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.