Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 4th August 2017, 01:49   #26
Bass359
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12
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.
Bass359 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 08:25   #27
Paul1963
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
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.
Paul1963 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 7th August 2017, 14:43   #28
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
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.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 7th August 2017, 15:47   #29
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,743
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

Last edited by ceasar : Monday 7th August 2017 at 16:09.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 15th August 2017, 01:49   #30
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd View Post
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.

Last edited by Omid : Tuesday 15th August 2017 at 01:57.
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 30th August 2017, 19:53   #31
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanbo View Post
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 31st August 2017, 13:11   #32
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
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.
Dorian Gray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th September 2017, 18:25   #33
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	rsz_scan_20170904_3.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	506.6 KB
ID:	638493  Click image for larger version

Name:	rsz_scan_20170904.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	498.0 KB
ID:	638494  Click image for larger version

Name:	Scan_20170904 (2) res.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	586.1 KB
ID:	638495  
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 00:30   #34
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
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?
Dorian Gray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 02:39   #35
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 10,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
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

Last edited by ceasar : Tuesday 5th September 2017 at 03:28.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 10:08   #36
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
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.
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th September 2017, 11:05   #37
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
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.
Dorian Gray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st September 2017, 18:06   #38
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	My_Nikon_8X32_HG.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	224.8 KB
ID:	640373  
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st September 2017, 18:31   #39
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
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.
Dorian Gray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st September 2017, 19:37   #40
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
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.
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 24th September 2017, 20:14   #41
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
Maybe just the leaded glass making itself known.
According to the Nikon brochure from 2002 (see previous posts), which was when the 32mm models were introduced all the HG range then had eco glass (no lead).

So the only HG models that had lead were the pre 2002 42mm models as far as we can speculate.
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 25th September 2017, 10:00   #42
Dorian Gray
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Posts: 162
Ah. Good point. So the question of how the small weight reduction of the 8x32 was effected remains unanswered.
Dorian Gray is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 28th September 2017, 15:00   #43
dipped
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suffolk
Posts: 1,091
I think I've speculated before that the change in the rubber armouring compound from HG to HGL may account for the slight reduction in weight for the 32mm models.

Being familiar with both I prefer the original HG rubber over the rather "tacky" HGL which seems to attract dust and fluff like a magnet.
dipped is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 28th September 2017, 15:49   #44
Robert Wallace
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax West Yorkshire
Posts: 519
From memory I thought the HG 32mm models were only about 25g heavier than the HGL, it was the 42mm models which were noticeably lighter.. Either way I purchased a pair of 8x intended for my wife's use when the HGLs were launched around 2005?, it saved me about £150. My wife found them too heavy and I used them in favour of my Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts, because they were lighter, more compact,waterproof and to my eyes equally bright. I also enjoyed their chunky feel, they felt indestructible -shades of the old "Barr and Strouds". Two and a bit years ago I upgraded to a pair of Swarovski 8x32SVs which seem brighter with a slightly wider FOV. But I agree with dipper the Nikon 8x32 HGs were a splendid pair of binoculas. Very much fit for purpose.
Robert Wallace is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leupold Golden Ring 8x32 HD with Meopta 8x32 hd, Swarovski EL 8x32 SV AGPank Leupold 1 Monday 12th December 2016 20:37
In praise of the MM2 Boogieshrew Opticron 2 Monday 27th May 2013 19:06
In praise of the TC2 ( nearly ) capdegat Nikon 1 Sunday 10th March 2013 15:55
Opinions Bushnell Legend 8x32 vs Pentax DCF WP/SP 8x32 vs Nikon HG LX 8x32? FowlFan Bushnell - Bausch & Lomb 3 Wednesday 9th September 2009 05:09
In praise of IS Carless Canon 0 Sunday 6th April 2008 20:32

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.22142792 seconds with 29 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19.