• 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.

Nikon 8x42 Premier LX "L" (1 Viewer)

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”
United States
I recently examined a wide selection of top bins and found I kept coming back to the new Nikon 8x42 Premier LX "L". My reaction:

The 366 FOV is not an issue. Time and again I picked this bin up and said, "WOW, this is a great view".

In direct comparison, this bin is BRIGHT...it's only competition seemed to be the 8X42 FL. Forget about silvered mirrors being inferior!

Sharpness, color saturation, and contrast are all so appealing it made me think of my SE 8X32.

The defining quality of this bin is its wonderfully sharp, crisp field of view. I truly believe, after using my SE for innumerable hours, that uniform sharpness across the FOV (a large sweet spot) adds immeasurably to the final image processed by the brain. The "L" version excels at maintaining a wide, excellent field and it shows in the final product. In a word, the view is effortless.

I'm not sure if Nikon made significant improvements to this model or not. I tested several samples of the previous version (heavy model) only to conclude the image wasn't as snappy as others. The "L" version I recently examined effortlessly snapped into crisp focus each and every time I used it.

John
 
John,

From all published accounts, and my own extensive testing, Nikon did not change the optics between the HG (LX) and HGL (LX L) binoculars. The main changes were ergonomic, including ligher weight, multi-step eyecups, and different rubber formulation for the armoring. I like the new HGL models quite a bit, but don't own a pair because I don't personally feel the ergonomic improvements are worth shelling out almost twice the cash vs. buying an older HG model on closeout. I've owned the 8x32 HG (which have a magnificent 408 ft. FOV) for approx. 2 years now, and don't really notice it's higher weight (27 oz.) most of the time. Something about the ergonomic design makes them "feel" lighter somehow... they are extremely pleasant binoculars to hold and use.

I agree with the optics section of your post... the Nikon HG optics are amazing, especially considering their lower cost when compared to most European binoculars. They are also some of the sharpest binoculars from edge-to-edge of any manufacturer, particularly noticeable with the 10x25 HG - the sharpest binocular edge-to-edge I've ever seen. I've noticed slightly more CA in the Nikons than my Leica, Zeiss, or Swarovski optics... but it's not SO much more that it's really noticeable if you aren't looking for it... overall the HG and HGL are great binoculars all around.

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
John: I suspect that what you regard as brightness is contrast. IMO the Nikon HG range have excellent contrast, and yes the image quality is very even. I remember Henry Link saying that the HG/LX range are not as bright as some other premium bins, but that the exceptional contrast compensates. (Tested in low light I presume.) Personally I am very bad at estimating relative brightness.

It sounds like you had a good sample of the LXL. I don't know how samples vary though the Nikon 8x42 HG that I used to own had slight miscollimation in the right optical assembly. That is not to be taken as a criticism of Nikon though, as miscollimation is not rare.

Nikon seem to have very good coatings, presumably a benefit of so much experience in photographic optics. I often wonder why Canon do not enter the quality binocular market (the IS range excepted) since they are much larger than Nikon and have the readies (money) to pay for research. Maybe it's too competitive a market. Or maybe the new Canon 10x40 IS is a taste of things to come. I am impressed by the quality of Leica's coatings since Leica is a small company and I am surprised that they can compete with the Nikon and Zeiss.

Leif
 
A couple of additional comments in reply...

I owned an HG 8X42 for a month and returned it because I believed it was poorly collimated. During the next year I sampled at least 8 HG 8X42's and all appeared optically identical to me and perfectly collimated. Though very nice, I never felt totally comfortable with the final image I saw in any of the samples. The "L" model I recently examined immediately struck me as a much different viewing experience. Reduced handshake, the product of significant weight reduction, may be a contributing factor. Stable images are better images!

Nikon is using Eco Glass in the "L" models. I have no idea what the optical ramifications of this glass are, but it is a change in design.

Brightness or Contrast?
The only other bin that I perceived as brighter than the Nikon "L" was the Zeiss FL. Pick up the Zeiss FL and the first thing that hits you is a lot of light, coupled with an image that is NOT washed out. The FL centerfield image is simply as good as it gets. IMO, the FL's superior image is due more to the near-total absence of CA than brightness. In direct comparison, the Nikon appeared very bright, detailed and full of life.

Centerfield sharpness, Sweet Spot, Flat Field....
I'm in danger of repeating myself, but the image uniformity across the FOV in the Nikon is addictive. Comparable uniformity can be found in the equally addictive Nikon SE series and the EL 8.5X44. I argue that small sweet spots increase the eye/brain workload and that large sweet spots reduce it.

John
 
John Traynor said:
Nikon is using Eco Glass in the "L" models. I have no idea what the optical ramifications of this glass are, but it is a change in design.

John

I think (not sure) that they mean that they have reduced of removed the use of lead in the production of the glass and hence it is more environmentally friendly. There's also been a big effort to remove lead from the production of electronics.

Leif
 
Leif said:
I think (not sure) that they mean that they have reduced of removed the use of lead in the production of the glass and hence it is more environmentally friendly. There's also been a big effort to remove lead from the production of electronics.

Leif


Leif,

Nikon removed cadmium and is now removing lead from their optical glass.
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/environment/report/2002/eco_e_07.pdf

I have no idea if Eco Glass improved the performance of the "L" models.

John
 
Leif said:
John: I suspect that what you regard as brightness is contrast. IMO the Nikon HG range have excellent contrast, and yes the image quality is very even.

Hi Leif

Kimmo Absetz commented on the excellent contrast of the HG10x32 in a review on Alula. For anyone interested it is available on the web.

FWIW I picked pair of 8x42's the other week and was really impressed by the image they presented.....

You do notice the weight difference on the x42 but you don't on the x32
 
LX or LXL's Toughness

Are there any issues with the LX or LXL not being able to take a lickin and keep on tickin? Do these binos generally last pretty long? Also, how is Nikon these days on covering defects or other bino problems?
 
Hogjaws said:
Are there any issues with the LX or LXL not being able to take a lickin and keep on tickin? Do these binos generally last pretty long? Also, how is Nikon these days on covering defects or other bino problems?

My 8 x 42 LX/HG presently suffers from a loose hinge - not loose enough to send back yet but annoying nonetheless - and I have heard that the problem is actually fairly common. The Nikon rep told me the hinge would not become a warranty repair until it would not hold its setting at all, so I am really in limbo until the problem worsens. Not encouraging.
 
chartwell99 said:
My 8 x 42 LX/HG presently suffers from a loose hinge - not loose enough to send back yet but annoying nonetheless - and I have heard that the problem is actually fairly common. The Nikon rep told me the hinge would not become a warranty repair until it would not hold its setting at all, so I am really in limbo until the problem worsens. Not encouraging.

Tell Nikon it won't hold the setting for you in the field and that you don't want to be on a summer trip and have it fail on you. If I'm not mistaken, I think it's a simple matter to address!

Let us know how the repair turns out!

John
 
Also, how is Nikon these days on covering defects or other bino problems?

I bought two 2nd hand 8x42 HGs at the local sporting good shop for a steal back in March. One of them had a problem with the focusing knob and some residue on one of the interior elements. I sent it to Nikon and they cleaned and repaired it for no charge. I had it back within 3 weeks of when I sent it. I would consider that good service.
 
John Traynor said:
I recently examined a wide selection of top bins and found I kept coming back to the new Nikon 8x42 Premier LX "L". My reaction:

The 366 FOV is not an issue. Time and again I picked this bin up and said, "WOW, this is a great view".

In direct comparison, this bin is BRIGHT...it's only competition seemed to be the 8X42 FL. Forget about silvered mirrors being inferior!

Sharpness, color saturation, and contrast are all so appealing it made me think of my SE 8X32.

The defining quality of this bin is its wonderfully sharp, crisp field of view. I truly believe, after using my SE for innumerable hours, that uniform sharpness across the FOV (a large sweet spot) adds immeasurably to the final image processed by the brain. The "L" version excels at maintaining a wide, excellent field and it shows in the final product. In a word, the view is effortless.

I'm not sure if Nikon made significant improvements to this model or not. I tested several samples of the previous version (heavy model) only to conclude the image wasn't as snappy as others. The "L" version I recently examined effortlessly snapped into crisp focus each and every time I used it.

John

I took another look at this bin today, comparing it to a small selection of unnamed competitors. If you're looking for a top quality 8X42, this model better be on your list for DIRECT comparison. Unless there's more objectionable CA than I could see (my Ultravid has CA!) the Winter 2005 Cornell review got it wrong when they rated this bin less than the 5.0 they gave the three European brands. Sample variation? Maybe. Bias? Perhaps.

Definitely, if you can, put it on your selection list.

John
 
John,

I couldn't agree more. Went to B and H in NY and tried everything they had and I still went back to the LXL. In my eyes nothing holds up better than the Nikon. There is no struggle to get what I want, the others took a lot of tweaking and positioning my eyes and things. The first time I picked up an LX 2 years ago they snapped into focus and the rest is history. The SE and the Fieldscope EDIII 2 other marvels from the Nikon Line! For some reason the 8x32 LXL does not impress me and never seems really sharp.

Carlos
 
All things considered, I believe my 8x42 LXLs are equal to or better than anything else out there today, and I did a pretty careful comparo against ELs and FLs. I'm practically astonished every time I use them.
 
Zolarcon said:
John,

I couldn't agree more. Went to B and H in NY and tried everything they had and I still went back to the LXL. In my eyes nothing holds up better than the Nikon. There is no struggle to get what I want, the others took a lot of tweaking and positioning my eyes and things. The first time I picked up an LX 2 years ago they snapped into focus and the rest is history. The SE and the Fieldscope EDIII 2 other marvels from the Nikon Line! For some reason the 8x32 LXL does not impress me and never seems really sharp.

Carlos

Carlos,

One of the reasons I posted is that I believe the Cornell Winter 2005 review underrated the Nikon LX 8X42. They gave it a 4.8 in eyeglass friendliness when, clearly, the 20 mm of eye relief in the LX is superb. In fact, it's better than many models that received a 5.0.

They also put it right on the border of the FOV ratings, so it lost a full point in that category. Personally, I find the FOV in the LX better than the FOV in some models with higher scores. Perhaps my impression is due to the EXTREMELY nice image across the ENTIRE field of view in the LX 8X42. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in the FOV is lost. You see the circular edge and you see what’s there.

Where the 3.6/5.0 for Overall Feel came from is a mystery to me. I prefer small, compact bins and this full-size model gave me nothing but comfort.

As I suggested, people in interested in a great 8X42 should take a close look at this binocular. Jason Sailing did a nice review of it on the Eagle Optics website.

John
 
Yo all, I'm very long sighted and as a result have to wear quite thick spectacles so some binos are unsuitable. I also field tested all the top marques earlier this year, the Nikon 8 x 42's (HGL's here in the UK) were perfect for me, purchased a pair in April and have never regretted it. Every time I use them I still am in awe. (Owned Zeiss 10 x 42B for years )

My wife was so impressed we purchased the 8 x 32 LX for her as they have been on promotion here in the UK saving almost 40% on original price. We compared both the LX and LXL at the same field event before she chose the LX. (Money was not the issue she just found they suited her better) I often use them and again find them superb.

Stewart
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 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