Dorian,
If the price of the EDG ever drops close to the $1000–$1300 range, I think we can officially announce that Nikon's foray into the alpha segment was a "complete mission failure".
I think the EDG II will eventually drop back to $2K, and occasionally get discounted to $1,700-$1,800 like they were last year, but I don't think they want to limbo any lower than that.
In order to maintain "alpha status," bins need to be "alpha priced". While it's the "natural order" for Japanese optics to be priced below the Teutonics, they can't be too far below or they are going to be perceived as "second tier," which if you do a dennis translation, means "second class".
If you can't find an 8x32 SE or 8x30 EII (if you don't use eyeglasses with bins, the latest black body EII's are just as good and have a "walk-in" view), then look for an 8x32 EDG I. Closest view you're going to get to the SE in a roof. Hard to find in Europe since they were never released there.
Assuming that you don't want to pay $2,299.99 for an 8x32 EDG II or whatever price they're selling for in Europe, then the 8x32 HGL is your next best bet if you like the "Nikon view".
Unlike the "rarefied" RB in the full sized models, the 8x32 has enough pincushion to keep the ball from rolling away with the birds. There is, however, enough AMD for the super sensitive "rollingballer" to find off putting, but certainly a better balance of AMD and pincushion than the full sized models.
To my eyes, the HG has noticeably more CA than the SE, but only in high contrast situations. During the winter it was glaringly obvious but not so bad during the warmer months except on overcast days.
I would recommend the HG model over the HGL if you can find one. Only an ounce difference in weight, but the color fidelity is better in the originals.
I think the reason Leica was forced to talk about pincushion was that the topic often came up in reviews of its bins, particularly the Trinovid. I remember Stephen Ingraham's review on BVD of the 8x32 "Ultra" (not sure where that name came from, but he's talking about the 8x32 "Trinovid"), saying it had too much field curvature and pincushion, which combined produced "disconcerting" effects at the edges. After using the ZR 7x36 ED2, I knew what he meant.
The advantage the HGL has is its close focus (6 ft. vs. the SE's 10 ft). That might not seem like much difference, but at 10 ft. you will probably see barrel overlap shadows in the image with the SE, with the HGL, you can focus down to 6 ft. with no barrel overlap and w/out field collapse so you maintain a stereoscopic image. The 8x32 HG is excellent for close-in birding and butterflying.
To me, the big difference btwn the 8x32 HG and 8x32 SE is depth perception and 3-D effect. The HG compresses the view ("objects may appear closer than they really are," to coin the warning on my car's side view mirror), while the SE makes the landscape look more natural with a better 3-D effect and separation between objects.
The 8x42 HGL is much better than the 8x32 in regard to depth perception and 3-D effect. If not for the RB, I would have chosen the 8x42 over the 8x32 model because of that, and it also fit my large hands much better.
I'm not sure what your preferences are or what your budget is, but if you are not sensitive to RB, you might consider buying the 8x42 model. Smaller FOV but by no means tunnelesque, and brighter, sharper, and more porro-like image, with a more reasonable, though still fast, 1 turn focuser.
Brock
