Yes. I agree the on-axis view of the SE is one of the best available if not the best. I don't think it is really any sharper than the EII though although the edges of the SE are a LITTLE sharper than the EII. I just like that movie screen view with the EII which is almost like the new 3D TV's. Very nice binoculars for less than $400.00. A pair went for sale on Astromart a couple of months ago for $350.00 and they sold in a few hours which is a testament to their popularity and legendary optics.
-
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.
Spoiled by the SE view...now what? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Super Dave
- Start date
Yes. I agree the on-axis view of the SE is one of the best available if not the best. I don't think it is really any sharper than the EII though although the edges of the SE are a LITTLE sharper than the EII. I just like that movie screen view with the EII which is almost like the new 3D TV's. Very nice binoculars for less than $400.00. A pair went for sale on Astromart a couple of months ago for $350.00 and they sold in a few hours which is a testament to their popularity and legendary optics.
To the original question, I have not used the 32mm SE, but have an 8x30 Fujinon which everbody says is optically almost indistinguishable from that SE, and I certainly get what you are saying.
I have, however, considerable experience with a 10x42 SE, and have not seen anything that will beat it. The FL has only a hair less CA, and considerably more astigmatic blur near the edge. If you just must spend some money, yeah, buy a Swarovision, and pray for rain.
Ron
I have, however, considerable experience with a 10x42 SE, and have not seen anything that will beat it. The FL has only a hair less CA, and considerably more astigmatic blur near the edge. If you just must spend some money, yeah, buy a Swarovision, and pray for rain.
Ron
Have you tried a Nikon 10x35 EII? It might be able to compete with your 10 x42 SE. Here is a pair of two really good binoculars on E-bay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-10x35-E2-...160519595177?pt=Binocular&hash=item255fb6a4a9
Last edited:
David Swain
Well-known member
I'm one of the Come-Lately crowd, having gotten EIIs only this summer from a shop in Philly closing out some new old stock 8x30 for the 2004 price. While I share Dennis' enthusiasm for the huge picture-window effect and overall "wow" factor, they are far from perfect. I have tried friends' SEs (both 8x and 10x) and much prefer the rugged housing, strap attachment point, and especially the crisp, comparatively even view. For looking at nature, and the birds in it, I'll always take the EII. If I could get along with the ER of the SE, it would be my choice for looking at birds.
Now that it is winter, I find the focus stiffness and narrow wheel of the EIIs quite aggravating, issues shared by the SE.
For the foreseeable future, my EIIs are the best glass I can afford.
I don't think you are suffering to much then!
John Dracon
John Dracon
Seems like my provocative comments on the superiority of the SE 8x32 over the EII 8x30 has the BF's hornet nest buzzing. A great quote from Twain. "It is a matter of opinion that makes a horse race." For sure certain ergonomics favor certain folks. No argument there. And if your favorite binocular is a Tasco, I'm all for you. But to say a wider field of the EII 8x30 trumps the SE 8x32's obvious superior construction and overall quality including optics, is like saying ...................oh well.
Another provocative statement. I much prefer the view of my 10x35 EII to the 10x42 SE. The 10x35 EII is my favorite when exposure to the elements is not an issue, which means it hangs on a peg ready to be used outside of my home. In my pickup or car on the floor boards rides the Leupold Cascade porro 8x42, dust and water proof. I don't baby my binoculars or fret over them. I occasionally clean my lens - more so in a salt spray environment. Ever since I discovered the Cascade 8x42 will outperform my SE 8x32 and Zeiss 8x32 FL at late dusk, (those extra 10 mms of objective lens do make a difference), my enthusiasm for the alphas has diminished somewhat. I can understand why Dennis and other EII 8x30 users are firm in their enthusiasm. The EIIs are arguably the best optics for the money out there. John
Another provocative statement. I much prefer the view of my 10x35 EII to the 10x42 SE. The 10x35 EII is my favorite when exposure to the elements is not an issue, which means it hangs on a peg ready to be used outside of my home. In my pickup or car on the floor boards rides the Leupold Cascade porro 8x42, dust and water proof. I don't baby my binoculars or fret over them. I occasionally clean my lens - more so in a salt spray environment. Ever since I discovered the Cascade 8x42 will outperform my SE 8x32 and Zeiss 8x32 FL at late dusk, (those extra 10 mms of objective lens do make a difference), my enthusiasm for the alphas has diminished somewhat. I can understand why Dennis and other EII 8x30 users are firm in their enthusiasm. The EIIs are arguably the best optics for the money out there. John
Hermann
Well-known member
No. It won't. The build quality of the 10x42 SE is better, and the larger objective lenses make it easier to use in the field. The 10x35 EII is nice, but it's not in the same class. Not quite.
Hermann
David Swain
Well-known member
I don't know that the build quality of the SE is that much better than the EII they are just built differently. My objective rings on my SE popped off because they are just glued on. The EII's objective rings are fastened so they will not come off. The SE's build looks like it was built for a 10 year old kid to be played with like a toy with all that rubber on it,whereas, the EII is built stout but with no excess frivoloties. I actually prefer the classic retro look of the EII and the narrowness of it fits my hands better. The SE for me is just to fat. The 10x42 SE for a lot of people produces blackouts and again the EII has a more relaxed view than the SE. I would not say the SE is in a different class than the EII or that it is better. They are equal but just different and I think Nikon had a little different design objectives with each one.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Dennis:
Your views are amusing, the armored SE is clearly better than than EII, with the metal
clad objective. Anyone who has handled both would prefer the SE, when they set them
down on the table, "be careful with the EII, and no 10 yr. old kids are allowed to handle".
The SE is not too fat but perfectly proportioned, by the way they are very close in every dimension, and as far as the easier view in the EII, you may be right, it may be easy,
but the SE has a great sweet spot and a tack sharp view to the edges, that the EII does
not have.
They are both nice binoculars, but for many the SE ranks very well.
Jerry
Your views are amusing, the armored SE is clearly better than than EII, with the metal
clad objective. Anyone who has handled both would prefer the SE, when they set them
down on the table, "be careful with the EII, and no 10 yr. old kids are allowed to handle".
The SE is not too fat but perfectly proportioned, by the way they are very close in every dimension, and as far as the easier view in the EII, you may be right, it may be easy,
but the SE has a great sweet spot and a tack sharp view to the edges, that the EII does
not have.
They are both nice binoculars, but for many the SE ranks very well.
Jerry
Super Dave
Well-known member
Well I found a good deal on the Canon 15x50's on Ebay. They are pretty amazing. I regret to say that the 10x SE's have been relocated to a drawer. Even the 8x32 SE's are not seeing much use.
My deck faces a Marine Base / Air Station that is about 2 miles across the bay. With the Canons I can clearly see people walking around, fishing, etc.
The Canons are not perfect. I find that they are best when I sit down. The image can blur (come in and out of focus) with too much movement. It's kind of annoying. It takes some hand holding. I thought they were defective and brought them to a the local Canon factory repair center and they said they were working fine.
But, the positives far outweigh the negative for me.
Unless someone has a need for that much power I'm not sure how useful they would be.
Take care,
Dave
My deck faces a Marine Base / Air Station that is about 2 miles across the bay. With the Canons I can clearly see people walking around, fishing, etc.
The Canons are not perfect. I find that they are best when I sit down. The image can blur (come in and out of focus) with too much movement. It's kind of annoying. It takes some hand holding. I thought they were defective and brought them to a the local Canon factory repair center and they said they were working fine.
But, the positives far outweigh the negative for me.
Unless someone has a need for that much power I'm not sure how useful they would be.
Take care,
Dave
Yes. The Canon's are pretty good optically but not quite alpha quality. I got quite a bit of glare with all of mine and they didn't have quite the contrast of say a Zeiss FL but still pretty good optics for the price. The edge sharpness is excellent on them though. I just saw a pair of the 15x50 IS's go on E-bay go for $385.00 but the guy selling them had 0 feedback and was an E-bay member for about a week which is kind of scary. He also lived in Estonia which is near Russia I guess. I almost bid on them but I really don't need them and all my Canon's I end up selling because I start missing the contrast of the alphas after awhile with them. The view is good just not as exciting or vivid as a Zeiss FL.
Last edited:
To each his own on those two. The EII's feel better to me and that is personal opinion. Watch the objective rings on your SE they really come off easily and you have to send them in to Nikon to get them reattached! I agree that the SE is SLIGHTLY sharper at the edge but I prefer the bigger FOV of the EII. I really LIKE a BIG FOV! I guess I like a bigger screen tv. These two binoculars are so good it is personal opinion which is best for them. Neither is better though and each person has to decide for themselves which they like better. It seems to be about evenly divided here on Bird Forum. I notice though that the people who like the SE are REALLY loyal to them and defend them vehemently! I can understand that since they are one of the best optics you can buy and the view is very addictive. I suggest if you are torn between the two try before you buy. In my case I sold my SE's the next day. They are both becoming harder and harder to find though especially the EII's. Neither is waterproof though so for bad weather I still get my Zeiss 8x32 FL's out. With all this talk of BIG aperture advantage though I would like to try the Zeiss 8x56 FL's but damn they are expensive and there don't seem to be any discounted pairs out there. I would imagine the view is awesome through them though.
MINE DID! Don't touch them too much. They WILL come off. Just warning you SE owners. They are just attached with a LITTLE adhesive.
When do you sleep?
You would need a utility knife to cut the ones off my older 10 x 42 and the ones on my newer 8 x 32 can be pried off with your fingers if you are mischievous enough to do so and can be slipped right back on and kept there with a touch of glue. You can actually unscrew the objective rings on the EII easier.
Bob
You would need a utility knife to cut the ones off my older 10 x 42 and the ones on my newer 8 x 32 can be pried off with your fingers if you are mischievous enough to do so and can be slipped right back on and kept there with a touch of glue. You can actually unscrew the objective rings on the EII easier.
Bob
Last edited:
Yes, but you have to deliberately unscrew them on the EII , whereas,on the SE they can pop off pretty easily and let me tell you it is not that easy to put them back on properly. I had to send mine back in to Nikon. I would much rather have to screw them off.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Dennis:
I am wondering about your experience with the Nikon SE, above you posted
that you had them all of (1 Day), and then returned them. And you had the objective collar fall off in that length of time.
They are firmly attached, so some here are calling you on your story. 8-P
Jerry
Jonathan B.
Well-known member
In the 10.5 years I have had my 8x32 SE, I have only encountered three other birders who have one. The beauty rings were missing from both objectives on one birder's SE, but it was clear that the bin had been used very heavily. I have never had a problem with mine.
I think the important point is that the SE and the EII are both superb, but they are really quite different from each other. The EII is a gem, but I still think the SE is the greatest binocular ever made, if judging solely the optics. I don't wear glasses, and I have never had the blackout problems that others mention.
Rather than argue about which one is better, I'm interested in knowing more about the vintage 8x30s that preceded them. 8x30 was a popular formula in Europe and the USA, though production in the USA was a fraction of that in Europe. The last great iteration of it in Europe was probably the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30, which as Holger Merlitz points out would likely equal the EII in optical performance if it had modern coatings. I still haven't had a chance to handle one.
The other one I am interested in handling is the Bausch & Lomb Zephyr 8x30, introduced in about 1936, and made with a magnesium fluoride coating starting immediately after the war. Its field of view is 445 feet at 1,000 yards, while that in the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 is 450 feet, and in the EII 460 feet. I doubt those differences are perceptible in the field.
The Zeiss and Bausch models evolved from bins introduced in 1920 and 1935, respectively (though Bausch had an 8x30 as early as 1922). The EII evolved from a model introduced by Nikon after the war, and it seems to have been inspired by the Zeiss 8x30 of the time. The Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 remained in production until the early 1970s, while at least one other Zeiss 8x30 was made until 1990 (the Deltrentis, representing a seventy-year production run). Production of the Bausch was moved from Rochester to Japan around 1970 and ceased not long after that.
The EII became the last great, classic, high-end 8x30, following in a very long tradition. The SE 8x32 does not seem to have evolved from any other Nikon model, but appears to have been a completely new concept.
I have handled an optically perfect and immaculate Bausch Zephyr 7x35 made in Rochester, and despite its shortcomings (relatively narrow field of view, yellowish color bias, distant close focus, and dropoff of sharpness toward the edge) its optical performance is superlative. It is amazingly sharp, bright, and contrasty. I am curious to know if the much scarcer 8x30 performs as well.
I also wonder if any of the Chinese manufacturers have considered making an optically and mechanically superior 8x30 porro bin. I assume that it would be possible to match the EII or Oberkochen 8x30 and retail it for under $300, but maybe nowadays there isn't a big enough market for anything at that price that isn't a roof-prism bin.
I think the important point is that the SE and the EII are both superb, but they are really quite different from each other. The EII is a gem, but I still think the SE is the greatest binocular ever made, if judging solely the optics. I don't wear glasses, and I have never had the blackout problems that others mention.
Rather than argue about which one is better, I'm interested in knowing more about the vintage 8x30s that preceded them. 8x30 was a popular formula in Europe and the USA, though production in the USA was a fraction of that in Europe. The last great iteration of it in Europe was probably the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30, which as Holger Merlitz points out would likely equal the EII in optical performance if it had modern coatings. I still haven't had a chance to handle one.
The other one I am interested in handling is the Bausch & Lomb Zephyr 8x30, introduced in about 1936, and made with a magnesium fluoride coating starting immediately after the war. Its field of view is 445 feet at 1,000 yards, while that in the Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 is 450 feet, and in the EII 460 feet. I doubt those differences are perceptible in the field.
The Zeiss and Bausch models evolved from bins introduced in 1920 and 1935, respectively (though Bausch had an 8x30 as early as 1922). The EII evolved from a model introduced by Nikon after the war, and it seems to have been inspired by the Zeiss 8x30 of the time. The Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 remained in production until the early 1970s, while at least one other Zeiss 8x30 was made until 1990 (the Deltrentis, representing a seventy-year production run). Production of the Bausch was moved from Rochester to Japan around 1970 and ceased not long after that.
The EII became the last great, classic, high-end 8x30, following in a very long tradition. The SE 8x32 does not seem to have evolved from any other Nikon model, but appears to have been a completely new concept.
I have handled an optically perfect and immaculate Bausch Zephyr 7x35 made in Rochester, and despite its shortcomings (relatively narrow field of view, yellowish color bias, distant close focus, and dropoff of sharpness toward the edge) its optical performance is superlative. It is amazingly sharp, bright, and contrasty. I am curious to know if the much scarcer 8x30 performs as well.
I also wonder if any of the Chinese manufacturers have considered making an optically and mechanically superior 8x30 porro bin. I assume that it would be possible to match the EII or Oberkochen 8x30 and retail it for under $300, but maybe nowadays there isn't a big enough market for anything at that price that isn't a roof-prism bin.
