• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

To all the lovers of the EII - Allbinos test (1 Viewer)

After looking at the photo of the EII and the E, side-by-side, it is clear that the E is nearly a carbon copy of the Zeiss 8x30, right down to the shape of the prism plates and prism housings, so the ''greatness'' of the E series should be attributed to Zeiss.;)
 
77% transmission strikes me as a typo.

edit: the english version of the test says 89%.

They really do deliver excellent performance at a reasonable price.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
NOTE - transmission is NOT 77%!
Click to expand...

Yes, I also noticed the slight discrepancy of the transmission values of allbinos and Gijs. Let's average that and we have a realistic 83 % ;)

Having just acquired an EII I join the club and say: a fine binocular.

I also noticed that the allbinos review omitted the 3 most obvious (besides lack of waterproofness) cons from their list of cons:
- no twist eyecups
- short eye relief
- useless placement of strap bracket

Does allbinos care about ergonomics at all?

To me, all three issues are bothering, but I'll find some work arounds I think and still be able to use and enjoy the binocular.

But I agree now, something like this, slightly modernised, that would be something...
 
dalat said:
Yes, I also noticed the slight discrepancy of the transmission values of allbinos and Gijs. Let's average that and we have a realistic 83 % ;)

Having just acquired an EII I join the club and say: a fine binocular.

I also noticed that the allbinos review omitted the 3 most obvious (besides lack of waterproofness) cons from their list of cons:
- no twist eyecups
- short eye relief
- useless placement of strap bracket

Does allbinos care about ergonomics at all?

To me, all three issues are bothering, but I'll find some work arounds I think and still be able to use and enjoy the binocular.

But I agree now, something like this, slightly modernised, that would be something...
Click to expand...


In a way, I find Allbinos to be quite lacking when it comes to evaluations. Good technical data and tests, but lacks the other 50% of the equation - how does it work in the field?

Their tests ignore ergo's, focus feel and speed, ease of viewing etc. In fact they really don't describe the ''view'' at all - why not categories for sharpness [boosted resolution?], contrast? Why the silly emphasis on ''distortion'', when we know why it is there and what purpose it serves. Some categories are just flawed, such as shape of the exit pupil and appearance of internal flares. The Terra ED has lots of visible flares [from the ocular side] but these are invisible in use and the bin provides superb flare / glare suppression.

I appreciate the technical data, although it needs to be used in concert with some real world user data. I think that, because they have used a points scoring system, they are unwilling to add / subtract any categories at it would make all of their previous tests obsolete and no longer comparable.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
After looking at the photo of the EII and the E, side-by-side, it is clear that the E is nearly a carbon copy of the Zeiss 8x30, right down to the shape of the prism plates and prism housings, so the ''greatness'' of the E series should be attributed to Zeiss.;)
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Zeiss fanboy! ;)

The shape may be similar, but the optics and coatings are pure Nikon, and most importantly, Nikon is still making them. Zeiss stopping making their WF 8x30 porro in 1971 and their narrower angle (50* AFOV) version in 1978. No doubt great for their time, but the coatings are now terribly outdated.

<B>
 
brocknroller said:
Spoken like a true Zeiss fanboy! ;)

The shape may be similar, but the optics and coatings are pure Nikon, and most importantly, Nikon is still making them. Zeiss stopping making their WF 8x30 porro in 1971 and their narrower angle (50* AFOV) version in 1978. No doubt great for their time, but the coatings are now terribly outdated.

<B>
Click to expand...

I resemble that remark!:t:

Anyway, I think you have your dates wrong. I have a WF 8x30B, from 1973 and I think they continued to produce that version until 1978.

If you look closely at the early Nikon porro's, I think you will find them to be a Zeiss clone, not ''similar.''

Imitation, as they say, is the most sincere form of flattery.
 
dalat said:
Yes, I also noticed the slight discrepancy of the transmission values of allbinos and Gijs. Let's average that and we have a realistic 83 % ;)

Having just acquired an EII I join the club and say: a fine binocular.

I also noticed that the allbinos review omitted the 3 most obvious (besides lack of waterproofness) cons from their list of cons:
- no twist eyecups
- short eye relief
- useless placement of strap bracket

Does allbinos care about ergonomics at all?

To me, all three issues are bothering, but I'll find some work arounds I think and still be able to use and enjoy the binocular.

But I agree now, something like this, slightly modernised, that would be something...
Click to expand...
There were a few comments and complaints in the 10x35 EII review that I think applied to the 8x30 but were not carried forward. Most of them were quibbles. When I look through the 8x30 the view has my attention because eyepiece placement and other ergonomic features work just fine for me.
 
I am perennially tempted by the EII, although I suspect the eye relief is too short for my glasses.

Anyway, I just priced the 8x30 EII on Amazon Japan:

EII $386 + Tenso forwarding charge to US ~$57 = $443. Nice price all things considered.

Mark
 
james holdsworth said:
I resemble that remark!:t:

Anyway, I think you have your dates wrong. I have a WF 8x30B, from 1973 and I think they continued to produce that version until 1978.

If you look closely at the early Nikon porro's, I think you will find them to be a Zeiss clone, not ''similar.''

Imitation, as they say, is the most sincere form of flattery.
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about the Swarovski 8x30 Habicht.

As to the dates, I found those on Holger's Website:

Classic 8x30 Porro binoculars

I wrote "similar" because while the original Es may have looked like clones, the EII's body was redesigned with more rounded prism housing (no "wave"), and the front of the prism housing was tapered for a more comfortable grip whereas the Zeiss and E had flat plates like my Nikon 7x35 WF.

So while Zeiss might have invented the design, Nikon perfected it. :smoke:

<B>
 
Kammerdiner said:
I am perennially tempted by the EII, although I suspect the eye relief is too short for my glasses.

Anyway, I just priced the 8x30 EII on Amazon Japan:

EII $386 + Tenso forwarding charge to US ~$57 = $443. Nice price all things considered.

Mark
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if US Customs tack on any import duties/taxes upon arrival to the US?

Thanks.
 
Brock and James,

James is right about the dates of the for the Zeiss 8x30 B with the 60 degree field, about 1968 to about 1978. That binocular shouldn’t be confused with the earlier 8x30 W which had short eye relief and was discontinued in 1971. That one had specs for FOV and eye relief that resembled the Nikon 8x30 A.

Brock is right that the Nikon 8x30 E does not directly copy the Zeiss 8x30B optically or mechanically. It's certainly not a “clone”. To start with the Nikon uses a conventional cemented doublet objective (same one used in the EII) while the Zeiss uses a tele doublet with a wide air space. There is really only a superficial physical resemblance in that both have a wide short form (see left photo below), but the Zeiss is a smaller, lighter binocular and the Nikon’s shape comes honestly from its prism cluster, not from imitating Zeiss. Its prisms (right photo below) were designed to handle its fast objective cone while being as compact as possible. The “first” prism is larger and also asymmetrical. The larger side handles the light cone as it first reaches the prism. The other side can be smaller because the rapidly converging light cone is smaller when it reaches the second reflecting face. The second prism can be even smaller and its apex can be trimmed more without impinging on the small light cone as it nears the focal plane. These design features make the prism cluster laterally wide and longitudinally narrow and that determines the shape of the prism housing. BTW, I blackened the sides of the smaller prism in an effort to enhance contrast.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0626.JPG
    DSC_0626.JPG
    121.1 KB · Views: 180
  • DSC_0627.JPG
    DSC_0627.JPG
    108.8 KB · Views: 144
Last edited:
Arek said:
No need using google translator ;)
http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=270
Click to expand...

Thanks, Arek, for that interesting report about my favorite binocular :)

I think you have elaborated well on strengths and weaknesses of this remarkable device, and I fully agree on almost every comment you made. "Not waterproof but nitrogen filled" is surely an oversight, and the close focus of 2m is to be taken with a grain of salt - at 2m the eye-strain is so enormous that any relaxed observation seems impossible. A transmission of slightly below 90% would agree well with the experience I made during numerous comparisons with other binoculars.

Cheers,
Holger
 
james holdsworth said:
In a way, I find Allbinos to be quite lacking when it comes to evaluations. Good technical data and tests, but lacks the other 50% of the equation - how does it work in the field?

Their tests ignore ergo's, focus feel and speed, ease of viewing etc. In fact they really don't describe the ''view'' at all - why not categories for sharpness [boosted resolution?], contrast? Why the silly emphasis on ''distortion'', when we know why it is there and what purpose it serves. Some categories are just flawed, such as shape of the exit pupil and appearance of internal flares. The Terra ED has lots of visible flares [from the ocular side] but these are invisible in use and the bin provides superb flare / glare suppression.

I appreciate the technical data, although it needs to be used in concert with some real world user data. I think that, because they have used a points scoring system, they are unwilling to add / subtract any categories at it would make all of their previous tests obsolete and no longer comparable.
Click to expand...

It is true - but the remaining 50% of the equation can be found in forums such as this one. The problem with the evaluation of ergonomic aspects is the individual factor, as well as the field and mode of application. Here, adding points would rather obscure the final score, so I am fine with a report that summarizes technical features. I agree with your remark on distortion - it is often added deliberately and may not be evaluated on the same footing as other aberrations: Low distortion is not necessarily better.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

N
Allbinos review of Canon 10x30 IS
Replies
8
Views
1K
Hermann
Hermann
dorubird
Why I like a refined Nikon EII 8x30 porro binoculars?
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
tenex
tenex
John A Roberts
Bushnell Forge 15x56 Review
Replies
3
Views
5K
DunninLA
D
John A Roberts
More on the NL Models by Arek and Roger
Replies
6
Views
3K
ticl2184
ticl2184
I
Analysis Paralysis- Please help me choose!
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
Patudo
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top