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

[OrangeO]

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.

This is refreshing to hear, I always feel the NL Pure wants me to get in this uncomfortable position I don't want to be in to eliminate glare. Cool, glare is minimized but if I look away from the middle I get blackouts. When I don't have to battle contrasting light and I can put the eyecups in the most comfortable position I get the most beautiful sights.

I think Swarovski has Cenobites working in their optics department.

 

[Swedpat]

Not a clue.



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.

Isn't baffling yet outdated? Nowadays there is matt black paint which makes baffling completely superfluous.

 

[NDhunter]

With great interest I am watching to see how many users will continue with the SLC 15x56 who try out the NL 14x52 and can afford it.

The opinion of all reviewers thus far of the NL 14x who compare these two (on reasoning only, none yet on a field test) is that its lighter weight and smaller size, handheld stability, wider field, and equal or improved optics, make it clearly better, for bird or nature watching, and for the other pastime, and probably for astronomy. In conveying useful detail the SLC 15x will even equal the NL 14x only when mounted, I believe.

In regard to magnification I cannot understand why Swaro. does not state it as 14.5x or 15x. This "14x" is plain incorrect. (Canip, thank you for first informing us.)

Personally (hence the interest): I have a Meopta 15x56, would not like to spend for a Swaro. NL 14x52, so think will try to sell it now before its price plunges, and wait for a less pricey but optically excellent alternative to Swaro. NL 14x52, in a rival product by Zeiss or Meopta et al., or a "copy" by Sky Rover et al.

In the meantime, or even to retain instead, I have the very good aperture-modified Alpen Teton 15x described here, to be soon opened up to 15x40, on tests already done. It weighs 790 g, vs 1,020 g for the Swaro "14x", and 1,200 g for both the Swaro. SLC and Meopta 15xs.

For long I have wondered why the best ~15x models were not made closer to 50 than 56 mm, for the reasons above. Below is a pic. I put together from internet photos/?video/s some years ago showing the dramatic size, and hence also weight, difference of 50 vs 56 mm. I now forget who the reviewer is (sorry, and if you are reading this thank you!) or what the binos are, but think they are both Kowas, and of comparable optical quality. The two images are normalized by making the gent's dimensions equal.

View attachment 1589736

56 mm captures just 16% more light than 52 mm, and 25% more than 50 mm.

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

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Swedpat (post #84),

Baffling can be considered both in terms of:
a) matte finished surfaces to minimise reflections (your meaning), and also;
b) physical restrictions to stop the passage of unwanted light (Henry's meaning).

By way of example, the objective of an NL 8x42 shows both:


(A cropped image from a 2022 ebay listing by loriberta83)

There's a matte finish, and also a substantial physical restriction at the rear of the objective housing/ in front of the prism assembly.

- - - -
As to new coating technology, do you know if any manufacturers of complex optics like binoculars, telescopes or camera lenses
have adopted the technology (either as an additional measure, or as a replacement)?


John


p.s. Besides a matte finish, grooved and ridged surfaces may also be used as baffling, as seen just inside the objective of an SLC 8x56
shown in the first image in post #5 at: #Swarovski 8x42 SLC ?

 

[henry link]

I tried this technique on all my NL's without any success. As OrangeO says above, I either got black-outs or glare when adjusting the eye cups in small increments.

I can explain what needs to be done to control glare in the NLs all day long. It's still up to you to do it properly.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I can explain what needs to be done to control glare in the NLs all day long. It's still up to you to do it properly.

Thanks for that, Henry, but I have changed from the Swarovski NL 8x32 to Nikon MHG 8x42 because of the finickiness of adjusting the eye cups on the NL to control glare, the fact that the MHG is brighter and has easier eye placement due to its larger aperture without any weight penalty, the overly tight rain guard on the NL, the goofy side load case on the NL, the annoying FP strap attachment system, the way too long strap on the NL, the objective covers that break off and the armor that cracks in about a year on the Swarovski.

Optically I am only giving up a slight bit of FOV size going from an 8.5 degree FOV to an 8.3 degree FOV and a slight bit of edge sharpness that is not that noticeable in the MHG because the fall off is gradual. And the best part is I am saving $2000 over the price of an NL. I compared the two for many days, and I decided the NL for me wasn't worth the difference in price, and I like the fact that I don't have to worry so much about carrying a $3000 binocular around.

Besides, your method of adjusting the NL eye cups to such precision isn't really practical in the field because once you go through all the trouble to get the eye cups to within 1/16 of an inch to just the right position to avoid blackouts and glare when you put the binoculars back in the case or take off the ridiculously over tight rain guards it changes the position of the eye cups, and then you have to do it all over again.

Maybe you could superglue the eye cups in place or put a mark on them so you could reset them to the proper position every time. The eye cups should not have to be set that precise to avoid glare and kidney beaning and the eye box should be designed, so there is more tolerance in finding the sweet spot for the eye cup position.

 

[rodneyAB]

Great to hear the Nikon is superior in all areas for you. I of course, do not share, nor agree with, any of your views about the NL, or any of the accessories. The FRP in particular is a functional accessory which aides in eye placement, and provides 'stellar' viewing experience.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Great to hear the Nikon is superior in all areas for you. I of course, do not share, nor agree with, any of your views about the NL, or any of the accessories. The FRP in particular is a functional accessory which aides in eye placement, and provides 'stellar' viewing experience.

I hated the FRP for the same reason I don't like winged eye cups. I didn't like it resting against my brow, and I couldn't see any significant improvement in steadiness of the binocular because your head shakes anyway.

Likewise, I despise the FP strap attachment system. It is simply not necessary, and it leads to more twisting because you have two different things twisting. The FP attachment twists and the strap twists, so when it is twisted you have to figure out which one is twisted and which way to untwist it. Plus, it is a PIA to remove the little strap attachments because they are very tight, and you have to push them down at the same time you are turning them.

The goofy side load case is another dumb idea. It just doesn't make sense to put your binoculars in the case sideways when it is more natural to put them in the case with the objective lens down and the oculars at the top end because that is the way you use them, so when you draw them out of the case they are ready to go. It would be like a putting a pistol in the holster sideways.

I much prefer the simple lightweight case Nikon uses for the MHG with the strap on the outside because it is much easier to put your binoculars away and remove them without having to stuff the strap in the case with the binoculars.

The rain guard on the NL is way too tight. What makes it especially aggravating is every time you remove it, it changes the eye cup position on the binocular, and then you have to go through the whole process of resetting the eye cup position to with in 1/16 of an inch to avoid blackouts and glare on the NL. We all know the NL is very sensitive to eye cup position.

The objective covers are another poorly engineered accessory on the NL. If you set your binocular objective side down like most people do, the objective covers will eventually break off. There is a whole separate thread on the Swarovski objective covers, so I won't go into it in detail.

Swarovski overengineers things I think just be different and validate their inflated prices. They say they want to make what is already good better, but they are actually making it worse by trying to improve something that is already perfect. They are trying to fix something that is not broke.

 

[stereotruckdriver]

Popcorn ready, stay tuned.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi stereotruckdriver,

Let's get the ball rolling . . .

. . .
The goofy side load case is another dumb idea. It just doesn't make sense to put your binoculars in the case sideways when it is more natural to put them in the case with the objective lens down and the oculars at the top end because that is the way you use them, so when you draw them out of the case they are ready to go. It would be like a putting a pistol in the holster sideways. Furthermore, it is a dumb idea.
. . .

While users preferences obviously differ, one point to be made about the FSB/ Functional Side Bag (aka the GSLC/ goofy side load case),
is that it does allow a person to place a hand on the binocular, and lift it up to their eye line.

The binocular is carried like a holstered pistol, in that the 'handle' can be immediately fully and securely grasped,
and the binocular drawn straight up 😲


A couple of images from Swarovski:



John

 

[Dennis Mau]

With the Nikon MHG, you just slip the strap around your neck and then slip the case off the binoculars. You don't have to ever worry about dropping the binoculars when you are lifting it out of the case.

Then when you go to put your binoculars away it is much easier because you just slide your binoculars in the case without worrying about folding the strap and finding room to stuff it in with the binoculars.

If you use the Swarovski strap, it is that much harder to put it in the case because it is huge and overdone also like all their accessories.

Swarovski's case for the NL is much too big and overdone, like most of their accessories. Like the NL binoculars, it is way too bulky and heavy to carry in the field, and you simply don't need a case that big to protect your binoculars for field use.

The older Leica leather cases for the Leica Trinovid BN's that simply slipped over the binoculars made more sense and really provided all the protection you need for field use of a binocular. You don't need the suitcase size case that Swarovski supplies with the NL. It looks like an Airbnb bag or a woman's purse.

Leica's accessories are light years ahead of Swarovski's, especially their cases, objective covers, straps and rain guards.

 

[rodneyAB]

I hated the FRP for the same reason I don't like winged eye cups. I didn't like it resting against my brow, and I couldn't see any significant improvement in steadiness of the binocular because your head shakes anyway.

Likewise, I despise the FP strap attachment system. It is simply not necessary, and it leads to more twisting because you have two different things twisting. The FP attachment twists and the strap twists, so when it is twisted you have to figure out which one is twisted and which way to untwist it. Plus, it is a PIA to remove the little strap attachments because they are very tight, and you have to push them down at the same time you are turning them.

The goofy side load case is another dumb idea. It just doesn't make sense to put your binoculars in the case sideways when it is more natural to put them in the case with the objective lens down and the oculars at the top end because that is the way you use them, so when you draw them out of the case they are ready to go. It would be like a putting a pistol in the holster sideways.

I much prefer the simple lightweight case Nikon uses for the MHG with the strap on the outside because it is much easier to put your binoculars away and remove them without having to stuff the strap in the case with the binoculars.

The rain guard on the NL is way too tight. What makes it especially aggravating is every time you remove it, it changes the eye cup position on the binocular, and then you have to go through the whole process of resetting the eye cup position to with in 1/16 of an inch to avoid blackouts and glare on the NL. We all know the NL is very sensitive to eye cup position.

The objective covers are another poorly engineered accessory on the NL. If you set your binocular objective side down like most people do, the objective covers will eventually break off. There is a whole separate thread on the Swarovski objective covers, so I won't go into it in detail.

Swarovski overengineers things I think just be different and validate their inflated prices. They say they want to make what is already good better, but they are actually making it worse by trying to improve something that is already perfect. They are trying to fix something that is not broke.

your boring me. you could just leave it at the door.

 

[CharleyBird]

...deja vu

Denco, the NL haptics don't suit you.
Already seen. Got it. No need to repeat yourself everywhere.

 

[mwhogue]

While users preferences obviously differ, one point to be made about the FSB/ Functional Side Bag (aka the GSLC/ goofy side load case),
is that it does allow a person to place a hand on the binocular, and lift it up to their eye line.

The binocular is carried like a holstered pistol, in that the 'handle' can be immediately fully and securely grasped,
and the binocular drawn straight up 😲

Right. While I haven't tried an NL I do sometimes carry others (in after market cases) using the "fore and aft" positioning as shown in the photos. For me this is quicker and easier to deploy than vertical carry in a case and offers more protection for ocular lenses when used without a rain guard.

If anyone is inclined to advise, does the FSB have a belt loop? TIA for any input.

Mike

 

[rodneyAB]

Right. While I haven't tried an NL I do sometimes carry others (in after market cases) using the "fore and aft" positioning as shown in the photos. For me this is quicker and easier to deploy than vertical carry in a case and offers more protection for ocular lenses when used without a rain guard.

If anyone is inclined to advise, does the FSB have a belt loop? TIA for any input.

Mike

Yes. you can slip a belt thru the 'loop' 'sleeve'

 

[tenex]

With great interest I am watching to see how many users will continue with the SLC 15x56 who try out the NL 14x52 and can afford it.

...For long I have wondered why the best ~15x models were not made closer to 50 than 56 mm, for the reasons above. Below is a pic. I put together from internet photos/?video/s some years ago showing the dramatic size, and hence also weight, difference of 50 vs 56 mm...

56 mm captures just 16% more light than 52 mm, and 25% more than 50 mm.

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.

 

[Maljunulo]

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

I’m happy as a clam with an 8X30 and an 8X32.

They are fussy enough with eye placement.

 

[OrangeO]

With the Nikon MHG, you just slip the strap around your neck and then slip the case off the binoculars. You don't have to ever worry about dropping the binoculars when you are lifting it out of the case.

Then when you go to put your binoculars away it is much easier because you just slide your binoculars in the case without worrying about folding the strap and finding room to stuff it in with the binoculars.

If you use the Swarovski strap, it is that much harder to put it in the case because it is huge and overdone also like all their accessories.

Swarovski's case for the NL is much too big and overdone, like most of their accessories. Like the NL binoculars, it is way too bulky and heavy to carry in the field, and you simply don't need a case that big to protect your binoculars for field use.

The older Leica leather cases for the Leica Trinovid BN's that simply slipped over the binoculars made more sense and really provided all the protection you need for field use of a binocular. You don't need the suitcase size case that Swarovski supplies with the NL. It looks like an Airbnb bag or a woman's purse.

Leica's accessories are light years ahead of Swarovski's, especially their cases, objective covers, straps and rain guards.

I can see how the bag doesn't work for you in your use case. I found it annoying shoving the strap into the case. Since I no longer use the strap the bag is more useable. I find side loading faster and more convenient. I can also see how the bag is more than you need when you just want something as small as possible to manage all the other stuff you have to lug around. I try to be as minimal as possible and just use the bag so I actually want it to be bigger and have multiple side pockets, crazy I know. I still think it's quite ridiculous for them to charge $100 for the bag separately, it should cost $30-40 tops.

I hated the FRP for the same reason I don't like winged eye cups. I didn't like it resting against my brow, and I couldn't see any significant improvement in steadiness of the binocular because your head shakes anyway.

Likewise, I despise the FP strap attachment system. It is simply not necessary, and it leads to more twisting because you have two different things twisting. The FP attachment twists and the strap twists, so when it is twisted you have to figure out which one is twisted and which way to untwist it. Plus, it is a PIA to remove the little strap attachments because they are very tight, and you have to push them down at the same time you are turning them.

The goofy side load case is another dumb idea. It just doesn't make sense to put your binoculars in the case sideways when it is more natural to put them in the case with the objective lens down and the oculars at the top end because that is the way you use them, so when you draw them out of the case they are ready to go. It would be like a putting a pistol in the holster sideways.

I much prefer the simple lightweight case Nikon uses for the MHG with the strap on the outside because it is much easier to put your binoculars away and remove them without having to stuff the strap in the case with the binoculars.

The rain guard on the NL is way too tight. What makes it especially aggravating is every time you remove it, it changes the eye cup position on the binocular, and then you have to go through the whole process of resetting the eye cup position to with in 1/16 of an inch to avoid blackouts and glare on the NL. We all know the NL is very sensitive to eye cup position.

The objective covers are another poorly engineered accessory on the NL. If you set your binocular objective side down like most people do, the objective covers will eventually break off. There is a whole separate thread on the Swarovski objective covers, so I won't go into it in detail.

Swarovski overengineers things I think just be different and validate their inflated prices. They say they want to make what is already good better, but they are actually making it worse by trying to improve something that is already perfect. They are trying to fix something that is not broke.

Just like the bag the objective covers are great or terrible depending on use case. If you have them attached they are great except for when it's too windy and they block your image. I use them unattached and find them quite cumbersome because of the parts that stick out and get stuck on the case.

If the eyepiece covers were looser they would fall off and not serve their function, they can disturb your precious eyecup setting but I mainly use them for storage so it's not a world ending calamity when they do. Again, if you carry the around your neck on a strap like a normal person I can see how it could be annoying.

Thanks for that, Henry, but I have changed from the Swarovski NL 8x32 to Nikon MHG 8x42 because of the finickiness of adjusting the eye cups on the NL to control glare, the fact that the MHG is brighter and has easier eye placement due to its larger aperture without any weight penalty, the overly tight rain guard on the NL, the goofy side load case on the NL, the annoying FP strap attachment system, the way too long strap on the NL, the objective covers that break off and the armor that cracks in about a year on the Swarovski.

Optically I am only giving up a slight bit of FOV size going from an 8.5 degree FOV to an 8.3 degree FOV and a slight bit of edge sharpness that is not that noticeable in the MHG because the fall off is gradual. And the best part is I am saving $2000 over the price of an NL. I compared the two for many days, and I decided the NL for me wasn't worth the difference in price, and I like the fact that I don't have to worry so much about carrying a $3000 binocular around.

Besides, your method of adjusting the NL eye cups to such precision isn't really practical in the field because once you go through all the trouble to get the eye cups to within 1/16 of an inch to just the right position to avoid blackouts and glare when you put the binoculars back in the case or take off the ridiculously over tight rain guards it changes the position of the eye cups, and then you have to do it all over again.

Maybe you could superglue the eye cups in place or put a mark on them so you could reset them to the proper position every time. The eye cups should not have to be set that precise to avoid glare and kidney beaning and the eye box should be designed, so there is more tolerance in finding the sweet spot for the eye cup position.

I'm glad the Nikon worked out for you and it saved you quite a bit, you can buy it in three sizes for the same price.

I'm learning the eyecup settings that work best for glare (basically the closest I can get before I get blackouts) and it's a nice improvement. Unfortunately I think we can agree the NL Pures are very sensitive about eye placement. As bad as the glare is and as often as it occurs it's not always present which allows me to enjoy them in all their glory.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I can see how the bag doesn't work for you in your use case. I found it annoying shoving the strap into the case. Since I no longer use the strap the bag is more useable. I find side loading faster and more convenient. I can also see how the bag is more than you need when you just want something as small as possible to manage all the other stuff you have to lug around. I try to be as minimal as possible and just use the bag so I actually want it to be bigger and have multiple side pockets, crazy I know. I still think it's quite ridiculous for them to charge $100 for the bag separately, it should cost $30-40 tops.



Just like the bag the objective covers are great or terrible depending on use case. If you have them attached they are great except for when it's too windy and they block your image. I use them unattached and find them quite cumbersome because of the parts that stick out and get stuck on the case.

If the eyepiece covers were looser they would fall off and not serve their function, they can disturb your precious eyecup setting but I mainly use them for storage so it's not a world ending calamity when they do. Again, if you carry the around your neck on a strap like a normal person I can see how it could be annoying.



I'm glad the Nikon worked out for you and it saved you quite a bit, you can buy it in three sizes for the same price.

I'm learning the eyecup settings that work best for glare (basically the closest I can get before I get blackouts) and it's a nice improvement. Unfortunately I think we can agree the NL Pures are very sensitive about eye placement. As bad as the glare is and as often as it occurs it's not always present which allows me to enjoy them in all their glory.

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

 

[Tot]

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

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