Zeiss SFL vs Swaro NL Pure

[cole96]

I just went to buy a set of 10x52 NL pure and while I didn’t have a set to look through I was demoing the 10x42. Then the guy proceeds to have me look through a set of 10x50 Zeiss SFL and they’re no slouch. They outdid my 2nd gen el range.

The Zeiss doesn’t have the FOV and not quite as “bright” of an image, but my sample was a cinder block hallway of a construction sight with a steel staircase with rails back in the shadows.

This is where they were extremely close in comparison. Th NL certainly had a brighter views, but as far as picking out detail there was little, and probably even no discernible difference.

Point being are the 10x52 a significant step up? I was the 5+ exit pupil. And I’m sure where it gets tricky is all eyes see things different.

Does anyone have comparison or experience they can share?

SFL- $1800
NL Pure - $3500

 

[Matt Cashell]

I have tested several models from the SFL and NL lines.

The SFL is a very good binocular, but across the line the NL is better corrected in every category, as well as having a significant FOV advantage.

Only you can decide if the optical advantages are worth the substantial cost difference.

 

[cole96]

I have tested several models from the SFL and NL lines.

The SFL is a very good binocular, but across the line the NL is better corrected in every category, as well as having a significant FOV advantage.

Only you can decide if the optical advantages are worth the substantial cost difference.

I am going to go with the 10x52. The FOV was absolutely incredible. I imagine it with the 5.2mm exit pupil will be amazing. I found the SFL glass visibly better than my 2 gen el range, but there is the sacrifice of glass quality for a range finding bino