E compared to EII (1 Viewer)

I currently have a pair of 10X35 EII's and was wondering if a pair of 7X35 E's would be on par with the II's (image wise).

I have one 8X and two 10X bins and would like to add another good pair of 7 or 8X to my meager collection........I also like the compact size.

Opinions appreciated.

Ray

I have owned both of them, over the years. If the E in question is a multicoated model, it will be very, very little different from the EII optically. The biggest difference is field of view--the E has a field of 436' and the EII 460'.

Thanks Raybo for starting this thread; it's re-acquainted me with my Nikon 7x35, which I think is an early 'E' model from the 1970/80s. It has the old upright Nikon name engraved on the prism plate + 7.3 degrees, s/n.483397, purple lens coatings and hard plastic eye cups (with push-on rubbers). It's been 'resting' in its lovely solid leather Nikon case for many months, wondering when it's going to be appreciated, while I've been playing with newer toys like the Hawke 8x43ED and Pentax 8x36HS. Going through the wardrobe in a bid to rationalise my collection, I came across this almost forgotten treasure; I looked through it, and pondered if the view might be better/bigger with the ocular rubbers off ?
Since they just push on/off, off they came. Wow! Who needs Hawkes and Kestrels? The view was outstanding, big, clear, sharp, with impressive 3D effect. For comparison with something more comparable, I dug out a Nikon 7x35 Action EX, which I know to be crisp and contrasty, yet to my eyes the old 7x35s have a deeper, easier-on-the-eyes image. Why is this? I don't know (I was a lawyer, not a scientist) but it was a revelation. Now the old 7x35s are off the 'transfer list' and back on the bench, ready for play again...

I'd like to compare the multicoated version but I thoroughly enjoy my early E. The SE is a bit more overbuilt but the E was a gem and 7x35 fills a very useful niche.

James Bean said:

e; I looked through it, and pondered if the view might be better/bigger with the ocular rubbers off ?
Since they just push on/off, off they came. Wow!

Click to expand...

Hello James Bean,

Do you wear specs? Are perhaps strongly nearsighted, a myope?

I ask because I am strongly myopic, and most binoculars give me a wider view with my specs on and the cups down.

Happy bird watching,
Arthu

Excellent comments on the 7x35 E. I have one as well. It enjoys a place of honor as my feeder bins. They sit, comfortably, on the ledge right next to the window overlooking my backyard feeders. Their wonderfully sharp, reasonably bright image is a joy to look at.

They have seen better days though and I have been wrestling with sending them back to Nikon to have the collimation checked and a general cleaning performed.

James Bean's 7x35 must be an A series, not E series. The A series preceded the E series and had shorter eye relief and hard Bakelite eyecups. Rubber covers for them are something I've not heard of before. The biggest weakness of both the A and E series 7x35s are the simple 3 element Kellner type eyepieces, which are fine for brightness, especially in the multi-coated version of the E, but not so good for off-axis corrections and, of course, the AFOV is pretty narrow.

Still, they're much better made binoculars than most of the Porros we see now, with all metal construction (the prism shelf and prism housing are cast as one piece) and the collimation is done properly by eccentric rings, not prism shelf adjustment screws.

Pinewood: No, although I was prescribed spectacles when I was 12 (and that's over 50 years ago!) I've never worn any. My left eye is poor for close-up, but fine for distance, and my right eye is just the opposite, so they tend to balance each other out, yet I can always see more sharply with my right eye, using binoculars, by adjusting the dioptre. When I was in the ATC (RAF Cadets) I was a marksman with a .303 rifle, using my right eye unaided, even though the target was 'fuzzy'! I'm quasi-ambidextrous: right handed for writing, table tennis, kicking; left handed for bowling, throwing, golf; weird or what? When using binoculars, I prefer to have the eye-cups rolled/turned down and well into my eye sockets, or slightly up if I get occasional 'black-outs' on the edges of vision. The old Nikon 7x35 is just right for my eyes, with the rubbers removed, but the Nikon Action EX needs the rotating eye-cups up a bit. I don't have any problems with eg. the Swift Audubon/Kestrel, or Zeiss Octarem, which is probably why I like them so much.
Henry: Thanks for the Nikon information. Whatever it is (A or E) it's solidly built, and the focus wheel is black-painted brass, just starting to show. Focusing is still super-smooth. It reminds me of the legendary Nikon F SLRs, of which I have two, one chrome with the standard pentaprism, the other black with photomic head. Even the leather case exudes high quality. And like the Swift Audubon, the Nikon 7x35A has that wonderful 3D effect; it may not be as contrasty as the Action EX, but it has a nicer 'you are in there' image. Most of all, it's an 'easy view'. Not very scientific I grant you, but I know what I like... As to the rubber eye-cups, I hadn't realised they just slide on/off; they are so shallow, and clearly not meant to be folded down. On, they limit my field of view; off, I can see the 'big picture'. From the serial number, can anyone advise when the 7x35A was made?

Still, they're much better made binoculars than most of the Porros we see now, with all metal construction (the prism shelf and prism housing are cast as one piece) and the collimation is done properly by eccentric rings, not prism shelf adjustment screws.

Click to expand...

To that I would agree. Picking them up gives one the sense of genuine quality. They "feel" very solidly built without having to resort to excessive weight to do it.