-
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 EDG availability? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
Perhaps the Amazing Premier Superior E or something
It wll look like an SE ...
The Monarch X has dielectric coating. And speaking of which have you noticed that you can't get "old" Monarch's anymore. EO is out of stock. Perhaps they'll be renamed Premier Monarch but not actually stock will be found except those on dealers shelves.
Nikon is an odd company ...
brocknroller
porromaniac
I agree that the HGL has "weak spots" (I also think the LX had better optics), but from what I've read so far, the EDG's optics (except the 7x42, which is a new configuration), are the same as the HG L except for an ED element housed in an open-bridged design.
Same rolling ball on the full sized bins. I'm not sure if they toned down the brightness so the contrast doesn't get overwhelmed in bright light like the HG L (with the added ED glass element, that would seem doable) and the ED glass would also control the excessive CA in the HG L's lead-free glass.
As far as the open bridge design, I would welcome that in the mid-sized models since I have large hands and find small roofs hard to hold steady. However, I found the full sized HG L comfortable to hold (the full sized HG albatross was another matter, same ergonomics, but hefty weight - 36 oz.)
In any case, IMO, $1,800 is an absurd amount to pay for an ED element upgrade and a new body style when you can buy a used HG for $1,300 less (check Amart).
However, the HG Ls were $1,400 when they first came out (though I only know one person who actually paid that much for one), and I've seen HG Ls sell for "like new" or refurbs on eBayo recently for btwn $800-$900.
But the "rolling ball" on the full sized models is a deal breaker for me (the mid sized models have some pincushion).
If you can see it (not everybody can), then buy an 8x32 HG, which is only two ounces heavier than the HG L version and has less CA than the HG L and has much smoother panning than the full sized models.
Nikon will repair any Nikon used bin for $20 in the US. Takes the worry about of buying "used".
Or if you have patience, wait until the successor to the EDG comes out, and pick up a used or refurb EDG on eBayo for about $1,200.
Brock
henry link
Well-known member
Brock,
Besides the ED element the other major changes are dielectric mirror coating and improvements to the AP coatings, so the brightness has been toned up rather than down compared to the LX-L, which to my eyes appears somewhat dim rather than overly bright. Also color bias is more natural and the field has been widened in the 8x42.
Those changes in the 8x42, together with the reduced transverse CA make the difference for me between a binocular I would consider buying and one I wouldn't want at all, even at a bargain price.
Henry
Besides the ED element the other major changes are dielectric mirror coating and improvements to the AP coatings, so the brightness has been toned up rather than down compared to the LX-L, which to my eyes appears somewhat dim rather than overly bright. Also color bias is more natural and the field has been widened in the 8x42.
Those changes in the 8x42, together with the reduced transverse CA make the difference for me between a binocular I would consider buying and one I wouldn't want at all, even at a bargain price.
Henry
henry link
Well-known member
Frank,
No, I'm not actually interested in buying a pair. I like the Zeiss 8x56 better.
Henry
No, I'm not actually interested in buying a pair. I like the Zeiss 8x56 better.
Henry
That pair on cameraland may be the exact pair I purchased and returned--I posted my impressions of them here some time ago. Their build quality and tactile properties are state of the art, IMO. Bright, limpid view with a very broad, flat sweet spot. If I wanted a 7x42, I'd take the Zeiss FLs over them though.
If you're a connoisseur of flat field and edge sharpness, nothing is going to beat the EDG and from a tactile point of view they are the top of the heap. However, the FLs are a smidge brighter in dim conditions and have a wider field of view, and those to me are the main reasons to buy a 7x42 glass in the first place. The edges of the field are not as sharp, but who studies the details of anything on the fringe of the field? Both control CA very well.
henry link
Well-known member
Frank,
What makes the image of the 8x56 so fine in daylight is the long focal length which leads to unusually low axial aberrations when the objective is stopped down in bright light and also the large exit pupil which is very comfortable and non-critical of pupil placement. But, I'm not in love. Off axis performance is no better than adequate. As Fireform said, the EDG is better off axis than the Zeiss or any other alpha.
Henry
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Not so bold. Up to now, Nikon has been the only "alpha" brand to incorporate "field flattener" elements in its optical designs. It has been the leader in off-axis sharpness in roofs.
--AP
FrankD
Well-known member
But with the LX/LXLs it seemed it was at a cost to field of view....not that 7 degrees is shabby but compared to the Zeiss, Swaro and Leicas it was a bit on the narrow side.
Curious though, do you find the previous Nikon Alpha roofs to be noticeably better than say, the Swaro EL, or just marginally better in this particular area?
Curious though, do you find the previous Nikon Alpha roofs to be noticeably better than say, the Swaro EL, or just marginally better in this particular area?
It's been a while since I've looked through the Swaro ELs and I've never owned a pair, so I don't want to say too much. The other bins I own or have owned lately are the 8x SEs, the 8x42 and 8x32 FLs, Swift 804s and 820EDs, and the Zen-Ray EDs. The 7x42 EDGs have the best edge sharpness of the bunch. The SEs are the closest competition, followed by the ZRs in that particular category, by my subjective eye. Every one of them is a delight to watch birds through.
FrankD
Well-known member
Hmm, interesting that you rated the Zen EDs higher than either Zeiss unit. I would rate them as comparable in this particular characteristic. Both have "average" sweet spots in my opinion but it is not immediately noticeable as the transition from the sweet spot to the area of distortion is very, very subtle.
The ZR has a somewhat wider sweet spot than the 8x42 FL, but the FL has higher resolution in the center and is slightly brighter in dim light across the field. In the samples I've used.
The ZRs are very good binoculars. I had them out in the late afternoon/evening comparing them with a pair of 8x32FLs and the ZRs were clearly the superior optics--brightness, resolving detail in shadowed areas (looking into an unlit storage shed 150 yards away, for instance), resolving textures (what I thought was a tarp heaped on the ground through the FLs turned out to be mesh screening through the ZRs). It's an apples to oranges comparison because of the difference in size, weight and aperture, but still.
I think crystalline edge sharpness is sometimes overrated. If I didn't I'd sell everything I had and get EDGs.
The ZRs are very good binoculars. I had them out in the late afternoon/evening comparing them with a pair of 8x32FLs and the ZRs were clearly the superior optics--brightness, resolving detail in shadowed areas (looking into an unlit storage shed 150 yards away, for instance), resolving textures (what I thought was a tarp heaped on the ground through the FLs turned out to be mesh screening through the ZRs). It's an apples to oranges comparison because of the difference in size, weight and aperture, but still.
I think crystalline edge sharpness is sometimes overrated. If I didn't I'd sell everything I had and get EDGs.
FrankD
Well-known member
That last statement is an interesting point of discussion and worthy of a thread on its own. I think you would find persuasive arguments in both camps.
I would also agree with your previous comparison. I found slightly different results in another apples to oranges comparison of the 8x43 Zen ED and the 7x42 FL. The sweet spots were very comparable in my opinion though the level of edge "distortion" seemed to be of a slightly different nature in each model.
I would also agree with your previous comparison. I found slightly different results in another apples to oranges comparison of the 8x43 Zen ED and the 7x42 FL. The sweet spots were very comparable in my opinion though the level of edge "distortion" seemed to be of a slightly different nature in each model.
kristoffer
Used Register
so the nikon edg (edge) is really good, but impossible to buy atm?
