8x32 SE? (1 Viewer)

[Ardy]

PS
I have 504's, 505's and a 550. All are virtually identical.

I just bought a new pair last week .It was a 550.

 

[henry link]

Nikon's company history is wrong about the release date of the 8x32 SE. Mine was purchased in October of 1997 from the first shipment to arrive at Eagle Optics, serial # 500053.

 

[jaymoynihan]

I just bought a new pair last week .It was a 550.

Curious, was it via "special order" ?

 

[Blincodave]

Well to be clear, neither the SE's nor the venerable EII's have been discontinued. They are just no longer sold in the USA market. The are still being made and sold in the rest of the world. Curiously, the EDG binoculars only seem to be made and sold for the USA market and to be vaporware everywhere else.

cheers,
Rick

Hi Rick,

Fascinating! Can you tell us how you know they are still being manufactured?

Dave

 

[brocknroller]

Nikon's company history is wrong about the release date of the 8x32 SE. Mine was purchased in October of 1997 from the first shipment to arrive at Eagle Optics, serial # 500053.

Thanks for posting that info, Henry. I wondered why Nikon had started with 501 instead of 500.

Assuming that the serial #s follow sequential years, and discarding the misinformation about the 504 being purchased in '92 (unless time travel was involved), and incorporating Nikon's Eco-glass Development Highlights table, this would produce the following time line for the 8x32 SE:

Lead Glass SEs

500 = 1997
501 = 1998

502= 1999 Lead or Lead-free?

(According to the history Website, Nikon introduced the EIIs in 1999, which have lead-free optics)

503 = 2000 Lead or Lead-free? 80% chance lead-free
504 = 2001 Lead-free
505= 2002 Lead-free

550=2008 Lead-free

Nikon discontinued the SEs after the 505 series, and then brought them back six years later for one last production run, at least in the US, but continues marketing them abroad?

That makes no sense since the US is Nikon's biggest market.

I can understand why Nikon would not release the EDG in Europe, given their high price, the state of the global economy, and the fact that they need to fix the loose focuser cap.

But there's still something "fishy" with the SE series. Why wait six years to release a new production run of SEs only to discontinue them after what appears to be their last Hurrah?

Were the sales disappointing? From what I saw on BF last year, the 8x32 SEs were selling like hotcakes at $499.

However, fuel prices skyrocketed last year, which inflated the price of all shipped goods, so perhaps SE profits were slimmer than expected.

Someone speculated that Nikon is taking a break to retool the SE line, such as adding twist-up eyecups to bring them up to date.

Given the width of the rubber eyecups, an even wider twist-up eyecup would be too large for my deep-set eyes like the 820 Audubon's twist-up eyecups.

However, Swift did this with its 804 Audubon series. They produced a FMC and an ED 804 for a year (or two?) and then brought out the FMC and ED Audubons in the redesigned 820 model.

So it's possible there will be a Nikon SE Mark II, however, given the market shift toward roofs, it seems doubtful.

Plus, Nikon can make more money selling the EDG at $2K and Premier LX L at $1,300 than SEs for $499.

OTOH, with the continued interest in the SE series, what they lose in sales per unit, they could make up for in volume.

Given the SE's legendary status as the defacto reference standard in mid-sized birding bins, this seems like a safe bet.

Nikon's CEO, Mr. Okamoto, should request the sports optics division do some marketing research and focus groups.

Birdforum would be a good place to start!

Brock

 

[spacepilot]

Brock, where would the 550 numbers fit in your table? Or is the 505 in 2008 a typo?

I agree that the eyepieces of the SE's are really wide, and a straight add-on of twisty eyecups will not be good for useful eye relief and such. I wonder how much they can shave off the eyepiece diameter without affecting the optics.

I also wonder if Nikon had SE Mk II today, with twisty eyecups and better waterproofing, for $1300, how many customers, not just members of BF, would opt for the SE's over the arguably 'sexier' Premier LX L.

Ning

 

[CLRobles]

Hmmm? I like the deductions Brock but just through the sample to sample experience I wonder if Nikon went with the Eco glass so soon in the SE's? I'm more inclined to think that if they indeed did go to lead free glass it would be with the 550xxx run which may have been made in 2008 so disreguard the misinformation on the 505xxx run being made in this year

 

[RJM]

Hi Rick,

Fascinating! Can you tell us how you know they are still being manufactured?

Dave

Err, because they are always on display in the Nikon booth at the annnual Tokyo Photo/imaging Expo and I can still buy them here in Tokyo by the car load? Seriously, they have never been off the shelf of any optics dealer here that I know of since I "discovered" them in 2003.

Due to price increases over the last two years, the 8x32SE and 8x30EII now sell for ~58,000 and 48,000 yen respectively so aren't very good deals at current FOREX for gray market sales.

cheers,
Rick

 

[FrankD]

Just went down to Sportsmans Warehouse and picked up the 2009 Nikon Sport Optics catalog.... No mention of SE's at all. Nothing, nada :-C This is a bummer! But maybe they could have decided to make a limited run sometime after the catalog was printed?
By the way... Virtually every Nikon binocular and spotting scope I can think of is in it...

I find this interesting. I just picked up a Nikon Birding Optics catalog at the local "Optics Day" a week and a half ago. The Nikon Premier SE in all three configurations was clearly listed as an option.

 

[Jonathan B.]

Hmmm? I like the deductions Brock but just through the sample to sample experience I wonder if Nikon went with the Eco glass so soon in the SE's? I'm more inclined to think that if they indeed did go to lead free glass it would be with the 550xxx run which may have been made in 2008 so disreguard the misinformation on the 505xxx run being made in this year

I too question whether Eco-glass was used in the SE from 1997 to 2002. If you look at the document for which Ed provided a link, you will see that in 1998 everything that was in the design department was being designed for manufacture with Eco-glass, but by then the SE was already in production.

By the second half of 2005 everything produced by the Imaging Company had Eco-glass. According to Nikon corporate reports available on the Internet, the Imaging Company produces cameras--including digital cameras--scanners, software, and other stuff, but not binoculars.

The chart that follows those statements shows that by 2005, 95.8% of NEW optical products had Eco-glass, but perhaps not necessarily old optical products like the SE.

I would not be surprised if the 550 series has Eco-glass, but until somebody at Nikon tells otherwise, I suspect that the earlier production runs had lead glass. I would be curious to know if coatings on the SE changed simply because Nikon was using different coatings on binoculars, or whether it was because some different qualities of the Eco-glass required a change.

 

[ceasar]

Is there any reason why the 32mm and 42mm objective lenses should have been different for the LX/LXL and the SE versions? If the binoculars in the 502 through 505 series were sitting on the shelf waiting to be released it's possible they had lead in their objective lenses but if they were new production runs, it wouldn't make sense not to use eco-glass in the objectives. If the EII's used eco-glass then it's a good guess that the SE's also used it after the introduction of the EII's.
Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Brock, where would the 550 numbers fit in your table? Or is the 505 in 2008 a typo?

I agree that the eyepieces of the SE's are really wide, and a straight add-on of twisty eyecups will not be good for useful eye relief and such. I wonder how much they can shave off the eyepiece diameter without affecting the optics.

I also wonder if Nikon had SE Mk II today, with twisty eyecups and better waterproofing, for $1300, how many customers, not just members of BF, would opt for the SE's over the arguably 'sexier' Premier LX L.

Ning

Yes, that was a type oh! I corrected it,
550 = 2008 Lead-free

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

Is there any reason why the 32mm and 42mm objective lenses should have been different for the LX/LXL and the SE versions? If the binoculars in the 502 through 505 series were sitting on the shelf waiting to be released it's possible they had lead in their objective lenses but if they were new production runs, it wouldn't make sense not to use eco-glass in the objectives. If the EII's used eco-glass then it's a good guess that the SE's also used it after the introduction of the EII's.
Bob

If the 10x42 SE and 8x32 SE have different focal lengths than the 10x42 LX and 8x32 LX respectively, that would necessitate Nikon designing different objectives for the porros and roofs.

Length-wise, the 10x42 SE and 10x42 LX are almost identical (6.2" vs. 6.1"), but you can't determine FL from the length of the binoculars.

You have to measure all the distance the light bounces around in the prisms, which is different in a roof prism than it is in a porro prism.

Nikon only lists general information on its Eco-glass Development Highlights, so I made my best "guess" (there's that word again) on the year the SE changed over to Eco-Glass, based on the information they provided.

If the 505 series does have Eco-Glass, then Nikon succeeded in finding a lead substitute that retains a "true to life" color palette and shows no more CA than my 501 SE (I compared them side by side).

I would like to compare the 505 to the 550 to see if this still holds true.

According to the Nikon history Website, the LX/HG was introduced in 1997 when SE's were still being made with lead glass, so I think it's a safe bet that the Venturers had lead glass too.

The LX/HG L was introduced in 2002, the year after Nikon claims its "Development of Eco-glass composition [was] complete," and the LX L was (and is, as the Premier LX L) advertised as having "Eco-Glass".

According to my time line above, the 505 SE was made the same year (2002).

Why Nikon "got it right" with the 505 SE (assuming it has lead glass) and got it wrong with the LX L (brightness overwhelms contrast, increased CA, and skewed color palette) is another mystery.

Brock

 

[Ardy]

Curious, was it via "special order" ?

No,but the women who is co-owner said they would stock until spring,and then they weren't sure if they could get anymore.I think she was special ordering for her store,so they they had stock.She said the reason for discontinuation was a no profit factor in the hand fitting of the lenses,compared to the machine fitting currently used.
P.S. It might have been hand fitting of the prisms instead of lenses.....I was just exicted that they had a pair.

 

[spacepilot]

Is the Eco-glass lighter than lead glass? I wonder if by weighing 8x32 SE's within different SN ranges, naked without strap and covers, we can tell if glass changes were made during the production.

Also, is there a high geological concentration of SE's in different SN ranges somewhere that allows for a viewing party with several owners? I'm in the middle of nowhere, and I haven't seen anyone living close to me saying they have SE's.

Ning

 

[henry link]

Is there any reason why the 32mm and 42mm objective lenses should have been different for the LX/LXL and the SE versions? If the binoculars in the 502 through 505 series were sitting on the shelf waiting to be released it's possible they had lead in their objective lenses but if they were new production runs, it wouldn't make sense not to use eco-glass in the objectives. If the EII's used eco-glass then it's a good guess that the SE's also used it after the introduction of the EII's.
Bob

Bob,

The objective designs are completely different in all these binoculars. The SEs have simple cemented doublets. The EIIs also use cemented doublets, but with shorter FLs and lower focal ratios. The LX/LX-L have fixed air spaced triplets with a moving focusing lens. Nothing is interchangeable.

I think I've read all of Brock's and others posts here and at CN on the subject of lead vs lead free glass in binoculars without being persuaded by any of the evidence offered that leaded glass improves CA performance, particularly in a non-critical visual instrument like a low magnification binocular. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't seen convincing evidence. In the interest of offering some hard evidence one way or the other I'll try to make some magnified images of the longitudinal and lateral CA of a few leaded vs unleaded Nikon Porros. I have several of each. Probably the closest thing to an apples to apples comparison would be between the 8x30 E and 8x30 EII since those two use the same objective lenses. I'm off to the NC Outer Banks for vacation next week, so I'll try to do this when I return.

Henry

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks, Henry, for confirming that the objectives are different.

As far as lead-glass vis-à-vis unleaded glass in re: to CA , I think there has been a progression in terms of finding suitable substitutes for the lead.

So you won't find that all lead-free glass for a given magnification has the same degree of CA even when made by the same manufacturer.

The 8x32 LX L has noticeably more CA than the 8x30 EII, and both employ lead-free glass.

Of course, that's not an apples to apples comparison, one is a roof, the other, a porro, and I've noticed from my first look at roofs, that they seem to display more CA than the same configuration porros - this was even before lead-free glass.

So perhaps there's something else going on besides the type of glass being used that affects the color fidelity in the above example.

My understanding of differences in lead vs. lead-free glass is that lead glass has a higher refractive index (RI) than lead-free glass.

The higher RI affects the index of dispersion, which measures the degree to which the glass separates light into its component colors.

The challenge to optics manufacturers has been finding suitable substitutes for the lead that would allow the glass to produce bright images with true color rendition and minimal chromatic aberration.

After experimenting with various substitutes, with varying degrees of success, the final solution that manufacturers seem to have arrived at is adding ED or FL element to the objectives.

If manufacturers hadn't switched to lead-free glass, I don't think we'd see ED glass being used as widely as it is today.

You've probably seen these threads already, but in case others haven't, I'm going to re-post the links. They corroborate my observations:

Lead and Arsenic Is a Good Thing!
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=57189

In this technical report, the author states that even when manufacturers manage to produce a lead-free glass material with an equivalent refractive index and Abbe number, it still won't achieve the same performance [as lead glass]:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:k3kcQ3sWclQJ:www.jbce.org/files/6_No_13-2_Lead_in_Optical_Glass.pdf+lead+free+glass+in+microscopes+increased+chromatic+aberration&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I also have other links, but they are buried in my bookmarks, I will have to search them out.

Regardless of whatever is done by the manufacturer to reduce CA, "human factors" also affect how much CA is seen in actual use.

Some people are more sensitive to CA than others, and as Steve Ingraham warned on BVD, do NOT look for CA, because once you've trained your eyes to see it, it will become more apparent on every bin you use (I heavily paraphrase, but something to that effect).

While you're doing your testing, also take out your 500 SE. When I compared the 501 SE to the EII, the differences in the color palette were noticeable (subtle, not as skewed as the LX L, but noticeable with careful comparison).

The older lead SEs do not have the higher contrast and color depth of the latest lead-free glass bins, but their color rendition is excellent.

The colors I saw naked eye were the same colors I saw through the SEs, and for birding, that's an important quality for a bin to have.

Brock

 

[John Russell]

I think I've read all of Brock's and others posts here and at CN on the subject of lead vs lead free glass in binoculars without being persuaded by any of the evidence offered that leaded glass improves CA performance, particularly in a non-critical visual instrument like a low magnification binocular. Henry

Henry,

I was told by someone, who had done a detailed comparison of LX and LXLs, that the "superiority" of the leaded-glass LXs was a rumour propagated by dealers to move old stocks.

John

 

[ceasar]

Thanks Henry, for your succinct explanation of the various objective lenses. I always learn something from your posts.

Fortunately, I am one of those fortunate individuals, mentioned above by Brock, who does not see CA except when I make an effort to look for it on brightly lit straight edges of buildings. On very rare occasions I can see it when I look at crows and such against a bright but slightly overcast sky. For this reason I stay out of the debate about whether ED glass or eco-glass helps to negate that phenomenon.

I do think, however, that when Nikon decided to go to eco-glass, it would have made economic sense to use it in all the lenses they manufactured from that date forward.

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Henry,

I was told by someone, who had done a detailed comparison of LX and LXLs, that the "superiority" of the leaded-glass LXs was a rumour propagated by dealers to move old stocks.

John

John,

Okay, I will level with you. The people who started that rumor weren't Nikon dealers but a group of Bird Forum members who pooled their money and bought a truckload of refurbished LXs at a bulk discount.

We’ve been talking up the LX on the forums to increase their perceived value so we can make higher profits when we sell them.

Joking, of course, but that sounds more plausible than Nikon dealers dissing their own brand. Think about it.

They start a rumor about the superiority of the LX so they can move their old stock of $800 LXs, then what happens to their new stock $1,300 LX Ls? They sit on the shelf collecting dust, because nobody wants to buy them!

Or if they didn’t order any LX Ls until after they sold all their old stock LXs, they will have a hard time convincing their customers that the LX L is worth $500 more after starting those nasty rumors. It doesn’t make sense.

Now if your friend had said that the rumor was started by authorized Leica dealers, or authorized Zeiss dealers, or authorized Swarovski dealers with the intention of killing the (then) new competition of the Nikon LX L, the story would have a bit more credibility.

The Nikon LXs were admittedly too heavy (at least the full sized models, the midsized LXs weigh only 2 ounces more than the LX L versions). So some people will like the LX L better for that reason alone.

The LX L’s glass/coatings skew colors toward the yellow, which makes the images look brighter (though I think some expert – Henry? – measured the light throughput and found the LX L was not intrinsically brighter – check on that, I don’t want to start more rumors!). So some people will like the LX Ls more for that reason (particularly hunters).

The LX L’s armoring is softer and more attractive looking. So some people will like them on that basis (though not after they find out how quickly the armoring shows wear!). I’ve had my 8x32 LX for over two years, and the armoring looks almost as good as new. I had a 10x42 LX L for two weeks, and they were already starting to show some wear on their soft top. Check out photos of used LX Ls and you'll see what I mean.

The LX L’s eyecups have click stops, the LX's do not, however, my LX’s eyecups stay put and have never slipped from their in-between positions. Some people might prefer the LX L's click stop eyecups.

So I can understand why some people would prefer the LX L to the LX, but in my own “detailed comparison,” I found that the LX's optics have truer color rendition, better contrast in bright light, and less CA (much to my dismay after having spent a small fortune on the LX L).

I’m not an expert like Henry, but I do have a lot of hands-on experience with binoculars, particularly with Nikons.

However, I would not disregard different opinions about the relative merits of the lead LX vis-à-vis lead-free LX L. “To each his own”.

But please continue to spread the rumor about the superiority of the LX, because we still have half a truckload to sell.

Brock