[Robert Wallace]

So much has been written on Bird Forum about the Nikon SE 8x32 that I felt I needed to try some.
At the UK Bird Fair I asked to try some on the Nikon Sports Optics stand, eventually after some blank looks one of the older and presumably more experienced staff explained that they were no longer available in the USA and that there was limited availability in the UK and he thought manufacture had stopped.
The 8x30 E11 was on show however.

[steve@37n84w]

I hate to dispel another rumor pertaining to the demise of the SE series but I think SE availability is better than ever at the present. Several online vendors currently have all three models in stock, something I haven't noticed in quite a while.

Steve

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Robert Wallace

So much has been written on Bird Forum about the Nikon SE 8x32 that I felt I needed to try some.
At the UK Bird Fair I asked to try some on the Nikon Sports Optics stand, eventually after some blank looks one of the older and presumably more experienced staff explained that they were no longer available in the USA and that there was limited availability in the UK and he thought manufacture had stopped.
The 8x30 E11 was on show however.

That is weird. I just contacted Nikon and they said the SE was available in the US although the EII of course isn't. The SE seems to be in stock at quite a few online stores. If you want one I would buy one now and hold onto it though.

[St. Elmo]

Guys... help... what is the practical difference between the two (SE 8x32 and 8x30 EII)? I posed the question to Nikon and they gave me weak-ass responses likely rendered by sales folk. They offered what was stated in the technical specifications (I could see that). They offered that a 32mm objective admits more light (I was shocked to learn that!). They offered that the FOV was greater with one than the other (I gasped!). So on the fourth attempt, I asked them to ask one of their birding people about the practical differences in the field. Now, they're silent. Please tell me what Nikon hasn't been able to.... thanks...

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by St. Elmo

Guys... help... what is the practical difference between the two (SE 8x32 and 8x30 EII)? I posed the question to Nikon and they gave me weak-ass responses likely rendered by sales folk. They offered what was stated in the technical specifications (I could see that). They offered that a 32mm objective admits more light (I was shocked to learn that!). They offered that the FOV was greater with one than the other (I gasped!). So on the fourth attempt, I asked them to ask one of their birding people about the practical differences in the field. Now, they're silent. Please tell me what Nikon hasn't been able to.... thanks...

Where is Brock at? He will write you a book on the differences between the EII and the SE. The main difference is the EII has huge FOV and the SE has a smaller FOV but it is flatter and sharper at the edge. The SE because of the 32mm objective is a little brighter and I feel the SE has little better contrast and is a little sharper but many will argue that point. The SE is constructed a little better and has better armouring so it is tougher in the field although neither one is fully waterproof. The EII has this huge immersive FOV that feels like you are IN the view looking at the bird. Very addictive! The SE has this incredibly sharp crystalline view that is hard to describe. I prefer the SE but many like the EII for reasons stated above. I like the sharp edges on the SE and to me it is a little sharper on-axis. I compared the SE to the 8x32 EDG and the 8x32 SV and found them sharper. The 3D image on either is a BIG advantage when birding because it helps you "pop" birds out of bushes. Even though the SE and EII have been around for years they are optically the best two binoculars you can buy. There is nothing like them ANYWHERE. Get one or the other why you can.

[typo]

I had a similar chat with one of the Bird Fair Nikon guys. Mostly speculation, but combining what we've heard, the manufacture of both the EII and SE has ceased. The EII is currently listed in the UK catalogue and the SE in the US catalogue. However they are both special order and pretty much any retailer can get either if inclined. Currently Clifton Cameras for example has samples of both.

The EII has the wider view with more pronounced field curvature and shorter ER. The SE has the field flattener, narrower view, and longer ER. I'll leave the rest to Brock.

David

[Pinewood]

Originally Posted by St. Elmo

Guys... help... what is the practical difference between the two (SE 8x32 and 8x30 EII)?

Hello St. Elmo,

The following is derived from my posting of seven years, ago:
The 8x30/32 category of binoculars is considered to be useful for almost all daylight bird watching. My only reservation to that assertion isobserving birds under the forest canopy or in shrubbery on overcast
wintry days.The Nikon E series binoculars were alleged to be copies of a contemporary Zeiss design of the 1950's. The SE glasses were supposed to be "Superior E's," while the E2 may have a modified optical design from the original. The current E2 and the SE have multicoating.

My complaint, which is not uncommon, is that the SE suffers from "kidneybean" or blackout effect, especially for wearers of spectacles.
Remedies include folding the eyecups a few mms. shy of fully down or
holding the binocular tipped up slightly. The former does not completely cure the problem and the latter makes holding the binocular different from the other glasses which I use. This fault has been laid to excessive eye relief or to spherical aberrations of the eyepiece.
Both binoculars require a little effort to align the objectives, the ocularsand the user's pupils. With an exit pupil fo 3.75 or 4.0 mm., there is lessforgiveness than with larger exit pupils.

Eye Relief
E2 13.8 mm., which I would call adequate
SE 17.4 mm.
The E2 has sufficient dioptre compensation to reach -7.5, which I require. The SE does not quite get that far. Therefore I can use the E2 without my spectacles, at least in daylight, when my astigmatism is mitigated by a narrow pupil.but I might walk into a tree if I tried navigating without my specs.

Field of View
E2 461 feet at 1000 yds, according to Eagle Optics, 8.8º according to
the engravings on the glass. My arithmetic yield 8.84º with the 461
feet measurement. In any case this is an apparent Field of View of
more than 70 degrees. SE 393 feet, or 7.53º according to my calculations. I would have to write that the E2's larger field is very attractive and makes this glass very comfortable and easy to use.

Ergonomics
Both are small binoculars, and the EII the smaler of the two which might present a problem to those with big hands, but both suited me. The E2 has a faux pebbled leather covering, while the SE has a rubber covering, for a good grip and a little shock absorbing from minor jolts. The E2 also has sloping shoulders which gives it a nice appearance, but is of no consequence in use. Both binoculars are difficult to focus in cold weather, below 3ºC.
Edge sharpness
The best is the SE, with less than 10%,maybe 8%, of the edge showing fuzziness. The E2 has about 10 or 12% fuzzy. This means between 76 and 80% of the E2 field is sharp. Essentially, the E2 has the same usable field as the SE, but with a little extra field to catch peripheral activity.
Center Sharpness
Both binoculars have more than acceptable center sharpness, resolving fine details. Multicoating has given the Nikons more contrast which provides the snap that improves the perception of sharpness.
At night, all both binoculars provided point images of stars, a crucial test. All three resolved moons of Jupiter, as well. Diminished curvature of field in the Se, and marginally higher resolution have given the Se a reputation as a first rate optical performer.

Brightness
The two Nikons are close, but I'll give the
SE the edge. Maybe the extra 2 mm of the objective or better multicoatings are the reason.

Internal Reflections or Ghost images
Both show internal reflection. When pointed at Antares, two row of dots or lines appeared at the bottom of the field. When pointed at Jupiter, a circle appeared in the lower left part of the field. Experimentation showed that it was ambient light entering at the ocular. Use of the extended eyecups, in the cases of the E2 fixed that but for me that would have meant a reduced field with my specs. For the SE I had to cup my hand around the ocular as I cannot focus the SE on infinity without my specs. This problem may be inherent in the design of the ocular or a matter of coatings but those who use a binocular with the eyecups down may have difficulties in strong side lighting or backlighting, especially when the sun is low.
Conclusion
Both are great binoculars but personal preferences, like mine for a wider field and my susceptibility to blackouts, meant that I preferred the EII. However, as I am clumsy and the EII is not as robust as q modern roof prism binocular, I use Zeiss FL 8x32.


Happy bird watching,
Arthur

[Alexis Powell]

Anyone who has dealt with Nikon for very long on the customer service side knows this, but perhaps it bears mentioning given some of the posts above. In my experience, when it comes to sport optics, Nikon's customer service reps and their sales/product reps don't seem to be provided _any_ special information about the design, manufacture, distribution, or product features of Nikon products. It is really, in my experience, a complete waste of time to ask them anything. Similarly, Nikon's plethora of unintegrated websites are a bad place to go to discern whether products are still current, available, etc. Until someone has access to the folks who make manufacturing, sales and distribution decisions for Nikon sport optics, the only way to know what is going on with Nikon is in hindsight. Even so, interpreting why Nikon did what they did after they did it is nearly impossible, so good luck trying to understand current activity based on observing product availability in different markets. Explaining the past and current weather, and predicting weather in the future is far more fruitful and reliable.

--AP

PS: I love Nikon products, including sport optics, film cameras, film scanners, digital SLRs, digital editing software, but with the exception of the exceptionally savvy folks who used to provide specialized customer service for film scanning and digital editing (the current dept know nothing except what is in the product manuals), the above statements describe _all_ of my experiences with Nikon reps over the past ~30 years.

[ceasar]

I think they will continue to be available, off and on, much like they have been in the past, as long as there is demand for them. One thing we tend to forget about them is that they are very easy to make in their current likeness. They have been made like this, unchanged except for coatings, for over 15 years. This, no doubt, has contributed to their longevity.

Their look is also timeless. They look like what we expect binoculars to look like but with understated styling and grace. The Swarovski porros also have this look, especially the leather ones.


Eagle Optics now has the 8 x 32 SE in stock.

Bob

[FrankD]

Dennis,

One of these days I might convince you to pick up one of those Nikon 7x35 WFs. Remember that thread by Henry last winter? You may consider them an equivalent comparison to your SEs as you did the Sightrons to your EDG.

Just a thought. I think there is one on the bay now for $75 plus shipping.

[normjackson]

A graphic attempting to show the specificed difference in FOV between the SE and EII.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by ceasar

I think they will continue to be available, off and on, much like they have been in the past, as long as there is demand for them. One thing we tend to forget about them is that they are very easy to make in their current likeness. They have been made like this, unchanged except for coatings, for over 15 years. This, no doubt, has contributed to their longevity.

Their look is also timeless. They look like what we expect binoculars to look like but with understated styling and grace. The Swarovski porros also have this look, especially the leather ones.


Eagle Optics now has the 8 x 32 SE in stock.

Bob

I tried that one vintage binocular and you needed a pair of channel lock pliers to turn the focus. I don't think I will try another. You must have gorilla hands.

[FrankD]

This is a totally different animal Dennis. Different design and construction. I now have two and neither has a stiff focuser.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by normjackson

A graphic attempting to show the specificed difference in FOV between the SE and EII.

I've found that these type of graphical representations of FOV are misleading to most viewers. By that, I mean that almost everyone judges the difference between circular areas in the diagram as shown here as trivial, but that most of them experience the difference between bins with this large a difference in FOV (393 ft vs 462 ft wide at 1000 yards) as being quite substantial. Same with the comparison between 8x bins with 330 ft versus 420 ft FOV--looks minor on paper, but it is the difference between a tubular and a comfortably wide view in actual use.

I think these area diagrams are slightly less misleading if the inner circle is set tangent to the outer one rather than centered on it. Even better is to consider the area than one is able to scan in a single view. The EII covers an area 38% larger than the SE.

--AP

[normjackson]

Of course I had anticipated criticism that this misrepresents the difference in some way, Alexis; we've been on BF for too long. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if some optical illusion came into play if the inner area were made paler than the outer ring or whatever Funnily enough, I have to say looking at this I feel it does illustrate a substantial difference in FOV; but maybe I'm "colouring in" in black the appropriate area in my imagination...

Anyways, I think it interesting to see the extra area of the EII in the context of discussing the edge performance of the two models; wonder how far folks feel dodgy edge performance of the EII encroaches into well corrected SE field.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by normjackson

Of course I had anticipated criticism that this misrepresents the difference in some way, Alexis; we've been on BF for too long. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if some optical illusion came into play if the inner area were made paler than the outer ring or whatever Funnily enough, I have to say looking at this I feel it does illustrate a substantial difference in FOV; but maybe I'm "colouring in" in black the appropriate area in my imagination...

Anyways, I think it interesting to see the extra area of the EII in the context of discussing the edge performance of the two models; wonder how far folks feel dodgy edge performance of the EII encroaches into well corrected SE field.

What would be nice is to have both circles side by side focused on an image with an actual through the lens photo showing the apparent sweet spot size and field curvature characteristics of each binocular. That would be nice.

[Alexis Powell]

Originally Posted by normjackson

Of course I had anticipated criticism that this misrepresents the difference in some way, Alexis; we've been on BF for too long...

Ha! Yes, surely for too long. As for the diagram--it's not a misrepresentation in the strict sense, just misleading to most viewers in my experience (I used to draw these sort of diagrams myself when trying to show the importance of FOV spec to my students in ornithology lab and others, but I always found my audience unimpressed, so I don't do it anymore).

--AP

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by normjackson

Anyways, I think it interesting to see the extra area of the EII in the context of discussing the edge performance of the two models; wonder how far folks feel dodgy edge performance of the EII encroaches into well corrected SE field.

Norm,

I could have done that this evening if I had known the question was going to come up because both of mine are within arms reach. In fact I used my 8 x 30 EII earlier today. After that and based on my memory, I'm rather sure that the width of the area of sharpness of the EII extends beyond the 393' @ 1000yards FOV of the SE.

Bob

[St. Elmo]

Thank you all for your responses. You bested the folks at Nikon who are charged with (and presumptively paid for) answering questions about Nikon products.

[normjackson]

Sorry, Alexis, should really have said thanks for qualifying my post. It can be a pain crossing every t and dotting every i (should FrankD really have to qualify every observation with "apparent" this and "apparent" that; patience of a saint I say) but do welcome the assurance that someone is watching over to reduce liklihood that will mislead.

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

I used to draw these sort of diagrams myself when trying to show the importance of FOV spec to my students in ornithology lab and others, but I always found my audience unimpressed, so I don't do it anymore

Watched some of an Indiana Jones movie shown on one of main channels in UK the other day; looks like the knack is to ride a motorcycle through the library and mumble a lot

Originally Posted by ceasar

based on my memory, I'm rather sure that the width of the area of sharpness of the EII extends beyond the 393' @ 1000yards FOV of the SE.

Thanks Bob. I think this is quite a significant claim for your EII which supports what Arthur claims in the "Ergonomics" section of his post.

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

What would be nice is to have both circles side by side focused on an image with an actual through the lens photo showing the apparent sweet spot size and field curvature characteristics of each binocular.

Agreed Dennis. I recall some interesting "digibinning" done by Frank on some models including the Nikon 7x35 (or possibly 6.6x35) WF; looks like it would be ever so hard to get some authoritative results about edge sharpness though.

[normjackson]

Haven't read it for years, but seem to recall Stephen Ingraham's review implying he felt there was something "special" about the SE view that he didn't attribute to the EII. Anyone else felt this "je ne sais quoi"?

[FrankD]

Norm,

I was left with a similar impression. The Eii didn't get as much "press" as the SE on the website.

I didn't think of overlapping the pics I took in the 7x comparison thread. It would prove interesting.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by normjackson

Haven't read it for years, but seem to recall Stephen Ingraham's review implying he felt there was something "special" about the SE view that he didn't attribute to the EII. Anyone else felt this "je ne sais quoi"?

I think the SE has better contrast than the EII and it might be a LITTLE sharper. The newest SE has almost a crystalline like view when they are perfect. Of course the flat field and lack of field curvature makes a difference too. Of course the EII has that huge FOV. It depends on what you like. But the quality of the FOV on the SE is better. It's like a slightly smaller TV that is sharper if you will.

[mikefreiberg]

I was told recently that they are being manufactured and they are just a special order item only. Which means the dealer needs to go out of their way to get stock. That is why some dealers do have this product. Hunt's Photo in Boston, MA still has some 8x32 SEs for sale. Have a great afternoon, everyone.

All the best,
Mike Freiberg
Nikon Birding Market Specialist