• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon SE binoculars and ED lens (1 Viewer)

mooreorless said:
The big Kowa Prominar Highlander binocular would be a good buy for you.:)

Dean we are always glad to help you spend your money er I mean help.:)


Regards,Steve
Click to expand...

Yeah, Steve, that Kowa Prominar would be great, provided I was purchasing it with your money. :t: I could buy about 7 pairs of 12X50 SEs for the same cost.

Dean
 
brocknroller said:
Let's put it this way, if you have never seen a purple-tailed hawk, you are in for a treat with the 12x50 SE. :)
Click to expand...

No, Brock, I haven't ever seen one. Maybe 12X50 SE owners will be the first to identify a new variant?

brocknroller said:
High powered bins can greatly benefit from the addition of low dispersion glass.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would, but I haven't found any. Even the Swarovski 15X56 at 3 times the cost of the 12X SEs don't use ED glass, and I can see plenty of CA with them (yes, I've tried them on the lake).


brocknroller said:
So for daytime use, I found the 12x50 SE to be "neither fish nor fowl" and if I'm going to mount a bin for long distance observing, why limit myself to 12x?
Click to expand...

Might cost have anything to do with it? ;) Seriously, though, I've seen where a lower powered bin with great sharpness and contrast can be preferable to a higher powered one that's so-so.


brocknroller said:
There are a number of 12x-15x ED bins out there now that would be more suitable.
Click to expand...

Could you name one or two? The only one I'm familiar with is the Minox 15X58 ED, but I'm of the opinion that they are discontinued. I'm pretty new around here, so if it isn't kosher to repond in a thread devoted to Nikon SEs, let me know and I'll start a new thread.

BTW, Brock, I've read a number of your posts and enjoy your poetic prose and sense of humor. Thanks for your experienced feedback.

Dean
 
Dean, I would choose the comparably priced Canon 15x50IS with UD element over the Nikon 12x50SE everytime. I find 10x is pushing the limit of handholding steadiness for me. But perhaps I drink too much coffee during the day and not enough alcoholic beverage at night!

Since you have the 10x42L, I am suprised you didn't consider its big brother. FWIW, I also prefer the 8x30 EII to the 8x32 SE.

cheers,
Rick
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Dean, I would choose the comparably priced Canon 15x50IS with UD element over the Nikon 12x50SE everytime. I find 10x is pushing the limit of handholding steadiness for me. But perhaps I drink too much coffee during the day and not enough alcoholic beverage at night!

Since you have the 10x42L, I am suprised you didn't consider its big brother. FWIW, I also prefer the 8x30 EII to the 8x32 SE.

cheers,
Rick
Click to expand...

Hi Rick. Elsewhere I have written of my experiences with the Canon 15X50 IS bins. I have tried three different pairs, and was frustrated with all three. One pair had adequately controlled CA, but the other two did not. The image stabilization was not nearly as good as on my 10X42Ls (two pairs being much worse than the third), and they all exhibited slightly less contrast than my 10X42s, which exhibit less contrast than my Nikon 8X32 SEs.

I guess it just depends on what a person wants to see, meaning what parameters of the binos performance are most endearing. My order of preference is: 1) an ultra sharp, bright, and highly detailed image; 2) low CA (as in "next to none"); 3) good contrast; and 4) a decent FOV.

The Canon 15X50s were reasonably sharp, but not as sharp as either of the two binos I've mentioned, and certainly had a decent FOV for their high power. Wouldn't you know, the pair that had the best image quality and least CA was the one with the the worst performing IS; and it was the pulsating, defocusing nature of the IS system that became the final arbiter. I really wanted a pair of these to be as good as my 10X42s. Maybe Canon will come out with a 15X50L at some point.

As good as my 10X42Ls are, my Nikon 8X32s seem a bit sharper--a point of light is going to be a finer point through the Nikons. So, I reasoned that if the 12X50s were equally as sharp at the higher power and were similarly more contrasty (is that a word?), that I would prefer them mounted on my monopod over the 15X50s similarly mounted or hand-held with the IS on. Then I started reading about noticeably greater CA in the 12X50s, and have become nervous about my order for the Nikons.

BTW, I also have a pair of 8X30 Es (the original ones) that I've had for over 20 years, but I've never experienced the EIIs. Interesting that you find them preferable to the SEs--I've heard others express a similar preference.

Dean
 
Dean L said:
...
Could you name one or two? The only one I'm familiar with is the Minox 15X58 ED, but I'm of the opinion that they are discontinued. I'm pretty new around here, so if it isn't kosher to repond in a thread devoted to Nikon SEs, let me know and I'll start a new thread.

BTW, Brock, I've read a number of your posts and enjoy your poetic prose and sense of humor. Thanks for your experienced feedback.

Dean
Click to expand...

Dean,

Thanks for the compliment. Not everybody enjoys my brand of parody, hyperbole, and tomfoolery. 3:)

Speaking of hyperbole... I should have said "small number" of 12x-15x ED bins. Two were already mentioned. Now that the ED glass movement is in full swing, I expect we'll see an increasing number of 12x-15x ED bins.

There's a rumor of one going around that Zeiss will soon be launching two new FL bins, a 12x56 and a 15x56, but I've yet to see an announcement.

If you've got deep pockets, those might be the way to go if you need a larger exit pupil than the 15x50 IS can provide (expect to pay around $3K for the "Big Eyes" FLs).

Another bin to consider is the 12x50 Ultravid HD:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp;jsessionid=TZY2IZERT3YLTLAQBBKSCO3MCAEFAIWE?id=0053292713029a&type=product&cmCat=froogle&cm_ven=data_feed&cm_cat=froogle&cm_pla=1700101&cm_ite=0053292713029a&_requestid=110941

The Leica 15x56 Geovid HD has a built-in range finder (though I have read reports about color bias with this model due to meeting the requirements of the laser):
http://www.binoculars.com/binoculars/specialty-binoculars/leica15x56geovidhdlaserrangefinderbinoculars.cfm

If those are all too pricey, here's a 12x50 ED bin for under $1,000. I haven't tried it, but I do like the open bridge design, which could make it marginally hand holdable.

http://www.spottingscopes.com/binoculars/hunting-binoculars/vortex12x50razorbinoculars.cfm

Vortex 15x50 Viper is the least expensive 15x low dispersion glass bin at $619:
http://www.adorama.com/VORV1550.html?sid=1266275751479404

Here's a great buy if you can find them in stock - 22x77 Miyauchi Semi-Apo BS-77iB. I think they have been discontinued.
http://www.optics4birding.com/miyauchi-bs77ib-1110.html

If you want to see the flecks of color of the ducks' irises, the Docter Aspectum line will get you there (the 40x80 has a WF EP):
http://www.eurooptic.com/Docter-Optic/Docter-Optic-Binoculars.asp?category=XXDB&vendor=XXDO&parent=XXDO

My personal favorite high power bin is the Nikon 8-16x40 XL Zoom binoculars. They aren't ED, but I never saw enough CA at 15x to be bothered, probably because the exit pupil is only 2.6mm. The weight and balance make them marginally hand holdable, but the smallish exit pupil is rather limited if you live in Cloudy Valley.

They have been discontinued, but pop up from time to time. 4* TFOV @ 15x.

If none of the above appeal to you, you might have to go monovision with an ED scope.

You don't need to use a zoom lens. Some brands sell separate fixed power EPs.

Stick one of these 72* AFOV 30X EPs in a Swaro 80 HD scope and behold...:
http://www.eagleoptics.com/spotting-scope-eyepieces/swarovski/swarovski-30x-wide-angle-spotting-scope-eyepiece?tab=specifications#tabs

Good Luck!
 
Dean,

Sorry I wasn't aware of your previous experience with the 15x50IS. I think your issues with it compared to the 10x42LIS are directly related to the increased magnification. Some folks notice the IS "fuzzies" that seem to affect ALL Canon IS bins more than others.

I know when I had the 15x I didn't notice them but when I moved to the 18x they were quite apparent (and once seen in the 18x, I saw them in the 15x!) and annoying AT FIRST. But after some use I became accustomed to them I learned to use the bino in a way that minimizes them. Always using a fresh pair of Sanyo Eneloop batteries before a session helps too.

Unfortunately, I know for me the increased mag and larger aperture of the 12x over 8x SE will make their CA much more apparent. Like with my experience, once seen in the 12x, you will see it in the 8x too! Let us know how it goes.

Rick
 
Last edited:
Brock,

Thanks for the slew of suggestions. I'm afraid many of those are beyond my comfort level in terms of cost. However, a Zeiss 15X56 FL might tempt me to take out a second mortgage.

The Vortex line hasn't proven workable for me due to my fairly narrow IPD. I tried the 15X56 Kaibab, but the eyepieces are of such large diameter that by the time I got them adjusted down to my 61-62 mm IPD, there wasn't room for my nose (which really isn't all that terribly large). Moreover, I haven't been that impressed with the overall quality. The focus wheel on the Kaibab was exceedingly stiff and sticky, and I've looked through the 12X50 Razor and wasn't all that impressed.

Interesting that you mentioned the Docter line. While I wouldn't spring for a bino with a 2 mm exit pupil, I would love to know more about the Docter 15X60 Nobilem. The only place here in the states that seems to carry them is an outfit called SWFA, and they don't seem to be all that anxious to sell them. They apparently don't stock them, and I don't think they offer any kind of return policy. I've read they aren't particularly good in terms of edge sharpness, and I can't really get a sense of how much CA they may have; but if they were sharp 80% of the way out and gradually fell off after that, I could probably live with it. Have you had any experience with that model?

I really don't have much desire to go with a scope. I don't do well using just one eye, and the FOV is typically way too narrow for me. While I've never used a spotting scope, I often times wonder how anyone spots anything in a timely manner with those FOV specifications.

Thanks again for your comprehensive list of suggestions. All things considered, I suspect I'll wait until the Nikons show up. I can return them if I find them unsatisfactory.

Dean
 
Rick,

I would agree that the higher power exacerbates the IS "fuzzies", but there were other issues as well. Right now, my 10X42Ls are my favorite binos all around. Any shortcomings they have are really minor, and they have a quality of really enlarging the image while presenting a very natural, eye relaxing view.

It will be interesting to see how the 12X50 SEs compare. I don't think it will be necessary for me to see the CA in the 12X50s in order to see it in the 8X32s since I already do. What I don't understand is why, viewing the same object under the same lighting conditions, I see more CA on one viewing than the next. I feel as though something in the eye changes. Sensitivity to CA seems to vary from one moment to the next, and from one day to the next.

I'll post my impressions of the 12X SEs after I've had a chance to give them a go.

Dean
 
Dean - I"m one of those CA " challenged" persons, which means I don't look for it, and I don't see it. Perhaps it is another way of saying ignorance is bliss. But just because I can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some folks. Perhaps it is something like poison ivy or oak. I'm dreadfully sensitive to ivy but many of my friends can wallow in it without one itch. Now I wouldn't fret about your 12x50 SE purchase. If you don't like it, you can sell it without difficulty. I find it a delightful piece to use - when sitting down with elbows on knees. For me 12X it is about the limit of hand held use. I have found several woman who handle it with ease. Looking forward to your impressions.
John
 
Dean,
If you don't like your 12x50 SE, think what big points you'll get from us for being so dang picky, almost worth the money don't you think?

I recently got a 12x50 Leica Trinovid BN used for $950. I really bought it for stargazing and it is great for that, with a huge field and excellent sharp focus, and of course there's virtually no CA noticeable on stars. By day, CA is present but I don't find it objectionable, in fact surprisingly small given the size and power. I have a Zeiss FL, but I can still easily bear the pain of looking through a normal glass binocular! I expect the SE would beat it for brightness, but for me at least that would not be an important issue in the harsh light on water like you're talking about. But I think within any series, BN or SE or FL or whatever, a big powerful binocular is going to show more aberrations than its smaller siblings.

Although the large image is a lot of fun, without bracing the binocular somehow I can't see any finer detail than I can with 8x. Or at least hardly any, and only with the greatest difficulty, and a rather frustrating feeling of trying to follow a severely jiggling image around. It tires me out fast to try to see too much with it. I think that would be the case even if it was optically perfect. But if I just relax and enjoy that bird be big now feeling, I love it.
Ron
 
John Dracon said:
Dean - I"m one of those CA " challenged" persons, which means I don't look for it, and I don't see it. Perhaps it is another way of saying ignorance is bliss. But just because I can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some folks. Perhaps it is something like poison ivy or oak. I'm dreadfully sensitive to ivy but many of my friends can wallow in it without one itch. Now I wouldn't fret about your 12x50 SE purchase. If you don't like it, you can sell it without difficulty. I find it a delightful piece to use - when sitting down with elbows on knees. For me 12X it is about the limit of hand held use. I have found several woman who handle it with ease. Looking forward to your impressions.
John
Click to expand...

John,

To be sure, I don't look for CA--it just shows up. Sometimes, however, my eyes seem better behaved and it's completely absent; other times not.

You must be a relatively young man, John. When I was younger I might have been able to find several women interested in handling my binos as well, but as I approach 65, they seem to be few and far between. So, in the absence of female assistance, I've decided to use a manfrotto monopod and hand-grip swivel head. Works great and really stabilizes the image without any attitude. Perhaps you should try one--the women are more suited to other activities anyway.

Dean
 
ronh said:
Dean,
If you don't like your 12x50 SE, think what big points you'll get from us for being so dang picky, almost worth the money don't you think?

I recently got a 12x50 Leica Trinovid BN used for $950. I really bought it for stargazing and it is great for that, with a huge field and excellent sharp focus, and of course there's virtually no CA noticeable on stars. By day, CA is present but I don't find it objectionable, in fact surprisingly small given the size and power. I have a Zeiss FL, but I can still easily bear the pain of looking through a normal glass binocular! I expect the SE would beat it for brightness, but for me at least that would not be an important issue in the harsh light on water like you're talking about. But I think within any series, BN or SE or FL or whatever, a big powerful binocular is going to show more aberrations than its smaller siblings.

Although the large image is a lot of fun, without bracing the binocular somehow I can't see any finer detail than I can with 8x. Or at least hardly any, and only with the greatest difficulty, and a rather frustrating feeling of trying to follow a severely jiggling image around. It tires me out fast to try to see too much with it. I think that would be the case even if it was optically perfect. But if I just relax and enjoy that bird be big now feeling, I love it.
Ron
Click to expand...

Hi, Ron. Well, I've been picky as hell all my life. I guess that's another reason that, unlike John, I don't have any females lined up to hold my binos.:'D

Sounds like you got a wonderful buy on those Leicas. How do they compare to the FLs? I assume your FLs might be only 8 power. Let me tell you, I mount my 8X32 SEs on the monopod all the time, and the amount of detail I can see is phenomenal. In fact, there is no way I can really dial-in the right eye dioper adjustment without using the monopod. Even then, I find it takes several tries to get it just right; but, when I do, the detail is incredible. Of course, as the subject moves further away, you really need the higher power if you expect to see any detail. I would really prefer to get a 15X than a 12X, but just can't find any 15X that seem to work for me.

BTW, I agree with you that the higher the power, the more aberrations that show up. What I don't know is if the higher power is revealing the aberrations in my eyes or in the binos (probably both). When I got my eyes examined, the resolution of my bins really improved. Now I'm thinking I should probably get my head examined so I can just enjoy what I've got. |:D|

Dean
 
Dean L said:
Hi, Ron. Well, I've been picky as hell all my life. I guess that's another reason that, unlike John, I don't have any females lined up to hold my binos.:'D

Sounds like you got a wonderful buy on those Leicas. How do they compare to the FLs? I assume your FLs might be only 8 power. Let me tell you, I mount my 8X32 SEs on the monopod all the time, and the amount of detail I can see is phenomenal. In fact, there is no way I can really dial-in the right eye dioper adjustment without using the monopod. Even then, I find it takes several tries to get it just right; but, when I do, the detail is incredible. Of course, as the subject moves further away, you really need the higher power if you expect to see any detail. I would really prefer to get a 15X than a 12X, but just can't find any 15X that seem to work for me.

BTW, I agree with you that the higher the power, the more aberrations that show up. What I don't know is if the higher power is revealing the aberrations in my eyes or in the binos (probably both). When I got my eyes examined, the resolution of my bins really improved. Now I'm thinking I should probably get my head examined so I can just enjoy what I've got. |:D|

Dean
Click to expand...

Dean:
Do you wear eyeglasses when viewing? You may have mentioned it up above.
You've said you need to adjust the diopter when looking through the 8x32's,
and for me it is just set it and forget it.
Did you get a new prescription after your last exam? Maybe that will help.

Jerry
 
NDhunter said:
Dean:
Do you wear eyeglasses when viewing? You may have mentioned it up above.
You've said you need to adjust the diopter when looking through the 8x32's,
and for me it is just set it and forget it.
Did you get a new prescription after your last exam? Maybe that will help.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Hi Jerry,

Yes, I do wear eyeglasses when viewing, and yes I did get a new prescription after my last exam. As I said, the resolution of both pairs of my binos really improved after I had that exam (and got the new prescription). The adjustment of the right diopter always comes out virtually on "0", but the slightest change in that adjustment can make the difference between being real good and being great! I find that my eyes change ever so slightly from one day to the next, as well as during any given day. As such, I will take the time to check the adjustment before each outing.

Dean
 
Dean - I wish I were a relatively young man. Sorry. I turn 75 in July. My reference to women being able to handle the 12x50 SE is because it is not heavy for its size.
Also, I know a number of women who can hold binoculars as steady as any man.
John
 
John Dracon said:
Dean - I wish I were a relatively young man. Sorry. I turn 75 in July. My reference to women being able to handle the 12x50 SE is because it is not heavy for its size.
Also, I know a number of women who can hold binoculars as steady as any man.
John
Click to expand...

Hi John,

Sounds like you're doing great for 75 years young. I knew what you meant, but I was attempting to inject a bit of humor. I certainly hope you were in no way offended, as no offense was intended.

All the Best,
Dean
 
I see no CA or roll-the-ball effect in any of my binos (well, a little in my vintage, cherry 8x30 Canon B body), but none of that in the new ones. Now I had a Pentax 8x32 SP (nonED) for a while, and that had noticable yellow fringing....also had a Swift 828 that really rolled tha ball when ya panned. But the 7 I have now are flaw-free (at least as far as I'm concerned). So there.....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

dries1
Nikon SE
Replies
14
Views
2K
Pileatus
P
has530
8-16x40 XL Zoom...One Binocular to Rule Them All?
Replies
9
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
brocknroller
Nikon 8x32 SE Chinese Clone
Replies
7
Views
2K
brocknroller
brocknroller
J
Full Spec Sheet for Nikon 8X30 Monarch HG
Replies
3
Views
1K
JohnVan
J
yarrellii
Allbinos review of the Nikon SE 12x50
Replies
19
Views
3K
Duende
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top