• 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.

EII's or SE's better? (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I was thinking about buying some Nikon 10x35 EII's just because you hear so much about them. Are they better in any way than my Nikon 8x32 SE's? I really don't get too many blackouts with my SE's and I was wondering if anybody that has them both would point out the advantages or disadvantages compared to the SE.
 
You´ve probably seen this review/comparison:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

I think there was also an archived one on CN, also by Henry.

I´ve never had SE 10x42, but I´ve had SE 8x32 and currently have EII 10x35 plus 8x30. I personally prefer the EII for the wider and easier view, but the SE for handling. It´s just a nicer shape to hold, and rubber-armoured. Focusser, etc. seems exactly the same. Flatter field in the SE´s, but wider in the EII´s and I see about the same amount of "sharp" field in both the 8x versions. I think the EII 10x35 would complement your 8x32 SE nicely, but maybe check out a 10x42 SE just in case?
 
You´ve probably seen this review/comparison:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202

I think there was also an archived one on CN, also by Henry.

I´ve never had SE 10x42, but I´ve had SE 8x32 and currently have EII 10x35 plus 8x30. I personally prefer the EII for the wider and easier view, but the SE for handling. It´s just a nicer shape to hold, and rubber-armoured. Focusser, etc. seems exactly the same. Flatter field in the SE´s, but wider in the EII´s and I see about the same amount of "sharp" field in both the 8x versions. I think the EII 10x35 would complement your 8x32 SE nicely, but maybe check out a 10x42 SE just in case?

Good idea. An SE 10x42 can be had for about the same price and the construction is probably a little bit better and they can be had for about the same price if you look around.
 
Hello Sancho

Did you not sell your EII's then, or have you bought new ones ?, whats the going rate now for a used 8x32 SE ?..

Sold, re-bought, same old story;). There were two pairs of SE´s, in 8x and 10x format, recently on that auction site. Don´t know if they sold. Microglobe offer the 8x32 for around 480 sterling, but they´re on back-order.

Denco, try this too: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarch.../189816/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/vc/1

It always strikes me when I play with my EII 10x35 that they seem "made for" my hands. The weight, balance, finger-fall etc. is perfect, and the wide FOV addictive. There is a little more off-centre CA than in the 8x30 version, but nothing noticeable. Similarly, there is a tiny bit more stray light (in very strong direct light) than in my Swarovisions, but nothing I would have noticed previously. I wouldn´t worry about the waterproofing issue, I´ve used them in all kinds of rain without problems.
 
Last edited:
Sold, re-bought, same old story;). There were two pairs of SE´s, in 8x and 10x format, recently on that auction site. Don´t know if they sold. Microglobe offer the 8x32 for around 480 sterling

Sancho

I can totally empathize with that, done it myself a time or two !, the EII's are special though :t:
 
No-one has mentioned ER yet?

But the lower ER on the E II makes it an iffy choice for eyeglass wearers (or so I've heard).

And the E II are missing the field flattener too which means they miss out on the SE view. But the trade off is more field.

Finally the E II has the "top plate/bottom plate" prism housing that is unsealed. Whilst both are not waterproof I trust the rounded top of the die-cast enclosure on the SE not to leak in the rain more than I would the E II.

And as others have pointed out it seems the E II price is increasing towards that of the SE.

I have both 8x and 10x SE and I actually prefer the 10x SE though in general I prefer 8x bins.
 
Last edited:
I have all 4. The SE's are constructed much better on the exterior than the EII's are and the interior finishing of the SE's is also much better than that of the EII's. I have big hands so I prefer the handling of the 8 x 32 SE over that of the 8 x 30 EII where sometimes my fingers get in front of the objectives. Curiously, I find it easier to get on a flying bird quicker with the 8 x 30 EII than with the 8 x 32 SE.

The SE's also have significantly better edge sharpness, that is to say, if you will, a bigger percentage "sweet spot" than the EII's which have a much larger FOV. Eye relief is a smidgeon shorter on the EII. About a millimeter I think. 16mm to 15mm. I don't wear glasses but I have used them on occasion with sunglasses and the eyecups rolled down. This was with large aviator type sunglasses. The view was more than adequate on both, but if you wear glasses I suggest trying both first to see if you like them

The size and handling of the 10 x 35 EII and the 10 x 42 SE are similar but the view through the SE is unparalleled! And I take nothing away from the 10 x 35 when I say that, it is excellent but nothing like the SE.

Bob
 
Last edited:
No-one has mentioned ER yet?

But the lower ER on the E II makes it an iffy choice for eyeglass wearers (or so I've heard).

I had no trouble with either SE or EII when using with my glasses. The SE´s were slightly more "fiddly", in that I had to half-roll the rubber eyecups to avoid blackouts, and although I could see full FOV with glasses on, I had to line up my eyes pretty accurately with the exit pupil. The EII´s (on which I simply roll back the rubber eyecups the whole way) are far more forgiving of eye-placement with glasses on. As mentioned before, however, this depends more on the glasses than on the binoculars.

Addendum: Microglobe have the 10x42 SE´s for 540 sterling, pretty cheap nowadays. (I´ve no connection with them).
 
Hi Dennis

Sancho Ceaser Kevin and others have pretty much said it on the E11's and SE's but here's a thought
If you can track down a decent 10 x 35 E11 you may well be surprised at the feel and general performance
If they don't overwhelm you then i doubt you would lose much at all on a re-sale
Even with the E11 and SE's becoming more sought after they are still a lot lighter wallet proposition than some of the Upper and Alpha roofs around (some of which i know you are a fan/owner of )

My own take on the E11 v SE 10 x is this
The SE is one of the purest views I've ever seen and is a strongly built device
Fov however is only average and eye relief although good is prone to placement issues for some .....
As for the E11 10 x its an easier general view with more fov and still very high resolution
Not quite so pleasant to hold and not as durable with ok eye relief
Its still a fabulous binocular !!

Give one of the high end traditional Nikon porros a go it will be interesting to see what you think

Regards
RichT
 
...the interior finishing of the SE's is also much better than that of the EII's.

Can you please elaborate on the interior differences Bob?

I agree the physical size of the 8x EII is not for everyone. I never liked the odd way they hang off the strap. But the truth is it is only ~1/4" shorter than the 8xSE. On the otherhand, the 10x EII is just about perfect ergonomically for me and it is a good 1" shorter ~1/4lb. lighter than the 10x SE. I feel the CA is more noticeable in the SE as well.

Rick
 
Can you please elaborate on the interior differences Bob?

I agree the physical size of the 8x EII is not for everyone. I never liked the odd way they hang off the strap. But the truth is it is only ~1/4" shorter than the 8xSE. On the otherhand, the 10x EII is just about perfect ergonomically for me and it is a good 1" shorter ~1/4lb. lighter than the 10x SE. I feel the CA is more noticeable in the SE as well.

Rick

I can only comment on this from a comparison I made of the interiors of my 8 x 30 EII and my 8 x 32 SE. I examined both by looking at the interiors through the objective lens with the aid of a flashlight. In the SE, the interiors were finished to perfection in the same manner that I saw when I examined the interiors of my Leica 7 x 42 BN Trinovid. I don't know anything about the technical details of their interior differences but I can see what appear to be glue patches in the EII and not in the SE and the finish of the metal parts is rougher in the EII than on the SE. It is like Nikon spent a little more time on the fine details of the SE.

Bob
 
I can only comment on this from a comparison I made of the interiors of my 8 x 30 EII and my 8 x 32 SE. I examined both by looking at the interiors through the objective lens with the aid of a flashlight. In the SE, the interiors were finished to perfection in the same manner that I saw when I examined the interiors of my Leica 7 x 42 BN Trinovid. I don't know anything about the technical details of their interior differences but I can see what appear to be glue patches in the EII and not in the SE and the finish of the metal parts is rougher in the EII than on the SE. It is like Nikon spent a little more time on the fine details of the SE.

Bob

It sound like the SE is a little better overall. That seems to be the conclusion.
 
Sancho: Do you see the whole field in the E II with your "John Lennon" birding glasses?

Yes, but I can´t promise everyone will. I discovered my glasses frames (bought secondhand in Camden Market in 1985 or so) were made by a company called Algha, and I recently got a second pair. They sit very far back on the bridge of the nose and I can get full FOV with just about any binocular, as long as the eyecups retract. The published FOV of EII is about
14mm, no? That´s plenty for me.

...the 10x EII is just about perfect ergonomically for me and it is a good 1" shorter ~1/4lb. lighter than the 10x SE.
Rick

This is what I tried to describe in the EII 10x35, Rick. Do you find it to be an overall "well-balanced" binocular? (I acknowledge that this is subjective, but I just wonder if other people find the same thing).
I would dearly love to see an SE 10x42, and will resist the temptation to order one from London, "just to try it out".....;)
 
Eye relief was the deal breaker for me--when I started wearing progressives I lost a good share of that huge EII field of view.

I used the 8x SEs and EIIs for many years, and also the 10 and 12x SEs. I confess that the EIIs were my favorites (through three different specimens over 15 years). I used them hard under every kind of condition and they never gave me a bit of trouble. The big picture window view was wonderful. I came to think of them as my answer machines, whenever I didn't know what something was, and I never could get over how bright they were with those little 30mm objectives.

Objectively (pun intended) the SE view is ever so slightly brighter and it is sharper on the edges. In the sweet spot, though, it's pretty much a wash. The last pair of EIIs I had were phenomenally sharp and well collimated. Sort of like an ex-wife you're still in love with even though in your head you know it couldn't work.
 
Here are some photos of the innards of an 8x30 EII (left) and an 8x32 SE.

I don't think there is anything deficient about the internal construction or finish of the EII. There are some design differences, primarily in the prism shelf which is cast together with the housing as one piece in the EII and is a separate piece held in place by screws and clips in the SE. It could be that the SE method is a little more shock resistant, but I don't really know that. Both use glue and spring clips to secure the prisms to the self and both have light blocking shields over the prisms.

The photos of the lens cells show a deeper baffling cone on the SE. You might think that would be better, but the size of the opening at the front of the cone of the EII is a better match to the lens size which makes it a bit more resistant to veiling glare than the SE.

Both use eccentric ring collimation and have grooved prisms. In other words things are done as they should be done in both, but the SE has a nice extra touch of casting the eyepiece sleeves as one piece with the rest of the prism housing. That along with the absence of back and front plates and the tight fit of the rubber armor between the prism housing and the objective should increase its water resistance (except for the eye-lens).
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1235.JPG
    DSC_1235.JPG
    99.6 KB · Views: 273
  • DSC_1236.JPG
    DSC_1236.JPG
    130.3 KB · Views: 244
  • DSC_1238.JPG
    DSC_1238.JPG
    101.6 KB · Views: 267
  • DSC_1239.JPG
    DSC_1239.JPG
    132.1 KB · Views: 225
Last edited:
Well, I've had to change my view of how the prism housing is done in the SE. I began to wonder just how the prism cluster could be placed through the small opening of a one piece housing, something like how does the ship get into the bottle? Turns out the prism housing is made of two interlocking pieces. You can see the seam in photo below. It's mostly concealed under the rubber armor and even where it's visible just behind the hinge the fit is so tight that it doesn't really look like a seam. AFAIK this kind of construction is unique to the SE series.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1241.JPG
    DSC_1241.JPG
    122.6 KB · Views: 284
Here are some photos of the innards of an 8x30 EII (left) and an 8x32 SE.

I don't think there is anything deficient about the internal construction or finish of the EII. There are some design differences, primarily in the prism shelf which is cast together with the housing as one piece in the EII and is a separate piece held in place by screws and clips in the SE. It could be that the SE method is a little more shock resistant, but I don't really know that. Both use glue and spring clips to secure the prisms to the self and both have light blocking shields over the prisms.

The photos of the lens cells show a deeper baffling cone on the SE. You might think that would be better, but the size of the opening at the front of the cone of the EII is a better match to the lens size which makes it a bit more resistant to vailing glare than the SE.


.

Both use eccentric ring collimation and have grooved prisms. In other words things are done as they should be done in both, but the SE has a nice extra touch of casting the eyepiece sleeves as one piece with the rest of the prism housing. That along with the absence of back and front plates and the tight fit of the rubber armor between the prism housing and the objective should increase its water resistance (except for the eye-lens).

Nice pictures and good description of the mechanics of the two binoculars. So it looks like the EII's are pretty well constructed.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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