Nikon Premier CA (1 Viewer)

We just returned a recently purchased pair of Nikon Premier 10x42 to B&H photo. These were the latest addition to that line before the EDG took over. They were NIB. The view was the clearest and sharpest to the edge I have seen, equal to the Swarovision EL 10x42. However, when viewing birds against a sunny backdrop the CA (mostly green) was severe enough to sometimes obscure the bird. Even worse when the sky was cloudy. Anyone else had this issue? These were Nikon Premier roof prisms. Cost....$1599.99
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/Premier-10X42.html

Although my 8x32 seems to have very little CA, the CA complaint is a well-known and commonly seen issue with this model. Therefore, it seems that others have indeed seen this issue.

PhilR. said:

Although my 8x32 seems to have very little CA, the CA complaint is a well-known and commonly seen issue with this model. Therefore, it seems that others have indeed seen this issue.

Click to expand...

Thanks,

I've never seen it in my 8x32 LX L and 10x32LX L nka Premier.

Kimmo Absetz reviewed the 8x32 in 2003 in ALULA, a birding magazine published in Finland. (In Europe it was known as the HG DCF and later HG L) He compared it with 2 Swarovski ELs and the Nikon 8x30 EII. In the paragraph about color rendition he remarked that "color fringing" was very low.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_7_nikonHG_swaro32EL_GB.shtml

The HG-L LX- L/Premier has a very fast focusing speed and it is easy to focus past the object. Objects slightly out of focus will show more CA than when they are sharply focused. This is just one more reason to try binoculars out before you buy them if you are susceptible to CA.

Bob

I owned an 8x32 LX L for about a year. In the end it was sold due to unacceptable CA. The color balance was also off on this model, particularly in the red/orange/yellow range.

Ed

Couldn't detect serious CA problem from "my" HGL8x32, or I am not sensitive to CA. Sold them only because the fast focus.

Traded my 8x32LX for a Nikon 8x32SE. I was ok with the fast focus, CA wasn't as bad as the full size 10x42LX I had use of. The eights might of been better. That is a lot of money to spend on that series.

My Nikon 10x32 HG L shows a fair amount of CA around the outer edge but it only stands out when I look for it. I really have to look hard to see CA with the EDG binoculars.

mooreorless said:

Traded my 8x32LX for a Nikon 8x32SE. I was ok with the fast focus, CA wasn't as bad as the full size 10x42LX I had use of. The eights might of been better. That is a lot of money to spend on that series.

Click to expand...

That was the going price on these unless you found a used pair. $1599.99
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/Nikon-Products/Binoculars/Premier-10X42.html

elkcub said:

I owned an 8x32 LX L for about a year. In the end it was sold due to unacceptable CA. The color balance was also off on this model, particularly in the red/orange/yellow range.

Ed

Click to expand...

Ed,

That's also, in part, why I sold my 10x42 LX L, too much CA and the color balance was warmer than what I saw naked eye and warmer than the original Venturer LXs. Reds were orangy, but yellows really "popped." Didn't mind the supersaturated yellow finches, but orange cardinals looked weird. The SE, while having a slight warm bias, gave a much more realistic presentation of colors as did the prior LX series.

My guess is that Nikon skewed the light transmission to make the image look brighter, which it did, in fact, on brightly lit objects, the details were overwhelmed by brightness ("wash out"), but the price to pay was unrealistic colors. A better solution was (and still is) to add dielectric coatings to the prisms and retain the color balance in the AR coatings of the original LX series.

The other reason I sold them was the RB, which I was never able to adapt.

If you don't mind the extra weight (6 oz.), the 10x42 LX is a better choice since it presents more realistic colors and shows exceptional contrast, ahead of its time in that regard. They alre also much cheaper if you can find them in VG to excellent condition. Saw a new old stock for $550 on eBay, if it weren't for the RB, I would have snatched it up, because I otherwise really like the image in the 10x42 LX.

Besides watching birds, the other thing I liked to do with the 10x LX was look at architectural details in buildings and bridges. For that purpose, the 10x42 LX was well suited since it was able to resolve fine details thanks to the high resolution and exceptional contrast.

One negative about the LX series is that the eyecups wear quickly - soft rubber. Whereas in the LXL series, the armoring is soft, and that wears quickly and blotches easily. The original LX has harder armoring. Fortunately, the eyecups cover metal frames that allow you to set the eyecup position, so they can be easily replaced.

Brock

I owned the 8 x 32 HGL. They were great, except the high level of (for me) CA.
I now own the 8x32 EDG (2). Same great view, no CA.

Responses seem to confirm either or both: the range of perception of, or importance of, CA to different observers.

I have the 10x32 HG, the earlier version, bought used and in perfect condition. I sought that out due to comments about color rendition I'd read here. I can see CA under the just the right conditions with these, but only if I'm looking for it. In real life, mine anyway, it isn't limiting in any way.

I can see CA with every binocular I've ever owned, to some degree, under some conditions. Including the 8x32 EDG (version 1). I expect more at higher powers, hence not really bothered by that in the 12x50 SE. Seems reasonable to make an allowance, as part of the tradeoff for greater magnification.

I've had a few bins that I sold or stopped using because I noticed CA when I *wasn't* looking for it, and that bothered me. The 10x32 HG doesn't rise anywhere close to that level in my case. But again, much depends on your expectations and viewing uses.

Good luck!

woodfluter said:

Responses seem to confirm either or both: the range of perception of, or importance of, CA to different observers.

I have the 10x32 HG, the earlier version, bought used and in perfect condition. I sought that out due to comments about color rendition I'd read here. I can see CA under the just the right conditions with these, but only if I'm looking for it. In real life, mine anyway, it isn't limiting in any way.

I can see CA with every binocular I've ever owned, to some degree, under some conditions. Including the 8x32 EDG (version 1). I expect more at higher powers, hence not really bothered by that in the 12x50 SE. Seems reasonable to make an allowance, as part of the tradeoff for greater magnification.

I've had a few bins that I sold or stopped using because I noticed CA when I *wasn't* looking for it, and that bothered me. The 10x32 HG doesn't rise anywhere close to that level in my case. But again, much depends on your expectations and viewing uses.

Good luck!

Click to expand...

woodfluter,

Today in the Brave New World of ED bins, some ED bins work better than others at controlling CA, but as you mentioned, how much CA any user sees varies with the individual and now much one is bothered by it.

Never tried the 8x32 EDG, but the 8x30 M7 controlled CA better than my 8x30 EII even though it also has a wide FOV. The more edge, the more CA you can see.

So roof beats Porro in this case. Didn't see that very often 5-10 years ago.

The 10x42 SLC-HD was also very good at controlling CA, slightly better than the 8x30 M7 in a side by side test. The old dictum that you have to accept CA as a trade off for higher magnification no longer applies, provided you're prepared to pay the price. If not, then you have to go lower in magnification to get similar results such as the ZR 7x36 ED2, which had no CA in the centerfield even under high contrast situations, or find one of the few ED Porros in existence.

I've owned Porros with ED glass, which worked even better at controlling CA than comparably priced ED roofs. For example, the Celestron 10x50 Voyager ED. Excellent CA control, but with 5* FOV, there wasn't much edge, where CA is usually more noticeable. The 804 Audubon ED and Swift 8x44 ED also handled CA very well. I also tried a Celestron 9.5x44 ED.

But it would be better yet if you were immune to CA altogether or at least not bothered by it, which you don't seem to be if the 12x50 SE doesn't bother while watching circling raptors.

ED glass also has other benefits. It increases contrast by about 15%. It also makes colors more vivid since there is less scattering. So even if you're immune to CA or at least not bothered by it, there can be other benefits to owning a bin with ED glass.

It is perhaps ironic, however, that the reason more and more modern roofs are being made with ED glass is the fact that the internal focusing element adds CA to the view. You could get a comparably clean view from a cheaper Porro, but if you want that same clean view from a roof, you've got to dig deeper into your pocket.

There's no free lunch (except in Austria, they tell me).

Brock