Am I the only one?

[Mule3006Elk]

FWIW. As I gained experience hunting my glassing technique evolved. I used to just look through the glass mostly center of image. Now I look through the glass not only centrally but I look at all the edges. When looking at glass I pay attention to edge clarity whereas before I didn't. I'm also interested in NL Pure 12x42 but yet to pull the trigger.

My kids have Vortex Viper HD and I have Swaro SLC. In the field, side by side on tripod, there is a definite difference IMO. Very happy to have the SLCs.

This topic is so subjective. I believe if you don't have a refractive error or older eyes you can tolerate lesser glass and be perfectly happy. With refractive errors and older eyes the better glass is just easier on the eyes. Point is, your eyes will age/fail and there really is NO downside to alpha glass.

Either way get the best glass you can afford and make sure your eyes like the glass!! Take good care of them and sell them on Rokslide if you feel the need to upgrade down the road. I never hear people complain about buying alpha glass with the exception of buy once cry once. For long glassing sessions your eyes will appreciate alpha glass. If don't spend a lot of time behind glass just get a high quality optic and you will be fine.

Agree with others: tripod for comparison. No other way to do it. Glass at distances > 500 yards when doing your comparison. Most modern glass looks just fine < few hundred yards. Stretch the distance and see what happens.

Best of luck.

 

[Steve O]

Good discussion. Missed it the first time around because I was sheep hunting. Got my ram because I was able to 100% clearly identify him at over two miles with my 12 NL Pures. Spent the previous 9 days, literally sun up to sun down, behind those same binoculars glassing. Never needed to take a break from eye fatigue.

The more you USE your binoculars, the more you appreciate the best glass.

The newspaper test is a good one.

 

[smokinbobf4]

FWIW. As I gained experience hunting my glassing technique evolved. I used to just look through the glass mostly center of image. Now I look through the glass not only centrally but I look at all the edges. When looking at glass I pay attention to edge clarity whereas before I didn't. I'm also interested in NL Pure 12x42 but yet to pull the trigger.

My kids have Vortex Viper HD and I have Swaro SLC. In the field, side by side on tripod, there is a definite difference IMO. Very happy to have the SLCs.

This topic is so subjective. I believe if you don't have a refractive error or older eyes you can tolerate lesser glass and be perfectly happy. With refractive errors and older eyes the better glass is just easier on the eyes. Point is, your eyes will age/fail and there really is NO downside to alpha glass.

Either way get the best glass you can afford and make sure your eyes like the glass!! Take good care of them and sell them on Rokslide if you feel the need to upgrade down the road. I never hear people complain about buying alpha glass with the exception of buy once cry once. For long glassing sessions your eyes will appreciate alpha glass. If don't spend a lot of time behind glass just get a high quality optic and you will be fine.

Agree with others: tripod for comparison. No other way to do it. Glass at distances > 500 yards when doing your comparison. Most modern glass looks just fine < few hundred yards. Stretch the distance and see what happens.

Best of luck.

I like this comment and wondered if that is the case. I seem to have very good eye sight but wondered if when my eyes start to decline if it will mater more. I picked up a pair of slc and it has been extremely cold and have not got a chance to really compare them side by side at distance. Another reason I got them without trying is that I feel I can get my money back out of them if need be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I like this comment and wondered if that is the case. I seem to have very good eye sight but wondered if when my eyes start to decline if it will mater more. I picked up a pair of slc and it has been extremely cold and have not got a chance to really compare them side by side at distance. Another reason I got them without trying is that I feel I can get my money back out of them if need be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been very pleased with them. Even though the Vortex Viper HD and SLC have a very similar FOV the SLCs just seem to pop. The Viper HDs in comparison seems closed off if that makes sense.

The NL Pure FOV is what attracts me personally. Again, as my glassing technique as evolved, I really look at the whole FOV before moving to the next spot on my grid. To really get the advantage, FOV, I would need the 10x42 which is close to 400. The 12x42 would be comparable to my current SLCs in regards to FOV.

Congrats on the SLCs!

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I like this comment and wondered if that is the case. I seem to have very good eye sight but wondered if when my eyes start to decline if it will mater more. I picked up a pair of slc and it has been extremely cold and have not got a chance to really compare them side by side at distance. Another reason I got them without trying is that I feel I can get my money back out of them if need be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spend some time and really get the diopter dialed. This is too commonly overlooked.

 

[smokinbobf4]

I did do that. I am aware of it but I wasn’t 5 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I did do that. I am aware of it but I wasn’t 5 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't think you would overlook this but I'll bet some who read this do. I recheck before every fall hunting season. FWIW

 

[TuckTruck]

I did do that. I am aware of it but I wasn’t 5 years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapat

So I have a pair of maven c1 10x42 (which are the best I have ever had) and I recently have been thinking about upgrading and was thinking the swaro nl pure 10x42. A friend let me borrow his nl pure 12x42 and I looked this evening side by side and I really didn’t think that I could really see any more with them. I compared until dark into a large stand of oak trees. They didn’t seem much brighter but I thought I could see a bit better just with the extra magnification. One thing I liked was it seemed like the picture was bigger for whatever reason, and the build quality was way better. I am definitely not a glass snob and I am going to do more comparing, but as of right now I just don’t see how they are $3000 more. I feel like I must be wrong because it seems like they are supposed to be the best glass on earth. What am I missing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m kind of in the same boat as you, but I think it really varies so much person to person. I have very good eyes and I can get away with sub $1k glass no problem. But some of the guys I hunt with that have “old” eyes and have Alpha glass still get eye fatigue before me. Also, I’m not trying to count rings on a sheep or go on hunting trips costing thousands of dollars, if I could afford that, the price of any gear wouldn’t really be an issue. For me, I’d rather keep using what works and save the several thousand dollars and put it towards other gear, tags, or other trip costs.