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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ceasar" data-source="post: 1845501" data-attributes="member: 26155">Brock,In 2003 or 2004 the 8 x32 SE was selling for around $550.00. They went up somewhat since and then back down, but not very much has changed in that respect.  I decided  at that time to save $300.00 and bought an 8 x 30 EII instead. (I got an 8 x 32 SE a couple of years ago when they came back down to $550.00.)  I don't recall exactly what the 10 x 42's cost then but I think it was in the $1000.00 range.Sometime between now and then the glass changed at least once.  The coatings did too; maybe a couple of times.  I thought I addressed that in my earlier post.  I was referring to their respective (and subjective) views when I used the phrase "hard pressed."  These changes appear to be more subtle than those that have occurred with  the new version of Swarovski's EL based on the testimony of those familiar with both versions of that binocular.  On the matter of economics I also note that the changes Nikon made did not cost as much.  It certainly helped that they kept the same chassis and internal workings. I have a 2nd hand 10 x 42 with SN 005xxx.  I don't know how old it is and I don't know if it has lead glass.  I've had it about 5 years.  I also have, as stated above, a 2 year old new 8 x 32 with SN 505xxx.  The coatings on their objectives are different; that is obvious.  Neither has CA problems.  Both have outstanding edge sharpness.  The 10's are better, but I am hard pressed to see the difference.  I think that the colors and contrast are better with the 10's.  I'm also more comfortable using them.  They fit my hands better.And finally, it doesn't matter to me if they aren't water proof.  It helps keep costs down.Cordially, as always,Bob</blockquote>

Verification