Another Nikon 8x30 EII Thread (1 Viewer)

After reading all the high praise for this binocular I decided to add it to my collection. I purchased a "grey market" example from ebay as it appears they are no longer available from Nikon USA. I paid a very reasonable $367, delivered and it arrived in perfect condition in 3 days. The vendor provides a 1 year warranty/exchange.

First light occurred after unboxing on a hot, humid, ie. typical, Florida afternoon.

Never mind, "for the money", this is a seriously good binocular at any price! Resolution, outstanding. Brightness, very good. Color rendition, very neutral. CA, I didn't see any. These are seriously well corrected. FOV is very generous and the gradual fall off of resolution to the edges is hardly noticeable. Depth of field (3d effect), very good. Ergonomics are OK, as good as they can be for a lightweight and compact porro binocular.

Suitable for the general purpose of magnified observing? Absolutely. I'm probably not as critical a reviewer as some. Barring the obvious fuzzy ring on the outer edge, poor resolution, dim view, etc. I'm happy if the bins do everything well. I'm really not interested in 2% differences between binoculars in any category. And things like color rendition, brightness and ergonomics are particular to the individual.

Once I had the opportunity to acclimate myself to my new addition I dragged out the "old faithfuls" of my porro collection, my Rangemaster 7x35 and my Bushnell Custom 7x35.

The Rangemaster was built in 1978 and just recently CLA'd at the Bushnell Service Center. It is as close to new as it can be, after 37 years. With the Nikon in one hand and the Bushnell in the other, figuratively speaking, I compared the two.

Ergonomics are the first thing you notice. The Rangemaster is a beast. It looks twice as big as the Nikon. Huge prisms, huge eyepieces and construction that looks robust enough to drive nails, in a pinch.

Look through both and that huge FOV in Nikon doesn't look so hugh, any more. The 11 degree field of view in the Rangemaster just looks so much more expansive. But then, it should. Brightness is very equivalent, resolution is very comparable, color rendition is very neutral. Depth of field with the Rangemasters is enormous. You find yourself needing to focus much more with the Nikons as the Rangemaster provides a noticeably greater depth of field. The Nikons have a closer focus, by about 3 feet. Not that significant, to me.

Which one would I carry? The Nikon. Unless I was on safari and had a bearer to carry the Rangemasters for me.

Its easy to see why the Rangemaster was the "alpha" binocular of its day and so expensive. My guess is that it went out of production because it cost so much to produce it couldn't compete with the more ergonomic German roof prisms by dropping the price.

A more even comparison was the Nikons with the Bushnell Custom. Very similar field of view, ergonomics, etc. You could pick either off the shelf and not feel deprived, although at this point the Custom is collectible enough in this condition to make the choice the Nikons.

After all that I dusted off my Pentax 8x32 dcf SPs. Non HD but in excellent condition. The Nikons might have a touch better resolution but it was very close. FOV, all Nikon. Brightness, color, etc. too close to call. Ergonomics go to the Nikon for weight but to the Pentax for waterproofing, fog proofing and durability. The Pentax aren't fragile at all.

Interestingly, despite both being 8x, the image in the Pentax seemed larger, undoubtedly due to the fov, although it was very pronounced in this comparison.

If I had to be out in bad weather I'd take the Pentax and not feel like I was missing more than the bigger field of view. The Nikons seem like a fair weather binocular, sensitive to bumps and likely to bruise.

Those are my impressions. The Nikons are keepers and have a place as an everyday, fair weather binocular with the Pentax the take anywhere under any conditions.

I didn't take out my Bushnell Custom Elite 7x26. This little bin is a seriously good performer and, for about $230, punches way above its weight. If cost is factored in, it beats most more expensive bins and comes within a little bit of the most expensive binoculars. Previous iterations have the same optical system in a more fragile body but are also impressive performers.

But I hate to compare the Custom Elites with any other binoculars because I would likely need to buy a spare pair and put everything else on ebay.

Sorry for the super long post but it took as long as it took.

"Another Nikon 8x30 EII Thread"

Nooooooooooo!

First congratulations on getting the EII correct in the title. It's well past the time the other thread could have been corrected and merged. Maybe adding "Review" to your title would make it seem less like you're contributing to the EII sprawl, but lets face it... it's days are numbered let the EII shine.

I'm a recent owner of the EII as well because of this forum and it is a really nice binocular with really excellent optical performance. I really like it's small size too that really helps it fit the general use category.

The FOV is a bit wide for me when spotting because as you noticed everything is smaller just no way around it if you want to cram that view into a reasonable angle for most people's vision. I'm impressed with the lack of CA and the resolution of this EII.

I'm still getting to know them, and doing lots of side-by-side comparisons which are quite interesting. The comparisons though in some ways take a way from any binocular when you just sit back and enjoy the view they produce and not worry about how another one might look.

I'm been thinking about buying another; not as a backup, but to have as a gift for some one who appreciates the optics.

The EII and a few other Nikon binoculars I've had or still have do convince me that Nikon have been underrated for quite a while. I've never tried Bushnell binoculars as I just figured they were mostly department store quality, but maybe I was wrong. I see they have the Euro HD which looks quite nice, and their scopes have always been popular. I probably saw some just at one time and they turned me off the entire brand. I don't really need another pair of binocular, but this form has got me looking at a couple

Thanks for the review and comparisons.

The Rangemaster and Custom were produced when the original Bushnell was running the company.

jimb100 said:

The Rangemaster and Custom were produced when the original Bushnell was running the company.

Click to expand...

The Rangemaster is interesting for it's truly WA view, but I'm not sure that's my thing. The Custom 7x26 seems to be classic and still well thought of in its Elite incarnation. I remember reading a review on it when I was looking for a compact, but I didn't know the history and probably Bushnell just wasn't something I was looking at very closely given the other big names I was familiar with and wanted something near the top.

Happy to be enlightened on the Bushnell Custom, and I found one at a good price. Next week should be fun with a couple new binos showing up in the mail.

EnjoyTheView said:

The Rangemaster is interesting for it's truly WA view, but I'm not sure that's my thing. The Custom 7x26 seems to be classic and still well thought of in its Elite incarnation. I remember reading a review on it when I was looking for a compact, but I didn't know the history and probably Bushnell just wasn't something I was looking at very closely given the other big names I was familiar with and wanted something near the top.

Happy to be enlightened on the Bushnell Custom, and I found one at a good price. Next week should be fun with a couple new binos showing up in the mail.

Click to expand...

Be sure to let me know how you like them.

EnjoyTheView said:

I'm been thinking about buying another; not as a backup, but to have as a gift for some one who appreciates the optics.....

Click to expand...

Look no further! o

Brock, president of the EII Appreciation Society of America

EnjoyTheView said:

The Rangemaster is interesting for it's truly WA view, but I'm not sure that's my thing. The Custom 7x26 seems to be classic and still well thought of in its Elite incarnation. I remember reading a review on it when I was looking for a compact, but I didn't know the history and probably Bushnell just wasn't something I was looking at very closely given the other big names I was familiar with and wanted something near the top.

Happy to be enlightened on the Bushnell Custom, and I found one at a good price. Next week should be fun with a couple new binos showing up in the mail.

Click to expand...

There's so much media bias concerning consumer products that lots of good products get lost.

I've tried a host of compact bins over the years and believed that Leica, Zeiss, Nikon made the best compact bins. If you want the absolute smallest, then an 8x20 from these companies high priced selections is the way to go.

But I then read a review stating that none of these really small bins can hold a candle to the Bushnell Compact Elite. And the guy was right! The Bushnells are certainly bulkier although not much larger and the view is much, much better. Brighter, sharper, larger FOV, bigger depth of field, all the porro goodness. Of course, the Bushnells are not submergeable but the new design should keep out dust and be OK in damp weather if not subjected to rain.

Part of the redesign improved this aspect.

The older models are slimmer, but not as robust. But they, too, are superior to even the top models from the big 3.

Its a shame that as time goes by fewer people appreciate the Bushnell Customs and Rangemasters. Its sadder that they don't get used and the good ones end up on a shelf as a collectible. I have almost a complete set in like new condition and I seldom use them for anything but the backyard. The Customs were made in 7x35, 7x50, 10x50, 6x25 in three variations then 7x26, and the impossibly hard to find 8x36 and 9x36. I have all but the x36.

Many of the ones you see on ebay at $100-200 have problems with collimation, dust, the cement used in the glass deteriorating, etc. The Bushnell Service Center will tell you they have no spare parts. But, like mine, if all they need are CLA, you'll see why they were some of the most expensive bins available in the late 60's and 70's. While coatings have improved, the laws of physics haven't changed. Well designed bins using top quality prisms and glass will still give an outstanding view.

jimb100 said:

There's so much media bias concerning consumer products that lots of good products get lost.

I've tried a host of compact bins over the years and believed that Leica, Zeiss, Nikon made the best compact bins. If you want the absolute smallest, then an 8x20 from these companies high priced selections is the way to go.

But I then read a review stating that none of these really small bins can hold a candle to the Bushnell Compact Elite. And the guy was right! The Bushnells are certainly bulkier although not much larger and the view is much, much better. Brighter, sharper, larger FOV, bigger depth of field, all the porro goodness. Of course, the Bushnells are not submergeable but the new design should keep out dust and be OK in damp weather if not subjected to rain.

Part of the redesign improved this aspect.

The older models are slimmer, but not as robust. But they, too, are superior to even the top models from the big 3.

Its a shame that as time goes by fewer people appreciate the Bushnell Customs and Rangemasters. Its sadder that they don't get used and the good ones end up on a shelf as a collectible. I have almost a complete set in like new condition and I seldom use them for anything but the backyard. The Customs were made in 7x35, 7x50, 10x50, 6x25 in three variations then 7x26, and the impossibly hard to find 8x36 and 9x36. I have all but the x36.

Many of the ones you see on ebay at $100-200 have problems with collimation, dust, the cement used in the glass deteriorating, etc. The Bushnell Service Center will tell you they have no spare parts. But, like mine, if all they need are CLA, you'll see why they were some of the most expensive bins available in the late 60's and 70's. While coatings have improved, the laws of physics haven't changed. Well designed bins using top quality prisms and glass will still give an outstanding view.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never found an x20 compact that I was happy with and never bought one. I'm reasonably happy with the Nikon Prostaff 8x25 for the price, but I wanted better and smaller. I got better, but in some ways not that much smaller, with the Swarovski Pocket CL.

I'm also quite happy with the Nikon 10x25 HG L compact, the only 10x compact I've tried. I was too worried that 10x might be too dim/muddy and too susceptible to atmospheric conditions for my use so I stuck with the 8x25 for the Pocket CL. I was pretty sure that was the right choice, until I used the Nikon 10x25 HG L out in the field and it worked quite well. Still not enough variations in conditions yet to say if a 10x compact now is viable for me. I also wanted a little flexibility in usage for event viewing and the rugged sealed build of the CL for out in the field so I think I probably made the right choice.

I agree though, seems like Nikon knows how to make nice compacts. It will be quite interesting to test the Custom Compact soon in comparison as there is quite the price difference.

I thought I was done bino shopping until this forum get me interested in the Nikon EII and it was available at a reasonable price. I tried the BlueSky II also as I liked the form factor. I got it at a great price so it's fun to have right now, but I don't need it in my gear selection.

At least now I'm sure I'm done with the compacts after the Bushnell Custom arrives, unless I pick up a vintage one also just for fun. Oh I had also picked up the Vortext Vanquish compact, but I think the Prostaff is marginally better so I don't need that so it will be a gift. I wish the hinge on the Prostaff though was almost as stiff as the Vanquish, it's way too loose for my liking.

I'll let you know what I think when I get a chance to check out the Custom Compact.

The Elite Compact arrived today, but unfortunately they are out of alignment and I don't see any easily accessible collimation adjustments. I'm not sure if I should see about sending them to Bushnell or just return them. They were a great price, but maybe just easier to return them. I liked the size of them.

EnjoyTheView said:

The Elite Compact arrived today, but unfortunately they are out of alignment and I don't see any easily accessible collimation adjustments. I'm not sure if I should see about sending them to Bushnell or just return them. They were a great price, but maybe just easier to return them. I liked the size of them.

Click to expand...

That's a shame, mine are fine. Swap them for another pair.

Its been a little cooler in FL lately so I've been spending more time outside.
Today, I was out with my EIIs and decided to take another look at my Bushnell Custom 7x35, side by side.

Size comparison, the Bushnell's are a little taller but the width is about the same and the EIIs are a tiny bit heavier. The EIIs have a slightly wider fov but not a lot as they are 8x and the Customs are 7x.

The extra 5mm of aperture in the Customs seems to make up for any benefit provided by the modern coatings as brightness was about the same and I never have problems with flare or ghosting with any of my Bushnell Customs or Rangemasters. (Full disclosure: I collect Bushnell Customs and B&L Zephyr binoculars)

Resolution was a dead heat. There are many tall pine trees in my neighborhood, the kind with dense needles. At 500 yards both bins resolved individual needles very well.

CA was also not readily apparent in either binocular.

I guess the point here that as EIIs get harder to find and likely more expensive, you can pick up Custom 7x35s for $100 on Ebay. Even if you have to send them out for cleaning and adjustment, that typically costs around $90. Worst case, you have $190 invested in a pair of binoculars that provide a view not far from today's alpha glass.

You won't have a warranty, but you probably wouldn't have much of a warranty with grey market EIIs either.

I am considering the Nikon EII 8x30 but I'm concerned about eye relief. I haven't tried them but I did try the Aculon 8x42 that has a tight eye relief and I could see the whole field of view at a squeeze....would these EII be similar in terms of ER?

Yes. 13.8 mm ER, and if you have glasses, you will need to jam them pretty tight to get the full field. Having said that, even without the full field, you still get a larger field than with most bins.

David

I wondered that - even without ramming them up against the glasses I would still get a usable field of view. The Aculon is 12mm and the EII is 13.8 so it should be a bit more comfortable.

I have the EII and two different kinds of glasses, one close fitting small metal pair and a bigger hornrimmed pair. With the metal pair I get the whole field of view and with the hornrimmed pair almost the whole field. Allthough with the latter I miss some FOV nevertheless the view is comfortable, not like looking through a tunnel.

Before I owned the Leica 8x32 BA and 8x32 BR and even with my close fitting glasses found myself fiddling for the whole FOV, especially when looking at infinity. As an experiment I removed the rubber from the eyeocups to get closer to the lens, but this produced black-outs. Apperently I got too close to the lens.

For me the 0,5 mm more ER on the EII makes a difference. I also think the nikon has a more forgiving eyepiece and easier eyeplacement. YMMV

Thanks for all the advice. I am now the proud owner of a Nikon EII 8x30. I think they are superb.

In case nobody has seen it:

"Legendary binoculars - Nikon 8x30 EII" dated 22Nov2015
http://www.allbinos.com/index.php?art=168

I'll also confess that I bought a pair, brand new, from a Japanese seller via Amazon (at a good price, too). Another self-indulgence in that I mostly wanted to see what the fuss is about. I now know why the fuss exists, and think that it is well justified.

...Mike

Mike,

Thanks for posting that link. I was particularly interested in the x-ray image. The author apparently sees a 6 element, 4 group eyepiece in the x-ray, but try as I might I can't see the 6th element or the 4th group. Cementings don't seem to show up in the image, but I imagine the two thick elements are probably cemented doublets, which makes the number and arrangement of the lenses look very similar to the 5 element, 3 group E eyepiece shown below.

An x-ray of the SE eyepiece would be interesting to see. It might look more like the patent drawings in the article.

Henry

It is 6 elements in 4 groups in 1+2+2+1 set, as was written in the article.
See slightly different picuture better showing first elements.