• 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.

Review: 8x30 EII, 8x30 E, 8x32 SE (1 Viewer)

Kimmo,

I added the following addendum to my review. Its a shame the hybrid idea is mechanically unworkable. I could see that the optics of a 9.5x32 are very nice. I imagine a certain WJC could enlighten us all about the differences in internal construction between the EII and the SE. Bill, where are you when we need you?

(Addendum: I played around with the hybrid idea today and found that it isn't workable. The EII eyepiece will drop into the SE focusing tube, but the cylinder that contains the eyepiece optics is actually about 1mm smaller in diameter than the SE cylinder so the fit is not tight enough for stable collimation. The larger SE eyepiece cylinder will not drop into the EII focusing tube. I also noticed that there is a significant difference in the the workings of the eyepiece focusing tubes inside. The SE eyepiece cylinder fits snugly within its tube so that the cylinder and the tube slide against each other with a large area of contact. The EII eyepiece cylinder is smaller than its tube. At the end of the tube there is a thin ring inside which matches the diameter of the eyepiece cylinder and that is the only point of contact. I suppose a thin ring is perfectly OK just for keeping the eyepiece optics centered, but I would have to guess that the SE construction is more expensive. I should have looked at all this more closely when I wrote the original review.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks again, Henry.

Too bad, I would have liked a 9.5x32 with an SE body and E II eyepieces.

It sounds from your description that the SE construction is more solid and would keep its diopter setting more consistently since there should be less rocking of the bridge. However, when I have used the E II, the bridge has been very solid and only has rocked a bit when I have specifically tried to make it do that.

Kimmo
 
Henry, another few questions if you would?

You said that the EII and SE share many focus bridge mechanicals, so is it a myth that the SE has a stiffer focus than the EII? If there is a difference is it noticeable?

Also, you say that the field edges of the EII show some pincushion, but not much, can you make a comparison to the amount in the Swift Audubons (the only binoculars I have immediate access to)? Could you possible rate the curvature from straight somehow? I'm sure that would be tought to quantify, but maybe there is a way that I am not familiar with.

Thanks
 
Rob,

At the high tempertures we've had here lately I can detect no difference in the action of the focusers, but it's certainly possible that the SE might be stiffer in cold weather since in it there is a much larger area of lubricated contact between the cylinder containing the eyepiece elements and the focusing tube. I can't say I've ever had much of a problem with the SE in the winter, but the winters here are not that cold.

I think pincushion distortion is really a non-issue in the EII. I just dutifully reported the little bit I saw. Most people seem to prefer a little pincushion distortion when panning, compared to the unpleasant "rolling ball" effect of barrel distortion. To see it at all I had to place a straight line near the edge and move it back and forth. In normal use I never noticed it. I'm sorry I don't have access to an Audubon to compare them.
 
RobConnel said:
Henry, another few questions if you would?

You said that the EII and SE share many focus bridge mechanicals, so is it a myth that the SE has a stiffer focus than the EII? If there is a difference is it noticeable?

Also, you say that the field edges of the EII show some pincushion, but not much, can you make a comparison to the amount in the Swift Audubons (the only binoculars I have immediate access to)? Could you possible rate the curvature from straight somehow? I'm sure that would be tought to quantify, but maybe there is a way that I am not familiar with.

Thanks

Rob,

I can help you with a Swift/SE comparison.

At length, I compared the Swift 820 (non-ED) side-by-side to an SE 8X32 and the views were very similar. The Swift is soft on the outer edges and some will find that distracting, regardless of FOV. However, the pinpoint sharpness of these two models is exceptional, along with wonderful contrast and faithful color transmission.

I chose the SE because:
1. It has better eye relief for my eyes.
2. It has a rigid ocular bridge that eliminates focus deviation due to pressure on the eyecup. This is essential to me.
3. The overall build quality of the SE seemed superior.

Good luck!

John
 
RobConnel said:
John, how did the pincushion compare between the two of them?

Rob,

I do not recall any disturbing pincushion in the Swift. My SE, which has logged innumerable hours of use in all type of lighting conditions, shows almost none. The SE offers one of the more exceptional "flat" field views and I find this to be one of its most attractive features. The Nikon LX/HG models show more pincushion but, again, it's not a problem because they are so sharp edge to edge. People can disagree, but I argue that edge-to-edge sharpness contributes more to the overall view than anything else, especially to aging eyes.

Edge softness was the FIRST thing I noticed in the Swift and it is an exceptionally sharp glass. If Swift masked out the outer edge I bet people would "see" things differently. The Zeiss zoom eyepiece, though heralded as a superb zoom, is often criticized for edge softness at the lower end of the magnification scale. The FL was criticized for it and so too the Trinovid's and Ultravid's. I like my Ultravid, but I would like it more if it was as sharp across the entire field as it is in the "sweet spot". After all, who would argue for dullness?

Look and you will see plenty of pincushion in the EL, FL, Ultravid, Trinovid, LX/HG, etc. SE's show very little. Anyone who wears eyeglasses knows that, eventually, the brain filters out most optical distortions and you see the world in a pleasing manner. Good binoculars, in spite of their inevitable imperfections, behave the same way. When used in a normal fashion, a high quality binocular should be nearly transparent. If it isn't, choose another model.

Finally, it's easy to succumb to "paralysis by analysis" when evaluating binoculars. All of them have shortcomings and each person sees the world though their own set of filters. If you take the Swift out in the field for a few days, you should have no trouble determining its worth...to you. The same goes for the EII and the SE. Optically, those three bins are second to none.

Good luck...

John
 
New to the forum here, and have found an abundance of good information. "Thank You" to all participants.

I was lucky enough to take a couple of hours this afternoon to play at the "binocular buffet" at one of the area camera (and binocular...etc) shops, trying out most of their inventory samples. Most of their line consists of Nikon, with a few Cannon and other misc. pairs interspersed here and there, and I was anxious to do some relaxed daylight comparisons between a few that I had never paid much mind to in the past.

Their display samples consisted of Action and Sporter series glasses, as well as Travelites and similar models, on up the line to the Premier SE, and LX binos, a pretty much complete mix of the current Nikon line (with a few exceptions).

Giving them all a cursory look and rundown as to build quality and ergonomics, there was the usual "range" of performance until I reached the 8x42 LX. The brightness and contrast was really very good on this particular glass, something to be expected at the price point involved, and throughout the time I spent with the various models, I kept returning the the LX as my "on-the-spot" standard to really get a feel for all of the others;

.....that was until I got around to a lone pair of lowly left-over 8x30 E2s. This was one of those rare times in looking at binoculars that I put a glass to my face and EVERYTHING literally seemed to "click" as far as view and optical quality, ergonomics that "felt right", general feel of quality in the build and mechanics, and just an overall "wow" effect in comparison to what I was expecting after looking through so many others.

Moving on to a pair of 8x32 SEs (the other pair that I was seriously considering as a general use bino), I had to do many double-take comparisons to really determine which one I ultimately preferred, including the much costlier LX model. The 8x32 SE, while having very similar optics to the E2, gave an occasional vignetting or "kidney-bean" effect (what I assume others have mentioned as "black-out" in that model) that I found all but impossible to duplicate with the E2. I just personally preferred the "care-free" snap-to view of the E2 without even the slightest problem along those lines, something that makes the inherent use of the glass much more natural and pleasurable in my view. That, combined with the preferred wider TFOV of the E2, really cinched the later as my new "general-duty" bino for daytime and REAL wide-field night sky viewing, realizing of course the restrictions of the light gathering ability of the small 30mm objectives. Still, with such small objective glasses, it's often amazing the kind of star counts you can get on a nice clear night of totally relaxed viewing enjoyment, and from all daylight indications, total field sharpness in the E2 appears to be right up there with the best, even considering its 8.8 degree true FOV.

I also had the opportunity to look through and "experience" some of the smaller Canon IS models, and while the stabilization feature on these particular glasses was excellent, comparing the optics themselves to the E2 showed noticeably reduced contrast and less overall image brightness, though field sharpness was very good and beyond that of many mid to upper priced binos on the market.

The Sporter 10x was the only version of that model they had available on display, but first impressions were that it would make a very nice entry-level bino for the money, about $175 here in the states mail-order. But with the much narrower field (~6*) and slightly higher power of the Sporter combined with a somewhat dimmer and less contrasty view overall, the E2 again gave so much better overall views for so little additional money ($299 here in the U.S.) as to be very obvious even at first cursory glance. What I think I found most amazing about the E2 was the performance to price point, and feel it is a real shame that Nikon has decided to discontinue that model. I've had experience with many "top-of-the-line" roof prism glasses, as well as many porros over the years, and the E2 gives up VERY LITTLE (if anything) in comparison to any other comparably sized/magnification glasses on the market IMO.

Unfortunately, the lone E2 at the camera shop was their display model, and had seen some significant "handling", though the price was still "full retail - take it or leave it" of $459, plus the $40 or so sales taxes involved locally. Knowing various online dealers had them available for what amounted to close to $200 less, I decided to wait and order one when I got back home.

This one will be interesting to compare side-by-side to my old favorite Zeiss 8x56 BGAT Classic, though as stated, it will likely not be a glass that is a preferred choice for astronomical use alone.

BUT......Oh what beautiful terrestrial views it can produce ! I now see the wisdom of the many who have shared their excitement in and recommendation of the Nikon 8x30 E2 these many years. Get one while you can !

Bryant
 
Hi Bryant! On behalf of the staff here at BirdForum, a warm welcome to you. Glad you were able to find some useful information and we look forward to your future postings. :t:
 
I'm now the happy owner of a pair of 8x30 E2s as well as a pair of 8x32 SE. (I had to grab a pair of the E2s before they disappear.)

My non-expert comparison is:

* the SEs have better edge-to-edge sharpness across the field

* the SEs have less chromatic aberation

* the SEs focus with more of a "snap"

I cannot discern any difference in brightness, contrast, or centre of field sharpness.

However the above advantages of the SEs are not immediately obvious and have to be looked for carefully. The E2s certainly give the SE a close run for the money. The odd thing about the E2s is, that despite (or is it because of?) their slightly wider field, I feel I am "drawn in" more to the object being viewed. The target somehow seems subjectively a bit bigger, which given that the field of view is larger seems odd to me. I can see how some people could prefer the E2 to the SEs.

Conclusion: an excellent second pair of bins for the family.
 
Dear Redshift,

Is using the EII like going to a CinemaScope movie? You become drawn into the panorama and feel part of the landscape.
I respectfully differ with your conclusion in that it may be an excellent first pair of binoculars.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
I thought no one would object if I brought this excellent thread back up after reading about the Nikon SE line being discontinued.
 
Henry's thorough reviews are some of the very best on the net. He has a nice way of relating technical information to a layman.

In retrospect I now wish he would have had access to the 8x35 wide field as well. Thoughts on that comparison Henry?
 
Everyone should read this thread...from the beginning. The tenor of the conversation is informative, respectful and pleasant. I'll leave it at that.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top