It’s May!—has anybody bought/tried out a NL Pure 32 yet? (3 Viewers)

[tenex]

The Russian BPSh 8x30 is mentioned in Seeger's grey book, see the attached page----finding a pair in unissued condition is almost impossible.

Thanks for the photo. I'm immediately struck by the size (and presumed complexity) of the eyepiece compared to the binocular body. What is the overall balance like? I wonder how similar the design might be to more recent ones, especially since these (1971) aren't as old as I first imagined.

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.

I believe that some manufacturers are willing to adjust this on request, at the cost of near-focus ability. You may want to send your NL in to Swaro for that.

 

[DSY]

Thanks for the photo. I'm immediately struck by the size (and presumed complexity) of the eyepiece compared to the binocular body. What is the overall balance like? I wonder how similar the design might be to more recent ones, especially since these (1971) aren't as old as I first imagined.


I believe that some manufacturers are willing to adjust this on request, at the cost of near-focus ability. You may want to send your NL in to Swaro for that.

Thanks for the tip! I’ll certainly explore that option.

 

[SebRoques]

Thanks for all these instructive reviews but are there any feedbacks concerning the depth of field? I mean the difference between NL 8x32 and NL 8x42 or also with the EL?

Thaaaanks

 

[Canip]

Hi Sebroques,

I am not sure I fully understand your question, but since I don't know how strong you are in optics theory (I myself am not an expert at all), let me quote from Holger Merlitz' book (2nd edition 2019), tentative translation by myself:

quote p. 157
"To sum up, the depth of field which an observer can achieve with his/her binoculars depends mainly on the accommodation capacity of his/her eyes and on the magnification of the binocular and, to a lesser extent, on the diameter of the effective exit pupil."
unquote

quote p. 44
"It has been alleged in internet forums that depth of field of a binocular can be influenced of optimized by its optical construction. This is not the case."
unquote

quote p. 45
"Is there perhaps a possibility to modify depth of field with a particular construction of the objectives or eyepieces? This is not the case either"... in the observation practice, field curvature {{which is an optical aberration, C.}} can sometimes look like an increased depth of field..."
unquote

This means the EL and NL 8x32 provide images with equal depth of field, and so do the EL and NL 8x42.

So the biggest factor is your age. Young eyes tend to have a much greater accommadation capacity then older ones. The next biggest factor is the magnification. 8x binoculars have greater depth of field then 10x binos, etc. And then there is the third factor, the size of the (effective) exit pupil.

Just my 2 ct (it's really a pity that Holger's book is not available in English).

Canip

 

[SebRoques]

Ok thanks a lot for you answer! I was wondering if the new construction used to increase the field of view has any impact on depth of field in any directions. But if not that's perfect.

Seb

 

[Patudo]

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.

A few questions, if I may...

- how good is the edge sharpness of those binoculars, really? Some users (eg. Frank L) have commented that the Erfle design eyepieces of the Mirapan, for instance, showed "considerable distortion along the edges of their fields of view". I know the edge performance of my own wide angle 7x35 (Swift #766) leaves much to be desired and even the 8x30 Leitz Binuxit is noticeably not as good in this respect as most modern binoculars.

- how bright are they compared to high quality modern binoculars?

- can they be used with glasses/spectacles?

and...

- of your time in the field with binoculars, what percentage do you spend with them?


Regards,

patudo

 

[GrampaTom]

Yeabut, hasn't anybody bought/tried an NL Pure 32 yet?

 

[ticl2184]

Tested a pair of 8x32 NL's.
I must admit I was impressed...

There was less glare than the 10x42 NL's I had plus there was less black out and the need for accurately position your eye..

There was however, significant loss of sharpness and softness in the image about 75% out from the centre, then it disappears towards the edge...

Umm.. I'll test another pair buy I might have to sell my 8x32 SV's and get a pair. The feel and balance was amazing plus the focus was beautifully smooth, plus it was nice and light..

Presently surprised.

Cheers
Tim

 

[Maljunulo]

Pending Chuck's report,I'm getting the impression that optical differences between the NL and the SF are hard to see.

 

[PeterPS]

Tested a pair of 8x32 NL's.
I must admit I was impressed...

There was less glare than the 10x42 NL's I had plus there was less black out and the need for accurately position your eye..

In my opinion the reason for those advantages of the 32mm NL is that their eyecups have a smaller diameter and thus are a better fit to your eye sockets.

 

[pm42]

Pending Chuck's report,I'm getting the impression that optical differences between the NL and the SF are hard to see.

I have both. There are some differences but they are so small I do not care for them.

 

[DSY]

I have been using my NLs every day for a week now. What is starting to impress me more and more is the effortless handling. The shape combined with the weight balance and the smooth backlash free, perfectly placed, focus wheel (nearly all of the very slight scratchy roughness I noted initially is now gone) that seems to focus as effortlessly as your eye does naturally, makes prolonged use an absolute joy. The optics so far have excelled in all conditions except the very darkest. I am quite pleased so far.

 

[Maljunulo]

I have both. There are some differences but they are so small I do not care for them.

Can you expand on that statement a bit?

I assume that "they" refers to the binoculars, and not the differences.

 

[pm42]

Can you expand on that statement a bit?

I assume that "they" refers to the binoculars, and not the differences.

No I meant that the differences are so small you can pick the one your prefer and be happy with it. They are excellent optically, the field is wide, the focusers are smooth, etc.

 

[Canip]

Pending Chuck's report,I'm getting the impression that optical differences between the NL and the SF are hard to see.

For me, easily recognizable are the warmer image tone in the SF, and the clearly better edge sharpness in the NL. Other differences are perhaps less obvious.

 

[Maljunulo]

No I meant that the differences are so small you can pick the one your prefer and be happy with it. They are excellent optically, the field is wide, the focusers are smooth, etc.

Thank you.

 

[Canip]

Just read in another optics forum a post in which a user complained much about the terrible stray-light performance of the NL 8x32.

He literally wrote that (tentative translation from German original)
quote
"one would have to say that there are only a few situations in which no stray-light effects are visible. Outside both in sunshine and when the sky is cloud-covered."
unquote

On the risk of sounding rather arrogant, either this user is very unfortunate in that his face anatomy does not allow him to properly place his eyes behind the eyepieces, or he simply lacks basic experience in how to use binoculars.

Having tested the NL myself, that someone could say that the NL 8x32 can basically not be used without stray-light effects really puzzles me. Is it possible that binoculars nowadays are more difficult to use than 40 years ago? Or what am I missing?

 

[Maljunulo]

Does Dennis have any German?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Canop, post 97,
I read the same post you are referring to and I fully agree with your comment. In all circumstances this author describes I have not detected any of the phenomena he mentions.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[james holdsworth]

A photo of the exit pupils strongly backlit would tell us more than anecdotes.