It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (2 Viewers)

[yarrellii]

I'll be testing a pair of 8x32 NL's next weekend...

They will have to be substantially better than my pair of 8x32 SV's if I'm going to buy them.

Tim, really looking forward to reading your first hand impressions! As a (very happy) 8x32 ELSV user, I'm curious to read what you make of the NL.

 

[ticl2184]

Tim, post 58,
I have exchanged my 8x32 EL for the NL pure 8x32 and do not regret it one moment. Handling of the NL is very much improved as well as the optical quality. I can not find glare or any other problems, so I am very happy with the NLpure.
Gijs van Ginkel

Your not sensitive to the Glare and Blackouts my friend...

It's a real shame. I was sooo looking forward to the next Generation of Alpha Swaro's. I genuinely wanted to buy the NL's but I can't just pretend the glare isn't there. And the eye positioning takes time and effort to avoid blackouts every time I used them..

Cheers Tim

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

ticl184, post 62,
That is a too quick conclusion; I am very sensitive to glare, unwanted reflections etc. and I hate blackouts. However they do not occur when I use the NL whereas I come across these phenomena with some other binoculars we investigate. So if you do see it: do not buy a binocular that hinders you after all a binocular must be used with pleasure. Did you ever try a 32 mm Meopta, also a fine binocular and much cheaper.
In the coming weeks I also hope to investigate some GPO binoculars, they look allright too.
A real pearl is also the 7x35 Retrovid, I am saving money for it.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

These two are pretty good with handling glare.

 

[tenex]

If you investigate the binocular history between 1920 and now you will discover that the FOV of 150m/1000m is found in binoculars of many brands in this time span...

Indeed, but not with usable sharpness in the outer field. So new ground really is being broken lately, which I find exciting. (Almost enough to pull out the wallet, but still resisting...)

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

tenex, post 65,
You are fully right, there is undoubtedly a new optical development with the SF 32 and the NL pure 32. They supply me with a lot of pleasure.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[PeterPS]

Indeed, but not with usable sharpness in the outer field. So new ground really is being broken lately, which I find exciting. (Almost enough to pull out the wallet, but still resisting...)

I take exception to that. I own/owned binos made about 50 to 70 years ago with much wider FoVs than the SF and NL and with good sharpness almost to the edge. A few examples:
-Huet Mirapan 8x30, FoV=11.5*
-San Giorgio Mega 8.5x30, FoV=10*
-BPSh 8x30M, FoV=13* (the binos with the widest AFoV I am aware of)
These binos (all military porros) are very rare and expensive (a SG Mega sold recently on ebay for 3645$), and admittedly not many people are even aware of them.

 

[ticl2184]

Does anyone know how such a huge FOV is possible with the NL's.

Was this optical formula available 10 years ago?
I would imagine it was but the market wasn't ready for a $3000 or £2410 Binocular.

Also it's strange why the 32 NL has a FOV less than it's 42mm big brother.
Normally the fov of 32mm models exceeds the 42mm versions...


Cheers Tim

 

[GrampaTom]

Also it's strange why the 32 NL has a FOV less than it's 42mm big brother.
Normally the fov of 32mm models exceeds the 42mm versions...

Strange or unexplained? Our fingernails may turn blue waiting for some Swaro candor. One possible explanation/guess, reading the various Sf 32s reviews, (#1 widest 8x32 FOV), there seems some controversy re a super sharp, distortion free, flat field view to the edge, of those. What if Swarovski made the choice to forgo the published widest FOV claim in the X32 bino war, in order to make sure they were as flat, and in focus to the edge as possible so the actual realized best FOV was accomplished? That said, they seem to want us to figure this out....

I'm just guessing.

 

[tenex]

I own/owned binos made about 50 to 70 years ago with much wider FoVs than the SF and NL and with good sharpness almost to the edge. A few examples:
-Huet Mirapan 8x30, FoV=11.5*
-San Giorgio Mega 8.5x30, FoV=10*
-BPSh 8x30M, FoV=13* (the binos with the widest AFoV I am aware of)
These binos (all military porros) are very rare and expensive (a SG Mega sold recently on ebay for 3645$), and admittedly not many people are even aware of them.

I certainly wasn't, thanks for mentioning them. (I wonder how much our definitions of "good/usable sharpness" differ...)

How expensive were these in their day? How did their design (esp. oculars I suppose) differ from the usual lot? This could be a thread of its own... (or if it has been, just point to it)

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

PeterPS, post 67,
The wide-angle binoculars you mention in your post are certainly interesting from an historical point of view. It is something to mention or subject of a lecture for the Binocular History Society (I joined several meetings of the BHS but I have not seen or mentioned them there and they are to my knowlege also not mentioned in the books of Dr. Hans Seeger or dr. Sephen Rohan. There will be a BHS meeting this autumn, so ...
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[PeterPS]

PeterPS, post 67,
The wide-angle binoculars you mention in your post are certainly interesting from an historical point of view. It is something to mention or subject of a lecture for the Binocular History Society (I joined several meetings of the BHS but I have not seen or mentioned them there and they are to my knowlege also not mentioned in the books of Dr. Hans Seeger or dr. Sephen Rohan. There will be a BHS meeting this autumn, so ...
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs and tenex,
The three SWA binoculars that I mentioned in my post are extremely rare and info about them in English is scarce. The Russian BPSh 8x30 is mentioned in Seeger's grey book, see the attached page----finding a pair in unissued condition is almost impossible. The French Huet Mirapan is documented, for example, on the Binoculars Museum website:
Huet Mirapan200 8x30
They are rare (I owned three pairs of the Mirapan) but not impossible to find. The Italian San Georgio Mega is rarer than the Mirapan and one needs a few years of assiduous search to find a pair, as I said a Mega sold recently on ebay for 3000eur:
San Giorgio Mega 8.5x30 Wide Field ULTRA RARE Binoculars-Fernglas binoculars | eBay
Peter

PS There is a lot of info about the Mirapan and Mega on Italian "binocoli" websites but nothing on the BF.

 

[ticl2184]

Gijs and tenex,
The three SWA binoculars that I mentioned in my post are extremely rare and info about them in English is scarce. The Russian BPSh 8x30 is mentioned in Seeger's grey book, see the attached page----finding a pair in unissued condition is almost impossible. The French Huet Mirapan is documented, for example, on the Binoculars Museum website:
Huet Mirapan200 8x30
They are rare (I owned three pairs of the Mirapan) but not impossible to find. The Italian San Georgio Mega is rarer than the Mirapan and one needs a few years of assiduous search to find a pair, as I said a Mega sold recently on ebay for 3000eur:
San Giorgio Mega 8.5x30 Wide Field ULTRA RARE Binoculars-Fernglas binoculars | eBay
Peter

PS There is a lot of info about the Mirapan and Mega on Italian "binocoli" websites but nothing on the BF.
View attachment 1385369

Thanks for this info ..

How wide is super wide though ?

Cheers
Tim

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

PeterPS, post 72,
I had seen the desription and picture of the Russian wide angle 8x30 in Seegers book on page 212, but I had not combined it with the name you mentioned. I have all Seegers books: a wealth of information. The other two models mentioned in your post were unknown to me. Never to old to learn. Thank you for the information.
Gijs van Ginkel

P.S. are you a binocuar collector?

 

[PeterPS]

Thanks for this info ..

How wide is super wide though ?

Cheers
Tim

Good question, Tim. The definitions differ, but personally I would consider an AFoV larger than 80* to be super wide. Our peripheral vision is poor and there are indications that we cannot properly encompass more than 75-80* of FoV, even so super-wide angle binos are useful for surveillance purposes and for tracking fast moving targets (such as birds).

 

[ticl2184]

Good question, Tim. The definitions differ, but personally I would consider an AFoV larger than 80* to be super wide. Our peripheral vision is poor and there are indications that we cannot properly encompass more than 75-80* of FoV, even so super-wide angle binos are useful for surveillance purposes and for tracking fast moving targets (such as birds).

If that's the case then I imagine Swarovski was very capable of manufacturing the NL's some time ago... But there probably wasn't the market for a £2000.00 pair of 8x32's back in 2011....


Cheers Tim

 

[Canip]

To glare or not to glare - that is - maybe - the question.

If the NL 8x42 was called by some the best 8x42 they ever had in hand, I can say that the NL 8x32 may be the best 8x32 I have ever seen.

But what about glare? In the various discussions about the 42 NL series, glare seems to have become the subject of some heated debates, and people have been giving each other a glare. Those who called the issue of glare in the 42 NLs a hype have been glaring defiance at those who insisted that there was glare.

So what about the 32 NL series?

I took a new 8x32 NL Pure for 3 days to the mountains, together with an NL 8x42 and an SF 8x32 for comparison (pics).

Here are my first impressions, and I can make this relatively brief, since there are many similarities between the NL 8x32 and the NL 8x42, and the latter has been widely reviewed and described by now.

Build quality: excellent finish and build; on the tested 8x32 there were none of the quality deficiencies described in some posts about the 8x42. The objective covers don’t stick as firmly in the tubes as in the 8x42, which may be an advantage if you want to take them off rapidly. Eyecaps sit too firmly on the eyecups for my taste (as in many Swaros); and I am not a fan of the FieldPro system (and probably never will be).

Balance and ergonomics: very similar to the 8x42 NL, very well balanced, perfect position of the focus wheel. The 8x32 may rest even better in your hands than the 8x42 if you have small hands.
The weight: with strap and front and eyepiece covers, 200g or 30% more than the same size SF 8x32; the difference is considerable, you might almost be tempted to underestimate the solidity of the SF (which would be a mistake).

Mechanics: impeccable. Central hinge, eyecups, focus mechanism, diopter adjustment lever all work smoothly and precisely, like on the 8x42 NL. Very nice focus action, compared to my ELs and SLCs, and even a bit smoother than on my SF 8x32. There are about 5 dpt extra travel of the focus wheel beyond the infinity position; the SF trumps that with at least 6 dpt. Dpt adj lever: the “0” position is correctly set at 0 dpt. The lever operation needs some getting used to, but then works perfectly.

Optics:
The size of the FOV appears the same as in the SF (according to specs, the SF has 155m, the NL 150m; if you mount both glasses side by side on tripods, you can spot the difference, otherwise probably not). The 8x42 with its 159m shows a bit more field, but even here the difference becomes only visible if you actually look for it.

Image characteristics: very much similar to the NL 8x42. Nice clear image taking you into the scenery.
Central sharpness is comparable, also with the SF, although I did occasionally have the feeling that the SF allowed me to read letters on far away signs a tiny bit more easily than the SF. Perhaps due also to the slightly warmer image of the SF which in some viewing conditions seems to provide a bit more color and perhaps a nuance more contrast (I need to confirm that further).
Off-axis sharpness: for my eyes much better (and I repeat: much better) in the NL 8x32 than in the SF 8x32, which also makes the panning experience in the NL more pleasing. The SF also exhibits some interesting distortion characteristics (as far as can tell, not typical rolling ball) which Holger Merlitz once mentioned somewhere and which I had dismissed at the time, the NL in contrast feels just right when panning.
Color fidelity: both NLs appear quite neutral, the image in the paper test rather white or “cool”, cooler than the SF which exhibits a nuance of warmth (which in some situations may be an advantage).
CA: I could not detect anything worth mentioning in the center of the field, a tiny bit more further off-axis; a lot here depends on your eye placement. Could it be that the SF is even a nuance better in this respect?
Brightness: because of the cooler image characteristics, the NL appears sometimes slightly brighter than the SF. Hard to say how reliable that impression is.

And finally: stray-light (just admit that you have been waiting for it).

According to my experience and to the best of what I have been able to verify, the 8x32 NL Pure exhibits the same stray-light performance as its larger brother, the NL 8x42.
This will be good news for some and bad news for others.

The NL exhibits some reflections on bright light sources just outside the field of view; not too bad, but at least noteworthy. The SF is better here, but on the other hand exhibits brighter spikes.

Glare: I could find glare at the lower part of the image when observing against a low standing sun, with sunlight hitting the objective lenses. It happened when I did not position my eyes correctly behind the eyepieces, and when I chose one of the outer positions of the eyecups. Same as in the 8x42 NL!!

I would therefore repeat what I said with regard to the 8x42: I can provoke glare in the NL 8x32, but I can also avoid it quite easily. I can use the NL totally glare-free if I want.
With proper eye placement and eyecup settings, the image is glare-free.

I know this will not be satisfactory for some. I remember one forum member making a remark like: in a premium product such as the NL, you should not have to make adjustments to your viewing position (to which I remember replying that when you drive a luxury car, you DO adjust the sitting position, don’t you?).

Of course, other things like face anatomy, observing habits, etc. will have an influence on whether or not someone will actually experience glare with the NL or not.

I personally believe a lot depends on whether people will be willing to give it a try. I just hope people will do that before dismissing them without even looking (as seems to have been the case sometimes, judging from some posts, with the 42 NLs).

To sum up:
The 8x32 NL overall combines splendid ergonomics, superb mechanics and a wonderful bright and sharp image with excellent panning experience.
For me, glare can totally and easily be handled. It’s not worse than in some other premium binoculars (and yes, there are some with an even better stray-light suppression).

I so far had a strong preference for 8x42 models over 8x32; with the NL, I am not so sure any more – I like it a lot.

fwiw
Canip

Just correcting an error in my post #30 regarding the weight difference between the NL and the SF (both 8x32, both measured with strap and eyecaps).
I misread my own measurement; the NL weighs 783 g (not 873) on my electronic scales and is therefore roughly 110 g (not 200) heavier than the SF.
The weight difference is still quite obvious, though.
Canip

 

[pm42]

I received my NL Pure 8x32. It is everything that has been said here but I noticed a few things:

• the image seems slightly colder, more blueish than the NL 8x42
• the focuser is slighly less smooth, it kind of "scratch" sometimes. Nothing important and maybe it will go away
• I like the headrest on the 8x42 but I'm think I will not use it with the 8x32: it feels less useful (I'm wearing glasses)
• It is indeed heavier than the SF 8x32: around 100g in my case
• Optically, the NL Pure and SF 8x32 are very close. I prefer the Swaro but this is not the reason why I will keep it and sell the Zeiss
• I prefer the Swaro when it comes to ergonomics: it feels better in my hand, I prefer the single bridge, the lens covers and rainguard have a better design, etc
• the Swaro Universal tripod adapter fits but barely. I've ordered the Berlenbach to see if it works better

 

[DSY]

Two days ago I purchased a pair of 8x32 NL Pures and have been quite enjoying them. Since they are brand new I thought it might be helpful to add my perspective for people like myself. I am a highly myopic (9 sphere in both eyes) with a very narrow IPD (just under 55mm) and extra large hands. I have been wearing corrective lenses since the age of 6. Since I began wearing aspheric corrective lenses 20 years ago I have enjoyed far above average eyesight with an exaggerated, wide flat field of view produced by my corrective lenses. I’m pretty sure my “normal” vision is not the same as most people because I have learned to use my exagerated peripheral vision over such a long time. I cannot tolerate contact lenses because of the severe “downgrade” in my vision, at least from my point of view. I have never owned a pair of binoculars because for various reasons I find the majority of them to be too unpleasant too use. However I use a Leica APO stereo microscope often for work and I find that very comfortable to use. So after a promising view through a friends EL 8x32 I decided to order a pair of NL 8x32 which I hoped would be even better. With that boring backstory out of the way, here I my thoughts about my new 8x32 NL Pures.

Build Quality and Physical Attributes:

They seem very solid and tightly built, I can’t identify any likely premature failure points except the objective cover straps which seem thin and flimsy.

The controls all have just about perfect amount of resistance, the focus is snappy without any backlash but has a few very slightly rough areas of its rotation, this may lessen with time but it is acceptable to me even if it doesn’t. It is exceptionally easy to focus while panning moving subjects.

The rubber armor is tight and grippy and seems quite durable.

The overall look is not very fashionable and seems much more functional than beautiful, I like this but others may not.

They are quite heavy for their size, with a balance point heavily biased towards the eyepieces.

The unusual body shape is exceptionally comfortable to hold with my extra large hands, my wife with extra small hands reports it is very comfortable for her to hold as well.

The diopter adjustment is strange, especially for me, because I use the binocular in its fully folded position. This causes the diopter “nub” to be severely canted to right side in its zero position and the diopter scale to be completely hidden within the hinge, there is only a very light detent to indicate zero and no other detents. At least with the heavy resistance of this control and small adjustment “nub” it looks unlikely to be moved accidentally.

The eyecup adjustment is really positive and snappy with seven NECESSARY positions (more on that latter). They have great haptic feedback and I can easily adjust them quickly to the correct setting by touch alone.

They built in objective covers fit perfectly and are really easy to use. They look rather fragile in the open position however, due to their thin straps.

My IPD is just a smidge under 55mm and I have to use them fully folded. I would not recommend them for anyone with less than a 55mm IPD

Optical Performance:

The apparent field of view is wider than other binoculars I have tried, but for me I would like to have at least another 20 degrees for the view to become fully immersive.

Compared to most other binoculars I have tried the field of view is flatter without any curved focal plane. There is a “slight” softness of focus that begins at about 50% and then sharpens again at about 75% only to soften heavily again at about 95%. Much better than any other binocular I have tried but not quite up to the level of my Leica APO microscope.

Geometric distortion seems very low so I find panning to be very natural, most binoculars I have tried make me a bit sick while panning due to the warping and defocusing of objects as they move across the field.

The binoculars are very very sharp in the center of the view, the image is exceptionally high resolution especially when they stabilized on a support. For me they almost seem to have more magnification than they actually do because the image is so sharp I can read text and see fine detail at extreme distances without effort.

Contrast is lovely, I can stare into a dark shadow surrounded by bright surroundings and see shaded subjects perfectly. Im used to seeing at least some veiling of dark shadows in a bright scene, these seem to have nearly none of that.

Color accuracy is exceptional, whites look pure white, all other binoculars I’ve tried, and even my microscope, have some sort of color cast, with some exaggerated or desaturated colors. Every color I observe looks exactly as It does with my unaided vision except some greens which seem very slightly subdued. This makes most subjects appear very natural. With lots of greenery however there is a slightly pastel quality that emerges.

Brightness is surprising, these seem brighter than they ought to be in low light because of their excellent sharpness, contrast and color. So while they are not really low light devices, they are still very pleasant to use at dusk. With great clarity and ease of view, even if they don’t have large objectives.

Color fringing is low enough for me that I cannot notice it in use. If I really really search for it I can sometimes see a little at the edges of high contrast objects near the edge of the field.

Eye placement is very easy with these binoculars “Except” eye relief. I’m pretty sure the manufacturer knows this and that’s why the eyecup system is so easy and positive to adjust with so many positions. Eye relief is very, very critical for a good view. A little too close and black defects become apparent, a little too far and the field of view becomes narrower and the image begins to look artificial, with some extra glare creeping into the image. With my glasses 2 detents is perfect, without my glasses 6 detents is correct for me. Once you have dialed in the right eye relief however the binoculars give you a beautiful view instantly when raised to your eyes, I never have to search for a good view.

With my highly myopic vision (9 sphere) I cannot focus to greater than about 100 yards without my glasses. I wish they had a little more focus range. This will probably not be a problem for most people but I can wish for better.

Close focus is about 6 feet. So to view something on the ground I need the subject to be at least 4 feet from me. It is very pleasant to view close subjects like insects or flowers due to the great color rendition, high sharpness and contrast.

Conclusion:

All in all I like these NL Pures better than other binoculars I have tried. Enough of an improvement that I actually enjoy using them. Good points are many; good ergonomics, great focus control, great eyecups, sturdy construction, very good colors, great sharpness, great contrast and a flat, low distortion field. However my wish list for a perfect viewing experience would be; a much wider field of view, more focus range, a more refined diopter adjustment system, and less picky eye relief. Some other people might also like to have a lighter, more compact instrument and a more stylish design. These attributes are not high on my list however.

 

[Maljunulo]

It is always refreshing to read a review where an owner likes and actually uses the instrument other than to search for flaws.

I hope you enjoy them for many years, and that every view is a revelation.