John Dracon
John Dracon
On the suiject of ED glass, would the Nikon SE be a better binocular if it had ED lens, or does it? John
-
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.
Nikon SE binoculars and ED lens (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter John Dracon
- Start date
brocknroller
porromaniac
No, the SE doesn't have ED glass, but the answer to the question if ED glass would make it "better" would largely depend on your sensitivity to chromatic aberration.
It might also depend on which production run of SE you have. The 550xxx has lead-free glass, which from my experience with lead-free optics and technical reports on lead-free glass, seems to be more prone to CA.
One BF SE owner, who has a 550xxx and an older model SE (504?) reported no difference in CA, but that's just one person's observation. People's sensitivity to CA varies considerably.
After comparing the 505 8x32 SE to the ZR 7x36 ED2 on the snow covered landscape and trees today, I would give a resounding "YES" to the question if ED glass would improve the SE, at least for me.
But let's face it, we'll be lucky if Nikon makes another production run of SEs as they are (the ones being sold now are still the 2007-2008 550xxx batch), let alone a redesigned SE with ED glass.
An SE ED is even less likely than a manned moon mission within the next decade, barring dramatic progress in manned spaceflight by China.
I think we are much more likely to see ED glass in Nikon's roofs. The EDG already has ED glass. With competition from the ED Chinese Clones, I wouldn't be surprised to see ED glass in the next gen Monarch and/or Monarch X.
The Nikon roof that needs ED glass the most is the Premier line, which suffers from excessive CA. I don't think that's going to happen, because that would bump up the price and then the only major differences between the Premier and EDG would be the body style and diopter location.
However, if I were a Nikon consultant, that would be my advice. Not everybody is enamored by the open bridge design the way I am.
Some birders and hunters looking for a high end bin but who don't like open bridge designs would chose a Premier ED over the EDG if one were available. Nikon would need to do a market study to find out if the numbers are significant enough to justify an upgrade, but my gut tells me yes, as long as they keep the price $500 under the EDG.
Premiers now sell for around $1,200. ED glass might bump the price to $1,500, similar to the price difference between the Pentax SP and ED.
If they outsourced their manufacture to China, that could bring the price down to $1,000, though that move might hurt sales due to the prejudice against Chinese optics. That is, anything made in China is thought of as being "cheap" or "low end".
I think the ZR 7x36 ED2 is helping chip away at that stigma, but prejudices don't die easily.
I don't think any manufacturer is currently making its top of the line $1,000 or over bin in China, so this would be a bold move by Nikon.
Sooner or later, somebody's going to do it. Nikon might as well be the pioneer.
With ED glass, Nikon won't have to bias the coatings on the Premier to make the images appear brighter, which would help increase contrast on brightly lit objects and make the Premier a worthy lower cost alternative to the EDG.
Sorry for getting off the question in the OP, but I think the future of ED glass in Nikon bins is with their roofs.
James Bean
Well-known member
Brock, When did the SE change from lead glass to lead-free glass? Would 502xxx series still have lead glass? I ask because I've just bought an 8x32SE of this model run, which I understand is 1999 or 2000? Haven't received it yet; still on its way from the U. S. of A...
Hang on, I've just seen your posting of 15th September 2009, which seems to indicate the answer is a 'definite maybe': maybe it does/maybe it doesn't, but most likely it's lead-free, right?
Hang on, I've just seen your posting of 15th September 2009, which seems to indicate the answer is a 'definite maybe': maybe it does/maybe it doesn't, but most likely it's lead-free, right?
Last edited:
John Dracon
John Dracon
Thanks for the info on ED glass gentlemen. I never see CA. My only ED optics are Pentax 80 & 65MM spotting scopes, and my old B&L Balscope Sr. compared power to power (less FOV with the B&L of course) shows little difference. Perhaps my almost 75 year old eyes don't process the nuances that the ED and FL glass possess. I was stunned to find that my Leupold 8x42 Cascade porro outperformed my Zeiss 8x32 FL
in low light resolution. The Cascade had of course significantly less FOV, but the colors and contrast went to the Cascade. John
in low light resolution. The Cascade had of course significantly less FOV, but the colors and contrast went to the Cascade. John
brocknroller
porromaniac
Not the 502xxx, which has lead glass. The 505 was released in 2000 when Nikon said they changed over to lead free glass in all their optics, that's the "maybe" because if it was already designed in 1999, it might not have been "upgraded" with lead free glass.
But here's the trade-off, the 505 has better coatings than the 501 and probably 502, and provides better contrast and color saturation. The 505 coatings are also different than the 504 8x32 SE, though I haven't compared those two models side by side.
So I'm thinking that the 505s probably have lead free glass if they bothered to update the coatings. It's not that noticeable except in high contrast situations such snow banks and snow covered trees and most noticeable when I compare the SE with the ZR 7x36 ED2 on those same landscapes.
The SE shows a thick band of color fringing at about 60% from center whereas even at 80% out, the ZR has less CA. In fact, I have to really look for it on the same brightly light edge of snow covering my neighbor's car, just a wafer thin band of false color compared to the thicker band on the SE.
Looking through the snow covered trees, the CA is more noticeable on the SE whereas I can't see any with the ED2. The EII shows more CA than the SE on the trees.
I also don't see any false color on crows or hawks against a brightly lit sky with the ZR even when I let them drift far off axis. It's a pleasure just to watch the hawks and crows without worrying about having to center them to avoid color fringing.
I would rank the Nikons (and ZR) this way in terms of least off axis CA to most. This is using my "litmus test" - telephone pole wires against bright gray skies.
1. ZR 7x36 ED2 (least)
2. 7x35 E and 7x35 WF
3. 501 8x32 SE
4. 10x42 EDG
5. 505 8x32 SE
6. 8x30 EII
7. 8x42 LX
9. 10x42 SE
10. 10x42 LX
11. 8x32 LX
12. 10x42 LX L
12.1 12x50 SE (most)
The upside to the 12x50 SE is if you have never seen a purple tailed hawk, you will.
Some surprises on the list, like rating the 8x32 501 SE ahead of the 10x EDG.
The ED glass works well, but it's still a 10x roof with lead free glass, which is harder to control CA with than an 8x high quality lead glass porro.
Also, the 10x42 LX above the 8x32 LX. Surprised me, but I chalk it up to the much shorter FL on the 8x32.
Now that I'm older and am beginning to get cataracts in my eyes (the slow growing kind), I'm more sensitive to CA and I find myself really appreciating ED glass.
I had four ED porros but sold them because of various unwanted idiosyncrasies (narrowish FOV, long close focus, bad balance, small sweet spot, too much pincushion, loose mechanics, etc.).
Now I think it would have been worth living with the trade-offs or getting the bin repaired for the gain of the better CA control.
The 7x36 ED2 is the best of the ED bins I've tried because it has a wider FOV, VG ergonomics, tolerable pincushion, ample sweet spot, and tight mechanics, albeit too tight in the case of the focuser.
Well, clear summer skies are the great equalizer. Then CA is less of an issue than flaring.
As Emily Litella used to say: It's always something, if it's not one thing, it's another...
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Brock, CA in snow covered area IMO is the worst possible conditions for sure.
Regards,Steve
Regards,Steve
James Bean
Well-known member
Thanks very much for that information. I'm rather pleased the 502xxx has lead glass, like my Zeiss 10x40BGAT which still impresses despite being well over 20 years old. My Nikon 8x32SE arrived this morning, all the way from California, and it's a little gem. It sits in my hands as if made for them and the view is spectacular; clear, bright and sharp. With the rubber eyecups folded down I don't experience any 'kidney bean' effect (which is a great relief!) and the focus action is smooth and just right for me. The lens coatings are green with just a hint of blue/purple and build quality is superb, inspiring confidence. I've been reading the Nikon SE posts for some time and now understand why the SE has such rave reviews... wonderful! I've had to promise my wife not to buy any more binoculars, but if the SE proves to be as good as it seems on first acquaintance, I can live with that!
brocknroller
porromaniac
Jim,
You're welcome, and congratulations on the "new" SE.
Blackouts are the SE's "Achilles Heal" so if you've got that problem conquered, it's clear sailing (the SE isn't WP so I wouldn't take that literally
. A question for you. I almost bought a 10x40 B/GAT a while back ($600 at Cabelas), but I read a couple reports about it having distracting "rolling ball".
Ironically, I ended up buying a 10x42 LX instead, which had severe "rolling ball"!
If you've been following the discussions on the new SV EL, you know that some people see the "rolling ball" and others don't, or some see it but are able to ignore it and others find it terribly distracting.
I fall in the latter category when it comes to "rolling ball". I want to see my targets, not the optics, and I do a lot of panning while birding.
Do you see "rolling ball" while panning with the 10x40 Zeiss?
Can you see "rolling ball" in any bins? Even the SE has a some while panning, but it's quite mild.
P.S. Any relation to your namesake bourbon whiskey company?
"Brock, CA in snow covered area IMO is the worst possible conditions for sure.
Regards,Steve"
Amen. I once came out of a pupil dilating eye exam onto a snowy scene, and I saw violet blurs on all the edges, with naked eye! And I started wondering, if some eyeglass material could make a useful color correcting doublet, when combined with the eye's own lens. I am nearsighted, so my corrective lens is negative, the eye lens is positive, hey, it could happen. ?? But pretty soon, my eyes and brain had recovered.
Ron
Regards,Steve"
Amen. I once came out of a pupil dilating eye exam onto a snowy scene, and I saw violet blurs on all the edges, with naked eye! And I started wondering, if some eyeglass material could make a useful color correcting doublet, when combined with the eye's own lens. I am nearsighted, so my corrective lens is negative, the eye lens is positive, hey, it could happen. ?? But pretty soon, my eyes and brain had recovered.
Ron
"Brock, CA in snow covered area IMO is the worst possible conditions for sure.
Regards,Steve"
Amen. I once came out of a pupil dilating eye exam onto a snowy scene, and I saw violet blurs on all the edges, with naked eye! And I started wondering, if some eyeglass material could make a useful color correcting doublet, when combined with the eye's own lens. I am nearsighted, so my corrective lens is negative, the eye lens is positive, hey, it could happen. ?? But pretty soon, my eyes and brain had recovered.
Ron
For a couple of months after I had cataract surgery I could see it in my newly implanted lens with my naked eye. It was on the far edge of my peripheral vision. My Opthomalogist confirmed my diagnosis for me. Then my brain got used to it and I can no longer see it.
Bob
Last edited:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
"Brock, CA in snow covered area IMO is the worst possible conditions for sure.
Regards,Steve"
Amen. I once came out of a pupil dilating eye exam onto a snowy scene, and I saw violet blurs on all the edges, with naked eye! And I started wondering, if some eyeglass material could make a useful color correcting doublet, when combined with the eye's own lens. I am nearsighted, so my corrective lens is negative, the eye lens is positive, hey, it could happen. ?? But pretty soon, my eyes and brain had recovered.
Ron
Hello Ron,
My ophthalmologist once confirmed that the fully dilated pupil exhibits the worst aberrations. She was fearful about night time driving when a driver's vision is worst.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
James Bean
Well-known member
Brock: My 'new' (to me) 8x32SE, at 10 years old, was described as in perfect condition and I've no quarrel with that; it is unmarked, indistinguishable from new, and the Nikon case is very good too. The seller said it was ex-display (not a demo) from a glass case. I paid $440 (£275) + insured airmail, which I consider a bargain, after seeing brand new prices up to $699. As to it not being waterproof, I'm a fair-weather birder so my 'new' toy will have a very sheltered life (just like me!). It's going dark here now, so I'll come back to you on the 'rolling ball' query. I don't recall such a problem with the 10x40BGAT, although that may be because I've never looked for it!
John Dracon
John Dracon
Now this is just my opinion. The Nikon SEs are so well made, daily use with reasonable care over 10 years will have little wear to show. Whether a demo or display or used item, a purchaser has little to fear when getting a used SE, unless it is damaged and the seller is a crook. I buy every one I can get for less than $450 for friends and relatives. Brock's research on leaded and non-leaded SEs intriques me, since I have yet to compare the older and newer versions. All the ones I have run into are the older models. Brock, does the larger exit pupil of the ZR 7x36 ED2 come into play reducing off axis CA, or the lesser power? I noticed you rank the SE 12x50 having the most. Thanks for your analysis. John
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Brock,
I do not think that you may be much of a drinking man. That is James BEAM bourbon.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood B
James Bean
Well-known member
Brock: I have only two connections with 'James BEAM': a Zippo lighter engraved with it, in tribute to this 'sour mash' Kentucky Bourbon, and a liking for a tipple of said beverage. To prove how fair-minded I am, I also have an older Zippo lighter inscribed in favour of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey, and a tin in which I keep my binocular accoutrements, the lid celebrating Southern Comfort. As to 'James Bean', it's nothing to do with Rowan Atkinson's 'Mr. Bean' (though some may think I'm just as eccentric) but goes back to the 1960s when one of the lads with whom I shared an office in the local Town Hall bet me he could touch-type my full name (on an old Underwood typewriter) with his eyes closed and it came out as 'James Bean Bockeroon', by which I became known thenceforth. My real surname is that of an ancient village in rural Cheshire, reputedly 'the place of the bee-keepers'. Who started this ball rolling? I'll stop there, lest this rambling be attributed to a rolling ball effect...
spacepilot
Well-known member
The SE's are indeed a bargain, considering the view and the fact that they are selling today at lower prices than they were 10 years ago. If only there's someone out there can retrofit waterproofing bits to the SE's...
Ning
Ning
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Not the 502xxx, which has lead glass. The 505 was released in 2000 when Nikon said they changed over to lead free glass in all their optics, that's the "maybe" because if it was already designed in 1999, it might not have been "upgraded" with lead free glass.
But here's the trade-off, the 505 has better coatings than the 501 and probably 502, and provides better contrast and color saturation. The 505 coatings are also different than the 504 8x32 SE, though I haven't compared those two models side by side.
So I'm thinking that the 505s probably have lead free glass if they bothered to update the coatings. It's not that noticeable except in high contrast situations such snow banks and snow covered trees and most noticeable when I compare the SE with the ZR 7x36 ED2 on those same landscapes.
The SE shows a thick band of color fringing at about 60% from center whereas even at 80% out, the ZR has less CA. In fact, I have to really look for it on the same brightly light edge of snow covering my neighbor's car, just a wafer thin band of false color compared to the thicker band on the SE.
Looking through the snow covered trees, the CA is more noticeable on the SE whereas I can't see any with the ED2. The EII shows more CA than the SE on the trees.
I also don't see any false color on crows or hawks against a brightly lit sky with the ZR even when I let them drift far off axis. It's a pleasure just to watch the hawks and crows without worrying about having to center them to avoid color fringing.
I would rank the Nikons (and ZR) this way in terms of least off axis CA to most. This is using my "litmus test" - telephone pole wires against bright gray skies.
1. ZR 7x36 ED2 (least)
2. 7x35 E and 7x35 WF
3. 501 8x32 SE
4. 10x42 EDG
5. 505 8x32 SE
6. 8x30 EII
7. 8x42 LX
9. 10x42 SE
10. 10x42 LX
11. 8x32 LX
12. 10x42 LX L
12.1 12x50 SE (most)
The upside to the 12x50 SE is if you have never seen a purple tailed hawk, you will.
Some surprises on the list, like rating the 8x32 501 SE ahead of the 10x EDG.
The ED glass works well, but it's still a 10x roof with lead free glass, which is harder to control CA with than an 8x high quality lead glass porro.
Also, the 10x42 LX above the 8x32 LX. Surprised me, but I chalk it up to the much shorter FL on the 8x32.
Now that I'm older and am beginning to get cataracts in my eyes (the slow growing kind), I'm more sensitive to CA and I find myself really appreciating ED glass.
I had four ED porros but sold them because of various unwanted idiosyncrasies (narrowish FOV, long close focus, bad balance, small sweet spot, too much pincushion, loose mechanics, etc.).
Now I think it would have been worth living with the trade-offs or getting the bin repaired for the gain of the better CA control.
The 7x36 ED2 is the best of the ED bins I've tried because it has a wider FOV, VG ergonomics, tolerable pincushion, ample sweet spot, and tight mechanics, albeit too tight in the case of the focuser.
Well, clear summer skies are the great equalizer. Then CA is less of an issue than flaring.
As Emily Litella used to say: It's always something, if it's not one thing, it's another...
Brock:
Interesting your large list of bins and how they compare in CA. Were you able to test these all at the same time in order to maintain some control? It seems some people are very sensitive to CA and some are not. My eyes
have had lasik surgery, so I see 20:20 and I am a not young at age 54, and I can see CA but choose not to let it bother me, unless it is severe and if that would be the case, I would be carrying something else. The SE would seem to be harder to deal with for those with glasses, and those of us who don't require specs, are blessed as I just love the view with the cups out. One topic that could have its own thread would be how contact lenses
affect things, as I am sure some are using those also while glassing.
My view on the Nikon SE's and I have owned all 3 of them is, enjoy the view,
don't expect any changes, and get them while you can. I have found all 3 available new, and of course there is the used market. Nikons warranty is also very good, as they will continue to service these on the 25 year No-fault.
I have several high end bins, but my Nikon SE 8x32, would be the last one I
would part with. It seems I cannot find the same, I call it the "nice easy view" with anything else I've tried. :t:
Jerry
I remember coming home after a visit to the Ophthamologist in September. My pupils were fully dilated and twilight was just beginning. I was out on my deck and I looked up at Arcturus and said to myself, "That can't be Jupiter! Not there!." Then I figured it out, the few stars coming out looked much, much brighter with my pupils dilated! I looked in a mirror and I know they were more than 7mm-biggest I ever saw them.
Bob
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi James,
Congratulations on your new (vintage) SE. I bought a more recent one for $499 about a year ago, and now I'm feeling a bit smug.
I find it a great glass to use with glasses, — or is that redundant?I find it unfortunate but understandable that misconceptions are developing, — which probably can't be stopped given that they've already sprouted legs. Nonetheless, it might help to point out that there are several visual/motion induced perceptions that have similar consequences as the "globe effect," that is, they induce "curious" visual-motion percepts and/or nausea. "Motion sickness" itself one of them, but there are quite a few others. Deaf mutes, incidentally, tend not to be effected, so those folks are safe. All others, be cautious.
Sheldon Ebenholtz (Oculomotor Systems and Perception, 2001) summarizes 12 common situations that induce nausea, including our old friend, "viewing through binoculars." Yup, any binoculars. If you use them in the right way it can be accomplished. But, and here's the point, if curious visual percepts or nausea is induced from head motion one can not conclude it results from the rolling globe phenomenon.
As a case in point, I have long suspected that an illusion knowns as "vection" (a motion illusion sometimes accompanied by dizziness/nausea) is induced by scanning vertical tree forests with binoculars. The vection phenomenon has been studied extensively in laboratories using an apparatus like that shown below, and could easily be confused with rolling ball effects. http://www.answers.com/topic/vection
I'll probably regret bringing this up. :flyaway:
Ed
Attachments
Last edited:
