the 8x32's side by side

[Otto McDiesel]

i purchased 2 samples of Swarovski EL 8x32 in the past, i got a brand new Zeiss FL 8x32 last week, and i borrowed a pair of Ultravid 8x32 for the week. So, i decided to compare them.
First of all, me and my wife compared the 8x32 FL to the 8x42 FL that she already had. We could not find any difference in sharpness, brightness, or color rendition, so the larger 8x42 will go on sale next week. We tried them at dusk and dawn and bright sun and dark weather, no visible difference.

Then, the four of us, father mother and two daughters, examined the three 8x32 side-by-side-by-side, from our deck and while taking birding walks through the woods. We agreed to take notes, and then to compare notes to see what comes out of them.
The four of us had surprisingly similar notes:
Body and handling The Ultravid is the smallest, it fits small hands the best, but the smallest IPD is in the FL. Oddly, the FL has a small IPD to fit a young person, small hands find it difficult to reach for the focuser.
Everyone hated the focuser on the Ultravids. The EL and FL have great smooth focus, the Ultravid needs some grease.
The best accessories come with the FL: the most comfortable strap, the nicest field bag, best objective cups, and decent ocular cups. In fact, with the FL rainguard being a bit sloppy, and with the Ultravid objective cups being unuseable because they are not tethered, the FL and the Ultra are the same. The EL has a great neckstrap, but everything else is garbage. In fact, we found two plastic neckstrap buckles from an older binocular, and we threaded the EL neckstrap the old fashioned way, it feelt more secure.
Eye relief is longest in FL, long enough for eyeglass wearers. The EL still has enough eyerelief for eyeglass use, the Ultravid is only 12 or 13 mm, not enough. The Ultra can be used with eyeglasses, but some field of view will be lost (but 300 ft/1000 yards will still be visible).
Colors, contrast, brightness, control of stray light, were best in Ultravids, but they also had the most color fringing.
The FL had the least color fringing and the most relaxing view, but only in the middle of the field, the image degrades quickly towards edges, and they have a small "sweet spot". In fact, they have 420 ft. field of view, but the image feels restricted because it is nice only in the center of the field, the edges are darker, less shrap, and fringed with purple.
The EL has almost the image quality of the Ultravid, and it is almost free of color fringing, like the FL. However, it has such a wide sweet spot that i can't tell if the image degrades at the edges or not. The EL also has the best depth of field.
In terms of overall image quality, it looks like we all agreed that the EL was the nicest. Not quite bright and contrasty like the Ultravid, not quite free of fringing like the FL, but the most wide, pleasant, useable, beautiful image.
To wrap it up, all three models are great, and nice. You really have to have them side by side to see the differences.

[Sailcat]

Thanks for the very well written comparison review! You have an eye for small details that made this a very satisfying read. Well done!

[Common Raven]

I agree with Sail - an informative & detailed (and nicely objective) summary! Thanks for the work!

[trealawboy]

I agree with Sail - an informative & detailed (and nicely objective) summary! Thanks for the work!

No Nikon 8x32 HGLs (Premier LXLs) available to compare?

;)

[Otto McDiesel]

i could not find one, but i did look through one a few months back. They are up there with the German/Austrian brands. As far as i remember, they have the edge to edge sharpness of the EL, great color rendition and bright images, but more color fringing than FL or EL. I did not like handling them, and things like this do matter.
My advice is: try to go at a fair and try them, they are all great, but they differ and you may prefer a particular one.

[mfreiberg]

Luca,
My name is Mike Freiberg and I am the birding rep for Nikon. I was a bit shocked with your opinion of the lack of handling in the Nikons. From traveling to shows all over the US I have found that the ergonomics have been the mainstay for the Premier line of optics. What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon. Cheers!

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

i could not find one, but i did look through one a few months back. They are up there with the German/Austrian brands. As far as i remember, they have the edge to edge sharpness of the EL, great color rendition and bright images, but more color fringing than FL or EL. I did not like handling them, and things like this do matter.
My advice is: try to go at a fair and try them, they are all great, but they differ and you may prefer a particular one.

[iporali]

What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon.
Mike,

I don't know about Luca's criticism but I can very well understand why the LX/HGs may feel uncomfortable for some users. The curves of the body guide the thumbs quite close together. If the hands are large and the eyes closely spaced, there is not very much space for the thumbs between the thick parts of the barrels. My hands are quite small and I am happy with the design, but I have to keep the other thumb in front of the other. The EL's "open" hinge design leaves a lot more freedom to hold the barrels.

Best regards,

Ilkka

[FrankD]

With Mr. Freiberg monitoring this thread now might be a good time to ask about a waterproof (possibly internal focus?), updated eyecup version of the Nikon SE 8x32 don't you think?

Not that I wanted to hijack this thread or anything but it is a popular point of discussion considering the optical quality of the aforementioned binocular. ;)

[kabsetz]

Dear Mr. Freiberg,

My main gripe with the handling of the 32mm LX's and LX L's is the placement of the strap lugs. Since they are more under the body rather than at the sides, the binocular does not hang well on my chest, but rather dangles eyepieces outwards with only the bottom edges of the objective tubes bumping against my chest. This is rather annoying and uncomfortable, and could be easily rectified. I don't recall if this pertains to the 42mm LX models as well, but since they are longer and heavier, they should also hang more vertically even if the lug placement is less than ideal.

I second Ilkka's comments on thumb placement, but I don't know if it would be possible or worthwhile to make large changes just so that a user would not have to hold thumbs one in front of the other. I have not found the 8/10x32 uncomfortable to hold, although I do prefer the handling of the small Swarovski EL's.

Kimmo

[Otto McDiesel]

Mr. Freiberg, my dislike of handling the 8x32 LX probably had to do more with my hands than with the binoculars, which are fine. As far as i remember, the curves did not fit me, and my thumbs kept hitting each other. Also, when i held the binoculars comfortably, the focuser was a bit too far back for my index. The texture of the rubber was a bit too sticky for me (yes, i am fussy).
My favorite everyday model is the EL 8x32 because of handling and fantastic edge to edge sharpness, depth of field, overall view, and true colors. Then again, some people don't like the indents on their underside (they fit me as if some engineer took a cast of my hands! - i whish my shoes would fit like this).

Yeah, can you bring back the EII 8x30 in a rugged version pleeease? If you do put internal focus on a porro, please don't compromise the field of view.

[pduxon]

Luca,
My name is Mike Freiberg and I am the birding rep for Nikon. I was a bit shocked with your opinion of the lack of handling in the Nikons. From traveling to shows all over the US I have found that the ergonomics have been the mainstay for the Premier line of optics. What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon. Cheers!

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Mike

optically the HGL's are excellent but....

build quality is not as hot. it may seem minor but the decals fall off. The eye cups show alot more wear than say Zeiss FL...

oh and you need to shave the weight.....

[Pinewood]

Luca,
My name is Mike Freiberg and I am the birding rep for Nikon. I was a bit shocked with your opinion of the lack of handling in the Nikons. From traveling to shows all over the US I have found that the ergonomics have been the mainstay for the Premier line of optics. What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon. Cheers!

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Mr Freiberg,

You should not be shocked that people differ in their size, in the shape of their features and in how they use binoculars. As Luca wrote, the individual has to determine what may suit him best.

Like Luca, I have a good opinion of the 8x30 EII, my happiest experience with a Nikon product.
Arthur

[Tero]

As long as we have a wish list, add an 8x32 Monarch. There is a 36mm, but I never got the purpose of the 36, even though I own a pair. It is not quite 42 for brightness, and not 32 for compactness. 10x32 Monarch will be unnecesary, I would not get it and others will buy these good 8x32 in the 10x32 versions.

Edit: I thought about this, and I may see the logic. I would actually get the 10x36 if the 10x42 was not offerered, it may not be bad. But I would not get a 10x32 at this quality level, Monarch. So since 8x36 and 10x36 share some parts, it was easier to make those. And it is somewhat difficult to make an acceptable 10x32 in any case, even at the top end.

[Curtis Croulet]

Yeah, can you bring back the EII 8x30 in a rugged version pleeease? If you do put internal focus on a porro, please don't compromise the field of view.

Would be nice if they fixed the pealing leatherette, too. I had mine only three months before it started to lift off.

[FrankD]

Wow, talk about biting off more than you can chew. I would love to see Mr. Freiberg's face when he opens up this thread again.

Ditto on the comments about the EII but definitely consider upgrading the SE's waterproofing and eyecups as well. Heck, while we are at it I wouldn't mind shrinking the 8x32 SE's eye relief down to about 16 or 17 mm if it means adding another 20 feet to the field of view. ;)

[Alexis Powell]

Mr. Freiberg,
I want to follow up on what Kimmo said--the LX and LXL models (both 32 and 42 mm models) do not hang as well as other premium binoculars. This is not a small issue, and/but it is not something that Nikon engineers appear to understand. The porro 8x30 EII and 8x32 SE also do not hang well. My first serious binoculars were the 8x40 Classic Eagle. I loved their ergonomics, especially the room they had for my big thumbs between the barrels (much better than the LX), but the location of their strap lugs gave them abysmal "hang" properties. The LX are an improvement over the eagle, but they aren't even close to being perfect, and there is no reason why they couldn't have been.
--AP

[karmantra]

Mr. Freiberg: I was sorely tempted to buy a pair of 8x32 LXLs last spring for a super price, but they didn't feel comfortable in my small hands and the focus was too fast--I was always tweaking the focuser in order to get the view. Once focused, the 8x32s had an extremely sharp view.

[hinnark]

Luca,
My name is Mike Freiberg and I am the birding rep for Nikon. I was a bit shocked with your opinion of the lack of handling in the Nikons. From traveling to shows all over the US I have found that the ergonomics have been the mainstay for the Premier line of optics. What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon. Cheers!

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Mike,

what I like with Nikon´s Premier line is their huge sweet spot and sharpness at the edge. The 8x42 could have a greater FOV. There are some things to improve with the 8x32 and 10x32mm models.

Big hands have in general some trouble to find a comfortable position on a small bin like a 32 mm is. But your small Premiers cuts the space with the much too big strap lugs. The hands lose too much space towards the oculars because of the strap lugs. I think it was a mistake to simply downsize the shape of the 42 mm models to the 32 mm ones because the 42mm Premiers are big enough and provide enough space even for big hands and the strap lugs don´t bother. It would be better to give the 32 mm bins their own design and ergonomics.
The Premiers also suffers too much from straylight. You don´t notice this under a southern sky. But here in the north (latitude > 52 degrees) the sun is close to the horizon pretty much time in winter. The European bins work simply better under these conditions. Under low temperature the Nikon bins are more effected. You can feel the focus getting stiffer.

Also the Premiers need better accessories. The strap is too small and too short. The bag needs a strap. The objective covers are useless since they are getting loose all the time and don´t have an attouchment. The ocular cover is too loose also and can´t protect the oculars good enough.

Steve

[Otto McDiesel]

8x32 LXLs ... and the focus was too fast--I was always tweaking the focuser in order to get the view. Once focused, the 8x32s had an extremely sharp view.

That too, i remember now; one should not tweak with anything, just watch birds and forget binoculars. The EL 8x32 seems to do this best for me.

[Lou H]

I had an opportunity to briefly compare the FL to a Swarovski EL8x32 WB and Leica 8x32 Ultravid. It was not an extensive comparison and all viewing was done hand-held. I’m not that fussy about way binos feel in the hand but found I preferred the Leica to the Zeiss to the Swarovski. The Leica was the most compact and I also felt it looked the best. It had smaller diameter eyecups that fit me better than the large diameter Zeiss pieces. The Swarovski has unusual appearance, which could possibly grow on me, but it was a full inch longer than the other two. Although the Zeiss was somewhat bulkier than the Leica, it was not significantly bigger overall. It did look kind of clunky compared to the other two, especially with its huge focus knob.

Of course I spent most of my time looking through rather than at these binoculars examining a resolution chart and some detailed colorful items. They all had adequate eye relief to use with my glasses, although I did most viewing with no glasses. No need to say that all three provided excellent viewing with indistinguishably excellent on axis resolution. Switching fairly quickly between the three, I found the Zeiss to be a bit brighter, a smidgeon cooler, and to have a seemingly a wider in fov, although it and the Swaro have the same 420’ fov spec while the Leica is spec-ed at 404’. Looking again more carefully, it seemed the impression of a wider fov was due to the brighter image and less off-axis aberration. Among the three, I felt the view through the Zeiss was the most gratifying with the Swaro and Leica being almost indistinguishable.

[Sancho]

one should not tweak with anything, just watch birds and forget binoculars.
Reminds me of a Chairman Mao quote, "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger". That´s me (the fool, that is, not the wise man...)

[Chhayanat]

Luca,
My name is Mike Freiberg and I am the birding rep for Nikon. I was a bit shocked with your opinion of the lack of handling in the Nikons. From traveling to shows all over the US I have found that the ergonomics have been the mainstay for the Premier line of optics. What about the handling don't you like? I am very curious. I like to be able to take these things back to Nikon. Cheers!

Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist

Dear Mr. Freiberg,
The LX series handle differently in the various sizes. I use the 10x42LX and am happy with its handling - even the extra weight - but I can quite understand complaints about the smallest LX model.

I must state with respect that the view of the Nikon LX series should be its mainstay. Binoculars are meant principally for looking through.

It might be possible that the LX L series has improved upon the view of the LX series - I have not used the latter - but I did find that in resolution and brightness the LX series was marginally inferior to the Leica 10x42 BR and in depth of field to the Swarovski 10x42EL.

I have also come across several cases of non-matching multiccoatings in the left and right lenses of the LX series; this is unacceptable.

The fast focus of the LX series is unmatched but it does cause focus overshoot in many users, especially those losing focus accommodation.

Lastly, I must renew the plea for Nikon to reissue the 8x32SE and 10x42SE with its best multicoatings and helical eyecups. Porros do much better for ageing eyes losing focus accommodation. Given demographic patterns in the main markets, porros could be a growing market if this truth were recognised and publicised. Internal focussing porros would be the ultimate target.

Please do not treat these observations as complaints but as heartfelt suggestions from a Nikon user who is unlikely to buy any more binoculars.

Best wishes,
Chhayanat

[mooreorless]

Dear Mr. Freiberg,
The LX series handle differently in the various sizes. I use the 10x42LX and am happy with its handling - even the extra weight - but I can quite understand complaints about the smallest LX model.

I must state with respect that the view of the Nikon LX series should be its mainstay. Binoculars are meant principally for looking through.

It might be possible that the LX L series has improved upon the view of the LX series - I have not used the latter - but I did find that in resolution and brightness the LX series was marginally inferior to the Leica 10x42 BR and in depth of field to the Swarovski 10x42EL.

I have also come across several cases of non-matching multiccoatings in the left and right lenses of the LX series; this is unacceptable.

The fast focus of the LX series is unmatched but it does cause focus overshoot in many users, especially those losing focus accommodation.

Lastly, I must renew the plea for Nikon to reissue the 8x32SE and 10x42SE with its best multicoatings and helical eyecups. Porros do much better for ageing eyes losing focus accommodation. Given demographic patterns in the main markets, porros could be a growing market if this truth were recognised and publicised. Internal focussing porros would be the ultimate target.

Please do not treat these observations as complaints but as heartfelt suggestions from a Nikon user who is unlikely to buy any more binoculars.

Best wishes,
Chhayanat

OK people don't be shy,tell Mike what you think.:-)
I second Chhayanat about the eyecups and upgrade on coatings for the 8 & 10 SE also for the 12SE.
Steve

[matt green]

OK people don't be shy,tell Mike what you think.:-)
I second Chhayanat about the eyecups and upgrade on coatings for the 8 & 10 SE also for the 12SE.
Steve


Internal focusing,100% waterproof nikon 7x32 porro se,twist up eyecups.
Wide field of view,not too bothered about close focus.Must have a nice big
chunky focus wheel.

I'll have mine in stippled effect forest green rubber!

Matt

[FrankD]

Anybody think Mike came back to the thread after we started posting comments/suggestions?

I hope so.

[brocknroller]

In case anyone was wondering what Mike Frieberg's background is and how his hands fit around Nikon LX/LX L binoculars, check out his bio and photo on this Webpage (looks like his fingers are as long as mine!):
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/journal_entry.php?group=15&journal_id=53

I'd like to post some comments here for BF members and Mr. Frieberg when I have more time about my experiences with two 8x32 LX samples, two 10x42 LX samples, a 10x42 LX L, and a 8x42 LX.

First, let me say that I am a very BIG Nikon binoculars fan (6'4" :-). I have owned over 30 binoculars, and most of them were Nikons, because they are consistently sharp on-axis and have better edge performance than most of the competition at the same price point (the 7x35 EX excepted, I preferred the Minolta 7x35 Activa WP FP).

I have a Nikon 8x35 Action WF from the 80s that rivals my 8x32 SE in sharpness and contrast! I also have a 7x35 WF, and newer Nikon birding bins: 8x32 SE, 8x30 E2, 8x32 LX, and 12x50 SE. All are excellent performers in their own right, though I've made some modifications to the 8x32s so they fit my hands better. The 12x50 SE sample I have focuses down to 17 ft., which makes them more suitable for birding.

I spent the past year comparing these models to each other, and to other binoculars, including two 804 Audubons (ED and non-ED), Swift 8x44 ED, Celestron 10x50 ED, CZJ 8x50 Octarem, 10x35 E2, and 10x42 SE, and came to some interesting conclusions. Too tired to elaborate in full now, but here are a few quick observations:

To my surprise, I found the optics in the older, less expensive 10x42 LXs were better than the newer LX L lead free glass version! I did some "googling" and found others who felt the same way about lead vs. lead free glass bins: http://www.photography-equipment.org/lens_Lead_And_Arsenic_Is_A_Good_Thing_57189.htm

I am also surprised that no professional online reviewer has mentioned the significant barrel distortion in the full sized LXs. It's at least equal to the "rolling ball effect" in my $99 Minolta 7x35 Activa WP FP bins.

Although I was absolutely smitten with the resolution, color depth, color rendition, and contrast in the full sized LX bins, I don't think this much barrel distortion should be present in premium binoculars, though many users seem to be able to adjust to it. The 8x32 LX has much less barrel distortion, which is the main reason I sold the full sized LXs and kept the 32s.

More on the LX focusers, coatings, ergonomics, eyecups, sample variations, TFOV, AFOV, etc. when time permits.

Thanks to all for this interesting thread and to Mr. Frieberg for "listening in" on our discussion.

I believe that Nikon will take our discussion seriously if we make it constructive.

[Marley]

I once owned a pair of 8x32 HGs and found the fit, finish, handling and build quality to be excellent. Even the focus wheel was silky smooth (albeit a bit fast).

I just couldn't get past the rolling ball distortion. In panning, it was quite noticable and in my opinion, inexusable for a product that wants to be counted with the best in the world.

They sat on the shelf for a few months and then were off to E-Bay. Since then, I have not picked up another Nikon bin.

I will say that I own a Nikon FS III ED AN and couldn't be happier. It's an excellent scope. IMHO, Nikon just needs to work on their roof prism line a bit.

Just my $.02.

Best regards,

Marley

[kberry]

I have recently ordered a pair of Nikon 8x32 HG L DCF on (1 hr) approval but mention of the fast focus in this thread has given me the wobblies.
I expect the fast focus, ergonomics & max IPD of the 8x32 HG L DCF to be similar to the superceded 10x32 HG DCF that I tested & which opened to my 76mm IPD (rare as hen's teeth)
Yes, the 3/4 turn of the focus wheel did result in focus hunting during my brief test, but I was unconcerned after reading a post in which the writer said he mastered this in a few days & thought it advantageous. Now I'm wondering.
The bins felt OK in my smallish hands & the 3/4 turn focus wheel suited the small movement of my short index finger.
It would be good to hear how easily others got used to the fast focus action & how it affected their viewing.

ps. Has anybody got an accurate max. IPD of their 8x36 Monarchs?
If 76mm they may be an option.

regards
Kim

[Swissboy]

I have recently ordered a pair of Nikon 8x32 HG L DCF on (1 hr) approval but mention of the fast focus in this thread has given me the wobblies.
I expect the fast focus, ergonomics & max IPD of the 8x32 HG L DCF to be similar to the superceded 10x32 HG DCF that I tested & which opened to my 76mm IPD (rare as hen's teeth)
Yes, the 3/4 turn of the focus wheel did result in focus hunting during my brief test, but I was unconcerned after reading a post in which the writer said he mastered this in a few days & thought it advantageous. Now I'm wondering.
The bins felt OK in my smallish hands & the 3/4 turn focus wheel suited the small movement of my short index finger.
It would be good to hear how easily others got used to the fast focus action & how it affected their viewing.

ps. Has anybody got an accurate max. IPD of their 8x36 Monarchs?
If 76mm they may be an option.

regards
Kim

Kim, there is not a single perfect model. It's always a compromise. So if the fast focus is your only problem, I would not worry too much. Try it first. You have some other priorities that may be more critical if they are not met.

[jacquot]

I learned birding with B&L Elites, and now cannot live without a fast focus. I love my 8x32 Nikon HG's a large part for this reason. It has become second nature, and for me, slow focusing binos are impossible to use effectively in the field. Give them a try, the view is hard to beat, and the fast focus may mean you get on birds that you might otherwise have missed. That has been my experience. Each design is different, and I have found even subtle differences require adjustment.

[kberry]

Thanks Swissboy & jacquot

Well the Nikon HGL DCF 8x32 arrived today.

Your words of wisdom were right on the mark. Using the silky smooth rapid focus action has quickly become second nature.

Amazingly, although the IPD adjustment measures 56 ~78 mm, the specs in the box only claim 56 ~72 mm.
This understatement is not an isolated occurrence as the max IPD of a Leica Ultravid 8x42 measured 76 mm while their product range booklet claimed only 74 mm.

I couldn't help briefly comparing the Nikon HGL DCF 8x32 & the Leica Ultravid 8x42. (ok......apples & oranges)
The more relaxing view & better depth of field of the Leica was very tempting but you have to $top somewhere. At least most of us do.

Now for some wildlife!

Thanks guys,

Kim

[Swissboy]

After about a year, I had a chance, again, today to handle a number of the top 8x32 models. I was mostly concentrating on how they felt in my hands. These are purely personal impressions, of course. These were the Nikon Monarch, Swarovski EL, Zeiss FL, and Leica Ultravid. Immediately, the Swaro was the least comfortable to me, because the gap between the bridges is too narrow even for my smallish hands. So it does not provide the benefit of the larger versions. Among the others, I was surprised how comfortable the Monarch was in my hands. Finally, it struck me that the strap attachments on the Ultravid are not optimal. Zeiss has positioned them optimally, whereas Leica has come up with about a similarly uncomfortable position as Zeiss had on the Victory I and II.

There was not enough time for getting into a re-evaluation of the optical part. Yet, the Ultravid, once again, bothered me immediately with a somewhat rough focus. Not as bad as what I had encountered in some other Ultravids before, but still annoying. FOV was less in the Ultravid than in the FL, but the Ultravid seemed a little brighter that the FL.
Overall, I think the 8x32 FL is the top glass these days among the 8x32 models. In this respect, I came to the same conclusion as I did a year ago when I concentrated more on the optics.