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

Super tag

WKR
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
320
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

FNG
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
44
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?
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
352
Location
Alaska
@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?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,208
@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.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
352
Location
Alaska
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
1,186
Location
British Columbia
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
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2021
Messages
682
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

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
4,500
Location
Western MT
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.
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
14,992
Location
SE Idaho
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!
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
865
Location
Wa
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

WKR
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
320
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
 

snipepod

FNG
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
23
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.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
623
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.
 
Top