NL pure 10x32 for everything?

[jfreem2]

Started hunting a few years ago. Archery exclusively. I live in New Mexico. I put in for deer and elk. Have drawn one of elk tag and harvested one. I have drawn deer twice and harvested once. I also get a OTC whitetail tag for Oklahoma. I have been using a pair of Nikon 10x30 p7 for last couple years. I want to try for Barbary sheep and javelina etc also. I am thinking about taking the plunge on some alpha glass. I usually don't sit and glass at dawn or dusk preferring to be at an ambush spot or still hunting at those times or in a tree if whitetail hunting. Would 10x32 NL Pure let me still hunt, tree stand hunt, glass across a canyon or two etc? My reading so far is that NL pure 12x42 might be a bit much for holding one hand while still hunting to pick a part the woods for elk, and would be over kill for tree stand and ambush hunting. And so I was thinking 10x42. Then looking at the options I found the 10x32 and outside of a few minutes at dawn and dusk I think they would be pretty similar and smaller and lighter. Plus if I got those I could also maybe eventually get 12x42 for open glassing if I start doing that.
Thoughts? I think the nl 10x32 will be an amazing upgrade to my Nikon p7 10x30. I don't think I will ever get a tripod... I have aziak trekking pole adapter (just got it)

 

[Riplip]

I primarily archery hunt and have both NL Pure 10x42 and Zeiss SFL 8x40. I find myself reaching for the Zeiss the majority of the time as I love the reduction in size and weight especially in the harness, and they are much easier to handle freehand. I have compared these at low light and find that I really don't give up much with the smaller glass. Obviously if you are using a tripod and sitting for extended period of time you would want more glass.

 

[jfreem2]

I primarily archery hunt and have both NL Pure 10x42 and Zeiss SFL 8x40. I find myself reaching for the Zeiss the majority of the time as I love the reduction in size and weight especially in the harness, and they are much easier to handle freehand. I have compared these at low light and find that I really don't give up much with the smaller glass. Obviously if you are using a tripod and sitting for extended period of time you would want more glass.

That is helpful. Thank you.

But just for my understanding wouldn't a 42 and 40 be pretty similar? Sounds like you have some loss in just 2 mm, I wonder how significant 10mm difference is with a 32 mm objective. Has anyone used both nl pure 32 and 42 mm objective?

 

[Riplip]

I compared the 8x32 SFL and 8x40 SFL and for very little size/weight penalty I found the 40's to be all around brighter and easier to glass with. I have not had a chance to look through the NL 32's but I am sure they are great glass and would serve you well especially for archery season.

 

[Trogon]

I like 8x for the wider and more steady field of view than you get with 10x. The field of view on the 8x NL must be phenomenal. Thats the way I would go, especially if you plan on also have the 12s. But 12s, 10s or 8s your talking about the best pair of optics made, so you cant lose. Resell may be better on 8x32.

8x +14x NLs would be an amazing combo.

 

[wyosteve]

I have 8x32 NL and 12x42 NL's. I find myself grabbing the 8's more often than not due to the slightly smaller size, a bit less weight and great field of view. Your best bet would be to find a shop that has the 8, 10 and 12's available and look through and handle all 3 to see what you prefer imo.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

That is helpful. Thank you.

But just for my understanding wouldn't a 42 and 40 be pretty similar? Sounds like you have some loss in just 2 mm, I wonder how significant 10mm difference is with a 32 mm objective. Has anyone used both nl pure 32 and 42 mm objective?

@B_Reynolds_AK is your guy, he's ran them both because I've asked for his input on the very same question.

 

[Steve O]

I hunted in the Yukon with one of the best sheep guides and outfitters ever and at the time he was using 10x32 ELs for everything. I’d say you could make 10x32 NLs work for sure.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

This is just my opinion based upon my personal experiences; I know perfectly well that they will not necessarily align with others' experiences which is fine as I am not here to get into a pissing match.

If your Nikons are not cutting it...

Do consider getting alpha 8x as they will cover the bulk of your current hunting scenarios. Do be aware that you will be sacrificing your ability to find game at longer distances.

Do revisit the viability of 10x for your intended hunting preferences. In some situations they may be too much (ex: for close in work) but still be inadequate for finding game at longer distances. Folks love to say that they have no issue finding game at X number of miles while hand holding 10x. Based upon my personal experience, most game that I find are either bedded or mostly obscured and not perfectly broadside in the open with perfect light. I no longer bring my SLC 10s when I hunt big country for small-ish game (which includes Coues, javelina, aoudad, desert mule deer, etc) as I know I am missing a lot of game and wasting time by constantly grabbing my spotting scope. But at the same time my SLC 10s are too much for short distances (ex: hunting whitetail from a stand or turkey hunting in dense vegetation).

If your Nikons are cutting it (assuming you will eventually cave and use a tripod)...

Scrap the idea of using alpha 12x. They are a compromise and will be less than ideal for glassing longer distances compared to the NL 14s. 12s can be too much for close in work and not enough for longer distances. I am basing this off chasing Coues and javelina for 1 month last year in Mexico and being able to compare the NL 12s to SLC 15s the entire time; dawn to dusk in true rain/shine/sleet/snow conditions. From a pure glassing perspective (on a tripod), there is no reason for me to buy the NL 12s and retire my SLC 15s.

Do consider getting alpha 14x/15x binoculars and build out your optics arsenal. Assuming an appropriate glassing skill level, you'll find significantly more game with them than comparable glass quality 8/10/12 binoculars. I was able to spend 3 weeks this year in Mexico comparing the NL 14s with SLC 15s; dawn to dusk in a variety of weather conditions. For glassing (on a tripod) the biggest advantage of the NL 14s over the SLC 15s is the FOV. This *may* allow you to find game faster. I currently am on the fence on whether to grab a pair of the NL 14s; am unsure if that extra drop of juice is worth the squeeze.

I would consider going with "lesser" optics and save some cash. EL 8.5s are about $2K while the NL 8s will cost about $450-$950 more. EL 10s are about $2K while NL 10s are about $1K more. SLC 15s are $2400 and the NL 14s are about $1100 more. These are "buy now" prices straight from a common web site and do not include any special angles on getting a better price (including calling a RS sponsor and seeing what they can do).

If you are adamant about not using a tripod and want to scan (yes scan and not glass) big country, then look at image stabilizing binoculars such as the Sig 16x or 18x. You will still be sacrificing your ability to find game but you will find more game at distance than relying upon handheld 8x or 10x. This past fall I was hunting blacktail in Oregon. The guide used Sig IS binoculars and was able to find game pretty easily and quickly. But he only was able to find them consistently when looking for the white face. I smoked him on total game found when using my SLC 15s on a tripod. With that said, the Sigs are on my shortlist on optics purchases as they are well suited for use in the truck or side by side.

Do want to apologize for the lengthy response.