• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

A little time with the Premier 8X32... (1 Viewer)

chill6x6

Well-known member
Recently I bought some LNIB Nikon Premier 8X32 binoculars....like two weeks ago. I've only been out with them on a couple of trips BUT.... SWEET! Really nice! Focus adjustment-Nikon smooth. ER- great for me with/without glasses. Eyecups- adjust with a definite "click." Hinge tension- perfect. It IS a little chunky at 24.5 ounces...same weight as my Monarch HG 8X42. SV 8X32 is 21 ounces. Seems like it's built like a tank though...

I went to my current favorite birding spot that's close to me and another that's probably my #3 on two different days. I just strapped them on with me RYULH and started walking. Color/image/contrast is VERY nice. I sure didn't notice that the FOV was less than some other 8X32s I have and it's not MUCH difference at 409 ft. Edge to edge pretty dang sharp too.

So initial thoughts are very positive for this binocular. Nothing new for some that have owned this binocular for several years I'm sure. I'm looking forward to comparing to my Conquest HD 8X32.

I have to say my option of Nikon binoculars keeps getting better and better...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1340.jpg
    IMG_1340.jpg
    74.5 KB · Views: 257

ceasar

Well-known member
Recently I bought some LNIB Nikon Premier 8X32 binoculars....like two weeks ago. I've only been out with them on a couple of trips BUT.... SWEET! Really nice! Focus adjustment-Nikon smooth. ER- great for me with/without glasses. Eyecups- adjust with a definite "click." Hinge tension- perfect. It IS a little chunky at 24.5 ounces...same weight as my Monarch HG 8X42. SV 8X32 is 21 ounces. Seems like it's built like a tank though...

I went to my current favorite birding spot that's close to me and another that's probably my #3 on two different days. I just strapped them on with me RYULH and started walking. Color/image/contrast is VERY nice. I sure didn't notice that the FOV was less than some other 8X32s I have and it's not MUCH difference at 409 ft. Edge to edge pretty dang sharp too.

So initial thoughts are very positive for this binocular. Nothing new for some that have owned this binocular for several years I'm sure. I'm looking forward to comparing to my Conquest HD 8X32.

I have to say my option of Nikon binoculars keeps getting better and better...

Chuck,

"Premier" is the new name that Nikon gave to their old 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42 HGL/LXLs after they introduced the EDGs. They discontinued the 10x32 model at that time and continued to sell the other 3 models as their 2nd line of binoculars. When Nikon introduced the new Monarch HGs as their 2nd line of binoculars they dropped the 3 Premiers and archived them.

I have both the 8x32 LXL and 10x32 LXL and agree with your comments about your newly purchased 8x32 Premier. They have flat fields and are sharp to the edge.

They look exactly like yours except on the right objective tube where yours says "Premier" mine says 8x32 7.8ºL with "waterproof" underneath that. On the left tube it says Nikon. This is one way of dating these binoculars since they have looked the same since 2004.

Bob
 

dries1

Member
Hg

Chuck,

Here are my HG/LXs, I still use them, they eye relief is great for those who wear glasses. As Bob stated these are the first models that came before the LX/L and then yours the Premier.
I think they provide a great immersive view.

Andy W.
 

Attachments

  • ist 8X32 nikon.jpg
    ist 8X32 nikon.jpg
    115.9 KB · Views: 180
  • hg 10X32.jpg
    hg 10X32.jpg
    99.2 KB · Views: 124

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Chuck. How do you find the CA on the Nikon Premier's? I had a few pairs a couple of years a go and the CA on the edge bothered me without HD glass but I am sensitive to CA. As you said a little on the heavy side say compared to a Zeiss FL and I have heard they have armor problems with short longevity and loosening in warm weather. Good glass other than that though especially for the money.
 
Last edited:

Alexis Powell

Natural history enthusiast
United States
For me, the biggest flaws of the Nikon 8x32 Venturer LX/HG/LXL/HGL/Premier were the CA and the very poor "hang".
Also, long term, the rubber armor doesn't hold up as well as Zeiss/Leica/Swarovski.

--AP
 

chill6x6

Well-known member
Thanks for the comments Bob, Andy, and AP.... Especially thanks for the photos Andy!

I really didn't notice any difference in "hang" while using the RYULH as I mostly do.

Chuck. How do you find the CA on the Nikon Premier's? I had a few pairs a couple of years a go and the CA on the edge bothered me without HD glass but I am sensitive to CA. As you said a little on the heavy side say compared to a Zeiss FL and I have heard they have armor problems with short longevity and loosening in warm weather. Good glass other than that though especially for the money.

CA....There's a little bit there in the last 20% of the edge but for me, only if I look for it. I certainly didn't find it to be objectionable in any way while out birding. The way I take care of my binoculars I bet I'll never have an armoring issue! HAHA.. They have a pretty easy life!
 

dries1

Member
The armor on the Hg was the best armor Nikon ever put on a binocular, very similar composition to the SE, it looks like new. There were some issues with the LX/L scratching easily, some older threads from Brock who had both of them indicated this. Perhaps they improved it on the Premier. The weight never bothered me, they used the same eyepieces from the 8 and 10X42, so a bit top heavy, not a big deal, I carry it on a wrist sling. I am also not adverse to CA.

Andy W.
 

dries1

Member
Actually that is when I take them out, when it is sunny and they are in viewing rotation, just kidding. They are still a pleasure to use, although I tend to use larger aperture these days.

Andy W.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
The armor on the Hg was the best armor Nikon ever put on a binocular, very similar composition to the SE, it looks like new. There were some issues with the LX/L scratching easily, some older threads from Brock who had both of them indicated this. Perhaps they improved it on the Premier. The weight never bothered me, they used the same eyepieces from the 8 and 10X42, so a bit top heavy, not a big deal, I carry it on a wrist sling. I am also not adverse to CA.

Andy W.
A lot of people say they don't see CA but even if you don't see it it affects contrast, color accuracy, sharpness and even light transmission when the colors of the spectrum are divergent. When you are trying to make out the colors on a birds feathers to ID the species it can be very important. I think the importance of CA in an optical system is sometimes ignored. It is not just color fringes around an object. It is much more.
 

ceasar

Well-known member
A lot of people say they don't see CA but even if you don't see it it affects contrast, color accuracy, sharpness and even light transmission when the colors of the spectrum are divergent. When you are trying to make out the colors on a birds feathers to ID the species it can be very important. I think the importance of CA in an optical system is sometimes ignored. It is not just color fringes around an object. It is much more.

Dennis,

We see what we see. You see what you see.

Why you you keep insisting every time the problem of CA in a binocular comes up that there is something wrong with the vision of people who are not bothered by the CA is a mystery to me.

I for one am not going to run to my Opthamologist and complain that my vision has a problem because someone else sees CA in a binocular I use and I don't see it.

OK?

Bob
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
I didn't say there was something wrong with your vision if you are not bothered by CA. My point is HD or high dispersion glass which helps control CA has benefits other than eliminating the color rings around objects like contrast, color accuracy, sharpness and light transmission. So even if you are not bothered by CA HD glass has other indirect benefits.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
A lot of people say they don't see CA but even if you don't see it it affects contrast, color accuracy, sharpness and even light transmission when the colors of the spectrum are divergent. When you are trying to make out the colors on a birds feathers to ID the species it can be very important. I think the importance of CA in an optical system is sometimes ignored. It is not just color fringes around an object. It is much more.

Dennis, I don't think anyone here is going to say CA is a good thing. But there is the question of is it only at the edge of the fov or is it in the centre and then the question just how bad is it. I have yet to experience a bino with CA that changed the colour of any part of a bird's plumage or obscured fine details such as speckles or supercilia at normal viewing distances. Its one thing to say that CA must be deleterious to the view of a bird but quite another to quantify its actual effect out in the field.

Lets put it in more practical terms. If anyone on here with good experience of binos, lets say Chuck or Bob, picked up a pair of binos and could no longer see the usual identification features of their local birds at the usual distances because of the effects of CA, do you really think they would continue to use those binos? I don't get bothered by CA but if it intruded on my normal viewing in any way I would. Telling me that 'it must be intruding because its bad' doesn't accurately reflect my experience.

I have nothing against the desire to seek out and buy binos with no CA at all and with the most fantastic optical performance, but there are binos out there that fall short of perfection and still provide terrific observing experiences with no weird effects spoiling the appearance of birds and animals.

Lee
 

chris6

Well-known member
To me CA is either obvious or not so I don't often bother looking for it, except when trying something out. With 8x42 HGL at first there seemed to be no CA and I still think brightness, sharpness, contrast, and colour are better than usual. With glasses everything else is also very comfortable. Focussing does not particularly snap but the perfectly light and smooth action is handy for fine adjustment. I find that f.o.v. of 'only' 7 degrees is adequate because the view is clean nearly to the edge. Pincushion seems less than average and I do like the size, weight, and shape. Nice all round.

Opticron hinged objective covers and O ring dioptre spacers
 

Attachments

  • Nikon 8x42 HGL.jpg
    Nikon 8x42 HGL.jpg
    189.4 KB · Views: 124

Sancho

Registered User
Supporter
Dennis, I don't think anyone here is going to say CA is a good thing. But there is the question of is it only at the edge of the fov or is it in the centre and then the question just how bad is it. I have yet to experience a bino with CA that changed the colour of any part of a bird's plumage or obscured fine details such as speckles or supercilia at normal viewing distances. Its one thing to say that CA must be deleterious to the view of a bird but quite another to quantify its actual effect out in the field.

Lets put it in more practical terms. If anyone on here with good experience of binos, lets say Chuck or Bob, picked up a pair of binos and could no longer see the usual identification features of their local birds at the usual distances because of the effects of CA, do you really think they would continue to use those binos? I don't get bothered by CA but if it intruded on my normal viewing in any way I would. Telling me that 'it must be intruding because its bad' doesn't accurately reflect my experience.

I have nothing against the desire to seek out and buy binos with no CA at all and with the most fantastic optical performance, but there are binos out there that fall short of perfection and still provide terrific observing experiences with no weird effects spoiling the appearance of birds and animals.

Lee

There's a lovely expression in Spanish , which goes "Buscando tres pies al gato" (Looking for three legs on the cat). It translates roughly as (help me out here, Spanish BF folk!) "Looking for a problem where none is perceived to exist". If I had followed that advice long ago, I would have saved a lot of money on "vanity" binocular purchases!B :)
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
There's a lovely expression in Spanish , which goes "Buscando tres pies al gato" (Looking for three legs on the cat). It translates roughly as (help me out here, Spanish BF folk!) "Looking for a problem where none is perceived to exist". If I had followed that advice long ago, I would have saved a lot of money on "vanity" binocular purchases!B :)


Mierda, tiene tres patas!

Lee
Translation, if needed, available on request :-O
 

Attachments

  • three-leg-cat.jpg
    three-leg-cat.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 87

ceasar

Well-known member
I didn't say there was something wrong with your vision if you are not bothered by CA. My point is HD or high dispersion glass which helps control CA has benefits other than eliminating the color rings around objects like contrast, color accuracy, sharpness and light transmission. So even if you are not bothered by CA HD glass has other indirect benefits.

OK Dennis,

I will concede that you could have worded your original statement in Post#11 a little better.;)

Bob
 

Alexis Powell

Natural history enthusiast
United States
I'm 100% in agreement w/Dennis on the deleterious effects of CA, even for those who don't "see" it.

Further, on the point of whether CA can discolor a bird so as to impede identification, I experienced this fairly frequently when trying to ID distant birds, especially those in flight, before I got bins with less CA. When a bird is very tiny, at the limits of being identifiable, the effects of CA are highly destructive to the limited information content of that little image on the back of my eye. So, e.g., for doing a hawk watch, give me a Zeiss FL, not a Leica Ultravid. Otherwise, I quite like, perhaps even prefer, the Ultravid.

--AP
 

Gilmore Girl

Beth
Supporter
United States
I'm 100% in agreement w/Dennis on the deleterious effects of CA, even for those who don't "see" it.

Further, on the point of whether CA can discolor a bird so as to impede identification, I experienced this fairly frequently when trying to ID distant birds, especially those in flight, before I got bins with less CA. When a bird is very tiny, at the limits of being identifiable, the effects of CA are highly destructive to the limited information content of that little image on the back of my eye. So, e.g., for doing a hawk watch, give me a Zeiss FL, not a Leica Ultravid. Otherwise, I quite like, perhaps even prefer, the Ultravid.

--AP

This matches up with some experiences I've had with my Ultravid 7x42. I'm not very good at ID at far distances, so I don't go out of my way looking at specs too far out like hawks way up high. Plus, it's a lower power bino and far away birds can look like specs sometimes anyway. I have noticed a few times colorization seems a touch off with these far distance birds, but when they get closer I'll ID the bird and realize the color did not look quite accurate at the far distance. I'm not talking about color fringing, but just what you mentioned. Close and middle distance birds seem to have accurate color rendering and look amazing through the Uvid Plus. Perhaps if I were to think about getting a 10x for distant birds like for Hawk watching I may go for Zeiss, Swaro or Nikon instead. For the viewing distances I prefer (am comfortable with) the Leica is just wonderful.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top