Is it worth buying the new nl 52 (1 Viewer)

[Elpha8888]

The problem with the new 52mm is that the NL 12x42 is that good. Not once under the stars with the 42mm did I wish for it to be brighter, wider or more immersive and the fact that the 12x is nice to handhold is another bonus as it was a nice crossover for during the day.
The 14x is interesting but will need mounting. 10x52 probably prefer the smaller 12x.
Swarovski nailed it with 12x42.

 

[jkxs]

The problem with the new 52mm is that the NL 12x42 is that good. Not once under the stars with the 42mm did I wish for it to be brighter, wider or more immersive and the fact that the 12x is nice to handhold is another bonus as it was a nice crossover for during the day.
The 14x is interesting but will need mounting. 10x52 probably prefer the smaller 12x.
Swarovski nailed it with 12x42.

I just posted a comparison picture between the 12x42 and 14x52 here, but it personally did not jump out to me

NL 12x vs 14x

Stick to the topic of optics please, rather than the familiar criticising fellow posters

www.birdforum.net

Maybe if I try testing it with stars I will see a difference...

 

[Maljunulo]

A 52 mm glass will show more stars (and fainter diffuse objects) than a 42 mm glass.

This, of course, means that the stars visible do, by definition, look brighter.

 

[Jsisld]

People are easily seduced by magnification, but it is far from the be all and the end all.

The things you give up to get it are more enjoyable for me.

I think a binocular on a tripod is an awkward abomination, but I’m sure many disagree.

I agree with the awkward abomination. Would you elaborate on the enjoyables ?

 

[Maljunulo]

Larger field of view, larger exit pupil, easier to hold steady.

I guess I would say "less fussy to look through" other things being equal.

I hope that helps.

 

[Scott98]

Larger field of view, larger exit pupil, easier to hold steady.

I guess I would say "less fussy to look through" other things being equal.

you forgot better depth of field

 

[rodneyAB]

Larger field of view, larger exit pupil, easier to hold steady.

I guess I would say "less fussy to look through" other things being equal.

I hope that helps.

Tend to agree. As to post #15...thought long about a 10x52, and bought the 8x42. Not fussy, and enjoyable

 

[Viraj]

NL 10x52 would be the best choice if you could handle the extra weight and the extra price. Better than NL 8x42 IMO. For lowlight performance and magnification, whatever the aspect if DOF is not a problem for you. I really want it but keeping my NL 8x42 purely because I don’t have a budget to get it.

 

[rodneyAB]

NL 10x52 would be the best choice if you could handle the extra weight and the extra price. Better than NL 8x42 IMO. For lowlight performance and magnification, whatever the aspect if DOF is not a problem for you. I really want it but keeping my NL 8x42 purely because I don’t have a budget to get it.

It would be interesting to compare 10x52 side by side to 8x42 in 'low light', to determine for my self if more lens area makes a performance difference relative to Exit Pupil value alone. Maybe that question has a known answer, but I don't know.

 

[Conndomat]

It would be interesting to compare 10x52 side by side to 8x42 in 'low light', to determine for my self if more lens area makes a performance difference relative to Exit Pupil value alone. Maybe that question has a known answer, but I don't know.

The surface brightness is identical for both binoculars, but the detail recognition at dusk is slightly better with the 10x52, because the resolution is higher.

The surface brightness of an optic is always limited by the pupil size, a 500mm telescope with 100x magnification is just as bright as a 10x50 pair of binoculars.

Andreas

 

[Maljunulo]

Personally....I'd rather have the 12X42. A 12X42 and a 8X32 would be a good way to go!

Every time I read this, the voices in my head start up again.

I already have the 8X32.

 

[GrampaTom]

Every time I read this, the voices in my head start up again.

I already have the 8X32.

sooner or later maybe you oughtta listen.. Maybe this is the time. Then you experience could have a conversation with my voices.

 

[[email protected]]

It would be interesting to compare 10x52 side by side to 8x42 in 'low light', to determine for my self if more lens area makes a performance difference relative to Exit Pupil value alone. Maybe that question has a known answer, but I don't know.

The 10x52 would kill the 8x42 in 'low light'. The EP are about the same, but the Twilight Factor of the10x52 is 22.8 versus 18.3 for the 8x42.

 

[[email protected]]

NL 10x52 would be the best choice if you could handle the extra weight and the extra price. Better than NL 8x42 IMO. For lowlight performance and magnification, whatever the aspect if DOF is not a problem for you. I really want it but keeping my NL 8x42 purely because I don’t have a budget to get it.

For birding, an NL 8x42 would beat a 10x52 every time. The 8x42 has a much bigger FOV, better DOF, and it is easier to hold steady. The absolute FOV and DOF are probably the most important factors in finding the bird in the first place. The only time you might want a 10x52 would be for shore birds at a distance where they aren't moving much, and you can spot them easily with your eyes and you either have a monopod, tripod or you can steady the binocular in some way.

 

[[email protected]]

The problem with the new 52mm is that the NL 12x42 is that good. Not once under the stars with the 42mm did I wish for it to be brighter, wider or more immersive and the fact that the 12x is nice to handhold is another bonus as it was a nice crossover for during the day.
The 14x is interesting but will need mounting. 10x52 probably prefer the smaller 12x.
Swarovski nailed it with 12x42.

The only weak point of the NL 12x42 if you want a higher magnification binocular is its smaller 3.5mm EP. It wouldn't be the best choice in low light when your eyes will dilate to at least 6mm, even if you are older, and it will be a little more difficult for eye placement comfort say versus the 10x52 NL.

 

[Yarkho]

I think a binocular on a tripod is an awkward abomination, but I’m sure many disagree.

If you observe things on the horizon, why not use a tripod.

Observing the sky is a different matter. A bino might give you pain in the neck. It does to me. The only time I do this is if I need to be technical and evaluate collimation and coma/astigmatism at the edges of the FOV. For general night sky viewing, higher magnifications are always going to be better with a proper telescope, maybe with a binoviewer. But that's another world..

That said, NL Pure 14x52 is still surprisingly handholdable, but I find the 10x52 (or 10x42) to be more of a generalist bino. I'm not doing any dusk hunting.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Every time I read this, the voices in my head start up again.

I already have the 8X32.

I tend to grab the 12x42 NL more nowadays than my 10x32 NL and last time with the 10x32 EL when I had the 8x32 EL...

 

[ReinierB]

It would be interesting to compare 10x52 side by side to 8x42 in 'low light', to determine for my self if more lens area makes a performance difference relative to Exit Pupil value alone. Maybe that question has a known answer, but I don't know.

Hi Rodney,
I had the NL 10x52, but didn't keep it. I have the SLC 8x42 as well and both have the same transmission (91%) and the same exit pupil (5,20-5,25mm). And yes, as expected, they had the same brightness. However, because of the higher magnification, you see more details with the NL 10x52.
I think you made a good choice with the NL 8x42. The longer I have the SLC 8x42 in possession, the more I like the 8x42 configuration. Steady, not too heavy, easy eye placement, large DOF. The NL 10x50 was still quite heavy and the wasp waist was a bit too pronounced to my liking. The NL 42's is the moste comfortable in de hands. I have the NL 10x32 and the NL 12x42. For low light I have the SLC 8x42. The only thing I dodn't really like about the SLC 8x42 is the slow (and squizzy) focuser. The NL's have way better focusers.

So, try to be happy with the 159mm fov NL 8x42 and forget the NL 10x52 .

 

[ReinierB]

I tend to grab the 12x42 NL more nowadays than my 10x32 NL and last time with the 10x32 EL when I had the 8x32 EL...

Me too. If you go lightweight, the 10x32 is a better option. However, in all other areas the NL 12x42 is better if you have steady hands.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Me too. If you go lightweight, the 10x32 is a better option. However, in all other areas the NL 12x42 is better if you have steady hands.

B4 I had the FHR, after walking uphill for hours, my hand shakes a bit while using the 12x42. The FHR helped stabilised it 😍 !