Nikon EDG, flawless? (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

The more I use these binoculars the better they get. Are these forgotten or overlooked premium gems? I guess people have moved on to the latest & greatest.

I can only speak about the 8x42EDG here, which I’ve been using for the last few months. I’m not gonna get into the build quality too much here, because at this price point it’s expected that they be built well, and they are. Here are some subjective thoughts and impressions of the EDG.

When comparing the EDG to most of the other top premium choices from ZeissLeica and swarovski I find they are not as sharp as a Noctavid , not as bright as the EL’s and NL’s, not as saturated or as much contrast as Ultravid’s and not as much resolution as the SF’s, yet to me they still fall right into this group of the highest quality optics available today.

It has high levels of all those optical traits without overdoing it in any one area, if that makes sense. They are plenty bright, there’s a lot of contrast, very sharp, the CA correction is excellent , a nice flat field to the edge and it has a large sweet spot, glare control is as good as anything.

Because of a combination of all these traits and a few others I’m going to point out, these are on par or even surpass (imo) many of the latest and greatest.

First of all the eye-box is so forgiving that you don’t even think about eye placement. You put them up to your eyes and your in. There’s no learning curve where to set them in your eye sockets , where to lean them against your upper brow. They are also the shortest focal length 8 x 42 available, which makes them very compact. How they make them this short and still have exceptional CA correction is beyond me.

The focus is fast, but not too fast , they snap into focus as good as any binoculars I have ever tried and the focuser is probably the best available and easily on par with the SF, it’s buttery smooth, no play and just the right amount feedback.

It excels above all others in comfort, I’ve already commented about the eye box. They are incredibly easy on the eyes, they don’t over tax your visual cortex. They don’t overdo it in brightness, in sharpness or in blueness, they are very calm.

You could look through these binoculars all day long, and I have, and not get tired, no fatigue seems to set in like some of the other examples.

I’d love to hear other peoples opinions on these wonderful binoculars.

And a big Thank you goes out to Dries1 (Andy) for turning me on the these incredible binoculars and of course other BF members.

Paul

 

[mwhogue]

Paul,

Agree with your opinions/observations and love my 7x42 and 10x32 EDG. Two things from your post are worth re-emphasizing. First the view is utterly relaxed. Second the focusing can't be beat.

Mike

 

[Rg548]

I was less impressed with the EDG 7x42's.... I was able to walk away from them.
Very very good, but less than the hype suggested!!

 

[Conndomat]

Hi Paul,

Yes, I agree with everything that has been said, my experiences relate to the 7x42 and 8x32.
There is nothing wrong with the optical properties, the stray light suppression is one of the best binoculars, as is the focuser.

The only thing that could be improved is the diopter, which is a bad design imo, if you're unlucky it tends to turn.

Andreas

 

[Pinewood]

I was less impressed with the EDG 7x42's.... I was able to walk away from them.
Very very good, but less than the hype suggested!!

Hello RG548,

I think that all the hype on the binocular forum should be regarded with a bit of scepticism. First of all, most users want to justify their monetary outlay. Secondly, there is an enormous amount of personal preferences which people bring to their equipment, including haptics and colour preference.

I can understand Paul's satisfaction with his Nikon Edge but I always thought it was ugly, however that oversize focussing knob is certainly practical.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[Vespobuteo]

Hello RG548,

I think that all the hype on the binocular forum should be regarded with a bit of scepticism. First of all, most users want to justify their monetary outlay. Secondly, there is an enormous amount of personal preferences which people bring to their equipment, including haptics and colour preference.

I can understand Paul's satisfaction with his Nikon Edge but I always thought it was ugly, however that oversize focussing knob is certainly practical.

Stay safe,
Arthur

🤣
You said it...

Once in a store-demo the Nikon representative told me that the shiny logo-plates on the bridge that look like pure plastic actually weren't plastic, they were made of ceramics. And he looked very proud when telling me.

Sorry, but still looks like cheap plastic to me...

Anyway, I could have lived with the "look", none of my current bins are design marvels,
but the short effective eye relief (15mm) was a dealbreaker for me.

At the time FOV spec was decent on the EDG series, but today it's not competitive.

Unfortunately these might be the last alpha binoculars from Nikon.
So we should treat them with respect.
The optics are still very good.

 

[Paultricounty]

🤣
You said it...

Once in a store-demo the Nikon representative told me that the shiny logo-plates on the bridge that look like pure plastic actually weren't plastic, they were made of ceramics. And he looked very proud when telling me.

Sorry, but still looks like cheap plastic to me...

Anyway, I could have lived with the "look", none of my current bins are design marvels,
but the short effective eye relief (15mm) was a dealbreaker for me.

At the time FOV spec was decent on the EDG series, but today it's not competitive.

Unfortunately these might be the last alpha binoculars from Nikon.
So we should treat them with respect.
The optics are still very good.

I can definitely agree they are not the most elegant of the premium choices. I think the motive was more a very heavy rubber to be extremely durable and grippy, more function than fashion. The plate through me as well , it seems to be metal, maybe others can chime in Here.

I can say nothing on the market has surpassed the focuser, at least not in weather about 0 degrees. If you can get passed the looks (they kind of grew on me) they just do everything so well. There are so many of us here that complain that some of the bins are to bright, to sharp, to flat with globe effect, to much CA, to much edge distortion to much glare , a rough focuser, etc. etc and these have none of those issues. I think if these binoculars were still being made and redesigned (an EDG 3, if you will) with a more present day form factor and a little lighter they might be a very popular choice.

Not sure where you found that eye relief data , mine advertised spec is 19, and that’s very close to my estimation. I use mine with sunglasses all the time. Im not sure about the others in the line up but when I was shopping around the 1042 was an option and I think they were 18mm.

When I first got them I thought they were nice glass, another nice piece in the collection of premium optics, but they didn’t blow me away like some others I’ve tried. But after months of use next to NL’s, EL’s , SF’s, Ultavoids , Noctivids and a few others I’ve learned they don’t seem to have that one flaw that jumps out at me. Again I can only speak of the 8x42’s as I have not tried the others

Paul

Just wanted to clarify it appears they are still being made.

 

[Conndomat]

Anyway, I could have lived with the "look", none of my current bins are design marvels,
but the short effective eye relief (15mm) was a dealbreaker for me.

At the time FOV spec was decent on the EDG series, but today it's not competitive.

I believe the Nikons also have a wider eye relief than 15mm. I had no problems with the models.

The FOV specifications do not differ from the Ultravid or Noctivids, if Leica is still competitive in this discipline, the EDG should be too.
I think if Nikon gave the EDG a slightly fresher design and made the diopter a little better, the glasses would certainly still be competitive, the glasses are still very good in terms of optics.

Andreas

 

[Vespobuteo]

I can definitely agree they are not the most elegant of the premium choices. I think the motive was more a very heavy rubber to be extremely durable and grippy, more function than fashion. The plate through me as well , it seems to be metal, maybe others can chime in Here.

I can say nothing on the market has surpassed the focuser, at least not in weather about 0 degrees. If you can get passed the looks (they kind of grew on me) they just do everything so well. There are so many of us here that complain that some of the bins are to bright, to sharp, to flat with globe effect, to much CA, to much edge distortion to much glare , a rough focuser, etc. etc and these have none of those issues. I think if these binoculars were still being made and redesigned (an EDG 3, if you will) with a more present day form factor and a little lighter they might be a very popular choice.

Not sure where you found that eye relief data , mine advertised spec is 19, and that’s very close to my estimation. I use mine with sunglasses all the time. Im not sure about the others in the line up but when I was shopping around the 1042 was an option and I think they were 18mm.

When I first got them I thought they were nice glass, another nice piece in the collection of premium optics, but they didn’t blow me away like some others I’ve tried. But after months of use next to NL’s, EL’s , SF’s, Ultavoids , Noctivids and a few others I’ve learned they don’t seem to have that one flaw that jumps out at me. Again I can only speak of the 8x42’s as I have not tried the others

Paul

Just wanted to clarify it appears they are still being made.

A redsigned EDG III would definitely be on my radar! (Love Nikon cameras and lenses. Also used a Nikon scopes in the past.)
A bit lighter weight, eye piece with more ER or new eye cups, and larger FOV would be enough.
As you say, they have no real weaknesses in the optics, but maybe they could be a bit brighter.

The effective ER is what you actually get with glasses, and depends on eye cup design etc.:

See:

Nikon EDG 8×42 – Binoculars Today

"Pinac" does a great job on collecting the data.

I probably need a bit more effective ER than most (at least 16mm), unfortunately, as it makes some good bins less usable.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I believe the Nikons also have a wider eye relief than 15mm. I had no problems with the models.

The FOV specifications do not differ from the Ultravid or Noctivids, if Leica is still competitive in this discipline, the EDG should be too.
I think if Nikon gave the EDG a slightly fresher design and made the diopter a little better, the glasses would certainly still be competitive, the glasses are still very good in terms of optics.

Andreas

Effective/usable ER, not the spec value, see my post above.

 

[Paultricounty]

A redsigned EDG III would definitely be on my radar! (Love Nikon cameras and lenses. Also used a Nikon scopes in the past.)
A bit lighter, better eye piece with more ER, and larger FOV. As you say, no real weaknesses in the optics.

The effective ER is what you actually get with glasses, and depends on eye cup design etc.:

See:

Nikon EDG 8×42 – Binoculars Today

"Pinac" does a great job on collecting the data.

I probably need a bit more effective ER than most (at least 16mm), unfortunately, as it makes some good bins less usable.

May I ask what are you using now that has more usable eye relief? On that site most all of the binoculars usable eye Releif was about 15 or under. The only ones that had 16 was the FL and SF. There are no specs on Nocs or Swaros .
Paul

correction I see the Swaros, all about 16mm usable ER as well. Does that 1mm make or break it for you?

 

[kimmik]

May I ask what are you using now that has more usable eye relief? On that site most all of the binoculars usable eye Releif was about 15 or under. The only ones that had 16 was the FL and SF. There are no specs on Nocs or Swaros .
Paul

correction I see the Swaros, all about 16mm usable ER as well. Does that 1mm make or break it for you?

I agree also, 15mm ER measured from the eyecup rim would be plenty. Assuming the EDG is measured this way.

Swaro’s 20mm EL and 18mm NL is closer to 16mm effective ER as you’ve mentioned.

 

[Vespobuteo]

May I ask what are you using now that has more usable eye relief? On that site most all of the binoculars usable eye Releif was about 15 or under. The only ones that had 16 was the FL and SF. There are no specs on Nocs or Swaros .
Paul

correction I see the Swaros, all about 16mm usable ER as well. Does that 1mm make or break it for you?

It's on a scale, but 16mm tend to be the minimum. It also depend on the AFOV/magnification.

EL SV 8.5x42 has 17 mm (same as Noctivids),
7x42 FL has 16mm.

SLC56 (22mm!), SF and NL:s work fine as well.

I think there is a slight bug on the web site, when selecting a letter, list ends with P.

If you go here (click on collection and scroll down instead):

The PINACOLLECTION – Binoculars Today

 

[Paultricounty]

It's on a scale, but 16mm tend to be the minimum. It also depend on the AFOV/magnification.

EL SV 8.5x42 has 17 mm (same as Noctivids),
7x42 FL has 16mm.

SLC56 (22mm!), SF and NL:s work fine as well.

I think there is a slight bug on the web site, when selecting a letter, list ends with P.

If you go here (click on collection and scroll down instead):

The PINACOLLECTION – Binoculars Today

Thank you , nice reference site.

 

[tenex]

When I first got them I thought they were nice glass, another nice piece in the collection of premium optics, but they didn’t blow me away like some others I’ve tried. But after months of use next to NL’s, EL’s , SF’s, Ultavoids , Noctivids and a few others I’ve learned they don’t seem to have that one flaw that jumps out at me.

I was saying much the same thing in my recent post about SLC HD 42s. A design can be judged not only by some outstanding feature, but by having an excellent balance of qualities and doing everything one wants well with nothing to dislike. We need a good word for this. It wins a naturally fault-finding person like me over, and makes arguments about which has the best FOV or whatever irrelevant.

 

[Paultricounty]

If I had to pick one weakness in my 8x42, it would be lack of brightness in low light conditions, overcast, very cloudy and at dusk. Yesterday was a very cloudy dark gray day, I was comparing the EDG for brightness with another pair of binoculars I had on hand, the Canon 10x42L IS. The Canon although a step down optically was surprisingly clearly brighter than the EDG. I didn’t expect that, either it’s an inherent strength (light transmission of the Canon’s (can’t find any numbers on that, did you hear that John 😉) or a weakness in the EDG’s. I have 8x30/32’s that seem better in this area, and this is surprising because they do have over 90% light transmission.

If I want to nitpick, which I can do with any pair of binoculars , I’d say the eye cup click stops are to soft or loose. Id like to see them be more firm so when putting on or taking of the rain guards, they stay put. This is a nitpick I have with the NL’s as well, the EL’s were better in this area.

Paul

 

[dries1]

Paul,

Glad you are enjoying the EDGs, I enjoy mine. You described them in similar fashion to me, they seem to do everything very well and yes I have other premium glass from the big three. One thing I always remember is that any binocular will offend someone. Like the folks who slam the SEs or the E IIs (because they do not fit their face or what ever), and say for example the FLs are a better 8X32, for them yes, but not for many others. The SV 8X32 blow them away IMO.
There are also many who have never spent any time with the EDGs.

 

[tenex]

If I had to pick one weakness in my 8x42, it would be lack of brightness in low light conditions, overcast, very cloudy and at dusk.

Some have said that EDGs have high contrast. Would you agree, and could darker shadows be giving you a feeling of "lack of brightness" in these conditions?

 

[Rg548]

Some have said that EDGs have high contrast. Would you agree, and could darker shadows be giving you a feeling of "lack of brightness" in these conditions?

I checked EDG's directly against Zeiss FL's and Ultravids, and in my view, both the Zeiss FL's and the Ultra's were better looking from sunlight into shadow.
It's what ultimately made me put them back. Slightly milky compared to the other two, but that is waaay to strong a word, if you get my drift.
However, everything else was 'right up there' with the EDG's, including build etc.... wonderful bins.... but I would take Ultravids over them all day long.

 

[Vespobuteo]

If I had to pick one weakness in my 8x42, it would be lack of brightness in low light conditions, overcast, very cloudy and at dusk. Yesterday was a very cloudy dark gray day, I was comparing the EDG for brightness with another pair of binoculars I had on hand, the Canon 10x42L IS. The Canon although a step down optically was surprisingly clearly brighter than the EDG. I didn’t expect that, either it’s an inherent strength (light transmission of the Canon’s (can’t find any numbers on that, did you hear that John 😉) or a weakness in the EDG’s. I have 8x30/32’s that seem better in this area, and this is surprising because they do have over 90% light transmission.

If I want to nitpick, which I can do with any pair of binoculars , I’d say the eye cup click stops are to soft or loose. Id like to see them be more firm so when putting on or taking of the rain guards, they stay put. This is a nitpick I have with the NL’s as well, the EL’s were better in this area.

Paul

Color balance on the EDG is slightly more to red (compared to Swaro for example).
Might affect how bright they appear.
Maybe they are tuned more towards optimal daylight viewing? ("skylight-filter" effect).