Which one are you choosing, NL Pure 14x52 or 10x52?

[roweraay]

Like mentioned in sure it would be nice to have em all.. but if ur buying 1,,, 12x42 is the most versatile. If I was guna buy a second pair i would want a bigger gap.. like 18 or 20x… dream situation is BTX that adjust from 20-40 with 12x

I agree. I had the 12x42NL and extensively tested the 14x52NL. If I am looking for a single, do-it-all, I would go with the 12x42NL. It is the extraordinary AFOV of 71 degrees and a 339ft FOV (for a 12x) that tips the scales in favor of it. If there was a 12x52NL, that would have been my pick, even over the 12x42NL, assuming they kept the AFOV at 70-71 degrees.

The 14x52 (actually a 14.44x52NL), is good, but I think Swarovski missed the boat by not making it either a 12x52 or a 13x52, and then introduce a new 15x60NL.

A 13x52NL would have had a FOV of around 320ft, and an exit pupil of 4mm, which would have made it a whole lot more versatile and brighter than the 14.44x52NL, with its 279ft FOV and 3.6mm exit pupil......while giving up very little in magnification.

I now have the 8x42NL, which is a great multi-purpose binocular. I also have the 115/BTX. As a supplement to the 8x42NL, I am seriously looking at the 12x42NL.

 

[Fritz D]

Roweraay,
Wonder how the NL 12x42 does in low light compared to the 10x50 EL?
That’s my conundrum?

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

Roweraay,
Wonder how the NL 12x42 does in low light compared to the 10x50 EL?
That’s my conundrum?

The 10x50 will be brighter, but the 12x42 will be:"bright enough" in poor lighting to get through legal shooting hours.

 

[roweraay]

The 10x50 will be brighter, but the 12x42 will be:"bright enough" in poor lighting to get through legal shooting hours.

I agree with this assessment, since it aligns to my experience from when I had the 12x42.

I have not personally tried the 10x50 (but have tried the 12x50EL), and from the specs, it should be a really bright binocular. On the NL side, if the 10x meets your needs, then it would be the 10x52NL, which I am told is real easy on the eyes.

 

[Fritz D]

Thanks for the input, gents!
I really like the optics of my 10x50 EL but the ergos on the NL are a big improvement IMO?

I certainly don’t need a 3500 dollar bino, but i sure WANT an NL.
I think in the long run I’d be happiest with the 14x52 NL. I tried an SLC 15x56 side by side with a 12x42 NL recently. The NL blew the SLC out of the water.

 

[roweraay]

I think in the long run I’d be happiest with the 14x52 NL. I tried an SLC 15x56 side by side with a 12x42 NL recently. The NL blew the SLC out of the water.

I tried the 14x52, and it is certainly a good product. And very handholdable, especially when compared against the SLC, which was not hand-holdable. The 14x52 was steady in my hands, while the 15x56 SLC did not feel anywhere as steady. Maybe it was the AFOV or maybe it was the ergonomics, but I was able to easily read small lettering from a box, a 100 feet away, with the 14x52. But of course most people will be viewing it on a tripod, and thus the point is moot.

The trait about the 12x42 is that it can be a one-and-done bino. Wide enough, bright enough, good enough magnification, and versatile enough and shockingly steady when hand-held. The 14x52 cannot be a one-and-done bino, IMO, mainly due to its sub-300 ft FOV, but can supplement an 8x etc., as a second bino. JMO of course.