-
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.
Nikon SE 8x32 vs. Zeiss Victory FL 7x42 T* ??? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BobinKy
- Start date
BobinKy
Well-known member
Everyone, thank you for encouragement and positive comments on my purchase of the Nikon SE 8x32. I have been comparing them to the Swift Audubon 820 ED 8.5x44. At a later date I will post a more detailed thread. However, for now, the SE gives me superior views to the Audubon. However, the Audubon--with the eyecups fully extended in the locked up position--is more comfortable for pannying the horizon, landscape, and sky.
--Bob
--Bob
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Very interesting. Looking forward to your more detailed comparison!
The 820's have a larger objective/exit pupil and would probably be "brighter" in very low light. Also, they are a bit more "waterproof" than an SE; however, the 820's are definitely not submersible.
The 820's fall short in a few categories:
1. The big field of view people rave about is compromised by soft edges, which are, at least to me, very distracting.
2. Eye relief is not suitable to eyeglasses.
3. The bridge was compromised on the latest models.
4. I'm not sure they are as "rugged" as an SE. In the last four years I've seen two in-store samples with loose prisms.
I spent a lot of time comparing SE 8X32's to the Swift 820's and there is no doubt the Swift view will appeal to those who enjoy porros. The 820 centerfield is every bit as good an SE but, again, the soft edges can be distracting. The 820 is also bulkier than the SE.
I chose the SE 8X32 over the Swift but I, for one, would seriously consider a high quality birder-friendly porro in the 8X40 range.
John
FrankD
Well-known member
John,
Thank you for the comparison. Much appreciated. I know you and I have talked about the Audubon on a few occasions but I have yet to handle one.
Not to get too far off topic but your last statement struck a chord with me. You might laugh when I say this but I just picked up a Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro. The view might surprise you. Trust me. We need to get together again soon. Maybe a trip for some of these Crossbills or Snow Owls might be in order.
Thank you for the comparison. Much appreciated. I know you and I have talked about the Audubon on a few occasions but I have yet to handle one.
Not to get too far off topic but your last statement struck a chord with me. You might laugh when I say this but I just picked up a Bushnell Legend 8x42 porro. The view might surprise you. Trust me. We need to get together again soon. Maybe a trip for some of these Crossbills or Snow Owls might be in order.
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
I have both the binos being discussed. I also spend alot of time looking at crows.
To my eyes" in daytime use:
1. The resolution/sharpness/whatever of both are similar, except that high resolution in the Nikons extends almost to the very edge of the field.
2. The chromatic abberation is very slight in the Nikons, compared to other good binoculars. It is absent in the ED's.
3. The size of the Nikons, and the feel in the hand (medium size hands here) is very comfortable.
I do not experience the "black out" problem with the SE's but many seem to.
To my eyes" in daytime use:
1. The resolution/sharpness/whatever of both are similar, except that high resolution in the Nikons extends almost to the very edge of the field.
2. The chromatic abberation is very slight in the Nikons, compared to other good binoculars. It is absent in the ED's.
3. The size of the Nikons, and the feel in the hand (medium size hands here) is very comfortable.
I do not experience the "black out" problem with the SE's but many seem to.
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
And while i am at it, and not to hopefully pull off topic to much,...
I have a pair of 7x42 BGAT "classics", which i of course, love.
Has anyone used them and the 7x42 FL? What improvements if any, other than the assume absence of CA in the newer model?
I have a pair of 7x42 BGAT "classics", which i of course, love.
Has anyone used them and the 7x42 FL? What improvements if any, other than the assume absence of CA in the newer model?
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
On the 7x42 fl's? :eek!:
The resolution is superior in the Nikon 8x32 SE's. You can not better this porro-prism with any roof-prism I have seen! If you want the best optics get the Nikon no question in my mind. If you need your binoculars to be waterproof go with the Zeiss Fl's they are among the best roofs. The roofs do not compare to that little optical jewel Nikon SE. NO WAY!
Dennis
Any other binocular and I would probably agree with you Dennis. The 7x42 FL is the one exception to that though.
Frank. Have you compared them with a resolution chart. The Zeiss just doesn't have the resolution that the Nikon SE does. It might be brighter and you might prefer the view because of lack of CA but it doesn't resolve as well. Try really comparing them closely with fine print at about twenty feet. The Zeiss is not quite as sharp.
Dennis
Dennis.
Roofs do not compare! Why is that? Do you mean transmission, stray light? Certainly a more defined 3D with Porro's and in SOME instances the Porro will match some roofs for transmission....but not all
mak
temmie
Well-known member
yes, on the FL's. You won't find a bigger supporter of Zeiss binoculars, but the rubber is really bad. I like the grippy, soft feel, and even though I have been warned by this forum that build quality is so-so, I bought them last year in september. They are only used in weekends and when travelling, have never seen the rain or water or too much sun (the rubber coming loose is on the side turned towards the chest), and are always transported in the pouch.
I did not even notice the rubber came loose, but a friend of me (also a Zeiss die-hard) was talking to me and said he had the problem of air between the rubber and the binocular, location is where you would put your thumbs when holding them. I was surprised when he asked to show him mine, and I had exactly the same problem. It is a matter of time before the area where the rubber came loose will become bigger and bigger, untill the rubber is flapping in the wind.
When I just bought them and put the objective protection covers on, and wanted to take those covers off again, I also was taking with the rubber around the objectives. I adjusted the rubber back in place, and the glue felt like soft, not very viscous and not hardened yet.
they really have to do something about the rubber.
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Again, :eek!: wow. That is sad. Guess everyone is cutting corners.
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
I am not an optics expert or designer. But i do remember reading about the porro and roof designs. If i remember correctly, the roof has more optical surfaces and "bounces" in the light path. So, it is harder to control aberrations. The intro of phase coatings (1980's ?) for roof was to that end.
It is a commonly held view (including by me) that you can do a porro for cheaper than a roof, at the same level of optical quality. I think the 8x32 SE, and the Swift Audubons are probably proof of that.
Hypothetically, it is not that one is inherently better than the other, optically. It is a question re the roofs, of how much are you willing/able to pay?
I think the advantage of the roof design is the ergonomics, and true weather sealing. I have been told by folks that do design and repair optics, that no central focusing porro is truly "waterproof", i.e. submersable for more than a couple minutes. This makes sense, given that a porro's focusing movement is not internal, like a roof's is.
Actually, another example of the roof vs porro cost is the Bushnell 7x26 Elite Custom (formally the Bausch & Lomb 7x26 custom). The majority of reviewer's, and folk who have tried them vs the roof compacts, agree that this little reverse-porro is optically the best compact binocular, optically.
The alpha brand compacts go for 2 to 2.5 times the cost of this one. I think they could match it, but the cost point probably not be attractive to consumers since it is a compact.
I use both designs myself. But i baby my SE's. For the same mag/aperture, the Zeiss 8x30's go on the hike
Porro's have a simpler light path than a roof and in theory will lose less light. It has to be a VERY good roof (Zeiss) to match a good porro (Nikon SE) in light transmission. Another area where the Nikon SE shines is field curvature. It has amost none. I find that in the view very appealing. I would say the Nikon SE's are superior with stray light because their coatings are among the best their is.
Dennis
henry link
Well-known member
The 8x32 SE has plenty of field curvature, about 3 diopters. The off-axis aberration that's well corrected is astigmatism. Coatings are fine, but the objective edge is not fully baffled so resistance to glare from stray light is about average for a binocular, not superior.
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
So that's the same number (given it has an internal focusing lens) as a porro (assuming the EP and objective are the same). The AK roof would be two less glass/air transitions whencomparing like with like i.e. for a porro with an internal focus. And the AK prisms use total internal reflection for all their reflections just like porro prisms.
For Schmidt-Pechan roof prisms there are two extra glass/air transitions. Plus one reflection in the prism has to come from a reflective surface not TIR.
All roof prisms need phase compensating coatings to keep the resolution the same for all directions through the prism.
That said though with modern AR, dielectric mirror and phase coatings there is little effective difference between the two in terms of transmission but roof prism components are more expensive to make because they have to be made to higher tolerances or require additional coatings.
