Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison. (3 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

I have a feeling the Bushnell brand - or rather re-brand - was never that popular on this side of the Atlantic. I don't even think the extra wide 7x35 category of binoculars were popular either; 7x35 as a configuration seems to have been much more widely used in the US (besides the extra wides, there were things like Bausch & Lomb's highly rated 7x35 Zephyr). It was quite interesting to see Binocollector found some 7x35 extra wides in Germany - I wonder which JB/JE manufacturer produced these. When I wanted to try a 7x35 extra wide I got mine (a Swift 766, which you're very welcome to try if you visit London), from a US seller - thank you Mr Wiley! Birdforum member wllspd has a later Rangemaster (Tamron made) that I'm sure he'd let you try if your schedules coincided. The FPO version is supposed to be slightly to somewhat better (different users appear to have different opinions), but I suspect not by as much as the difference in asking prices today, which is considerable.

I don’t know too much about the popularity of the 7 x 35 in Europe. I do know that Swift (Japanese manufactured) did have specific models like the 766 in the Panoramic MK2 that were marketed for the European market , which were the identical binoculars to the US Holiday MK2’s. Swift also had specific European models for their Audubon’s, but that’s a different animal. Also the early 766 versions had better edges than the newer one I pictured. They tried to go an extra half a degree, but it was unusable, just a half a degree more of edge distortion. There are no JB/JE marking on the FPO or Kowa models, the first use were on the later Tamron model. I’m not sure if this is because the designations didn’t come out until later, or Fujii and Kowa made both the Optics and the bodies.

The Tamrons are very good, but as a whole package not as nice as the FPO and Kowa, which used the more traditional porro body style, were far lighter and balanced, felt much better in the hands. I think the Tamron’s are close to 40 ounces and some say are ugly. They also stretched to 11°, but it doesn’t have the edge quality of the 10° earlier version, which have quite good edges for the time, even today. Also the the eye relief went from 14mm down to around 10mm , so prices reflect those factors and that there were triple more Tamron’s made, and for a longer period of time. There seems to be a good availability for the Tamron’s, and clean ones go for $200-$300. The Kowa and the transition models were the rarest and command some of the highest prices.

I recall your post on not being able to see the full field of view of your Nikon EII and other binoculars. It really surprised me to read it, and I'm glad I don't have that problem: it would be frustrating to have a 154m field of view binocular but not be able to use its full capabilities (although I wouldn't at all mind not needing to use glasses!). It can't possibly be an issue with setting up the binoculars, given the experience you have, so can only be some aspect of your physiology. Have you ever had folks with similar features to you try the binoculars you've had trouble with, and can they see the whole FOV?

PS. we should organize a Birdforum members' binoculars meeting... it could save some of us a lot of money by being able to look through binoculars we would otherwise need to buy in order to try!

 

[Scott98]

I guess sales/the market, as one of the folks here is so fond of saying, is the ultimate decider. Nikon had their well-regarded 9.3 degree 7x35 model for some time but dropped it. I am a little surprised though that one of the PRC manufacturers has not attempted a wide field 7x35. With modern eyepiece designs now enabling longer eye relief and better edge performance, a widefield 7x35 with modern coatings sounds like it ought to be a viable sales proposition. But I'm sure the manufacturers know their market better than I do.

I think part of the problem is a new wide-angle porro might cannibalize sales of their wide-field roofs. A new 7x might take sales away from their 8x. They might see the market as zero-sum and therefore it's not worth the R&D and tooling costs to create more models in the line.

It is ironic that the wide fields that were common in many 70's and 80's binos are now marketed as something you must spend $3,000 to attain in the absolute most premium, state-of-the-art binoculars.

For me the Zeiss SF line is the first roof prism that matches the hand-holding comfort of porros, so that's good. The 8x32 SF are only 21 ounces and the SE 22 ounces. They SF are like a modern Dialyt. The 8x42 SF and the Nikon 10x35 E2 are my favorite binos for ergonomics. The FOV in the E2 is pretty wide, not as wide as the 70's ones but probably better edge definition.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think part of the problem is a new wide-angle porro might cannibalize sales of their wide-field roofs. A new 7x might take sales away from their 8x. They might see the market as zero-sum and therefore it's not worth the R&D and tooling costs to create more models in the line.

It is ironic that the wide fields that were common in many 70's and 80's binos are now marketed as something you must spend $3,000 to attain in the absolute most premium, state-of-the-art binoculars.

This is a good point I’ve thought about as well. It’s like a fad, it comes and goes like a circle but with a new advertising twist that some how motivates us to spend these insane prices. The real wide field bins for consumers I believe started in the early 1950’s, then became the fad. The good ones were very expensive for the times, and not far off from what we pay for the premiums today when we factor in inflation. Imo the majority of the super wides by the 1970’s were all about numbers (FOV) not quality, many if not most were awful. Todays wide field bins are not true SWA , close but not quite. By the 90’s they were all gone, and people forget that Swarovski started it all over again with the EL‘s advertised as wide field.

For me the Zeiss SF line is the first roof prism that matches the hand-holding comfort of porros, so that's good. The 8x32 SF are only 21 ounces and the SE 22 ounces. They SF are like a modern Dialyt. The 8x42 SF and the Nikon 10x35 E2 are my favorite binos for ergonomics. The FOV in the E2 is pretty wide, not as wide as the 70's ones but probably better edge definition.

 

[Scott98]

This is a good point I’ve thought about as well. It’s like a fad, it comes and goes like a circle but with a new advertising twist that some how motivates us to spend these insane prices

yup, it's like fashion, everything will come around again eventually. I look at the business suits they're selling today - the jackets are so short they look more like a shirt than a suit to me. They look silly! I think I'll sit this one out and wait for longer suits to come back.

 

[Patudo]

@Scott98 - I don't know re your first paragraph in post #22 - I don't think the PRC optics industry is some kind of monolith - I think they'll produce anything if you (or Rebrander X) can stump up enough cash to make a minimum order, plus additional design costs. There was a recent posts here that explained the math quite well. It's just that, for whatever reason, none of the rebranders, X or otherwise, seem to think there's much of a market for a widefield 7x35. Widefield 6.5x32 yes, it seems, but little in the way of larger objective size or higher mag - although worth noting that Kite offer an 8x30 with a 150m field of view.

IMO today's leading wide field binoculars eg. NL and SF are different to the ones of the past in that they incorporate higher magnification, long eye relief and much better edge performance (in the case of things like the NL), plus qualities like being fully sealed that are now pretty much standard for birding binoculars. Those are major improvements: to use virtually all of the extra wide angle binoculars of the past, you could not use glasses and were limited to 7x or 8x magnification. Then in many cases the large prisms needed for that field of view made for bulky binoculars (the 7x35 extra wide I have is not dissimilar to some 7x50s in overall size). The NL 10x42 may only have a smidgen wider FOV than the old 10x50 Dekarem, but it's a totally different animal.

It would be interesting to know what drove the popularity of the widefield 7x35 back in the 50s/60s - I don't think it was the hunting market, as popular hunting models like the 7x35 B&L Zephyr and Leitz's 7x35 Trinovid had wide fields but not super wide. The box of my Swift 766 has a photo of an American football game on it. Maybe watching sports with binoculars was more common in that era when there were no big TV screens and replays.

It's also interesting that none of the "alpha" manufacturers really got into extra wide field binoculars, or at least not for long. Before the war Zeiss manufactured an 8x40 with a remarkable field of view, and the very first series of Leitz Trinovid binoculars had very large fields of view - but neither seemed to set the market alight. The most successful widefield binocular by an alpha maker was probably the 6x24 Amplivid/Trinovid.

 

[Paultricounty]

Im not sure if there would be a market for a SWA porro, I think the porro ship has sailed, the design is to old. I feel it would be a kind of niche market for the people who grew up with porros, and maybe some of the younger retro crowd. But it is possible that we may see more wide angle roofs coming down the road, as we see the FOV battle has begun with Zeiss and Swarovski, what next 10°, 11° or more out of 8x32/35/40's??

We do have to keep in mind these SF's and NL's are a niche market in themselves, very few binocular buyers are spending $2000-$3000. Even buyers of $1000 binoculars are probably a small market, as was the market for high end SWA bins of yesteryear. If one of the makers were to come up with a 7x or 8x roof with 10 °+ FOV with a decent edge and Leica color , Id be all over that in a heart beat. Even without Leica color id still be preordering.

Paul

 

[yarrellii]

I guess sales/the market, as one of the folks here is so fond of saying, is the ultimate decider. Nikon had their well-regarded 9.3 degree 7x35 model for some time but dropped it. I am a little surprised though that one of the PRC manufacturers has not attempted a wide field 7x35. With modern eyepiece designs now enabling longer eye relief and better edge performance, a widefield 7x35 with modern coatings sounds like it ought to be a viable sales proposition. But I'm sure the manufacturers know their market better than I do.

Well, the funny bit is that there are indeed contemporary WA, even UWA 7x35, but they don't seem to leave the Chinese market (probably because no Western brand thinks they're profitable enough to take the gamble). Here are two examples.

The first one is another iteration of the pretty nice modern Porro sold by the likes of Vixen under the Foresta name (not to confuse with the roof of the same name), and also sold by other brands like Levenhuk. I had the 8x32 and the very praised 7x50 and they offered very good optical qualities in some areas, sharpness and contrast were quite astonishing. Well, here's a 7x35 sibling boasting 11º and a 94 % light transmission figure.



Bad news for spectacle wearers is that eye relief is only 13,5 mm. Here's a Google translation of the main specs.



It can be found on the Astroshop Tomita website for 25000 yen (around 170 US dollar).

And here's another member of a very similar family. The main features of the body seem to be shared with models from other brands.


In this case, I found it in Aliexpress, unlike the 8x40, this seems out of stock. It features a 10º FOV (176 m/1000), IPX6, twist-up eyecups, etc. The discounted prices is around 117 €.

I am really very tempted by the first one, having had great experiences with the pretty much identical 8x32 Vixen Foresta.

This means that there are contemporary 7x35 ultra wide angle binoculars with modern coatings ("modern" eye relief seems to be another story). I guess the brands that sell this model in 6x32 and 8x32 (like Vixen or Levenhuk) are aware of the existence of this, but probably see no point in releasing it, maybe due to some of the reasons explained previously.

 

[tenex]

Well, here's a 7x35 sibling boasting 11º and a 94 % light transmission figure.

Waterproof and nitrogen-filled with center focus, for $170? In any case, very interesting. I keep suspecting there's a vicious circle here: 7x bins don't sell because the FOV is unimpressive, but manufacturers think the magnification is the problem so they don't bother to market one with a wider field.

 

[yarrellii]

Waterproof and nitrogen-filled with center focus, for $170?

Well, the price doesn't surprise me as much as the set of performance (I was reading some reviews saying that it was more 7,3x and around 10,5º, but anyway), after all, Kowa/Leupold have been selling the center focus, nitrogen filled 6 and 8x30 Yosemite/YF for years for little over 100 € (now they're more like 170 €).

In fact, what really amazes me is that this same model we see here in UWA 7x35 is also sold as a:
6.5x32 ED, 10º FOV (quoted eye relief 21 mm)
7x32, 9,3º FOV (quoted eye relief 18,5 mm)
9x32, 7,2º FOV (quoted eye relief 18,2 mm)

... which I honestly find pretty amazing. As for the waterproofing, I had the 8x32 Foresta (a clone) and the focus wheel was not the fastest, to say the least; I'm not sure if that could be a telling sign of good waterproofing.

In any case, very interesting. I keep suspecting there's a vicious circle here: 7x bins don't sell because the FOV is unimpressive, but manufacturers think the magnification is the problem so they don't bother to market one with a wider field.

Really interesting insight. Obviously if you have a light, portable and very capable 8x32 with a FOV of 8º, then a 7x32/35 should offer something else, absolutely. I guess it's the same with many top tier 7x42 offering only 7 to 8º FOV (only the Zeiss Dialyt and FL could offer some advantage). Take the very well regarded double hinge 7x42 sold by Kite (Ibis ED) or DDoptics (EDX). At around 1000 € is by most accounts and extraordinary glass, but then you really have to be sure of your choice if you are setting on it with a 7,3º FOV (remember, it's "only" a 7x), while many other 8x at that price range can easily offer you the same or bigger FOV.

 

[Patudo]

Shape wise, these binoculars in your post #27 remind me very much of the Minolta Standard 7x35 that I owned. I wonder if optical performance has been improved (ocular lenses seem larger) as the Minolta definitely wasn't a keeper for me. Maybe Western rebranders are hesitant to order these because of the short eye relief.

6.5x32 with 21mm eye relief are the same specifications as the Moon-Star 6.5x32 (IF) that has gotten a good reception on Cloudynights, but field of view for the Moon-Star is supposed to be 9.3 degrees, not 10. Maybe the differences are between AFOV and TFOV, or maybe the 10 degree figure is just a bit optimistic.

 

[yarrellii]

@Patudo Those are clone of the Vixen Foresta Porro and the Levenhuk Sherman Pro (among other). Levenhuk does have that very same configuration (although it was released quite a while ago and didn't boast ED). And in that particular case, according to Allbinos, your suspicion is right, Allbinos measured 9,11º FOV instead 10º and also a slight change in magnification, 6,64x instead of 6x5x.

It's here

Levenhuk Sherman Pro 6.5x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

I had the famous 7x50 Foresta with the triplet eyepiece and the 8x32, and the latter (a clone of the 7x35 above) really impressed me for daylight observation. Sharper and more contrasty than the Nikon EII 8x30. I posted a small comparison between those two: Vixen Foresta 8x32 Porro (vs Nikon E2 8x30) The Foresta impressed me in those areas, while in others it was a bit lacking. Some other forum member comments not being impressed at all.

 

[Paultricounty]

@Patudo Those are clone of the Vixen Foresta Porro and the Levenhuk Sherman Pro (among other). Levenhuk does have that very same configuration (although it was released quite a while ago and didn't boast ED). And in that particular case, according to Allbinos, your suspicion is right, Allbinos measured 9,11º FOV instead 10º and also a slight change in magnification, 6,64x instead of 6x5x.

It's here

Levenhuk Sherman Pro 6.5x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

I had the famous 7x50 Foresta with the triplet eyepiece and the 8x32, and the latter (a clone of the 7x35 above) really impressed me for daylight observation. Sharper and more contrasty than the Nikon EII 8x30. I posted a small comparison between those two: Vixen Foresta 8x32 Porro (vs Nikon E2 8x30) The Foresta impressed me in those areas, while in others it was a bit lacking. Some other forum member comments not being impressed at all.

We’re going to need to assemble a few of these together and do some side by sides after the holidays. I tried one of these 6.5’s a while back and the edges were atrocious. I don’t remember the off name brand, I’m trying to find the pictures now. I had experience with the Foresta 8x32 MIJ and it was very nice glass, so much so that I purchased a new one a few months later from the bay, and although it was advertised as MIJ , it was MIC. It was not near as good as the MIJ version, wasn’t as sharp and had a terrible focuser, so it went back the same day. Im not saying MIC couldn’t be as good the MIJ version , but these were a clear step down in quality.

I would be very curious to see how close that 7x35 UWA is to 11° and how the edges are.

Paul

 

[Jaywalk]

Im one that thinks Nikons best day are behind it. Don’t be surprised if soon the MHG is either discontinued or MIC. I had called them last week to get a seven year old 18-200 Nikon lens serviced, they don’t service that lens anymore , no parts. They gave me a list of retailers that may be able to service them within a 20 mile radius. I called about seven of them, all said the same thing , bring it in they’ll take a look , but if it’s anything that needs parts, they can’t do anything.

This is surprising news to me in several ways. I'm searching for a good 8x30 and after reading many pages here on BF had settled on the Monarch HG (MHG). I was unaware that it had previously had been made in Japan, but now B&H says it's made in China. Perhaps even more so is your statement of Nikon's inability to service or supply parts for a recent lens! This definitely calls into question my potential commitment to the MHG. Thanks.

 

[dries1]

I would be skeptical with some of B&Hs site info regarding binoculars, after all they stated on their sale site the Nikon Superior E was water proof.

 

[Jaywalk]

I would be skeptical with some of B&Hs site info regarding binoculars, after all they stated on their sale site the Nikon Superior E was water proof.

That's interesting. I certainly believed B&H, as it shouldn't be in their interest to discourage purchases. With the exception of buying a pair and checking on the binoc itself, is there a good place to verify current production location?

 

[dries1]

That's interesting. I certainly believed B&H, as it shouldn't be in their interest to discourage purchases. With the exception of buying a pair and checking on the binoc itself, is there a good place to verify current production location?

I have a pair of Monarch HG 8x42 which state "Made in Japan" on the upper left tube. The Monarch 7 models (the models below the HGs) are made in China and are very good for the $$ as I have experience with them. To confirm to yourself regarding the HGs, I would suggest emailing Nikon directly.
Nowadays one never knows, it is like the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
I bought my HGs form a certified dealer, actually two in 2017 when they were introduced. One had diopter drift, Nikon replaced it with a new one under Warranty. While they are in production (HGs), I am sure Nikon will support their Warranty.

 

[albie...]

The Nikon Monarch HG is made in Japan , at least the one I have is . I bought it 2 years ago .

 

[Paultricounty]

My understanding is MHG is MIJ. I’d be surprised if they made the move to MIC on $1000 binoculars this soon. I try my best to not buy anything MIC. I wouldn’t buy MIC if they started making Swaro NL’s for $500.

I think your still good with the MHG and service for a good amount of time.

Paul

 

[Jaywalk]

Response from Nikon answering my question as to where their binoculars are manufactured:
“All we can tell you is that all parts are manufactured in Japan and the final products are assembled elsewhere.”

 

[Paultricounty]

Response from Nikon answering my question as to where their binoculars are manufactured:
“All we can tell you is that all parts are manufactured in Japan and the final products are assembled elsewhere.”

Typical of Nikon, can’t give a straight answer. Most of the time it’s because reps don’t know how to answer it.