NL Pure dislikes

[handwerk]

Certainly there is much love out there for the Swaro NL Pures, but there have also been quite a few used ones for sale.
At this point I'm pretty happy with my Geovids, but I did spend some time recently with some 10x42 Pures. Sure they offer a wonderful view, but a few things came to mind that I didn't care for:
The eye cups had too many stops and had to be micro managed.
I still prefer the locking diopter of my EL's
Not sure if the hinge design is robust enough to stay tight over time.

I'd be interested to hear from other folks that found them less than perfect.
Don't get me wrong, they are amazing optics just a few things I wish were different.

 

[DavePwns]

I have ELs and tried a buddies NLs. The NLs had a better field of view with the same power but I didn't like how much the image moves (sort of a fish eye effect) or distorts when moving your eyes around the glass compared to my ELs

 

[fatrascal]

Following.

 

[nobody]

I agree with the "less than perfect" assessments above. Biggest thing for me was the ergonomics. I HATE how they feel in hand and against my face. I feel like the eye cups dig in around my eyes and into my eye sockets. I hate the thin barrels in hand. They just feel so... delicate, small, petite? If I ever went Swaro, it would be with a pair of old SLC's, but I have no reason to even consider that at this point.

I also hate what Swaro has done with their pricing. Now, to break into their stuff, a guy has to pony up at least 2 grand? I'm all for buying quality gear, but the fact that they discontinued the SLC's rather than improving the technology when other companies caught up for the same money really bugs me. It's like they pride themselves on being so much more expensive than everybody else. It's not even a money thing for me, I run $1700 binos. But it's like they just take pride in excluding a large portion of the market. Rather than competing, they just junked the SLC's and made the EL's their entry level. I'm all for buy once cry once, but it bugs me when a company seems to charge tons of money just for the sake of doing it. And to me, it's not worth the investment just to say I own Swaro.

 

[Browninglover1]

I love the feel of the binos in my hand and I always glass with the eyecups down so I haven't been bugged by any interface issues. My 12x42 suffer from lots of black outs when using them. This is 100% a grip that goes away when I've looked through the 10x42 and I'm assuming it's just due to a smaller exit pupil with the 12x. After using the 12x a lot I don't notice it quite as much, and once they're on a tripod it's rare that I have the issue but it's the only thing I haven't liked about them so far.

 

[veganhunter]

My biggest gripe with mine is that I'm still glassing up the same amount of game as my buddies with $500 Vortex 'nockers

 

[Q child]

Had the nls for over a year, and really like them. I have the 10s.
I agree that the locking diopter on the ELs or the slcs is better, but I’ve had minimal problems with mine. I have bumped it once and have spent a few minutes trying to figure out what was going on, so it hasn’t been completely hassle free.
I don’t find the eyecups to be a problem at all. I figured out my setting and go right to it with little fuss.
And I have confidence in the hinge. Hasn’t given me any problems at all yet.
At first I liked the field pro stuff, and saw it as innovative. But now I find it kind of irritating and wish they had gone with a simpler design. Why are there small parts I could lose? No big deal and not specific to the the nls, I just think it’s over-engineered a bit.
There is something about them that I find uninspired. Like they were made by a bunch of nerds in a lab. My Leica ultravids seem like they were made by lunatics and madmen and I have a much stronger appreciation for them. The nls are the best binoculars I’ve ever used, and yet the ultravids are my favorite. Can’t quite explain it. Kinda like a Ferrari vs a Lamborghini. You know the Ferrari is a better car, but you can’t be sure that the lambo isn’t equipped with laser guns or something.

 

[nibbler]

My only complaint is that for half the money the vortex uhds are right on par with them.

 

[Jack321]

Love my 10x42 NLs, best glass hands down, not even a comparison. This past year on my Motana elk hunt, my dad had 10x42 Vortex Razors and my buddy had 10x50 Vortex Razors UHDs, the NL was exceptional.

I spent a morning with my dad's 10x42s Vortex and I couldn't stand it anymore and went back to my NLs. Needlessly to say, my dad wasn't to happy after we switched back.

I was able to glass up a muley doe and her fawn way up high on a ridge about a 1/2 mile away. I told my buddy and he took some time to spot em with his 10x50s UHDs and he couldn't tell if they had antlers. He looked thru my NLs and could easily tell. One look and he was like, "Wow!"

Yes, they're certainly expensive, that's the only knock on em that I can find.

In my back yard for 50-75 yard comparisons are "more difficult" but that real life comparison in Montana was worth it.

 

[handwerk]

nibbler have you spent much time afield with the NL pures?

 

[Spiral Horn]

Considered buying a set and compared them quite a bit. They are a well built binocular with very crisp optics. My primary cons were (why I haven’t bought a set yet):
- Ergonomics = don’t like the barrel shape, hand position or balance - to me this makes them feel heavier than they are. My SFs handle much better.
- Finicky Eye Positioning - my eyes cannot absorb the full FOV
- Glare = found NLs at their best on cloudy days
- Field Pro System - not a fan
- Objective covers - useless
- Price = as with everything Swarovski, getting ridiculous

In general, the NL Pures are an optical engineering marvel. They also feel a bit over-engineered.

 

[ChrisAU]

The only thing I disliked about the pair I had were that they carried a cost burden equivalent to a nice rifle. And guns are more fun than binos.

 

[chicoredneck]

High price and worse glare than some other high end binoculars are the only downsides I’ve experienced.

 

[Dioni A]

I've noticed the rolling ball effect somewhat. Outside of that it feels like an immersive high definition experience every time I look through them. I'm completely sold on them

 

[Dioni A]

My only complaint is that for half the money the vortex uhds are right on par with them.

The only people who say this are guys who own vortex and haven't looked through Swarovski anywhere but inside a sporting goods store.

 

[dirtytough]

- Objective covers - useless

Why do you say they are useless?

 

[Spiral Horn]

Why do you say they are useless?

They are permanently attached and the attachment point is weak - which makes me have to mess with them wwwaaayyy more often than than I’d prefer (prefer not to use lens covers in the field when carrying in a covered chest harness). The attachment mechanism is also weak and very easily torn off.

IMO, Swarovski has a very bad habit of limiting some of my choices in using their binoculars - ex, field pro system, attached lens covers, eliminating the SwaroClean protective lens coatings, and even the barrel design attempts to force me into a specific hand position that I do not prefer.

 

[dirtytough]

I could have sworn when the NL’s first came out lots of people had trouble with covers getting torn/falling off. And when they would Swaro would replace them. I must be completely out in left field but that’s what I remember. Since they are permanent there is no way the buyer is replacing the torn covers.

 

[handwerk]

they easily can be detached if you'd like, and there is a little "clip" to put in their place to cover up the void.

 

[WI in the west]

I bought a pair 2 months ago. first walk in the woods looking for whitetails i immediatly lost a cover. i went back and found it cause i knew where i first took them out of my harness. a couple days later i realized the had the tiny black pieces in the box so you could pop those off and put the little black piece on the wire. no issues since that. but to me it seemed they are meant to pop off.