10X32 Nikon LX-L impressions (1 Viewer)

I am from India and this is my first post at Bird Forum.

I had an old Nikon Action 16X50 which was used as my primary birding glass for a long time even though it was badly out of collimation. My wife complained of constant headaches on using these which forced me to buy her an Olympus 10X50 Trooper, which unfortunately is the only easily available binocular here in India.

After the badly collimated Actions this was like 'WOW'. The difference was that huge. I could almost never find any bird due the severely restricted FOV of the Actions and I had to constantly remove my glasses to be able to see the full FOV as it has a very bad eye relief. But I continued birding with my Actions and my wife continued birding with here Troopers for at least a year before I discovered Birdforum.

I knew immediately that I needed better glass and so after lots research on the internet I zeroed upon the Nikon LX-L 10X32 and the Celestron Ultima DX 8X32 .

The idea here was to have a 10X and an 8X in both the porro and a roof design in a relatively compact housing and see for ourselves what magnification suits us better before we could commit to a Zeiss FL or an EDG later.
It is impossible to try out binocs here in India and then return them if they did not suit you. So I had a friend who was on visit here, to deliver these binocs to me.

I knew I was taking a big risk with the 10X32 configuration but I was sure the optics of the LX-L would not be mediocre by any standards.

Plenty has been written about the Celestron by other bird forum members and almost none about the Nikon so I will write about my experiences with the LX-L

You can read my impressions on the Celestron Ultima DX 8X32 here

http://binocularsforbirding.blogspot.com/

Out of the classy looking box, which is made in China, the leather pouch which held these binoculars is of a very high quality. But it does not have a carrying strap and I wish it came with one. The binoculars are made in Japan and are beautifully finished with a thick rubber armoring and a solid build. These definitely look like they will serve me for a long time without anything failing or breaking.
The 3 stop click locking rubber eye cups are very well made and the eye relief is more than generous to use with my eye glasses. I loved the locking diopter adjustment and smoothness of the focusing knob. The objective covers are really poor in their intended purpose especially on the field. These are so loose that I am sure they would fall off within no time.

The 340 feet at 1000 yards / 6.5 degree FOV is better than most 10X binocs out in the market. This was the primary reason I went in for the 10X32 Nikon LX-L. I wanted a binoc with 10X mag and a wide field of view that had a relatively small, compact body.

The Optics of this binocular are first rate. The view is very relaxing and the binocular totally disappears once I start viewing through it. By this I mean there is absolutely no tunneling or the impression of viewing through a tube. All I see is the crisp, unfatigued view without any black walls or obstructions on the sides.

Sharpness is very good right up to the edge without any noticeable field of curvature. The focusing is perfect for a birding binocular if you ask me. Very fast and precise. Half a turn of the extremely smooth focusing wheel is all it takes from close distances to relatively long distances in the region I usually find my birds at. Depth of field is quite shallow especially compared to my 8X Celestron. But the fast focusing more than makes up for it. I need more testing to really compare the DOF between these 2 binoculars.

Sharpness is about equal in both the Celestron and the Lx-L especially at the center but the Celestron has a slightly better contrast and a certain 3D like effect as compared to the LX-L. At the edges there is absolutely no contest as the LX-L trounces the Celestron which has a significant field of curvature at the outer 25% of the FOV. The Nikon seems to have almost the same sharpness at the edge as it has at the center.

I have found that the image size in the LX-L is larger than the equivalent image size on the 10X Olympus Trooper. Looks like this is a common phenomenon in roofs as compared to porros.

The only flaw of the LX-L worth mentioning is a little amount of CA I sometimes see as compared to the Celestron. It does not really bother me too much but better CA control would have surely made this a much better binoc than it currently is. I guess this is the only Achilles heel of the LX-L line of binocs which other wise compare quite well, as I have read, with the other big 3 binoc manufacturers.


Regards,

Mayur

Great review

Thanks for the review Mayur. I have the Celestron Ultima DX and I'm amazed at how good they are for the price. The Nikon 10x32's are binoculars that I've looked at but haven't acquired yet. The 10x32 configuration doesn't seem to be very popular with forum members because the exit pupil is getting a little small, but I've got Canon 10x30 IS and I have no complaints about them. You gave a surprisingly sophisticated review for someone who had so little experience with good binoculars! I hope you'll keep posting.

Another binocular you should add to your list of possibilities is the Leupold Cascades 8x42 porro prisms. I just bought a pair based on reviews by FrankD. They have the most dramatic 3D effect and dept of field of any binoculars I've every used. They really are spectacular. Their field of view is a little narrow, but I think that is a small price to pay for the arrestingly beautiful views they provide. Your wife would probably love them. They are one of the few internal focusing porro prism binoculars on the market. They combine the optical quality of porros with the ergonomics of roofs.

I visited India 20 years ago to attend a friend's wedding. You've got some spectacular birds there. I'm glad you're finally getting some decent binoculars so you can take full advantage of the birding opportunities there. Good quality binoculars make all the difference in the world. I really think they enhance reality.

Hi Mayur,
Your review is excellent and perceptive!

You can read an excellent and favorable review of the Nikon 10 x 32 in the link below. It is part of the 01/2004 review of the Leica 10 x 42 Ultravid, which is compared with 5 alpha 10x binoculars. This review is in English. It is written by Kimmo Absetz and is from the now defunct Finnish birding magazine, "Alula."

I have the Nikon 10 x 32 LX L and I am largely in agreement with your excellent review. BTW, I also own the Celestron and I submitted one of the reviews on it you noted above.

I'm not really bothered by CA. (One of the fortunate few, I guess.) I use my 10 x 32 quite often on my deck in the late afternoon and evening and I find that it is brighter than my Nikon 8 x 30 EII, a porro prism, in the evening hour. I use it looking into the nearby woods a lot and I find the DOF to be quite good, but the focus wheel, as you noted, is very fast and I think that gives one the initial impression that the DOF is shallow. After a bit of use, you get used to "tweaking" it and I think you will find it satisfactory for a 10x. And they are surprisingly easy to use for a binocular with a 3.2 exit pupil.

Bob
http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_1_topbinoculars_GB.shtml

BinoBoy: Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. Yes the kind of bird life we see here is quite spectacular. I am looking to get another 8X bin along with a spotting scope asap. The LX-L is not very good at spotting birds in typical broad leafed Indian forests and the Celestron does a lot better in here than the Nikon.

Where the LX-L truly shines in at raptor watching or gazing migratory/resident water birds at wetlands or river beds. The high magnification coupled with larger than porro binoc image size always makes me want to pick the Nikon over the Celestron when ever I am birding at such places.

Bob: Thanks!! I am glad that you liked my impressions on the Nikon. I did read the Alula review by Kimmo Absetz but was under the impression that he had reviewed the older LX and not the newer LX-L. I guess from what I have read, the LX or the HG that was reviewed by him, has better CA control and has a better contrast than the LX-L ,though is slightly heavier and probably a shade less brighter.

I really appreciate the efforts and thoughts of people like you and others, who are the only source of information for many like me, who don't have access to try out various sports optics before they can finalize their purchases on the best possible bang for their buck.

Regards,

Mayur

mannukiddo said:

BinoBoy: Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. Yes the kind of bird life we see here is quite spectacular. I am looking to get another 8X bin along with a spotting scope asap. The LX-L is not very good at spotting birds in typical broad leafed Indian forests and the Celestron does a lot better in here than the Nikon .................................................................................................
................................................................................................................

I really appreciate the efforts and thoughts of people like you and others, who are the only source of information for many like me, who don't have access to try out various sports optics before they can finalize their purchases on the best possible bang for their buck.

Regards,

Mayur

Click to expand...

Thanks Mayur,
We are always happy to give advice, and some times it is even good!

By the way: Welcome to Bird Forum!

It sounds like a good 7 x 42 would be perfect for your forests. It's what I use in my area when I am out looking for Warblers. Most 7 x 42's naturally have very large exit pupils, are very bright, have wide FOV's and very expansive DOF's. I agree that a 10x is not the best tool for this kind of birding.
Bob

Mayur. I'm not sure how close you bird in the forest or how dense the forests you are birding in (though I suspect in the hills outside of Mumbai they're not exactly temperate parkland with well separated trees ).

So you might even consider a 6x (6x30, 6x32 or 6.5x32) for all the reasons Bob says particularly depth of field, rapid focusing and close focus. And they're all pretty lightweight too.

There are a few choices out there in both roofs and porros (though the latter tend not to focus quite as close as one would like if you need that).

They would also complement the other bins you have.

Very nice review. Admittedly I am not a big fan of the 10x32 configuration but I have a feeling something of the quality level of the LXL would probably change my mind. Glad to hear you gave the Celestrons a go as well. They are an excellent value for the money.

FrankD said:

Very nice review. Admittedly I am not a big fan of the 10x32 configuration but I have a feeling something of the quality level of the LXL would probably change my mind.

Click to expand...

Yes the 10X32 configuration had me worried too, especially since I had never tried it. But the Nikon 16X50 which I had used before has almost the same exit pupil as the 10X32 and I was ok with it for quite some time.
For me the LX-L isnt any worse to to use than the Celestron and is very bright.

Regards,

Mayur

Mayur - I have been using the Nikon 10x32 LX since it came out. Very good glass. Super fast focus takes some time to learn. Frankly, I wish it were a bit slower and stiffer. It is easy to move away from infinity or any setting you have. Some claim the Nikon LXL glass isn't as good, but I haven't made a comparison to verify that. Nice compact bino with extra power that is often handy to have. John

John Dracon said:

Mayur - I have been using the Nikon 10x32 LX since it came out. Very good glass. Super fast focus takes some time to learn. Frankly, I wish it were a bit slower and stiffer. It is easy to move away from infinity or any setting you have. Some claim the Nikon LXL glass isn't as good, but I haven't made a comparison to verify that. Nice compact bino with extra power that is often handy to have. John

Click to expand...

John,

I've owned two 8x32 LXs. The first one had a looser focuser like you described with your 10x32. It was too fast.

I would overshoot my target and then have to refocus, which played havoc on my focus accommodation, causing me to refocus the right diopter too.

The second sample's focuser is smooth and precise, which is very much needed with a binocular that takes only half a turn to go from close focus to infinity.

I've wanted to buy a 10x32 LX (not LX L, better low light performance, but the brightness comes at the expense of contrast on sunny days, IMO), but I have been reluctant, because I might get one with a loose focuser.

This is a glitch in Nikon's QC. The Monarchs had the opposite problem, some focusers were too tight.

Hopefully, Nikon worked this "bug" out with its new EDG series, but at $1,800, I'm not likely to buy one until its been out for quite a while, and I see a heavily discounted used sample for sale.

In any case, I would advise you to send your 10x32 LX to Nikon for repairs, perhaps they can tighten the focuser for you. Even if you don't have the original warranty, it's only $20 under Nikon "No Fault" repair policy for used bins.

I'm not sure what causes this focuser variation. I thought perhaps they loosen with time or with exposure to extremes in weather, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I've had my 8x32 LX for four years and use it frequently and I've had it out in 90* F and 0* F weather, and the focuser is still as good as it was when I first got it.

Perhaps it is due to spotty manufacturing in applying the focuser grease or perhaps at some point Nikon switched to heavier grease, and the Toulouse-Lautrec ones are older production models???

Whatever the case, I can tell you that your LX's focuser could be slower and more precise than it is, which would probably enhance your enjoyment of the bins.

Brock

John: Yes agreed the focuser is quite fast but not as fast as to overshoot my target. It is very well damped and stiff enough to be a joy to use, IMHO, perfect if you ask me. It is no where as fast as you describe. There definitely seems to be a problem with your sample.

Mayur

The focus wheels on the LX L's are fast and REMARKABLY smooth but not in any way loose. There is enough stiffness (or tension, if you will) to avoid any "backlash" that would cause one to habitually overshoot the object being focused on. One gets used to it very quickly. This feeling of fastness can likely be attributed to the short distance the focus wheel must be turned to go from closeup to infinity and the smoothness of the focus wheel. (It is probably the smoothest focusing wheel in the industry!) With my 8 x 32 and 10 x 32 one goes from closeup to infinity in a 1/2 turn or 180 degrees. If it continues to "spin" after your finger is removed, something is wrong with it.
Bob

ceasar said:

The focus wheels on the LX L's are fast and REMARKABLY smooth but not in any way loose. There is enough stiffness (or tension, if you will) to avoid any "backlash" that would cause one to habitually overshoot the object being focused on. One gets used to it very quickly. This feeling of fastness can likely be attributed to the short distance the focus wheel must be turned to go from closeup to infinity and the smoothness of the focus wheel. (It is probably the smoothest focusing wheel in the industry!) With my 8 x 32 and 10 x 32 one goes from closeup to infinity in a 1/2 turn or 180 degrees. If it continues to "spin" after your finger is removed, something is wrong with it.
Bob

Click to expand...

The focuser on my first sample 8x32 LX was so loose that I had to keep my finger resting on it to keep the focus "locked" otherwise it would change focus when I moved the bins.

I read the BF review section on this bin, and the "too fast focuser" seemed to be a common complaint so I thought it was the "norm" and sold mine and told the buyer about the focuser, but he was okay with it.

I also let my friend use it, and he thought it was okay too. So I guess some people have better focus accommodation than others, but for me, it was annoying to use.

Then I read a thread on the 8x32 LX that revealed all LX focusers were not created equal so I decided to try a second sample, and I even asked the seller about the focuser. He replied it was fast but smooth and precise, and that's how I would describe my current sample.

I also tried a 10x42 LX with a "too fast" focuser.

Being that the mid-sized LX focuser goes from close focus to infinity in only half a turn, the focuser is usually described as "fast" in reviews or by owners, but as I've learned firsthand, there's "fast" and "too fast," and it's sometimes hard to determine the difference in corresponding with someone, though easy to tell once you get the bin in your hands.

I've tried six different Nikon SE samples (1 8x32, 3 10x42s, 2 12x50s), and none had loose focusers. If anything, the opposite is true, the focusers are too slow - not stiff, but it takes a long time to go from close focus to infinity, and the small, skinny focus wheel adds to this sluggishness.

If you have the opportunity, "try before you buy" is the best advice for a prospective LX buyer.

That's good advice for buying any bin, but especially ones with "quirks" such as the LX focuser speed/tension issue and the SE's blackouts issue.

Brock

I find the fast focus of my LX great and the very slow focus of the SE impossible. They were a specialty glass for me--hawk watch, where you didn't need to focus. I have the 8x32 LX and it is fine, I have only occasionally been confused in backlit situations by CA. David