Does Nikon use ED glass in the SE and EII? (1 Viewer)

I was telling a mate at work how pleased I have been with my 8x30 EII's and he asked me if they were ED glass. I realised I didn't know.

I have read on here somewhere that they changed to lead free glass, and also that Nikon makes its own glass for the Japanese binoculars.

Does anybody know if the glass they use is ED?

Thanks in advance.

This maybe a pointless response because I don`t know, but, I`m guessing the answer is no in the EII at least, and probably not in the SE, or Nikon would advertise the fact.

Nikon has never said/advertised either of them as using ED/HD etc. elements. So I assume they do not.

The current Nikon 2012 website only lists the EDGs and Monarch 7s as having ED glass.

Sandy Leng said:

I was telling a mate at work how pleased I have been with my 8x30 EII's and he asked me if they were ED glass. I realised I didn't know.

I have read on here somewhere that they changed to lead free glass, and also that Nikon makes its own glass for the Japanese binoculars.

Does anybody know if the glass they use is ED?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Sandy,

Take a look at tree branches against a gray winter's sky in the winter with the EII and you will have your answer. Unless you're one of those lucky dogs who can't see CA.

To my eyes, the EII shows more CA than the SE. Not sure if this is an inherent property from the optics or focal length or just because the EII's field is much wider, since CA is more obvious at the edges, the more edges, the more CA you see.

But to answer your question directly, no, neither the EII or the SE has ED glass. AFAIK, the only Nikons currently made that have ED glass are the EDG and the Monarch 7.

Brock

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it is now clear that the SE and EII have non ED glass, it makes you wonder how good they would have been if Nikon had made an upgraded ED glass model.

If these premier binoculars are made with the same glass as the action and early monarchs, it shows how important quality coatings are. After all these bins are often quoted as being as good as alphas optically.

Sandy Leng said:

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it is now clear that the SE and EII have non ED glass, it makes you wonder how good they would have been if Nikon had made an upgraded ED glass model.

If these premier binoculars are made with the same glass as the action and early monarchs, it shows how important quality coatings are. After all these bins are often quoted as being as good as alphas optically.

Click to expand...

I would have to state that these new roof prisms with their new ED glass and dielectric prisms have finally approached the standards that the SE and EII set before 1990.

I've compared my 10 x 42SE numerous times to my 10 x 32 EDG over the last 2 years. I purchased the 10 x 42 used about 6 years ago. It was in pristine condition at that time. There is hardly a dimes worth of difference between it and my 10 x 32 EDG except for the exit pupil and a small degree of brightness under late twilight conditions. The EDG has a somewhat wider FOV. Edge sharpness is the same for all practical purposes. I would have to conclude that the new ED glass in the EDG and it's new dielectric prisms brought it's view up to the standard that the SE set over 15 years ago.

I've been using the same 8 x 30 EII since at least the year 2000. I used it last evening on my deck. I also had my 10 x 32 EDG out with it. Birds are starting to get active again as migration season approaches. We still have some juvenile Robins with spotted breasts around. I was able to see their spotted breasts clearly with both binoculars at 8PM at distances of over 100 feet.

Bob

ceasar said:

I would have to state that these new roof prisms with their new ED glass and dielectric prisms have finally approached the standards that the SE and EII set before 1990.

I've compared my 10 x 42SE numerous times to my 10 x 32 EDG over the last 2 years. I purchased the 10 x 42 used about 6 years ago. It was in pristine condition at that time. There is hardly a dimes worth of difference between it and my 10 x 32 EDG except for the exit pupil and a small degree of brightness under late twilight conditions. The EDG has a somewhat wider FOV. Edge sharpness is the same for all practical purposes. I would have to conclude that the new ED glass in the EDG and it's new dielectric prisms brought it's view up to the standard that the SE set over 15 years ago. ...

Bob

Click to expand...

To think, it took 15 years to make a roof as good as a porro. No wonder the EDG costs $2,229.99. That's a decade and a half of R&D to recoup!

<B>

The more I think of it, the more it puzzles me that Nikon didn't upgrade their flagship porros with ED glass.

Swift brought out their 804 Audubon ED well before Y2K, I would love one of these to complement my early large body 804. If one ever turns up on the bay no doubt there will be a mad bidding frenzy. Definitely a rare and desirable binocular.

My point is that if Swift could make an ED porro Nikon certainly could.

Has anybody ever compared an Audubon ED with an SE or EII?

Sandy Leng said:

The more I think of it, the more it puzzles me that Nikon didn't upgrade their flagship porros with ED glass.

Swift brought out their 804 Audubon ED well before Y2K, I would love one of these to complement my early large body 804. If one ever turns up on the bay no doubt there will be a mad bidding frenzy. Definitely a rare and desirable binocular.

My point is that if Swift could make an ED porro Nikon certainly could.

Has anybody ever compared an Audubon ED with an SE or EII?

Click to expand...

I compared the older Audubon 804 ED with the SE, and I was disappointed. Not sure if I just had a bad unit or if it was typical.

Besides having a small sweet spot that could only be described as a vertical "slit," the 804 ED seemed dimmer than my 804 FMC and MC 804s, which made no sense. Physicallly, I liked how it looked, black leatherette, and felt in my hands, but optically the SE was better. That was the 501 8x SE.

I also had a non-ED 820 Audubon, and while the eyecups rank #1 as the most uncomfortable I've ever used, the view was very good (as much as I could see of it w/out being able to view the entire FOV with both eyes at the same time because of the oversized eyecups and the protruding centerpost).

The edges weren't bad, not as good as the SE, of course, but the view looked very bright, color saturated, and contrasty. I'd be happy with that view in a more user friendly package.

The 5-element EPs create a very sharp image, plus with the extra .5X, maybe a bit sharper than the 501 SE. Colors were more vibrant than that older SE.

I have owned other ED bins, another Swift - 8x44 ED model, two Celestrons - 9.5x44 ED and 10x50 ED Voyager. I also tried the ZR 7x36 ED.

Except for the 804 ED, the other ED bins gave bright, color saturated, contrasty views.

The latest series SEs (550 8x, 050 10x, and 350 12x) are already bright, color saturated, and contrasty, but the CA goes up in direct proportion to the magnification. The 12x50s in particular could use ED glass for terrestrial use.

Some have objected (including me) to adding ED glass to the SE series for fear of steep price hikes. There's less than $200 difference between the Audubon 820 and 820 ED, and like the SE, the Audubons are made in Japan. But, the 820 ED has been around for more than a decade.

Nikon would have to reconfigure the objectives to accommodate ED glass @ today's higher optical engineering salary costs. Plus with the dollar/yen thang, the price increase might be more than twice the difference of what the non-ED/ED Audubon costs.

The question then becomes twofold (1) How many people are willing to pay over $1,000 for a Nikon 8x32 SE ED? (me, me, me!), and (2) would it be worth it to Nikon, considering that they still haven't sold 999 units of the latest production run since 2007? Disappointingly, that answer is no. Otherwise, they would have already done it.

The Monarch 7 might sell that many units in its first year. So I think it's partly about cost effectiveness and partly that Nikon has the EDG with ED glass now as it's "flagship" (or at least that's how they are marketing it, the SE is still the flagship in my book).

I'd go a grand for a Nikon 8x32 SE ED, $1200 for a 10x42 SE ED, and $1400 for a 12x50 SE ED. Of course, I'd buy them used from Dom Afable on Amart for $400-$500 less. Well, I would have to figure in my membership dues.

The other reason Nikon won't do it is because the SE EDs would be better optically than the EDG. Those 15 years of R&D would all go down the drain....

<B>

Sandy Leng said:

The more I think of it, the more it puzzles me that Nikon didn't upgrade their flagship porros with ED glass.

Click to expand...

My theory is the more complex hardware, the larger the profit margin. Porros don't require phase and dielectric coatings so there is also not as much to brag about in glossy brochures. They also do not suffer from the roof itself becoming visible in certain lighting conditions. It's similar with SLRs, an obsolete camera design in the digital era, yet it's pushed over the superior mirrorless design as "professional" for spurious reasons (the real reason again being profits on all the unnecessary parts inside).

--
Jan

Sandy Leng said:

Has anybody ever compared an Audubon ED with an SE or EII?

Click to expand...

Yes, the 8x & 12x SE and recently the 10x SE.
My Audubon ED is very good.
The best way to describe my experience is; think of resolution of an SE. Limit that to the central 1/3-1/2 of the fov of the Audubon. The SE is more contrasty also.
The Audubon has a tad more punch in the colors, compared to the dead-on realism of the SE. The ED in the Audubon is very well done. My pair has zero CA across the FOV. Appear to be an APO. Best CA correction i have seen in a bino.

I think ED/HD glass in the 8x SE would do little for it. Kind of like the old Zen phrase for religion, pasting legs on a snake. But both the 10x and 12x SE would benefit alot from ED/HD.

Sandy Leng said:

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it is now clear that the SE and EII have non ED glass, it makes you wonder how good they would have been if Nikon had made an upgraded ED glass model.

If these premier binoculars are made with the same glass as the action and early monarchs, it shows how important quality coatings are. After all these bins are often quoted as being as good as alphas optically.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. ED glass on the 8x32 SE wouldn't make that much of an improvement. I question IF it would improve the 10x or 12x that much. They are already pretty good. The 10x SE has to be the best 10x in the world.

brocknroller said:

To think, it took 15 years to make a roof as good as a porro. No wonder the EDG costs $2,229.99. That's a decade and a half of R&D to recoup!

<B>

Click to expand...

The roof's still aren't as good and I have the EDG and the SE and I have compared the SV to the SE. The 8x32 SE is just perfection. It is just so much easier to make a porro perfect with it's simple design. I can't see much CA in my 8x32 SE's and the edges are almost as sharp as my EDG's.

Sandy Leng said:

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it is now clear that the SE and EII have non ED glass, it makes you wonder how good they would have been if Nikon had made an upgraded ED glass model.

If these premier binoculars are made with the same glass as the action and early monarchs, it shows how important quality coatings are. After all these bins are often quoted as being as good as alphas optically.

Click to expand...

I saw this post while poking about in the forum. The Nikon SE does not need ED glass, because it uses a simple optical construction, and low power eyepieces. A porro is relatively easy to build, and the SE is probably so good optically because of the eyepieces.

Most roof prism binoculars use internal focussing, which introduces more CA. Incorporating extra low dispersion glass is an attempt to compensate for the extra aberrations introduced by the internal focussing.

The 8X32 SE exhibits a lot more CA than the 8X32 Swarovision (or 8.5X42 Swarovision). The SE is pretty good but the Swarovisions are clearly better.

well, I went ahead and bit the bullet as they say. I purchased the Premier SE just a few hours ago. The reason is due to the scarcity of this model. It looks to be discontinued on many sites and I was only able to find one site that had it new (Amazon from Optics Planet). I couldn't find it used anywhere and could barely find any new, so I figured I should go ahead and buy it since I really think I would feel regretful in a few months when there are none to be found; similar to the regret I felt when I never purchased a Leupold GR and those are gone and very hard to find. I didn't want that feeling again. So, the Leupold GR's are out...off of my wish list and in its stead this new SE.

I will let you know about the CA after I get it. It's not advertised as such , so I don't think it has the ED glass. The new Yosemite 8x30 that I recently purchased has ugly CA...but they are cheap, very sharp and I love em. There's play in the focus wheel though...but not a big deal to me.

I told another BF member just a bit ago to stage an intervention if I speak again on the BF of any desire or motivation to buy another binocular. I think I'm good for like 10 years now ! But, happy I ordered it...I'm excited about it now. I have 5 pairs of birding binoculars (not including the cheap little compact Olympus I carry in my handbag) and they all add up to about 2,000 dollars. So, 5 nice pairs for the price of one Zeiss Victory or any top alpha roof model...not too bad right ?

Annabeth2 said:

I will let you know about the CA after I get it. It's not advertised as such , so I don't think it has the ED glass.

Click to expand...

As many people have already said, it does not have ED glass in the objectives. Yes, do let everyone know what you think. Mine is a bit of a pain from an ergonomic viewpoint, but 'normal people' always comment how good they are without being asked.

Pileatus said:

The 8X32 SE exhibits a lot more CA than the 8X32 Swarovision (or 8.5X42 Swarovision). The SE is pretty good but the Swaovisions are clearly better.

Click to expand...

It is curious how opinions can differ. I recently briefly tested the 8x32 SE alongside the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and 8x42 SLC HD. I was able to view birds and trees against an overcast sky. The SE had by far the least CA, to a degree that it did not bother me, which is one reason I preferred it to earlier roof prism binoculars. The EL had distinct purpling, almost zero at the centre, increasing towards the edge. It was not severe, but it was noticeable, and might stop me buying one. The SLC HD had even more purpling, to a degree which would concern me if watching birds on the sea for example. I also quickly tried a Bushnell 8x42 Elite, and that had massive CA as expected. I also know that my mark 1 Zeiss 8x42 FL shows almost no CA.

Leif said:

It is curious how opinions can differ. I recently briefly tested the 8x32 SE alongside the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and 8x42 SLC HD. I was able to view birds and trees against an overcast sky. The SE had by far the least CA, to a degree that it did not bother me, which is one reason I preferred it to earlier roof prism binoculars. The EL had distinct purpling, almost zero at the centre, increasing towards the edge. It was not severe, but it was noticeable, and might stop me buying one. The SLC HD had even more purpling, to a degree which would concern me if watching birds on the sea for example. I also quickly tried a Bushnell 8x42 Legend, and that had massive CA as expected. I also know that my mark 1 Zeiss 8x42 FL shows almost no CA.

Click to expand...

CA, as you know, varies with conditions. I think every 8X32 SE owner who purchased an 8.5X42 Swarovision reported the same thing...Swarovisions display less CA. When the 8X32 Swarovision appeared the story repeated itself...less CA than the SE. As the saying goes "sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone."