In praise of 8x32 HG (not L) (1 Viewer)

Stanbo · Jul 9, 2017

Sollas said:
Some very interesting comments here regarding the quality of the HG and HGL.......although would be good if someone could clarify the actual difference and what the L means?

How do you think these compare with the Zeiss 10x32 T*FL ? The Zeiss cost twice the money. I know they are a fabulous bin but curious as to whether the additional cost is worth it.

I'm a great fan of Nikon (8x32 SE) and in particular the smooth focusing. The Zeiss FL's do get fabulous write ups but could the Nikon 10x32 HGL's still be the better choice?

Can I add to what Vespobuteo has said.

The letter L appears on the front label and it's 695g in weight - about 100g lighter than the earlier model.

As l said l an earlier post I had the Nikon 8x32 HG and bought a Zeiss 8x32 FL to replace it. After a period of using both side by side I sold the Zeiss which I found to be insipid in colour rendition compared to the Nikon HG plus. I retained those for about another 5 years before they were replaced by Nikon 8x32 EDG's.

There is review of the same models I had on

and I very much concur with that.

They are quite different types of binocular so I do suggest that you try to test both, preferably side by side. At the current price for the L model they are exception value for money.

Stan

mayoayo · Jul 9, 2017

Vespobute Overall it's a very nice binocular. If you don't mind a bit higher CA than the FL at the edges they are a very good buy[/QUOTE said:
Having owned both binoculars in 8x32 there is not even comparison in the CA amount between those two particular models..and the HGL is a binocular that i really wanted to like ,because its build quality,ergo,mechanics etc are beautiful,but the CA amount present in the center of the view is really annoying..Color rendition and saturation are stunning,but....this said the FL 8x32 let me with the same feeling..I wanted to like it because sharpness and overall feeling is superb(dont mind fuzzy edges myself)but the color rendition i didnt like..If the EDG represents the HGL upgraded to ED glass and reduced CA ,then must be a really good binocular..

Sollas · Jul 9, 2017

It seems to me the CA is a major stumbling block here, although if you double your money you get the FL's with a cleaner view.
Is the CA really such an issue on theses bins. I did read Allbinos report but as you all probably know it's whether the viewers actually pics it up and we're all different. Or is it a case if you go looking for it you're sure to find it??

The more I read into this what does ea become clear is the that 10x32 models released over 10 years ago are still a match for the newer comparable models of today.

Every time I try an EL 10x32 or FL I can't see the attraction of heavier and more cumbersome 8x or 10x42 models.

Troubador · Jul 9, 2017

Sollas said:
Every time I try an EL 10x32 or FL I can't see the attraction of heavier and more cumbersome 8x or 10x42 models.

Sollas

Follow your heart then. Its true a 32mm will satisfy most people most of the time. If you are young enough that your eyes dilate sufficently in dull/ dark conditions you would find 42mm brighter for a brief period at dusk and dawn and if you are committed enough this may be very valuable to you. But otherwise 32s have much to offer.

I find some binos with stronger colours to be not quite so life-like as the FL but as you have seen above, some people regard it as too weak in colour. Its not a case of who is right and who is wrong as we all have different vision, different colour perception and so on. Only you can decide what is right for you and what is value for money for you. So try as many 32s as you can and find out what your 'guns' are, then stick to them.

Lee

Elmer Fudd · Jul 19, 2017

Omid said:
Yes, these are truly fantastic binoculars. I bought mine (8X32 HG) in Toronto more than 10 years ago and I still have them. I also have a Nikon 10X25 HG and a 8X42 LXL. At one point I also bought a 10X42 but was not happy with the depth of field so I sold it. My 8X32 HG is my main observation/hunting binocular.

Wow! Schmidt & Bender rifle sope mounted to a Steyr Mannlicher rifle!

What caliber?

Bass359 · Aug 4, 2017

I have Nikon 10x42 HG original circa 2002. I find them to be heavy and they are my loaner pair for people who would be careful. They are sharp with more CA than what you might find in a modern alpha. Focus feels like hydraulics- meaning very smooth and prescise. They were my "car binos" for years, but now too much crime in Seattle to leave these in my car. Swar EL 8.5x42 fp gets all my time and Lieca 8x32 BA are my wife's choice. Not sure why I still hold on to them. They have hardly any use.

popeye67 · Aug 7, 2017

adhoc said:
Differences between the HG and HGL (TractorMan/anyone else)? Optically? How was the weight lightened? When did Nikon change the model and name? Thanks!

I think the name changed about ten or twelve years back, but I am sure someone else is better qualified to tell you.

Re the weight a Nikon rep in UK told me there was no appreciable difference in the 8x32 model only in the 8x32. The L can be distinguished by the dark grey rubber armour as opposed to the earlier black. Hope this helps a bit.

etudiant · Aug 7, 2017

adhoc said:
Differences between the HG and HGL (TractorMan/anyone else)? Optically? How was the weight lightened? When did Nikon change the model and name? Thanks!

Iirc, Nikon removed the lead from the glass formulations for the HGL.
Similar to Zeiss's redo after the Night Owl series.

ceasar · Aug 7, 2017

If it an HG L an "L" will be printed under the focus wheel on the top of the right objective tube by the hinge where the binocular is identified. Mine (which I have owned since 2006) says "8x32 7.8ºL" with "waterproof" printed under it. (See the pictures in post #11 above to see a older HG model.)

They weigh 695 grams per the spec sheet that came with it.

As I noted in post #4 above Nikon introduced the HG L series in 2004.

Bob

Omid · Aug 15, 2017

Elmer Fudd said:
Wow! Schmidt & Bender rifle sope mounted to a Steyr Mannlicher rifle!

What caliber?

Good eyes! Yes the scope is 4X32 Schmidt and Beneder and the rifle is Steyr Mannlicher Luxus model in 270. On my rifles, I have two Schmidt and Bender scopes, three Zeiss, one Hensoldt and a few Swarovski's.

Sorry for my late reply. I don't visit bird forum regularly anymore as there is little new here. I am saddened by lack of meaningful innovation in sports optics and I am designing new riflescope and binocular concepts. Regratably, Schmidt and Bender is not interested in my ideas.. They are busy dealing with their own internal issues. Their chief optical designer (Dr. Karen Hesse) left the company a few months ago. My chief friend and supporter in the world of sports optics in Mr Hermann Theisinger, former Zeiss product manager, who is now running his own optics consulting company.

Dorian Gray · Aug 30, 2017

Stanbo said:
The letter L appears on the front label and it's 695g in weight - about 100g lighter than the earlier model.

Did you weigh these yourself?

Comparing the Nikon “Sport Optics” brochures from 2004 and 2016–2017, the old 8x32 HG is said to weigh 715 g while the HG L is 695 g, a difference of only 20 g (3%).

In contrast, the 8x42 dropped 185 g (19%) from 980 g to 795 g when moving from HG to HG L. How this large weight loss was achieved is not evident from the brochures.

I’ll soon have the chance to weigh a 8x32 HG L on a calibrated balance. Perhaps someone with an original HG (LX) would do the same with their binocular for comparison. Often products are heavier than the manufacturer claims, and of course there are some manufacturing variations too.

Dorian Gray · Aug 31, 2017

I weighed an 8x32 HG L today:

696.6 g naked
723.9 g with strap
742.5 g with strap and rain guard
753.5 g with strap, rain guard, and objective lens caps
911.2 g with strap, rain guard, objective lens caps, and case

Would be interested in the naked weight of an 8x32 HG if anyone has one and access to an accurate balance.

dipped · Sep 4, 2017

2002 HG brochure uploaded for everyone's pleasure.

My 8x32s weigh about 725g with me supporting the strap/rainguard on my Salter kitchen scales, so naked weight of 715g seems right.

Dorian Gray · Sep 5, 2017

Thanks, dipped. What year were these High Grade binoculars introduced?

Does anyone know why the 32 mm models lost so little weight compared to the 42 mm models in the transition from HG to HG L?

ceasar · Sep 5, 2017

Dorian Gray said:
Thanks, dipped. What year were these High Grade binoculars introduced?

Does anyone know why the 32 mm models lost so little weight compared to the 42 mm models in the transition from HG to HG L?

The Nikon 8x42 and 10x42 HG DCF WP binoculars were introduced in 1997 five years before the 8x32 and 10x32 HG DCFs were released in 2002 according to a Product History list of Nikon Sport Optics that I have from Nikon which covers 1917 through 2004.

As far as the weights go, and this is pure speculation on my part, couldn't the difference in the weight of the magnesium content in the 2 different sizes their frames affect how much weight was lost?

Bob

dipped · Sep 5, 2017

Dorian Gray said:
Thanks, dipped. What year were these High Grade binoculars introduced?

Does anyone know why the 32 mm models lost so little weight compared to the 42 mm models in the transition from HG to HG L?

You're welcome.

Going from HG to HG L I would speculate that the HG's were all aluminium and then the 42mm HG L's became magnesium bodies, but not the 32mm's.

The slight reduction in weight for the 32mm HG L's could possibly be accounted for by the change in the rubber compound of the armouring of the bodies.

Whatever the reason I was able to pick up the older HG's at a bargain price when the HG L's came out.

Note the use of eco glass listed in the brochure. From Bob's post regarding the history of these bins that means the 32mm models only ever had lead free glass and we can only speculate whether the 42mm models between 1997 and 2002 contained it.

Dorian Gray · Sep 5, 2017

ceasar said:
The Nikon 8x42 and 10x42 HG DCF WP binoculars were introduced in 1997 five years before the 8x32 and 10x32 HG DCFs were released in 2002

Thanks. I guess development moved at a slower pace back then.

ceasar said:
couldn't the difference in the weight of the magnesium content in the 2 different sizes their frames affect how much weight was lost?

It would certainly have some effect, but I don’t think it could explain the full difference.

I think dipped is onto something. Recent Nikon catalogues list the “lightweight die-cast magnesium alloy body” for the 42 mm (and pocket-sized) models, but conspicuously omit that bullet point for the 32 mm models.

So the 8x32 HG is probably all but identical to the later HG L model.

Omid · Sep 21, 2017

My Nikon 8X32 HG came back from Nikon service center in Los Angeles yesterday and I put them on a scale. The weight shown includes strap and rain guard.

I have the 8X42 L model too (never used them, still in its original box). I think they weigh about the same as the 8X32.

Dorian Gray · Sep 21, 2017

I see. So slightly heavier than my HG L, but not by much. Maybe just the leaded glass making itself known.

Why did yours need service? I was told these were indestructible!

I have an inkling there’s more metal in both the HG and HG L than in more recent Nikons such as the Monarch HG.

Omid · Sep 21, 2017

Dorian Gray said:
Why did yours need service? I was told these were indestructible!

They didn't need service. I was going to visit the Nikon Service Center to clean my Nikon D3 camera and thought I would take these binoculars for a routine check and cleaning too.

I have had these 8X32 HGs for over 15 years and they are may main field binoculars. In a recent hunting trip in Wyoming, I compared them with Zeiss SF (10X42) and some other top model (I think it was an older Leica rangefinder, may be a 10X42, don't remember) and the view through the 8X32 looked as good as those big ones during daylight.

In praise of 8x32 HG (not L) (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread