DavidP
Well-known member
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-8x32-se-cf-binoculars/p1002400
Still available this side of the Atlantic but I wonder for how long
-
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.
8x32 SE? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yippeekiay
- Start date
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-8x32-se-cf-binoculars/p1002400
Still available this side of the Atlantic but I wonder for how long
Yippeekiay
Well-known member
Being relatively new to birding I get easily confused by the markings. Especially when I don't have a guide right in front of me. Shorebirds are particularly troublesome. And my fiance's (older) guide show's solitary sandpipers as not usually in these parts. Hence, the reluctance to solidly state the ID.
No, my scope is mounted (on a window mount anyway) and gives a decent view. I'm sure it's just a pyschological discrepency. Maybe it's seeing with two vs one eye or something. Either way it's a step foward.
On another note I'm about positive Nikon stopped making SE's awhile back. There've been many threads stating such. Sad though it may be..
No, my scope is mounted (on a window mount anyway) and gives a decent view. I'm sure it's just a pyschological discrepency. Maybe it's seeing with two vs one eye or something. Either way it's a step foward.
On another note I'm about positive Nikon stopped making SE's awhile back. There've been many threads stating such. Sad though it may be..
spacepilot
Well-known member
Yippekiay, I have no experience with spotting scope, so I don't know how different it is birding with bins vs. scope. I'm glad that you positively ID'd the sandpipers with the SE's.
If you like porros, you might want to take a look at the Leupold Cascades porros (they have roofs with the same name, confusing...), which are recently discontinued as well. They offer very good optics, almost comparable to the SE's in the center IMHO, at about 1/3 of the price. Because of their internal focusing mechanism, they are sealed like roofs and are 100% water proof (at least the sticker says so). If you want a pair of water-proof 10x's for rainy days to back up your SE's, you might want to take a look before they are sold out everywhere like the SE's.
Cascades Porros Thread
Ning
If you like porros, you might want to take a look at the Leupold Cascades porros (they have roofs with the same name, confusing...), which are recently discontinued as well. They offer very good optics, almost comparable to the SE's in the center IMHO, at about 1/3 of the price. Because of their internal focusing mechanism, they are sealed like roofs and are 100% water proof (at least the sticker says so). If you want a pair of water-proof 10x's for rainy days to back up your SE's, you might want to take a look before they are sold out everywhere like the SE's.
Cascades Porros Thread
Ning
brocknroller
porromaniac
Nippon uber alles! Nippon uber alles! Nippon uber alles!
SHOUT it from the roof tops with me people so that YASUYUKI OKAMOTO can hear you from Nikon's office building in Tokyo!
Here's the lowdown, the 411, the straight skinny, the inside scoop, the whole nine yards on the evolution of the Nikon SE.
I bought mine in late 2000. It was made in 1998. Best darn optics I'd ever seen, though the hard rubber eyecups and my high-bridged nose were not bookmatched like Pinocchio's head and nose.
But I endured the pain, the suffering, the perpetual nose indents for the view. It's all about THE VIEW for optics fan(anatic)s. And I'm not talking about Baba Wawa and her co-hosts, ladies.
Many moons ago, while I was browsing BVD for new reviews I discovered that Steve Ingraham had dethroned the venerable but fuzzy edged Leica 8x32 as the roof standard in mid-sized birding bins and crowned the Nikon 8x32 LX as the new prince of pop along with the Nikon 8x32 SE.
He also named the 8x32 LX as the roof standard for the overall BEST BIRDING BINS IN THE WORLD!
The Oracle had spoken. So, of course, I had to have one.
I waited for a deal and bought an LX. The focuser was so fast that only Flash's eyes could keep up with the images.
So I sold it to Flash and resigned myself to my SE's precise but sluggish focuser (remember the "Six Million Dollar Man" running in slow motion, it moves like that).
However, I kept missing the extra zzzzzzip in the LX's image - the superior contrast and color depth that the Superior E lacked.
Sure, the SE was sharp, sharper than the LX by an element or at least a half an element on the USAF 1951 resolution chart (depending on the light levels and how dry my eyes were that day), but WHERE were those Jeep Wrangler yellows and those redder than Clinton's nose reds?
Then I found out on BF that all LX's were not created equal (Japan is not obliged to abide by the US Constitution).
So I bought a second sample, and lo and behold, the focuser worked like a charm. Smooth as as a baby's bottom and just the right amount of tension to get me to my target fast without overshooting.
And the images were the highest contrast and color saturated I'd ever seen through a bin. EYEGASMIC!
Okay, I'm getting to the SE, folks, I promise...
In fact, let's flash forward to today. After a week of rain, it was finally sunny today. So I went outside in my yard to compare four bins: 10x42 EDG, 8x32 LX, 8x32 SE (Premier model???), and 8x30 EII.
Since my cats scared away the birds, I was looking at a copper coil on the telephone pole just above where my new Ethernet cable is attached.
I could see several rows of tubing in the coil with the SE and the EII, but I couldn't see the rows with the LX. Too much shake, rattle, and roll.
So I turned the chair around and leaned my elbows on the back and lo and behold, again, I could see the rows of copper coils, not as easily as the with the SE or EII, and not because of that half element, but due to the better 3-D representation of the porros.
I also noticed this in the EDG even though it gives me steadier views than the LX due to its excellent open bridge design and large size, and it has better resolution than the eights (hear that Carmichael?).
To overstate the obvious, ergonomics count as much as optics. If you have great optics, but you can't hold the bin securely, you're wasting your time and money.
Secondly, porros provide better views of some objects simply because of the better 3-D effect.
The 8x32 SE fits my hands like a glove, not like OJ's glove [insert cymbal crash smiley here].
I modified the stubby (where's the beef?) 8x30 EII with Bushwackers and dewshields to improve the ergonomics so it's as easy to hold steady as the SE; otherwise, I'd be "Shakin' All Over" with them too.
Of course, I ate some chocolate not long before going out, which probably didn't help. The LX is normally steadier than it was today.
I've tried everything to make the LX steadier in my hands. I even designed a "fat suit" for it, but nothing has made the LX as steady in my XL-sized hands as the SE. Only a hand size reduction operation would work. My ex said she would help with that.
So the SE ruled ergonomically. But boy, I wished I could stuff those VIVID color LX optics and its smooth focuser in the body of my SE.
A couple weeks ago, I took my first look through my friend Steve's spankin' new PREMIER??? 8x32 SE, and Volare, oh, oh, I'm in binonirvana, oh, oh, oh, oh.
The focuser is as sluggish as my older SE, but the contrast and color depth is similar to my LX - not quite as good, but not far behind - and housed in a porro body that fits my big mitts better than my excellent but too short and narrow LX.
(NB: The LX is actually larger and wider than most 8x32 roofs, which gives you an idea of how "freakishly large" my hands are).
And here's the real surprise. The color rendition in the newer SE is as "true" as my LX.
The EII's color palette is slightly warmer (reds are slightly orangey, blues slightly purplish, and I do mean slightly , not nearly as skewed to the yellow side of the spectrum as the LX L, but just a bit "warmer" than the SE/LX.
I attributed this to the addition of lead-free glass in the EII, though I'm not sure if that is the reason, but I based this on looking at the differences in the color palette btwn the lead glass LX and lead-free glass LX L.
I concluded that Steve's model, though newer than the one I owned, has lead glass too, based on the true colors. Cyndi Lauper lives down the block from me, so I invited her over, and she took one look and agreed.
The newest models have serial #s starting with 550, and Steve's is older than that, but newer than my old one.
The Premier SEs have Eco-Glass, according to a dealer's ad I recently saw on eBay (he sold a new Premier 10x42 SE for $449 in one bid!).
In my limited experience with "Eco-Glass," lead-free glass without an ED element results in higher CA and a warmer skewed color palette (but I suppose that depends on what the manufacturer used to substitute for the lead, usually selenium from what I've read).
So the latest SEs have lead-free glass, but hopefully that would not result in noticeable color skewing but only a slight difference like the EII (which, btw, is so slight as to be undetectable to an eye that has not been trained in Fart School).
So the moral to this story is: Though unannounced, Nikon updated the coatings of the SE line sometime after 1998, and changed over to lead-free glass in the SE Premier series (but I don't know when that changeover occurred and my guess is that neither do Nikon customer reps).
These factoids are trivial pursuit to anyone but a true Nikon SE fan(natic).
But to me, it was enlightening. I had wondered if Nikon had updated the SE's coatings for quite some time, but all the samples I tried were older models like mine, but now I can confirm that the newer Nikon SE's optics do have improved coatings, which give higher contrast and better color depth, while retaining the great edge performance and that famous "Nikon view".
Ω
(the artiste formerly known as "Pauper")
Last edited:
Brock, This is indeed a revelation! Are you able to post the first four of the ser #'s of both your bin and his? My 8x32 SE's were first obtained by the dealer in 92 and has the first for of 5042xx... Where does this seem to fit in with your two 8's?
By the way my neighbor Madonna wanted me to say hello to you and Cindy...
Brock,Nippon uber alles! Nippon uber alles! Nippon uber alles!
SHOUT it from the roof tops with me people so that YASUYUKI OKAMOTO can hear you from Nikon's office building in Tokyo!
Here's the lowdown, the 411, the straight skinny, the inside scoop, the whole nine yards on the evolution of the Nikon SE.
I bought mine in late 2000. It was made in 1998. Best darn optics I'd ever seen, though the hard rubber eyecups and my high-bridged nose where not bookmatched like Pinocchio's head and nose.
But I endured the pain, the suffering, the perpetual nose indents for the view. It's all about THE VIEW for optics fan(anatic)s. And I'm not talking about Baba Wawa and her co-hosts, ladies.
Many moons ago, while I was browsing BVD for new reviews I discovered that Steve Ingraham had dethroned the venerable but fuzzy edged Leica 8x32 as the roof standard in mid-sized birding bins and crowned the Nikon 8x32 LX as the new prince of pop along with the Nikon 8x32 SE.
He also named the 8x32 LX as the roof standard for the overall BEST BIRDING BINS IN THE WORLD!
The Oracle had spoken. So, of course, I had to have one.
I waited for a deal and bought an LX. The focuser was so fast that only Flash's eyes could keep up with the images.
So I sold it to Flash and resigned myself to my SE's percise but sluggish focuser (remember the "Six Million Dollar Man" running in slow motion, it moves like that).
However, I kept missing the extra zzzzzzip in the LX's image - the superior contrast and color depth that the Superior E lacked.
Sure, the SE was sharp, sharper than the LX by an element or at least a half an element on the USAF 1951 resolution chart (depending on the light levels and how dry my eyes were that day), but WHERE were those Jeep Wrangler yellows and those redder than Clinton's nose reds?
Then I found out on BF that all LX's were not created equal (Japan is not obliged to abide by the US Constitution).
So I bought a second sample, and lo and behold, the focuser worked like a charm. Smooth as as a baby's bottom and just the right amount of tension to get me to my target fast without overshooting.
And the images were the highest contrast and color saturated I'd ever seen through a bin. EYEGASMIC!
Okay, I'm getting to the SE, folks, I promise...
In fact, let's flash forward to today. After a week of rain, it was finally sunny today. So I went outside in my yard to compare four bins: 10x42 EDG, 8x32 LX, 8x32 SE (Premier model???), and 8x30 EII.
Since my cats scared away the birds, I was looking at a copper coil on the telephone pole just above where my new Ethernet cable is attached.
I could see several rows of tubing in the coil with the SE and the EII, but I couldn't see the rows with the LX. Too much shake, rattle, and roll.
So I turned the chair around and leaned my elbows on the back and lo and behold, again, I could see the rows of copper coils, not as easily as the with the SE or EII, and not because of that half element, but due to the better 3-D representation of the porros.
I also noticed this in the EDG even though it gives me steadier views than the LX due to its excellent open bridge design and large size, and it has better resolution than the eights (hear that Carmichael?).
To overstate the obvious, ergonomics count as much as optics. If you have great optics, but you can't hold the bin securely, you're wasting your time and money.
Secondly, porros provide better views of some objects simply because of the better 3-D effect.
The 8x32 SE fits my hands like a glove, not like OJ's glove [insert cymbal crash smiley here].
I modified the stubby (where's the beef?) 8x30 EII with Bushwackers and dewshields to improve the ergonomics so it's as easy to hold steady as the SE; otherwise, I'd be "Shakin' All Over" with them too.
Of course, I ate some chocolate not long before going out, which probably didn't help. The LX is normally steadier than it was today.
I've tried everything to make the LX steadier in my hands. I even designed a "fat suit" for it, but nothing has made the LX as steady in my XL-sized hands as the SE. Only a hand size reduction operation would work. My ex said she would help with that.
So the SE ruled ergonomically. But boy, I wished I could stuff those VIVID color LX optics and its smooth focuser in the body of my SE.
A couple weeks ago, I took my first look through my friend Steve's spankin' new PREMIER??? 8x32 SE, and Volare, oh, oh, I'm in binonirvana, oh, oh, oh, oh.
The focuser is as sluggish as my older SE, but the contrast and color depth is similar to my LX - not quite as good, but not far behind - and housed in a porro body that fits my big mitts better than my excellent but too short and narrow LX.
(NB: The LX is actually larger and wider than most 8x32 roofs, which gives you an idea of how "freakishly large" my hands are).
And here's the real surprise. The color rendition in the newer SE is as "true" as my LX.
The EII's color palette is slightly warmer (reds are slightly orangey, blues slightly purplish, and I do mean slightly , not nearly as skewed to the yellow side of the spectrum as the LX L, but just a bit "warmer" than the SE/LX.
I attributed this to the addition of lead-free glass in the EII, though I'm not sure if that is the reason, but I based this on looking at the differences in the color palette btwn the lead glass LX and lead-free glass LX L.
I concluded that Steve's model, though newer than the one I owned, has lead glass too, based on the true colors. Cyndi Lauper lives down the block from me, so I invited her over, and she took one look and agreed.
The newest models have serial #s starting with 550, and Steve's is older than that, but newer than my old one.
The Premier SEs have Eco-Glass, according to a dealer's ad I recently saw on eBay (he sold a new Premier 10x42 SE for $449 in one bid!).
In my limited experience with "Eco-Glass," lead-free glass without an ED element results in higher CA and a warmer skewed color palette (but I suppose that depends on what the manufacturer used to substitute for the lead, usually selenium from what I've read).
So the latest SEs have lead-free glass, but hopefully that would not result in noticeable color skewing but only a slight difference like the EII (which, btw, is so slight as to be undetectable to an eye that has not been trained in Fart School).
So the moral to this story is: Though unannounced, Nikon updated the coatings of the SE line sometime after 1998, and changed over to lead-free glass in the SE Premier series (but I don't know when that changeover occurred and my guess is that neither do Nikon customer reps).
These factoids are trivial pursuit to anyone but a true Nikon SE fan(natic).
But to me, it was enlightening. I had wondered if Nikon had updated the SE's coatings for quite some time, but all the samples I tried were older models like mine, but now I can confirm that the newer Nikon SE's optics do have improved coatings, which give higher contrast and better color depth, while retaining the great edge performance and that famous "Nikon view".
Ω
(the artiste formerly known as "Pauper")
It sounds like a lot of guessing to me. Any facts, serial numbers, etc. to back up what you say?
John
jaymoynihan
Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher
Some vendor sites list the 8x32 SE as special order. It seems Nikon still has them on their site. Can one really special order them?
John Dracon
John Dracon
Brock - My SE 8x32 is an earlier model and the favorite in my collection of almost too many binoculars. You hypothesize that Nikon has introduced a few variables, i.e., lead free glass and coatings, over the years. Perhaps you are correct. I suggest that another variable, viz., how our eyes individually see color may easily account for some of these nuances you describe. The assumption that all models (SEs for example) are equal in optical quality may not be accurate. We also know that the so-called color blind tests (green & red) can identify persons who see color differently. My right eye sees colors as vivid, but my left eye sees colors more washed out. This went unnoticed for years until I began to use spotting scopes. In any respects your observations only confirm what my eyes tell me, the 8x32 SE is one dandy binocular. John
brocknroller
porromaniac
John,
I prefer to use the term "educated guess".
The serial # of my sample began with 501, Steve's is 505, and the Premier SE in the Amart ad that was up for 60 seconds before the seller deleted it was 550 (the seller said it was purchased new a month ago; he also owns two 8x32 LXs, so that tells you something, not sure what, but something
. I saw another Premier SE posted on BF recently with "505" as the beginning serial numbers (see attached photo).
However, the fact that a 504 (mentioned above) was bought in '92 throws off this progressive # scheme.
That is, 501 = 1998, 505 = 2002. Unlike Zeiss, which does or did use serial numbers tied to progressive years, Nikon might use their serial #s differently, for example, to identify the factory at which it was made.
The non-linearity of Nikon serial #s has been mentioned by others on BF.
However, I have seen 501, 502, 503, 504, and 505 all used in beginning three serial #s of the 8x SE, so the jump to "550" might indicate some major change such as the introduction of lead-free glass.
The following excerpt was taken from B & H Photo's ad for the "Nikon 8x32 Premier SE":
"The Premier SE series are Nikon's ultimate birding porro prism binoculars. Nikon's exclusive lead/arsenic free Eco-Glass is employed in the manufacturing."
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/146143-USA/Nikon_7381_8x32_Premier_SE_Binocular.html#features
Here's another clue for you all.. the 505 8x32 has the letters "HGP" stamped on the bottom of the front end cap ("Made in Japan" on top of the cap). Perhaps the SE armor's "protein skin" was sequenced in the Human Genome Project?
To the best of my recollection the 501 did not have any letters stamped on the bottom of the front end cap, and neither does the 8x30 EII.
My 8x32 LX has "AG" on the bottom of the focuser ("Made in Japan" on top).
Could this be "A.G." Optics Co.,Ltd., in South Korea, which manufactures non-spherical and spherical glass lenses?
I know the FTC laws governing the label "Made in USA" requires that 70% of the parts must be made in the US.
A US product that includes foreign components may also be called "Assembled in USA" without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S.
Perhaps Japan has similar laws whereby it can label the LX as being "Made in Japan" while using some parts made in other countries?
I didn't record the serial #s of the three 10x42 SEs I tried (though one started with 002) or the three 12x50 SEs (Steve has one of them), but I can state unequivocally that the contrast and color depth were the same as my 501.
I had each SE for weeks and used them frequently and carefully compared them to each other and other bins (except for one of the 10x42 SE samples, which I only used once).
This was possible because two of my friends (Steve and Walter) have more than one SE so I gathered them together to compare.
Other than increased CA and smaller FOV as you go up in power, the image quality in the SEs I tried up until the 505 8x were identical.
In fact, the image quality was more consistent than any other series of bins I've tried.
Three other differences between the 501 and 505 that I didn't mention:
(1) the eyecups on the 501 were hard rubber, the 505 has a thinner Latex-type eyecup, which scrunches more easily and comfortably between my nose (and thus, for the first time, my eyes can get close enough to the EPs to see the infamous blackouts); and
(2) the image scale in the 505 is larger than the 501 (also compared to my Nikons 8x30 EII and 8x35 WF).
(3) one of the open end connectors on the 505's rainguard, which are notorious for falling off the strap, was closed with a seamless black plastic clasp, which made me wonder if it were factory made. It might have been added by the original owner, because the owner of 550 SE had to add plastic cable ties to his (see photo). I closed my "loops" using electrical tape.
All these observations might not satisfy your need for facts, John, and I would like to see harder evidence myself. However, I don't think you'll find a lot of "etc." other than others' observations.
Nikon has kept "mum" about the changes it made to the SE coatings and glass up until the Premier series, and the lack of consistency in the serial #s makes changes hard to track.
Nikon did not print the word "Premier" on their new SEs like they did on their latest LX Ls. So the serial #s (550) are the only thing we can use to identify a Premier model. However, it it possible that Nikon switched over to lead-free glass BEFORE the 550 series, without fanfare.
From what I can determine from looking at the 505 8x SE and comparing it to my LX and EII, it does not appear to have lead-free glass, but I can't confirm that with absolute certainty.
However, two things are certain - Nikon updated its SE coatings at some point and changed over to lead-free glass in its Premier SE models.
If anyone has better documented information on matters pertinent to this investigation, I invite them to contact our Bird Forum SE Fact Finding Commission Chairman John. (don't forgot to "Cc" me, the Vice-Chairman
.Brock
Attachments
Last edited:
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
That a dealer acquired an SE in 1992 cannot be correct. Steve Ingraham first published a review of the 8x32 in February 1998. In that article he stated that he had been given the opportunity to handle "serial #1" of the bin in autumn 1997.
I bought mine (sn 502XXX) in June 2000, and by Brock's reckoning, it would have been made in 1999. The end cap on mine has "HGP" at the bottom.
Regarding my feelings for my SE, I have to quote Charlton Heston: "from my cold dead hands." I have not compared it to other SEs or to the LX to the extent that Brock has, but in brief comparisons to the LX a few times, I did not notice any superiority on the LX's part in any image characteristic. I will say for the umpteenth time that I hate the LX's fast focus and the excessive CA.
I too have noticed the statements on some websites about the SE being a "special order" item and have wondered if Nikon is going to do another production run. So this time with twistup eyecups and better sealing? Mine have certainly sucked in their share of dust.
I bought mine (sn 502XXX) in June 2000, and by Brock's reckoning, it would have been made in 1999. The end cap on mine has "HGP" at the bottom.
Regarding my feelings for my SE, I have to quote Charlton Heston: "from my cold dead hands." I have not compared it to other SEs or to the LX to the extent that Brock has, but in brief comparisons to the LX a few times, I did not notice any superiority on the LX's part in any image characteristic. I will say for the umpteenth time that I hate the LX's fast focus and the excessive CA.
I too have noticed the statements on some websites about the SE being a "special order" item and have wondered if Nikon is going to do another production run. So this time with twistup eyecups and better sealing? Mine have certainly sucked in their share of dust.
However, the fact that a 504 (mentioned above) was bought in '92 throws off this progressive # scheme.
That is, 501 = 1998, 505 = 2002. Unlike Zeiss, which does or did use serial numbers tied to progressive years, Nikon might use their serial #s differently, for example, to identify the factory at which it was made.]
Sorry Brock! To much sauce I guess B
Just went down to Sportsmans Warehouse and picked up the 2009 Nikon Sport Optics catalog.... No mention of SE's at all. Nothing, nada :-C This is a bummer! But maybe they could have decided to make a limited run sometime after the catalog was printed?
By the way... Virtually every Nikon binocular and spotting scope I can think of is in it...
Bob,
Nikon changed to lead free glass in stages. It wasn't until 2008 that Nikon finally claimed 100% utilization of eco-glass in sport optics.
http://www.nikon.com/about/csr/environment/products/products02/index.htm
The SE was formally discontinued (reps openly made this claim) in 2008, the same time all Nikon sport optics became lead-free. Interesting.
John
PS
I have 504's, 505's and a 550. All are virtually identical.
RJM
Don't Worry, Be Happy!
Well to be clear, neither the SE's nor the venerable EII's have been discontinued. They are just no longer sold in the USA market. The are still being made and sold in the rest of the world. Curiously, the EDG binoculars only seem to be made and sold for the USA market and to be vaporware everywhere else.
cheers,
Rick
cheers,
Rick
Last edited:
Hi John,
That is interesting. I would have assumed that if Nikon ran a new production series for their SE line (for instance, the new 550 series after the 505 series sold out) they would give them the most modern glass they had available.
I know that my 10 x 42 (SN 005xxx), based on the reflections, has different coatings on the objectives than my 8 x 32 (SN 505xxx).
Bob
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
Nikon indeed changed to (or is about to change to?) Eco-glass in the SE.
On the webpages for the SE on Nikon USA's website, it is stated that the SE is made with Eco-glass. As has been the case for years, even after the SE was supposedly discontinued, the SE is treated as a current product on the website. For quite awhile no suggested retail price was stated, but now "estimated selling prices" are stated for all three SEs ($729.95 for the 8x32).
Perhaps this is additional evidence that a new production run of the SE has commenced?
Maybe Myron or somebody else at Nikon can divulge whether the SE is about to be re-released. And surely somebody at Nikon should be able and willing to share information about the use of Eco-glass over the years of SE production, as well as changes in coatings and the sequence of serial numbers. This is pretty innocuous stuff, hardly a threat to company security.
On the webpages for the SE on Nikon USA's website, it is stated that the SE is made with Eco-glass. As has been the case for years, even after the SE was supposedly discontinued, the SE is treated as a current product on the website. For quite awhile no suggested retail price was stated, but now "estimated selling prices" are stated for all three SEs ($729.95 for the 8x32).
Perhaps this is additional evidence that a new production run of the SE has commenced?
Maybe Myron or somebody else at Nikon can divulge whether the SE is about to be re-released. And surely somebody at Nikon should be able and willing to share information about the use of Eco-glass over the years of SE production, as well as changes in coatings and the sequence of serial numbers. This is pretty innocuous stuff, hardly a threat to company security.
brocknroller
porromaniac
However, the fact that a 504 (mentioned above) was bought in '92 throws off this progressive # scheme.
That is, 501 = 1998, 505 = 2002. Unlike Zeiss, which does or did use serial numbers tied to progressive years, Nikon might use their serial #s differently, for example, to identify the factory at which it was made.]
Sorry Brock! To much sauce I guess B
Never touch the stuff (I do lean my head back on the bar and let the waitress pour Jello shots in my mouth, but I never touch the stuff!
As Jon stated above, Steve Ingraham reviewed the SE in 1998, the same year mine was sold by B & H Photo, NY, NY. I have the shipping order right in front of me, dated 11/22/98.
The 8x32 SE was released in 1998, so this means that the first 8x32 SE serial number does start with 501, as I earlier "guessed".
Here's Nikon's history Website, if you still doubt it:
The SE series started with the 10x42 SE, introduced in 1995, and then they added the 8x32 and 12x50 SE in 1998.
http://www.nikon.com/about/info/history/products/index_03.htm
Kudos to our Chairman John and the other members of the BF SE Fact Finding Commission for digging up all this info on the venerable SE series.
We are gaining ground on unraveling one of the greatest optics mysteries ever - what makes the Nikon SE so damned good? Maybe Aunt Jemima knows.
Brock
Last edited:
