I just acquired some Nikon 10x35 E 11's from ebay, to compare with the 8x30 E 11's and B1.2 10x42 Mavens that I've been using the last several months. I am very happy with both the 8x30's and the Mavens, no issues with either, but the Nikons are so great at what they do, I had to wonder what the 10x35 version would be like. The Mavens, from what I have read, are pretty similar to the Ziess Conquest. The clarity and sharpness are at a high level. The depth of field, perhaps similar to any 10x42 roof prism binocular, is a bit thin. The Nikons are unreal in this regard- it's like you are seeing everything at once. Both are so good at what they do, it's hard to complain about anything. Surprisingly, I prefer the smaller Nikons for casual looks at the night sky- even if the image is not quite as bright. They have such a huge fov, and are so lightweight, that I use them more often than the Mavens for that purpose. Sharpness- wise, it's a toss-up. Both are plenty sharp. So, after receiving the new 10x35 E11's, I was really curious about what they would be like, compared to the 8x30's. Fortunately, they are in like-new condition, and look to be only a few years old, at most. I've had them out a few days now, in several locations, trying to determine what their strengths are. FOV is 7 degrees, a bit more than the Mavens. Looking through both, that seems to be the case. Edge sharpness is similar to the 8x30's, good enough to not be a problem- there in no feeling of looking through a sort of tunnel. The Mavens are sharper at the edges, but especially for porros with that large a fov, the Nikons are fine, at least for me. The 10x35's seem to me to be a bit sharper than either the 8x30's or the Mavens- they are a bit unreal in this respect- very, very sharp. I had some Habicht 10x40's for a while last summer- I wish I still had them to compare to these Nikons. Colors are great- I'm still evaluating them with different birds, but both the reds and the blues really stand out. I got a nice few minutes observing a bluebird, and all the colors were very vibrant. I also spent some time looking at sparrows in a hedge- very detailed, clear view. Depth of field is very good, for 10x binoculars. Not like the 8x30's, but much better than the Mavens. Brightness is good, similar to the 8x30's. The Mavens are brighter, and a bit more vivid. Overall, though, I consider these Nikon 10x35 E 11's to be equally as good as the 8x30's. The combination of things they do well is impressive. However, viewing through the 8x30's might be a bit more comfortable- they excell at that, for sure. The only real issue the 10x35's have, for me, is that there is a bit more chromatic aberration than either of the other two binoculars. I like them so much, though, I'm pretty much ignoring it. Another thing that surprised me was night sky performance. They come pretty close to going as deep as the Mavens. M4 is a globular cluster next to the star Antares- with the 8x30's it was pretty easy to see, but the 10x35's did noticeably better. So- all I can say right now is these are really nice binoculars. I'm glad I took the chance in picking them up.
-
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.
Nikon 10x35 E11 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Harber8
- Start date
I had both the 8x30 and the 10x35 E2's and I felt the same way you do about them , they are quite lovely and do everything right imo . I couldn't find anything to complain about other than I wish they had a few more millimeters of eye relief for eyeglass wearers .
Attachments
I have had both of the E2's the 8x30 and the 10x35, and they are good value for their price. They can compete with many $800 to $1000 roof prisms optically, although the fact that they aren't waterproof, fog proof or dustproof limits their versatility to fair weather birding, and they are definitely not for someone that birds in rain forests, jungles or in rainy, foggy climates. Because of the accordion action of the focuser they will also suck in dust over the years and have to be serviced for that reason.
I was never as impressed with 10x35 E2 as I was with the 8x30 E2. In fact, I was disappointed with them and quickly sold them because I never felt they were exceptional in any way like the 8x30 E2 is. The biggest weakness of both E2's is the contrast compared to an alpha roof, and I had the latest coatings on my E2's. When I would go from an SF, EL or NL to an E2, I would always miss the pop and sparkle of the alpha with their superior coatings and glass. The E2 just seemed dead in comparison.
The E2 8x30 is nice for the wide FOV compared to the competition, but the FOV is not sharp to the edge like the more modern alpha roofs, so it pales in comparison IMO. If you like a big FOV and you don't mind soft edges and your budget doesn't allow for a modern alpha roof, they are a good choice if you bird mostly in nice weather, and you like the 3D view that a porro provides. That being said, the E2's are still the best buy under $500 for sheer optics and quality.
www.birdforum.net
I was never as impressed with 10x35 E2 as I was with the 8x30 E2. In fact, I was disappointed with them and quickly sold them because I never felt they were exceptional in any way like the 8x30 E2 is. The biggest weakness of both E2's is the contrast compared to an alpha roof, and I had the latest coatings on my E2's. When I would go from an SF, EL or NL to an E2, I would always miss the pop and sparkle of the alpha with their superior coatings and glass. The E2 just seemed dead in comparison.
The E2 8x30 is nice for the wide FOV compared to the competition, but the FOV is not sharp to the edge like the more modern alpha roofs, so it pales in comparison IMO. If you like a big FOV and you don't mind soft edges and your budget doesn't allow for a modern alpha roof, they are a good choice if you bird mostly in nice weather, and you like the 3D view that a porro provides. That being said, the E2's are still the best buy under $500 for sheer optics and quality.
Nikon 10x35 EII disappointment
Got some new Nikon 10x35 EII's the other day. News that they were being dicontinued and glowing reports made me pull the trigger. Unfortunately there is not a dealer that carries the higher end Nikons within 500 miles of me so I bought them via mail sight unseen. The first day I spent looking...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
I'm having fun with a new/old pair of 10x35 E's (E 1). There's more to it than just the optics, it's the whole package. The short & stubby porros feel different from roofs - they seem easier to keep steady then my 10x42 roofs (EDG). The feel of grasping the porro body is different and I think I may prefer it over roof tubes.
And I like the bare metal of the old E's. Rubberized roofs seems clumsy & cumbersome in comparison, and I never use binoculars in rainy weather. I never bang them against anything. The FOV would be flatter in a fancy roof bino, but you also get the rectilinear distortion that comes with it. I don't wear glasses and the minimalist rubber eyecups are perfect for me.
I'm still experimenting, but it seems like eye placement is easier with a small exit pupil in the E's than it is in the big roofs. Not sure how that works.
And I like the bare metal of the old E's. Rubberized roofs seems clumsy & cumbersome in comparison, and I never use binoculars in rainy weather. I never bang them against anything. The FOV would be flatter in a fancy roof bino, but you also get the rectilinear distortion that comes with it. I don't wear glasses and the minimalist rubber eyecups are perfect for me.
I'm still experimenting, but it seems like eye placement is easier with a small exit pupil in the E's than it is in the big roofs. Not sure how that works.
I am sure the contrast and clarity of these Nikon E11's are not quite at alpha glass level. My B1.2's are somewhat better at this as well. What they are is top-level porro-prism binoculars, and there are few options left in that category. To me, porro glasses just have a different view. I'm liking what they do very much.I have had both of the E2's the 8x30 and the 10x35, and they are good value for their price. They can compete with many $800 to $1000 roof prisms optically, although the fact that they aren't waterproof, fog proof or dustproof limits their versatility to fair weather birding, and they are definitely not for someone that birds in rain forests, jungles or in rainy, foggy climates. Because of the accordion action of the focuser they will also suck in dust over the years and have to be serviced for that reason.
I was never as impressed with 10x35 E2 as I was with the 8x30 E2. In fact, I was disappointed with them and quickly sold them because I never felt they were exceptional in any way like the 8x30 E2 is. The biggest weakness of both E2's is the contrast compared to an alpha roof, and I had the latest coatings on my E2's. When I would go from an SF, EL or NL to an E2, I would always miss the pop and sparkle of the alpha with their superior coatings and glass. The E2 just seemed dead in comparison.
The E2 8x30 is nice for the wide FOV compared to the competition, but the FOV is not sharp to the edge like the more modern alpha roofs, so it pales in comparison IMO. If you like a big FOV and you don't mind soft edges and your budget doesn't allow for a modern alpha roof, they are a good choice if you bird mostly in nice weather, and you like the 3D view that a porro provides. That being said, the E2's are still the best buy under $500 for sheer optics and quality.
Nikon 10x35 EII disappointment
Got some new Nikon 10x35 EII's the other day. News that they were being dicontinued and glowing reports made me pull the trigger. Unfortunately there is not a dealer that carries the higher end Nikons within 500 miles of me so I bought them via mail sight unseen. The first day I spent looking...
I wouldn't be so sure. They have the same coatings and glass as other modern Nikons right? I thought the advantage of modern roofs is the waterproofing & flatter field. Adjustable eyecups. Rubber cladding. If you automatically assume the $$$$ binocular is best you might be paying for features you don't want or need.
Do the NIkon WX have different coatings than my new EDG? Or better glasses in the lenses? I highly doubt it. It's just a different design spec. Wide, flat field above all else. The EDG are better for my needs, even though they cost less.
I'm sure the coatings on the E 11's are up there with the other higher-end Nikon binoculars. The glass might be another story- The E11 10x35 does have some CA, more than the 8x30 has. I'm not sure about what type of glass is used, other than it is eco-friendly. The WX, however? Who knows. The ultimate high-end binoculars.
tenex
reality-based
At least they must be an improvement on the E3 through E10, which no one ever even talks about.
(I like my EII 8x30 too, had a great view of a Ruby-crowned Kinglet just up the street yesterday, much more easily than with my usual 10x42. It has a really special simple clarity.)
Last edited:
It is the 3D stereoscopic view, and it is different from most roofs, but you have to tolerate the softer edges and field curvature, which I can't. I will take a huge FOV that is sharp to the edge anytime.
Last edited:
No, I don't think the E2's have the same quality glass and coatings as the high-end Nikon binoculars like the EDG, WX or even HG. A $400 binocular isn't going to have the same glass and coatings as a $1000 or $2000 binocular. I haven't tried the WX, but I know the EDG and HG have better contrast, and I would bet my life on it that the WX does too. That being said, the E2 will have some of the intrinsic advantages of a porro like high transmission and 3D view, but they are not going to have the contrast of the higher end Nikon binoculars.
Last edited:
I disagree about the coatings- I am more inclined to think they are probably the same multi-coatings used on all the better Nikon binoculars. The glass is apparently not ED glass- Swarovski doesn't use ED glass on thier Habicht porros either, from what I have read. I'm not sure why- maybe with the porro-prism design, it's not as necessary. I had some Habicht 10x40's for a while- CA was very low, and it's not very bothersome with the Nikons either.
Coatings are usually the main factor in determining contrast and since the contrast of the E2 is not on the same level as the HG or EDG I feel the coatings are not exactly the same, plus the price difference usually is an indicator of the quality of the coatings. A manufacturer's higher end or more expensive binoculars will usually have better coatings. A $2000 binocular like the EDG will have better coatings than a $400 binocular like the E2. Plus, a porro prism like the E2 probably gets different coatings than a roof prism like the EDG because of the difference in design.
Last edited:
I think the lack of FL/ED glass in the E2's is partially responsible for the lower price. Apparently the light path, and f-ratio, is longer in porros so achromat objectives work better than they do in roofs. Longer f-ratio is another way to eliminate false color. And the porro still have some chromatic aberration, it costs a lot to eliminate the last vestiges of it.
You can tell how good coatings are by looking at them - the "sidewalk test". At least on the external surfaces. Just put them outside on a sunny day and look at the reflections, how dark are they?
And the amount of glass affects contrast just as much as the coatings. Most glass aborbs 1% of light for every inch of glass it passes through. Coatings are meant to minimize reflection and the resulting light loss, and contrast loss. You can accomplish the same goal by reducing the number of lenses and air-to-glass surfaces.
And then there's profit margin. The Swaro 56mm SLC are cheaper than the 42mm NL's, they both use FL/ED lenses. Swaro's cost on the glass blanks for the 56mm must be higher than the 42 - I'd guess twice as much? Same with the cost to figure and polish the larger lens. It's possible the NL objectives are figured and polished to a higher level but, from viewing through the SLC's, it doesn't look that way to me. I think the profit margin is jacked up on the "alpha". The wide field oculars in the NL probably add some cost too.
You can tell how good coatings are by looking at them - the "sidewalk test". At least on the external surfaces. Just put them outside on a sunny day and look at the reflections, how dark are they?
And the amount of glass affects contrast just as much as the coatings. Most glass aborbs 1% of light for every inch of glass it passes through. Coatings are meant to minimize reflection and the resulting light loss, and contrast loss. You can accomplish the same goal by reducing the number of lenses and air-to-glass surfaces.
And then there's profit margin. The Swaro 56mm SLC are cheaper than the 42mm NL's, they both use FL/ED lenses. Swaro's cost on the glass blanks for the 56mm must be higher than the 42 - I'd guess twice as much? Same with the cost to figure and polish the larger lens. It's possible the NL objectives are figured and polished to a higher level but, from viewing through the SLC's, it doesn't look that way to me. I think the profit margin is jacked up on the "alpha". The wide field oculars in the NL probably add some cost too.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Congratulations! on owning the Rodney Dangerfield of 10x porros. Like Rodney, they get no respect as you can tell from the BF thread Dennis posted.
I liked the 10x35 E2 more than the 10x42 SE, which was harder for me to hold steady. Despite the 10x42 SE's more sculpted ergonomics, the older style 10x35 body fits my hands better and affords my shaky hands the steadiest view I've seen through a 10x binoculars. "Two thumbs up" (under the flat prism housings).
As to the 10x35 E2 being "sharper" than your 8x30 E2, and it showing wonderful blues, it sounds like your 10x was made in 2017 or after and has Nikon's upgraded coatings and glass, and that your 8x30 might be an older model.
The previous iteration 10x35 E2's transmission dipped in the blue, whereas it's higher in the newer version with flat spectrum coatings. I wish Allbinos reviewed the upgraded versions of the 8x and 10x E2s, so I could see the light graphs and compare them with the older version, but I can clearly see the difference with my eyes.
Comparing the 2017 Anniversary Edition 8x30 to a 2016 10x35 E2, I felt the same way as you do, but in reverse. The difference in brightness, color rendition and micro contrast (texture sharpness) between the upgraded 8x30 and slightly older 10x35 was noticeable. Not that the former version was shabby, but Nikon's "new and improved" lead-free glass and flat spectrum coatings are better.
What are the first two serial numbers of your 8x30 and 10x35? The upgraded versions start with 82 for the 8x30 and 020 for the 10x35 E2.
I'd like to buy an upgraded 10x35 E2 this year before the stock runs out if I can find a Japanese dealer who knows the serial number of the sample he's selling. The last two dealers I contacted had the upgraded numbers in the photos in their ads, but they turned out to be stock images. The actual 10x E2s they were selling were stored in a warehouse, so I didn't buy one since they could have been new old stock like the ones I bought in 2020. I'll wait for a dealer who has the bin in his store, so he can verify the serial #.
Songbirds are tiny. There are times when I'm birding in an open field, watching birds in the surrounding trees and berry bushes, where the 10x35s would be helpful in identifying field marks.
Brock
That's some very good information- thanks. The 8x30's serial number is 821313. The 10x35's is 003817. Their performance is pretty similar, both very good. I will need to do more side-to-side, but the color presentation looks to be the same. I'm leaning more towards the 10x35 's as my go-to glass- I feel the same way about that larger image of the smaller birds.
It is surprising how much better the Zeiss and Astro-physics coatings are. They are definitely better than the Televue. That is a good way to test the coatings on eyepieces because you can really see the differences.
Last edited:
I would almost bet on it that the NL uses better glass than the SLC and I know they have better coatings because of the truer colors and more pop, and that and the fact that the complex WA eyepieces to get the huge FOV the NL has is a big chunk of the increased costs. If you know anything about astronomy, you know how much WA Nagler telescope eyepieces are.
Last edited:
