8 degree FOV and guess what? It has no glare like the NL 8x32!

That is exactly what I did. I bought the Nikon MHG 8x42, Nikon MHG 10x42 and the Nikon E2 8x30 all for $2400. Less than the price of one NL 8x32 and I have the three best birding binoculars Nikon makes.

The MHG 8x42 for all round use, the MHG 10x42 for longer range use and the E2 8x30 for when I want that 3D stereoscopic image of a porro, a big 8.8 degree FOV and a lighter, smaller binocular.

EL x42 rainguard perfect fit/upgrade for x32 NL's

I've disliked and complained bitterly about (as have many others on here) the hard rubber rainguard supplied as standard with NL's, which drags the eyecups all over the place because it's so tight. I was, therefore, most intrigued (and delighted) to have my 8x32 NL's returned to me by Swarovski...

www.birdforum.net

You have a great lineup of Nikon binoculars that fit your needs better than the NL Pure ever could.

I'm getting better and better at reducing glare on the NL Pures but it's definitely its Achilles' heel and not an automatic fix for me. When the glare is under control, or a situation where there is no glare to begin with it, it really shines and makes it all worth it.

I totally get how the eyepiece covers are too tight for some uses but I only use them when putting the binoculars in the bag or sitting them up so I do need them to be as tight as they are.

 

[[email protected]]

Nikon MHG 8x42 advantages over NL 8x32

1) Brighter Image, especially under low light because of bigger aperture
2) Easier eye placement because of bigger aperture
3) Much better glare control
4) Better accessories
5) More durable armor
6) Price

Swarovski NL 8x32 advantages over MHG 8x42

1) Slightly bigger 8.5 degree FOV versus MHG with 8.3 degree FOV
2) Sharper edges
3) Smoother focuser
4) Better build quality
5) Better warranty support
6) Better resale


Both binoculars are about the same size and weight, and that is why I am comparing them. You could compare the MHG 8x42 to the NL 8x42, and it would negate the brighter image and ease of eye placement advantage of the MHG, but the NL 8x42 is a much bigger and heavier binocular than the MHG 8x42. Is the NL 8x32 really worth 3X the price of the MHG 8x42? Basically you are paying $2000 more for a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges. It depends on what your priorities and preferences are.

 

[CharleyBird]

Once you get used to a good 8x56, it is hard to go back to the mediocre view of a smaller glass.

Nikon MHG 8x42 advantages over NL 8x32

1) Brighter Image, especially under low light because of bigger aperture
2) Easier eye placement because of bigger aperture
3) Much better glare control
4) Better accessories
5) More durable armor
6) Price

Swarovski NL 8x32 advantages over MHG 8x42

1) Slightly bigger 8.5 degree FOV versus MHG with 8.3 degree FOV
2) Sharper edges
3) Smoother focuser
4) Better build quality
5) Better warranty support
6) Better resale


Both binoculars are about the same size and weight, and that is why I am comparing them. You could compare the MHG 8x42 to the NL 8x42, and it would negate the brighter image and ease of eye placement advantage of the MHG, but the NL 8x42 is a much bigger and heavier binocular than the MHG 8x42. Is the NL 8x32 really worth 3X the price of the MHG 8x42? Basically you are paying $2000 more for a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges. It depends on what your priorities and preferences are.

Denco, your latest paramour seems something of a compromise for you...
not porro stereoscopic
not image stabilised
not alpha quality
not large

 

[[email protected]]

Denco, your latest paramour seems something of a compromise for you...
not porro stereoscopic
not image stabilised
not alpha quality
not large

1) I have a porro stereoscopic binocular when I want that kind of view. A Nikon E2 8x30.

2) I have decided I don't care for image stabilized binoculars, despite the increase in resolution. Too many artifacts and focusing and refocusing when you pan, and very few have the quality optics of a normal binocular, except maybe the Canon 10x42 IS-L. Most of the IS binoculars lack contrast and many have a lot of CA.

3) I compared the Nikon MHG 8x42 closely with the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32 and I decided there wasn't enough difference to justify the price difference and I can't tolerate the glare in the NL.

4) I just can't rationalize carrying the weight of an SLC 8x56 or any big eye binocular anymore, although I still appreciate the low light performance and glare resistance. If I wanted a low light binocular, I might go with the Habicht 7x42, even with the narrow FOV. It is only about 24 oz. and if you are over 60 years old like me with smaller pupils, it is about as bright as the SLC 8x56.

Every binocular is a compromise in a way, correct? The only way around it is to have at least a few different binoculars for varying uses.

 

[Tot]

1) I have a porro stereoscopic binocular when I want that kind of view. A Nikon E2 8x30.

2) I have decided I don't care for image stabilized binoculars, despite the increase in resolution. Too many artifacts and focusing and refocusing when you pan, and very few have the quality optics of a normal binocular, except maybe the Canon 10x42 IS-L. Most of the IS binoculars lack contrast and many have a lot of CA.

3) I compared the Nikon MHG 8x42 closely with the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32 and I decided there wasn't enough difference to justify the price difference and I can't tolerate the glare in the NL.

4) I just can't rationalize carrying the weight of an SLC 8x56 or any big eye binocular anymore, although I still appreciate the low light performance and glare resistance. If I wanted a low light binocular, I might go with the Habicht 7x42, even with the narrow FOV. It is only about 24 oz. and if you are over 60 years old like me, it is about as bright as the SLC 8x56.

Every binocular is a compromise in a way, correct? The only way around it is to have at least a few different binoculars for varying uses.

Nikon are a beautiful image probably the best contrast of any binocular on the market today

 

[LTGentry]

I'd love to see a size comparison with the EL 10x50's. I was considering trying a 10x52 NL Pure but I think based on what I'm reading it will add a few mm to the diameter of the EL 10x50's which are already kind of snug in my binocular harness to begin with.

 

[[email protected]]

I'd love to see a size comparison with the EL 10x50's. I was considering trying a 10x52 NL Pure but I think based on what I'm reading it will add a few mm to the diameter of the EL 10x50's which are already kind of snug in my binocular harness to begin with.

The Swarovski EL 10x50 binoculars are 6.8 in long, 5.2 in wide, and 2.6 in high. They weigh 35 oz.

Swarovski NL Pure 10x52 Binoculars.

Type	Binoculars
Dimensions	6.9" x 5.2" x 3.0"
Weight	36.0 oz

 

[LTGentry]

The Swarovski EL 10x50 binoculars are 6.8 in long, 5.2 in wide, and 2.6 in high. They weigh 35 oz.

Swarovski NL Pure 10x52 Binoculars.

Type	Binoculars
Dimensions	6.9" x 5.2" x 3.0"
Weight	36.0 oz

My 10x50’s are already cramped, I don’t think the x52’s are going to do me any favors. If I didn’t have 10x50’s already I would definitely pick up a pair. I’ve heard also that the shape of the NL Pures make them feel smaller than they are.

 

[OrangeO]

My 10x50’s are already cramped, I don’t think the x52’s are going to do me any favors. If I didn’t have 10x50’s already I would definitely pick up a pair. I’ve heard also that the shape of the NL Pures make them feel smaller than they are.

I don't know about smaller but the shape does make it handle well despite the weight. I have heard some people don't like the shape and prefer traditional barrel designs so it's worth it to try for yourself. The shape is my favorite thing about the NL Pures. They are a joy to handle and make it hard to go back to other binoculars. I can, and do, walk around with them in my hands for hours.

 

[LTGentry]

I don't know about smaller but the shape does make it handle well despite the weight. I have heard some people don't like the shape and prefer traditional barrel designs so it's worth it to try for yourself. The shape is my favorite thing about the NL Pures. They are a joy to handle and make it hard to go back to other binoculars. I can, and do, walk around with them in my hands for hours.

I’ll have to see for myself, I ordered some NL Pure 10x42’s on a good sale to try them out, they were delivered yesterday but I haven’t had a chance to try them much. Unfortunately the 10x52’s were so new they weren’t included in the sale. I’ve also read good stuff about the new tripod attachment so I may need to try that as well.

 

[Lisa W]

Gentlemen (haven’t seen any ladies in this thread),
Please keep your comments to binoculars, if you keep slinging mud at each other this thread will be locked.

 

[[email protected]]

I don't know about smaller but the shape does make it handle well despite the weight. I have heard some people don't like the shape and prefer traditional barrel designs so it's worth it to try for yourself. The shape is my favorite thing about the NL Pures. They are a joy to handle and make it hard to go back to other binoculars. I can, and do, walk around with them in my hands for hours.

It probably depends on how big or small your hands are. The NL's wasp waist shape is smaller in diameter as it tapers down, so if your hands are smaller your fingers will more easily wrap around them, but if your hands are bigger they may feel too small for you.

 

[Canip]

I'd love to see a size comparison with the EL 10x50's.

See pic # 3 in this thread:

First image of NL x52's!

Eye relief is listed as only 17mm...10x42 NL Pure has 18mm and as the eyecup (for once!) goes as down as possible and it didn't give me enough for total comfort, it seems likely that these x52 models will be even slightly worse for someone like me (who needs about 19-20mm real eye...

www.birdforum.net

 

[CharleyBird]

1) I have a porro stereoscopic binocular when I want that kind of view. A Nikon E2 8x30.

2) I have decided I don't care for image stabilized binoculars, despite the increase in resolution. Too many artifacts and focusing and refocusing when you pan, and very few have the quality optics of a normal binocular, except maybe the Canon 10x42 IS-L. Most of the IS binoculars lack contrast and many have a lot of CA.

3) I compared the Nikon MHG 8x42 closely with the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32 and I decided there wasn't enough difference to justify the price difference and I can't tolerate the glare in the NL.

4) I just can't rationalize carrying the weight of an SLC 8x56 or any big eye binocular anymore, although I still appreciate the low light performance and glare resistance. If I wanted a low light binocular, I might go with the Habicht 7x42, even with the narrow FOV. It is only about 24 oz. and if you are over 60 years old like me with smaller pupils, it is about as bright as the SLC 8x56.

Every binocular is a compromise in a way, correct? The only way around it is to have at least a few different binoculars for varying uses.

Sep 18, 2023

I tried all the NL's and I had problems with glare in all of them unless I got the eye cups adjusted exactly right,

So Dennis, when you adjusted all the different NL binoculars exactly right you weren't troubled by glare.
Good for everyone to know.

 

[[email protected]]

Sep 18, 2023


So Dennis, when you adjusted all the different NL binoculars exactly right you weren't troubled by glare.
Good for everyone to know.

It did reduce the glare by adjusting the eye cups precisely, but I still had some glare in certain situations. I was unsuccessful at totally eliminating it. I eventually gave up on the NL 8x32's and I went to a Nikon MHG 8x42 and I now don't have any glare problems.

Not only that, but I like the fact that they are about the same size and weight, but they have a much bigger 42mm aperture, so they are brighter and have easier eye placement.

I was hoping Swarovski would eliminate the glare I found in all the NL's with the newer 52mm NL's. Because a bigger aperture sometimes controls glare better.

I thought maybe the bigger aperture of the 52mm would help control the veiling glare in the bottom of the FOV because a lot of times the glare will bypass the field stop of the binocular and never reach your eye, so I was considering purchasing the NL 10x52.

I was disappointed when I saw the same type of glare in both the NL 14x52 and NL 10x52, perhaps to a lesser degree, but it was still there. Glare is very user dependent on how the eye cups fit your eye sockets and eye cup adjustment, so you may or may not see it.

I guess that is the price you pay for the newer SWA flat field binoculars like the NL, although Zeiss seems to have controlled the glare much better in the SF. If you want SWA and less glare choose the SF among the alpha binoculars.

Maybe Zeiss will come out with an SF 10x52 and 14x52 to compete with the NL 10x52 and 14x52. They have followed Swarovski with their SF line up till now. I would bet Zeiss could do a bigger FOV SF than the NL with less glare, less weight and a weight rearward design, just like they did in the smaller apertures.

Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB

"The stray light issue which has occasionally been reported to plague the EL WB has not been resolved with its successor, and this is going to remain a matter of dispute whenever the NL Pure's merits are discussed. Nonetheless, there exists only one binocular which could currently challenge its pole position, the Zeiss Victory SF. In comparison, the SF has the advantage of an even wider field, a lower weight and - yes - a superior stray light protection.

Holger Merlitz"

Binoculars rankings - 8x32 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

The top two pictures are exit pupils in the Zeiss SF 8x32, compared to the bottom two pictures of the exit pupils of NL 8x32.

 

[adhoc]

I have owned most of the large 15x56mm binoculars, and the Meopta is good but not up to the likes
of the Swarovski 15x56 in either the older SLC or newer HD models. They are still king of the hill.
So, instead of saving up for a Swaro. 52, find a 15x56 SLC.
Remember, Big Eyes binoculars are best used mounted, so the weight and size does not matter that much.
Jerry

Jerry: Thank you. There are also several reviews out there which favor the Meopta MeoStar 15x56 over the Swaro. SLC 15x56. In fact, they steered me toward choosing the former! Handholding higher mag is important for me. As a ~14-15x ~50-52 mm option there will soon be other manufrs. following after Swaro. (GPO already, and discussed in BF) so we will see.

 

[adhoc]

Have you made such comparisons yourself, for example with the Meostar 12x50? I recently stood an Ultravid 12x50 next to my SLC 15x56. The difference in height is negligible, the 56 is just a bit fatter. The weight is only about 13% more, which is a good deal for 25% more light, or to put it the other way around, the 50/52mm already has most of a 56's extra bulk/weight, so why quibble about the rest. The handling really seems quite similar. I do find it interesting that manufacturers are experimenting with 15x50 now (GPO just introduced one) but while choice is good, I don't see why it would convert anyone who has a good 15x56 already (or diminish the value of yours). Not on format alone, that is -- the wider field of an NL could be an inducement.

It's interesting that in everyday bins, my taste always ran the other way, to 10x32. So for me, big glass means no compromise.

Tenex: Thank you. Maybe my "dramatic" was too dramatic! The attached photo of all the 50s and 56s I have right now shows objs. (with binos stood sideways) of, L to R, Nikon Action-EX (porro) 7x50, Alpen Teton 15x50, Meopta MeoStar 15x56, Barr-&-Stroud Savannah 12x56. We see how much the variability of border and rim contributes to the impression of body diam. and bulk. Perhaps that was my mistake earlier. L to R the inner diameters at the rim (of the 50, 50, 56, 56) are 52, 52, 58, 56 mm. Photo perspective here slightly distorts the above.

The attached table is from a list I maintain (forgot, before converting to image, to correct to "14.5x" for Swaro NL!) with some lines here included for interest (note, the two APMs are porro). With regard to your size comparison of Swaro SLC 15x56 vs Meopta MeoStar 12x50, this shows the Swaro. SLC 15x56 is shorter than the Meopta MeoStar 15x56, and the photo in BF by member HenRun linked here shows a dramatic (this time thought more about that word!) difference in Meopta MeoStar 15x56 vs Meopta MeoStar 12x50.

 

[Patudo]

For what it's worth, I've noted my impressions of the x52 NLs here and here. I'd have to agree with a lot of Bentley03's post #2. The 10x52 in particular is outstanding, I'd have to say the best handheld binocular in terms of pure image quality I have ever tried. The image quality of modern high-end binoculars these days is really impressive, but even in that company it stands out. I guess Swaro simply had to raise their game in order to demand such astronomical (pun intended) prices in a market with such intense competition.

They cost more than I'm willing to pay for a binocular. But that's a totally different story. The 10x52 has convinced my brother to put up his 10x56 SLC for sale, even in the current buyer's market.

 

[NDhunter]

Jerry: Thank you. There are also several reviews out there which favor the Meopta MeoStar 15x56 over the Swaro. SLC 15x56. In fact, they steered me toward choosing the former! Handholding higher mag is important for me. As a ~14-15x ~50-52 mm option there will soon be other manufrs. following after Swaro. (GPO already, and discussed in BF) so we will see.

I've never seen a review that places the Meopta 15x56 better than the Swarovski, those reviews simply don't exist.
Hunters are the ones who use the Big Eyes most, and are very particular. I don't play favorites. If your experience
consists only of those you show above, then you have not even got close to seeing what is out there.
Several reviews, folly.
Jerry