Swarovski NL PURE VS EL RANGE TA **Updated 5/4/22**

[Super tag]

I have the EL, preferred over the Leica and the Zeiss, had those too, the Swarovski felt more comfortable and natural for me and the way I glass, my eyes like them. The glass is superb,. I had different issues with the others, mainly programming correctly as I am not very patient when it comes to that in particular. The Swarovski are super easy to use.

I found the ballistic calcs to be extremely accurate, however I have my own ballistics loaded, they work flawlessly.

Didn’t think much of the TA until I used it. Very cool feature especially if you take a last minute shot and have to track or recover in the dark, works very well.

 

[zhueb]

Looking to pull the trigger on a pair of El Range Ta’s or NL Pure’s this Monday, but wanting to see the outcome of this review. Any update or preliminary preference?

 

[MaraviaDave]

@Travis Bertrand what am I missing? What is there to have a head to head comparison over, that can’t be deduced from Swarovski’s technical information on their website?

From my perspective, the decision between the NL PURE or EL RANGE TA clearly comes down to the personal priorities of the buyer.

Either they want the best image quality available and choose the NL’s. Or, they’re willing to sacrifice some image quality in exchange for having an onboard RF and electronic features.

Otherwise, all that is left is to compare is the physical characteristics and technical information, which is already listed on Swarovski’s website.

I got my first pair of Swarovski binos, an 8x30 SLC with the padded leather strap attachment that allowed you to mount the binos on a tripod, over 31 years ago. Since then I’ve had 8.5 EL, 10 SLC, 10 EL, 12 EL, 12 NL, 15 SLC, 65 BTX, 95 BTX, including a number of generations for a lot of these binocular types. Over all these years I’ve always found the physical, characteristics, technical information and product descriptions by Swarovski to be entirely accurate.

Aside from making a personal choice, that’s driven between the best image quality possible versus having an onboard RF, what’s left that isn’t information easily found on Swarovski’s website?

 

[dirtytough]

@Travis Bertrand what am I missing? What is there to have a head to head comparison over, that can’t be deduced from Swarovski’s technical information on their website?

From my perspective, the decision between the NL PURE or EL RANGE TA clearly comes down to the personal priorities of the buyer.

Either they want the best image quality available and choose the NL’s. Or, they’re willing to sacrifice some image quality in exchange for having an onboard RF and electronic features.

Otherwise, all that is left is to compare is the physical characteristics and technical information, which is already listed on Swarovski’s website.

I got my first pair of Swarovski binos, an 8x30 SLC with the padded leather strap attachment that allowed you to mount the binos on a tripod, over 31 years ago. Since then I’ve had 8.5 EL, 10 SLC, 10 EL, 12 EL, 12 NL, 15 SLC, 65 BTX, 95 BTX, including a number of generations for a lot of these binocular types. Over all these years I’ve always found the physical, characteristics, technical information and product descriptions by Swarovski to be entirely accurate.

Aside from making a personal choice, that’s driven between the best image quality possible versus having an onboard RF, what’s left that isn’t information easily found on Swarovski’s website?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. Unless the TA's surprise and you can see as well at dawn/dusk, resolve, etc the same as the NL's.

 

[MaraviaDave]

I was kind of wondering the same thing. Unless the TA's surprise and you can see as well at dawn/dusk, resolve, etc the same as the NL's.

Yeah, if the review found the TA’s had equal, or better, optical performance than the NL ...in any category… that would be a surprise and a contradiction of Swarovski’s performance data along with all of the reviews I’ve seen done to this point.

 

[Gspjimmy]

Just need both. And use for different applications

 

[Johnboy]

I just ordered a pair of NL Pure 10x42s. These things'd better be good or I'm holding each of you personally responsible.

 

[mi650]

I just ordered a pair of NL Pure 10x42s. These things'd better be good or I'm holding each of you personally responsible.

If you aren't happy with them, I'll trade you my 10x56 SLCs for them.

 

[Acivin]

Looking forward to the comparison. Is it coming out soon?

 

[StopMakingSense]

I've directly compared 10x42 EL's and NL's next to one another on a hunt. The EL's don't give up a lot in regards to the image quality. However, the FOV and ergonomics are night and day. I thought you couldn't get better than an EL. After using the NL for a whole season the EL felt bulky and the view wasn't immersive. They felt like two tubes vs the NL was purely immersive in its vision.

The new EL TA is then very attractive to me giving an increased FOV EL binocular. EL quality glass, field flatteners, with a refind range finding system? If I had the money I'd own both for sure. An 8x42 EL TA w/ 419ft FOV for archery sounds so nice. It would best the 10x42 NL at 399ft

 

[roosiebull]

I just ordered a pair of NL Pure 10x42s. These things'd better be good or I'm holding each of you personally responsible.

Unless you have unrealistic expectations, they are that good

 

[Eastonsgrandpa]

I’ve never looked through anything with the Swaro name attached that wasn’t top notch, but the NL are in a league of their own. Sold my EL 12 and 8 to get those in the NL.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I was kind of wondering the same thing. Unless the TA's surprise and you can see as well at dawn/dusk, resolve, etc the same as the NL's.

Resolution should be similar. Both are quality optics and at 10x shouldn’t show much, if any, resolution difference on a chart.

Raw resolving ability is just one image quality factor, though, and I am interested to know what Travis’ impressions are about the apparent acuity.

It is entirely possible, even likely, that one will appear to resolve details better, even if they both resolve the same element on a resolution chart.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Well, the wait is over. Travis finished his review and it's live on our homepage. It may cost me more money too because I just bought the 12x42 NL and am very happy with them but now feel like I may "need" the EL Range TA as well. First-world problems I guess.....

Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure vs EL Range TA

 

[robby denning]

Very good review Travis! Thanks for taking that on. Love the comparison aspect and how the TA ranks for a LR shooter “jack of all trades…” is a good way to put it.

Thanks!

 

[actionshooter]

Good write up though this isn't apples to apples... curious how the TAs stack up against the comparable Leica? The Geovids will Bluetooth to a Kestrel, but how is the glass? Which brand ballistic app is better? Almost pulled the trigger on the TAs today, but want hunting/competition double duty and I don't think they are there yet.

 

[Super tag]

I’ve had the Leica, the Zeiss and now own the Swaro TA. personally I like the Swaro the best, for me much easier to program, the app is accurate and simple, ballistics are very accurate, range well, and the blue tooth works flawlessly. I liked the Zeiss glass, it’s pretty nice, not saying better than the Swarovski, but super nice, other than that the Swaro are hard to beat.

good comparison and write up

 

[gtriple]

So when is Swaro going to stick the Rangefinder into the Pure glass?

 

[snipepod]

The purchase of "Alpha" glass could be a one in a lifetime investment. I' have NL 10x32 , EL10x42 and CL 10X25 and all are the best in their target market. Range finding technology always has evolved very quickly. This is computer tech, the chips get fast, smaller, bluetooth changes every 1-2 years, and the software more functional as the chips evolve. So you have two very different life spans for these two technologies. Combining them together has it's draw backs, the glass should last you decades, but the range finder technology will be obsolete in less than 5 years. I have always looked at ranger finder technolgy as disposable. My Swaros are just the oposite. Plus, I think the warranty on the EL Range is less than the standard ELs. I have heard stories of the EL range electonics not holding up to drops and rough handling. The standard ELs are bomb proof.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

So when is Swaro going to stick the Rangefinder into the Pure glass?

The put a rangefinder into the original 1999 EL glass in 2012, and a rangefinder into the 2009 Swarovision EL Glass in 2021, so... 10 years from now if the pattern holds.

They can't keep EL Range TAs in stock, not sure why they'd make they're own product obsolete anytime soon after they released it.