Nikon 10x35 E11 (2 Viewers)

[henry link]

In the fall of 1997, Stephen Ingraham attended a Nikon School of Birding at L.L. Bean and was handed serial #1 of the 8x32 Superior E. He got another chance to use it the next weekend in Wisconsin, and had a production sample for testing two months later (serial #86).

Interesting since the earliest serial # for the 8X32 I have found on BF and CN is 500xxx. I don't know anyone who had one with single or double digit number. Could be they were a test batch from 1997?

My guess is that Stephen Ingraham abbreviated those serial numbers. I received my 8x32 SE from Eagle Optics' very first shipment in October 1997, so I know for a fact that Nikon's date of 1998 for the 8x32's introduction in its official history is wrong. My unit's serial # is 500053 or what I think Stephen probably would have called #53 in that article to indicate it was the 53rd unit produced.

 

[brocknroller]

My guess is that Stephen Ingraham abbreviated those serial numbers. I received my 8x32 SE from Eagle Optics' very first shipment in October 1997, so I know for a fact that Nikon's date of 1998 for the 8x32's introduction in its official history is wrong. My unit's serial # is 500053 or what I think Stephen probably would have called #53 in that article to indicate it was the 53rd unit produced.

Henry,

Thanks for confirming that. Yes, Ingraham must have left off the first three serial #s since they were the same on both units he tried--500--but wanted to emphasis that he had tried a couple of first units made in 1997 like yours.

The reason I was looking for the start dates was due to Andy's question about if any SE had lead glass. If Nikon is true about its 100% transition to Eco-Glass in all its binoculars in 2005, that would mean that SEs manufactured up to 2005 or 2006 (Nikon didn't say what month in 2005) contain lead glass. So your 500, my 501, and every other unit produced before 2005/2006 would have contained lead glass, which would be most of them.

I think the transition to Eco-Glass with the SE came in the 550 model due to the jump in serial numbers (505 to 550), Nikon's announcement about it using Eco-Glass the year I bought the 550, from Nikon's archive description of the 8x32 SE having Eco-Glass, and from my own comparison of the different amounts of CA in the 503 vs. 550.

Brock

 

[dries1]

Nikon was making eco glass as early as 2002, where are you getting 2005 from. At this point only Nikon know when they specifically changed to eco glass, but it is a fact that the HG/LX in the 32 format contained eco glass from inception, however did they start earlier with eco glass on their models, no one on BF knows that.

 

[brocknroller]

Nikon was making eco glass as early as 2002, where are you getting 2005 from. At this point only Nikon know when they specifically changed to eco glass, but it is a fact that the HG/LX in the 32 format contained eco glass from inception, however did they start earlier with eco glass on their models, no one on BF knows that.

Nikon was making eco-glass in 2002 but did not switch over to Eco-Glass in 100% of its binoculars until 2005, according to its own information, which I attached as a pdf to a previous post and again below.

The SE may or may not have had Eco-Glass before 2005 since they did not give which specific models switched to Eco-Glass in which years, they only list the overal percentages of Eco-Glass used in their cameras and binoculars since 2000, and that by 2005, all their products had Eco-Glass.

But the question you originally asked in post-4442904 was "Is there any direct info/evidence that the SE 8X32 ever contained leaded glass?" Henry and I both aswered that affirmatively since the first 8x32 SE was sold in 1997 before Nikon had made any Eco-Glass.

Nikon 10x35 E11

That's some very good information- thanks. The 8x30's serial number is 821313. The 10x35's is 003817. Their performance is pretty similar, both very good. I will need to do more side-to-side, but the color presentation looks to be the same. I'm leaning more towards the 10x35 's as my go-to...

www.birdforum.net

How is it a fact that the HG/LX contained Eco-Glass since its inception? I've shown you the evidence about the SEs, where's the evidence about the LX?

From my comparisons of the LX and LX L and others on the old BF thread I linked earlier and linked again below, the CA increased in the LX L model, which suggests that the LX had lead glass and the LX L had Eco-Glass (only the latter was adveritized as having Eco-Glass).

Lead And Arsenic Is A Good Thing!!

Well, it is when its in optical glass.Having owned most of the top roof prism binoculars I have come to realize that we have taken a backward step in the quality of the view since eco-glass has been introduced or to put it another way since lead and arsenic have been removed from optical...

www.birdforum.net

Brock

 

[dries1]

Here is the proof, the HG LX 8 and 10X32 which I still have, were made in 2002, FACT. Note the date on the broschure, ECO glass. Courtesy of Dipped years ago.
So perhaps the coatings changed from the original LX to the LX L but they WERE BOTH LEAD FREE.

 

[Scott98]

interesting - so Nikon actually brought back the 7x model when they transitioned from HG to EDG

 

[dries1]

Henry,

That is a good catch on your SE 1997 - production introduced not 1998, now we still don't know when and what serial #s have leaded glass do we, Nikon would be the one to provide that answer. HAS ANYONE GROUND UP AN OBJECTIVE LENS AND RUN IT THROUGH A GC?

 

[tenex]

Just as Nikon changed the AR coatings (and perhaps glass) in the 8x30 E2 starting with 82xxxx and 020xxx with the 10x35 E2, it makes sense they would make a serial number change with the Eco-Glass 8x32 SE.

Lots of things might make sense, but I keep having trouble distinguishing your speculations from known facts. Does a distinct serial number gap at the time of Eco-glass or coating changes actually exist in either SEs or EIIs, and what is your information source in either case? I haven't taken references to "82xxxx" to mean literally "820000"; why do you? And one speculation doesn't justify another.

 

[brocknroller]

Lots of things might make sense, but I keep having trouble distinguishing your speculations from known facts. Does a distinct serial number gap at the time of Eco-glass or coating changes actually exist in either SEs or EIIs, and what is your information source in either case? I haven't taken references to "82xxxx" to mean literally "820000"; why do you? And one speculation doesn't justify another.

It's like Algebra where x stands for a uknown number. I've used that shorthand for years, if not decades on BF, so have others. You've been a member since 2015, I'm surprised this seems confusing. Henry and I just discussed this about the Nikon serial numbering, which started with 500xxx, which Ingraham apparently left off in his review, using only the last one of two digits.

82xxxx means the serial # starts with 82 as the first two numbers, the xxxx is whatever numbers follow it, so it could be from 82xxx1 to how many ever Nikon made so far. I have not seen an 83xxxx 8x E2, so I have to assume Nikon is still on the 82 series.

As to the exact year NIkon changed over to the new coatings, we know that was 2017 with the 100th Anniversary Edition 8x30 E2 since Nikon's 100th anniversary was in 2017. I know, I've got one. According to Andy and other BF members who have 82 serial number 8x E2s, the view is identical to the AE edition. Therefore, the 82 E2s were made in 2017 or later. No speculation necessary.

As to the SEs switchover to Eco-Glass, that's harder to pin down, but I've already provided evidence that any SE made before 2000 could not be made with Eco-Glass since Nikon didn't start making Eco-Glass until 2000 and didn't switch over to lead-free glass in all their binoculars until 2005. I'm not sure why you and Andy are still skeptical about that. He believes what's written in Nikon's booklet that came with his 10x32 LX, why would he and you not believe they told the truth in the document I provided made by Nikon???

Whether or not SEs contained lead-free glass from 2000 to 2005 is not knowable since no-one has produced evidence of that the way Andy has with his 10x32 LX (I sold my previous SEs and didn't get a box and bookelts with the 501 sample I bought from Paul.

However, based on my observations and others on BF (the "Lead is a Good Thing" BF thread) comparing the pre-550 SEs with the 550 model, it appears that lead glass came later rather than sooner to the SE and LX. I think it happened with the 550, but I can't give more proof than what I've seen through my two eyeballs and others who saw the same thing on BF and CN.

Ditto for the Leica BAs and BNs, though in the case of the Trinovids, there is evidence that late model BAs had lead-free glass. Don't ask me for the evidence, you'll have to do your own homework with that one.

Here is the proof, the HG LX 8 and 10X32 which I still have, were made in 2002, FACT. Note the date on the broschure, ECO glass. Courtesy of Dipped years ago.
So perhaps the coatings changed from the original LX to the LX L but they WERE BOTH LEAD FREE.



View attachment 1497002


View attachment 1497000

Andy,

Thanks! Yep, Nikon changed the LX changed over to lead-free glass before the introduction LXL, but what year? I don't see any year on the documents, but I assume you are anchoring it to 2002 because you bought your 10x32 LX new in 2002?

The views through the LXs I had (8x32, 8x42 and 10x42), which I purchased in 2000 for the first 8x32 and 2001 for the second sample 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42) looked quite different to me than the LXL, which had more CA and different color rendtion, which others in that old BF threads also found.

I don't recall seeing Eco-Glass mentioned in the accompanying literature, just the two usual blue booklets that accompany the SE and LX, the user manual and warranty "card" (booklet). But I included them in the boxes when I sold them, so I no longer have them.

The first sample 8x32 LX had a loose fouser on the level of the Terra ED. Just resting my finger on the focuser would move it. I could spin it about 1/4 of a turn! The second sample was better. I sold the 8x and 10x42 LXs because the low distortion caused "rolling ball" while panning. Too bad, because I really liked the still image of the 10x42 model, but it was also very heavy.

I'm not sure if your brochures mean that pre-2002 LXs also had lead glass or if they all had Eco-Glass and the change in coatings in the LX L accounted for the changes in CA and color rendition. Doesn't make sense that more advanced coatings could increase CA. Certaintly that wasn't the case in the 2017 on 8x30 E2s, which reduced CA. Like the SEs, there's no way to tell for certain.

What I can say and have said is that my observations and others on the "Lead is a Good Thing" BF thread, it would appear that the first LXs might have had lead glass up until 2002, because my observations and others on the "Lead is a Good Thing" thread and on other threads on BF and CN, combined with the study of Eco-Glass vs. Lead Glass in microscopes that I attached to my post, suggests that lead glass binoculars controlled CA better than Eco-Glass.

As the study said, it was due to manufactures not finding suitable subtitutes for the missing ingredients. But I would imagine you've had pre-2017 E2s and the AE edition and the 82 version. I've compared the 2015-2016 801 8x30 E2 (bought new from Japan in 2020, old new stock apparently) vs. the AE 8x30 E2, and the differences are dramatic in terms of CA control, color rendition, and flare control.

So Nikon can now make Eco-Glass that's as good (if not better) than lead glass, but initially, that was not the case.

Brock

 

[wllmspd]

Just disassemble one and pop a lens under an electron microscope, lead gives a much different signal to much lighter elements. You’d need to test an edge side where they aren’t coated. Then you’d have the fun of seeing if you had any left over bits when you’d finished reassembling.

Peter

Ps what serial numbers would the earlier E2 be?

 

[brocknroller]

Just disassemble one and pop a lens under an electron microscope, lead gives a much different signal to much lighter elements. You’d need to test an edge side where they aren’t coated. Then you’d have the fun of seeing if you had any left over bits when you’d finished reassembling.

Peter

Ps what serial numbers would the earlier E2 be?

Peter,

81xxxx, 80xxxx, etc. It's possible that they changed over during the later 81s, but to be sure, buy an 82 if you in the market.

And don't go by the picture in the ads in Japanese dealers, which may show 82 on their serial #. They often use photos provided by Nikon (which have doctored blue reflecting off the objectives, which is not the case, the AR coatings on the 82 8x E2s are cyan and red, if you can see them, the coatings are low intensity). Ask the dealer for the serial # of the unit he's selling. If he says he doesn't know because they are in a warehouse, pass it up. It could be old new stock.

Going back further, the first 8x and 10x E2s had gray bodies and flimsy leatherette coverings that came loose after exposure to heat. The black body models that replaced them had much harder coverings and better coatings, but the AR coatings were still low in blue and high in red. It wasn't until the 2017 E2s that they had flat light spectrums like the 42mm EDGs.

Brock

 

[wllmspd]

Hmm, mine is a low 800, of well.

Peter

 

[dries1]

William, you are not missing much if anything at all, enjoy the glass.

 

[brocknroller]

Hmm, mine is a low 800, of well.

Peter

Peter,

If you can swing it, buy an 82xxxx 8x30 E2 and compare it to your 800xxx and see for yourself. Big difference to my eyes, and I've been buying Nikon Es from the 8.3* 8x30 E to the first gray body E2, from the black body E2 to the 2017 E2.

There was an evolution throughout the years with a larger FOV and better coatings and better coverings, but optically the 2017 E2 was a "great leap forward," and I'm saying that having carefully compared the 800xxx to the 82xxxx side by side under different lighting conditions.

This is not to say that the 800 isn't good, it is, but the 82 is optically better.

When Allbinos gets their hands on latest model, the 82's CA control score, measured transmission %, and light graph will give numbers to support Tobias Meenle's descriptive review.

Unbenanntes Dokument

 

[dries1]

Like I said Peter, the difference is nil, if you really want better performance get a premium roof.

 

[Scott98]

It looks like I may be getting ready to order a new 10x35 E2. I discovered that the 80's E 35mm's are 2 ounces lighter than the 90's Criterion and E2's. Thinking I might as well upgrade my 10x35 E-C to the current model. I really like these, they are a candidate to replace my 10x42 EDG, just for the lighter weight on the neckstrap.

I'm always going to have a 10x50-something for astronomy, for birds I think I might prefer the smaller 10x35 to the EDG. I'm impressed by how comfortable they are with the 3.5mm exit pupil, I thought eye placement would be more difficult.

 

[brocknroller]

It looks like I may be getting ready to order a new 10x35 E2. I discovered that the 80's E 35mm's are 2 ounces lighter than the 90's Criterion and E2's. Thinking I might as well upgrade my 10x35 E-C to the current model. I really like these, they are a candidate to replace my 10x42 EDG, just for the lighter weight on the neckstrap.

I'm always going to have a 10x50-something for astronomy, for birds I think I might prefer the smaller 10x35 to the EDG. I'm impressed by how comfortable they are with the 3.5mm exit pupil, I thought eye placement would be more difficult.

Scott.

You might also find that the 10x35 E2 is easier to hold steady than the 10x42 EDG II due to porro ergonomics and lighter weight.

When ordering be sure to buy a 2017+ model with an 02xxxx serial number, which to my eyes show improvements in sharpness, CA control, and flare control.

I didn't find the 10x E2's 3.5mm exit pupil tp be a problem for me but you'll have to try it yourself to see how it works for your eyes/pupil size.

Let us know what you think when you get them.

Brock

 

[William Lewis]

It looks like I may be getting ready to order a new 10x35 E2. I discovered that the 80's E 35mm's are 2 ounces lighter than the 90's Criterion and E2's. Thinking I might as well upgrade my 10x35 E-C to the current model. I really like these, they are a candidate to replace my 10x42 EDG, just for the lighter weight on the neckstrap.

I'm always going to have a 10x50-something for astronomy, for birds I think I might prefer the smaller 10x35 to the EDG. I'm impressed by how comfortable they are with the 3.5mm exit pupil, I thought eye placement would be more difficult.

The eye cups on the e2 are larger than on the e-criterions. I had the 10x35 e-c and for my tastes at least the eye piece comfort of the e2 is vastly better. Similar to difference between the habicht non armoured and ga versions. The e-c I gave
to a client, the e2 (latest model) is a keeper.

Will

 

[tenex]

It's like Algebra where x stands for a uknown number. I've used that shorthand for years, if not decades on BF, so have others. You've been a member since 2015, I'm surprised this seems confusing.

I'm surprised you imagine that I'm so easily confused. Most people here and elsewhere use "82xxxx" to mean "somewhere around there", as in the discussion of a coatings change in Leica BNs around 145xxxx, presumably because no one has identified the exact transition serial number. (A recent thread here was trying to pin down just where FLs changed from purplish coatings to reddish ones, and we got within a few hundred units.) You seem to have something else in mind, for unclear reasons. The year of the EII transition is known (2017); the exact serial number, as far as I'm aware, not. So (once again) where do you get this idea of a skip or gap, in any of these cases?

 

[brocknroller]

I'm surprised you imagine that I'm so easily confused. Most people here and elsewhere use "82xxxx" to mean "somewhere around there", as in the discussion of a coatings change in Leica BNs around 145xxxx, presumably because no one has identified the exact transition serial number. (In a recent thread we were trying to pin down just where FLs changed from purplish coatings to reddish ones, and got within a few hundred units.) You seem to have something else in mind, for unclear reasons. The year of the EII transition is known (2017); the exact serial number, as far as I'm aware, not. So (once again) where do you get this idea of a skip or gap, in any of these cases?

I explained it twice, but I will reiterate a final time, and you can either accept it or not as "reality based."

The serial #s are based on my experience comparing an 801xxx model to the 100th Anniversary Edition model side by side, and seeing the noticeable differences, and then reading about other's experience with their upgraded E2s and asking them the serial numbers in PMs if they didn't mention it in their posts, and them reporting their upgraded versions had serial #s with 82x.

Keep in mind, you can't go by the date of purchase, since my 801 was purchased new in 2020 but was old, new stock. Tobias Meenle purchased his 810057 E2 in Feb. 2017, but his review shows it to be have the older red biased coatings like mine. So either it was also old, new stock, or Nikon hadn't released the updated version yet in the black body version, only the AE.

greatestbinoculars: Nikon 8x30 E2 review

But as I mentioned earlier, the changeover could have happened later during the 81xxxx series, but if so, only Nikon knows which exact serial # when they made the upgrade, so my point was and still is why take a chance buying an 81x and just buy the 82x, which we know has upgraded coatings?

If you have knowledge otherwise, please share.

Brock