• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

8x30 frustration. Swap? (1 Viewer)

looksharp65

Well-known member
Sweden
Although I swore never to get rid of the Nikon 8x30 E II, I'm now considering doing this. This is not because of the binocular but because of me.
I need vision correction and therefore I use spectacles and occasionally contact lenses.

The E II requires the use of contact lenses because of its insufficient eye relief.
And it is a fair-weather binocular, not being waterproof. But due to desiccation while biking with the contact lenses and allergy problems, my contact lenses are notoriously unreliable for delivering that tack-sharp vision when it's fair weather. So...the equation cannot be solved.

The weather that suits my contact lens use does not suit the E II. :-C
As a consequence, I'm thinking of swapping my Meostar 8x32 + the E II for a brand new Cabela's Euro HD 8x32.

If I were convinced, I would have put this in the Classified section.
Does anyone have an idea?

//L
 
Last edited:
I have done that: putting correction elements on the eyepieces.
(little vinyl glue-dots)
It works well, and it cures or reduces the "blackout" or "spherical exit pupil" problem.
It seems to improve the view near the edges, too. With plano-concave
you can experiment to taste (flipped one way or the other).

You don't need the exact prescription, just to bring the focus range in.
I use -200mm FL (-5D) and I have a -4D prescription.

There is a limitation, though: you can only easily get the lenses without
astigmatic correction. If you have a lot of astigmatism it would suddenly
turn custom.

Something to bear in mind: eye relief usually improves at lower powers,
like 7x or 6.5x.
 
Last edited:
Guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm myopic and astigmatic and need correction to see far, so putting correction lenses in the E II's oculars will not help me since I won't be able to see where to direct the binoculars towards.
The astigmatism is the reason I can't just take my specs off to look through the binoculars.

With my other binoculars (6.5x, 7x and the 8x32) I can use spectacles.
Unfortunately it seems I can't do the E II justice. An 8x32 SE would have been a better choice for me than the E II since it allows the use of spectacles.
But I'll go for the Euro HD that is fine with either: spectacles as standard and contacts in foul weather where spectacles is an obstacle for seeing due to the raindrops on the lenses.

//L
 
Looksharp65. I am myopic (close to -6.5), and find the Zeiss FL 8x32 very friendly with and without glasses. The Zeiss 7x42 is even friendlier--but it comes with weight increase. May be they are worthy of consideration. Enjoy in good health.
 
Thanks ibramr. I had the 10x32 FL but prefer the Meostar's/Euro HD's ergonomics by far.
I also have the EDG 7x42 which I prefer to the FL.
Interesting to learn that the Zeiss can be dialled into sharpness with such large ametropia! :t:

//L
 
Ls65, I hope that, before you commit yourself, you know that the HD version is close enough in that aspect to the non-HD. Is it only the lens material that's changed? I see different body length figures for the HD and non-HD 12x50.
 
Last edited:
Ls65, I hope that, before you commit yourself, you know that the HD version is close enough in that aspect tothe non-HD. Is it only the lens material that's changed? I see different body lenghth figures for the HD and non-HD 12x50.

As far as I know they (the 32's) are identical apart from the lenses.
I would have preferred a Meopta-branded, loden green binocular but understand I can't have it all. But I'm also thinking about swapping the E II for a decent 8x42 roof, then try to save some money before exchanging the Meostar for the Cabela's.

//L
 
Looksharp65.

And contrary to the experience of many here, I have also found that, with glasses on, the Leica BN 8x32 and the UV HD (8x42) to be very usable. It is noteworthy that I use rimless glasses with lenses that are very close to my eyes, and I think this is one of the reasons for finding the Leica a joy to use with their limited eye relief.

I am afraid I cannot comment on either the Edge or the Meopta as I do not have adequate experience with them.
 
ibramr, it is your strong myopia that helps you with the Leicas. For lesser myopes or hyperopes, their eye relief is on the short side.
Yesterday I looked through an 8x42 Ultravid HD and an 8x42 Conquest HD, just like I have done before with a 10x42 HT. My personal opinion is that they are all inferior to the EDG (II) 7x42.
Sweet spot size and ease of view with the EDG leaves them behind, but of course they have their strong points as well.

//L
 
Is there another eyeglass frame that works for you yet will allow for proper placement of the EII?

You mentioned the SE 8X32 would be a better choice because it allows the use of eye glasses. Have you considered swapping the EII for an SE? You would loose the added FOV, but the SE does have the flat field that may help make up for some of the lost FOV. However, you still have the fair weather issue of a non water proof binocular.

Your note got me to pull out my 8X32 SE and 8X30 EII and try them with my eye glasses. ( I normally view without my glasses). I was able to get a full view with both, and the SE was actually a little more difficult for proper placement, but that is also true for me without glasses. That little test is what made me think a different frame may work.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion, Bruce!
If I find a frame with a wide nose bridge that is curved outwards (obviously!) it might better the usable eye relief quite a bit. On the other hand my eyelashes will hit the lenses.
Getting rid of the E II does not feel very good. I tried to figure what I might swap it for without any significant expense, and that would be the Monarch 7 8x42.
Since acquiring an M7 (EDG, Prominar, FL?, Conquest ...) always will be easy but the E II is hard to find, I will probably decide against selling/swapping it.
Maybe an SE could make me change my mind, pity they were never made as 8x42.

Someone wrote "Make up your flipping mind!" to someone else here and that would probably apply to me too.
Making decisions based on frustration is often a bad idea. I'm hoping to resolve the eye dryness problems and have decided to put the E II to more frequent use (!) with and without spectacles.

After all this buzz I'm back on my original route, that is exhanging the Meostar for the Cabela's Euro HD. If desired, I might exchange the E II for an 8x42 EDG or similar (now what would that be ??) somewhere in the future.

Things are back to normal again and I really appreciate all the input you all have provided.
Thanks guys! :t:

//L
 
Ls65, could you pl. explain (at your convenience - sorry to bother): re your penult. post, how is it that the eye relief suits the normal-sighted (without glasses) and the *more* myopic with glasses but not the *less* myopic with glasses?
 
Optic sizes.

I have done that: putting correction elements on the eyepieces.
(little vinyl glue-dots)
It works well, and it cures or reduces the "blackout" or "spherical exit pupil" problem.
It seems to improve the view near the edges, too. With plano-concave
you can experiment to taste (flipped one way or the other).

You don't need the exact prescription, just to bring the focus range in.
I use -200mm FL (-5D) and I have a -4D prescription.

There is a limitation, though: you can only easily get the lenses without
astigmatic correction. If you have a lot of astigmatism it would suddenly
turn custom.

Something to bear in mind: eye relief usually improves at lower powers,
like 7x or 6.5x.
Hi optic nut can you tell me if 8x21 is a binocular
you can trust in the field I use mine for looking just out the door with but
they are sharp at a short distance to me they are a bit special, They were
A free bino with a order I made nothing to do with opticals at all but came
As more of a thank you gift for tradeing with the company I had them over
10 years ago now hardly used only had them out their small vinyl case this
last year they have a small silver disc shape sticker alongside the middle
focusing wheel which reads CSDC to prove they have been recommended
and passed, there is no manufacturers name on them, They are green
Rubber armoured and fold Neatly together some quality there but are extremely light and fit in the palm of your hand when closed their Approximately 3" in lenght, and when folded about 2" wide perhaps a
Little over 3" wide when opened, They have blue tinted lense glass and
fold over eye cups, Their field of view is 130m at 1000m .
 
Ls65, could you pl. explain (at your convenience - sorry to bother): re your penult. post, how is it that the eye relief suits the normal-sighted (without glasses) and the *more* myopic with glasses but not the *less* myopic with glasses?

Nearly all binoculars have sufficient eye relief for use without spectacles, it is more common that the eye relief is too long so blackouts occur.
With spectacles, they are a physical obstacle for getting close enough to the ocular lenses. The front curvature of the eyeglass lenses is typically +5 diopters if I remember correctly, but more with added positive powers and significantly less (down to near plano) with strong negative powers.

This, and the added thickness with stronger positive powers, acts to elongate the vertex distance.
Then there is the effect of a lens with some power that it magnifies or minifies the perceived image and changes the focal length of the eyepiece+eyeglass system which changes the location of the exit pupil, the eye relief.
If the negative lenses are strong enough, they will overcome the physical elongation of the vertex distance and allow for seeing the full FOV through the binoculars.

Without binoculars:
Negative lenses minify the image and increase the imaged field of view on the retina. At the edge of the lens, duplicated images of objects will occur.
Positive lenses magnify the image scale on the retina but steal a little of the FOV, causing a blind angle at the lens's edge where objects can't be seen neither through nor beneath the spectacles without turning the head.
They act like very weak telescopes.

//L
 
Last edited:
Hi optic nut can you tell me if 8x21 is a binocular
you can trust in the field I use mine for looking just out the door with but
they are sharp at a short distance to me they are a bit special, They were
A free bino with a order I made nothing to do with opticals at all but came
As more of a thank you gift for tradeing with the company I had them over
10 years ago now hardly used only had them out their small vinyl case this
last year they have a small silver disc shape sticker alongside the middle
focusing wheel which reads CSDC to prove they have been recommended
and passed, there is no manufacturers name on them, They are green
Rubber armoured and fold Neatly together some quality there but are extremely light and fit in the palm of your hand when closed their Approximately 3" in lenght, and when folded about 2" wide perhaps a
Little over 3" wide when opened, They have blue tinted lense glass and
fold over eye cups, Their field of view is 130m at 1000m .

Can't tell from here. CDSC hologram stickers sometimes indicate
a Nikon association.
I have seen 8x21s that were anywhere from 'poor' to 'good'.
A faint blue tint usually is a good sign. Poor ones lose sharpness
outside the middle third of the field. I have seen 'good' ones that were
giveaways...and bad ones. Giveaways from 10 yrs ago are generally
a lot better than giveaways the past 4 years.

If you focus on something distant and look across the field while
keeping it centered on the same target, how much of the field
still looks sharp? Good ones will look sharp for 60% or more,
bad ones will be very blurred outside of the middle half diameter.
Are there any small rainbows around bright edges? That's a bad sign.

8x21s in general can work well, but are a bit dim..needing
solid daylight. If you want 'very good' 8x21s, one example is the
Olympus Roamer. They run about $40-60. A super one might be
a Swarovski, for many hundreds. There is a wide range.
To get more light and better performance but still be small,
there are many 8x25s. Birders like 8x32, 8x42, 7x42, 10x50 and so on..
..bigger front lenses to see into the shade and dark.
 
Guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm myopic and astigmatic and need correction to see far, so putting correction lenses in the E II's oculars will not help me since I won't be able to see where to direct the binoculars towards.
The astigmatism is the reason I can't just take my specs off to look through the binoculars.

//L

A tough spot, I see. You probably have little choice but to pick
the binoculars to suit, although the suggestion of getting smaller, closer
eyeglasses is intriguing.
 
8x21

Can't tell from here. CDSC hologram stickers sometimes indicate
a Nikon association.
I have seen 8x21s that were anywhere from 'poor' to 'good'.
A faint blue tint usually is a good sign. Poor ones lose sharpness
outside the middle third of the field. I have seen 'good' ones that were
giveaways...and bad ones. Giveaways from 10 yrs ago are generally
a lot better than giveaways the past 4 years.

If you focus on something distant and look across the field while
keeping it centered on the same target, how much of the field
still looks sharp? Good ones will look sharp for 60% or more,
bad ones will be very blurred outside of the middle half diameter.
Are there any small rainbows around bright edges? That's a bad sign.

8x21s in general can work well, but are a bit dim..needing
solid daylight. If you want 'very good' 8x21s, one example is the
Olympus Roamer. They run about $40-60. A super one might be
a Swarovski, for many hundreds. There is a wide range.
To get more light and better performance but still be small,
there are many 8x25s. Birders like 8x32, 8x42, 7x42, 10x50 and so on..
..bigger front lenses to see into the shade and dark.
Hi there
I,m pleased to say my 8x21,s they are sharp while useing them no
signs of blurred ness or any rainbows around the bright edges not
bad for a give away, I have some 8x30,s I use usually if out in the field
43 years old they are only had them serviced once but again quite light
to carry quite attached to them now, I remember haveing some prinz
10x50,s but they kept closeing on themselves when useing them but
were to heavy in the field for me I like to hold and grip my bino,s
but thank,s again optic nut for shareing.
 
A tough spot, I see. You probably have little choice but to pick the binoculars to suit, although the suggestion of getting smaller, closer eyeglasses is intriguing.

To make the E II's justice, I need contact lenses provided that I can avoid the desiccation. With the tightest possible fit of spectacles I might be able to see the lion's share of the glorious FOV. Without correction, the image is a bit less sharp than the binoculars themselves can deliver. Despite these drawbacks I have decided to keep and use it with the limitations this may mean.

//L
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top