Nikon EDG II users, past or present.... (1 Viewer)

[ceasar]

It is the red part of the spectrum that makes the EDG darker coupled with lower transmission. The EDG is just visibly darker than the other three. It is it's major downfall in my opinion. It is great in other areas like flare and comfort and has an exceptionally smooth focus. Nikon needs to upgrade to HT glass on it. The Zeiss HT especially has higher transmission glass. Makes a big difference. Zeiss puts some good glass in the HT.

Although I am not an expert in the qualities of glass used in binoculars as you put yourself out to be, I think you are wrong.

Maybe where you live in the high desert you personally prefer that the ultraviolet end of the spectrum of your binoculars be brightest, but you cannot speak for others who live in and around the forested areas of the northern temperate zone and in and around the jungles at the equator where there is a varied spectrum of colors.

I am sure that Nikon has taken all this under consideration in designing their binoculars.

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Although I am not an expert in the qualities of glass used in binoculars as you put yourself out to be, I think you are wrong.

Maybe where you live in the high desert you personally prefer that the ultraviolet end of the spectrum of your binoculars be brightest, but you cannot speak for others who live in and around the forested areas of the northern temperate zone and in and around the jungles at the equator where there is a varied spectrum of colors.

I am sure that Nikon has taken all this under consideration in designing their binoculars.

Bob

No, there is no question the Nikon EDG is a lower transmission binocular than the Zeiss HT and the Swarovski SV. It has nothing to do with where you use it although it is easier to see that the HT is brighter under low light conditions. I think if you compared the three side by side you would easily see the EDG is less bright than the other two. I have the SV but I compared it to the EDG and the HT and the SV is a little brighter than the EDG but the HT is a little brighter than the SV. The HT is the brightest roof prism binocular I have ever tried. The only thing that compares to it in brightness is a high transmitting porro like the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 W. If you want a low light roof the Zeiss HT is your binocular.

 

[BruceH]

As of now I have no Alphas, I recently liquidated my SVs and actually ended up with a small profit. .......

SD..... Was the way the 8.5X42 EL SV handled CA a factor in you selling it? I remember you saying it handled CA better than the 10X50 EL SV, but it was it was still noticeable.

There is a good chance the Cabela's in your area should have a Zeiss HT to look at.

 

[BruceH]

...... One your forgetting is the 10x42 SF which is also brighter than the EDG and also has excellent sharp edges. .......

Actually, I did not forget the SF, I just opted not to mention it because it was not one of the models SD brought up. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that if I could only have one binocular, it would be the Zeiss SF 10X42.

....... Nikon needs to upgrade to HT glass on it. The Zeiss HT especially has higher transmission glass and so does the SV. Makes a big difference..........

As I recall, Schott HT glass came out after the Swaro SV. Doesn't Swaro use what they call HD glass, with HD meaning High Density (not High Definition)? HD is just Swaro's way of saying ED glass. That is what Nikon uses in the EDG. Per the Nikon web site: "Extra-low Dispersion glass to push the limits of optical perfection in our new flagship binocular: The EDG". How do you know the ED glass in a Swaro is higher transmission than the Nikon EDG? As best I can tell, neither company shares that information.

No, there is no question the Nikon EDG is a lower transmission binocular than the Zeiss HT and the Swarovski SV. ....

If you go by the numbers from Allbino's, which is a web site that you have said good things about, then you are correct there is no question. However, it is the EDG that is brighter. Since our OP, Chuck, went with the Nikon EDG in the 8X42, here are the Allbino transmission test results:

Nikon EDG-II 8X42 - 89.8%
Swaro 8.5X42 EL SV - 87.8%

http://www.allbinos.com/index.html?test=lornetki&test_l=224
http://www.allbinos.com/index.html?test=lornetki&test_l=251

Saying the Nikon is dark is really not the case. The Swaro has a blue color balance and that gives an impression of a brighter view, but in reality, it not transmitting more light. I would not want other readers to get the impression that the EDG is dark, because it is not. I wonder if your were unduly influenced by the words in the title of the Tobias post that said Dark Nikon EDG.

 

[SuperDuty]

Both were very acceptable at CA correction, but the SF was better, I doubt though that I will ever find anything better overall than the SV. The CA in the 8.5 was less noticeable I believe due to less mag and a wider FOV

SD..... Was the way the 8.5X42 EL SV handled CA a factor in you selling it? I remember you saying it handled CA better than the 10X50 EL SV, but it was it was still noticeable.

There is a good chance the Cabela's in your area should have a Zeiss HT to look at.

 

[[email protected]]

Both were very acceptable at CA correction, but the SF was better, I doubt though that I will ever find anything better overall than the SV. The CA in the 8.5 was less noticeable I believe due to less mag and a wider FOV

"I doubt though that I will ever find anything better overall than the SV" Your probably right. The Zeiss 10x42 SF is very close and is a good alternative.

 

[[email protected]]

Actually, I did not forget the SF, I just opted not to mention it because it was not one of the models SD brought up. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread that if I could only have one binocular, it would be the Zeiss SF 10X42.



As I recall, Schott HT glass came out after the Swaro SV. Doesn't Swaro use what they call HD glass, with HD meaning High Density (not High Definition)? HD is just Swaro's way of saying ED glass. That is what Nikon uses in the EDG. Per the Nikon web site: "Extra-low Dispersion glass to push the limits of optical perfection in our new flagship binocular: The EDG". How do you know the ED glass in a Swaro is higher transmission than the Nikon EDG? As best I can tell, neither company shares that information.



If you go by the numbers from Allbino's, which is a web site that you have said good things about, then you are correct there is no question. However, it is the EDG that is brighter. Since our OP, Chuck, went with the Nikon EDG in the 8X42, here are the Allbino transmission test results:

Nikon EDG-II 8X42 - 89.8%
Swaro 8.5X42 EL SV - 87.8%

http://www.allbinos.com/index.html?test=lornetki&test_l=224
http://www.allbinos.com/index.html?test=lornetki&test_l=251

Saying the Nikon is dark is really not the case. The Swaro has a blue color balance and that gives an impression of a brighter view, but in reality, it not transmitting more light. I would not want other readers to get the impression that the EDG is dark, because it is not. I wonder if your were unduly influenced by the words in the title of the Tobias post that said Dark Nikon EDG.

I agree with Tobias about the EDG being darker than the SV or HT but it was my own comparison that made me reach that conclusion. To my eyes the EDG is darker than the SV or HT. I am not saying the EDG is a dark binocular just that it is darker than the SV or HT. If you just had the EDG you would think it is fine which it is. It is just that when you compare the three the EDG is more subdued to my eyes. The HT is the brightest of the three but the SV is close. I was referring to the transmission of the comparable 10x42's which is what the thread is about. The 10x42 EDG is 88.5% and the Swarovision 10x42 SV is 90.8% and even the Zeiss 10x42 FL was 95.5% according to Allbino's. They didn't test the transmission on the HT but I think Zeiss says it is 95%. So the Zeiss and the Swarovski tested quite a bit higher. The Zeiss and the Swarovski are also more neutral in color so to my eyes they appear brighter. If the the SV and HT have better light transmission it has to be the glass or coatings. To get a 6% increase in transmission I would guess glass is making the biggest difference with Zeiss using the HT Schott glass. The coatings on all three are probably allowing very little light loss.

 

[BruceH]

........ I was referring to the transmission of the comparable 10x42's which is what the thread is about. ......

I thought this thread was about "chest wigs"!

What we appear to be discussing here is "apparent" brightness vs actual transmission. The somewhat blue color balance of the Swaro does make them appear to be a little brighter even if that is not always the case. That can give them an advantage on the show room floor but it may not be an advantage out in the field.

 

[jremmons]

Both were very acceptable at CA correction, but the SF was better, I doubt though that I will ever find anything better overall than the SV. The CA in the 8.5 was less noticeable I believe due to less mag and a wider FOV

The HT, T*FL, and Kowa Genesis handle CA better than any other binoculars I've handled. The EDG would be the next tier under that, and the SV and Ultravid HD would be the next tier under that. Of all the SVs great optical properties, I would argue that control of CA was just slightly above average - good in the central field but just meh on the periphery.

 

[[email protected]]

I thought this thread was about "chest wigs"!

What we appear to be discussing here is "apparent" brightness vs actual transmission. The somewhat blue color balance of the Swaro does make them appear to be a little brighter even if that is not always the case. That can give them an advantage on the show room floor but it may not be an advantage out in the field.

It is a 2 to 6% actual light transmission advantage for the SV and HT. You will notice that under any conditions. Showroom floor or field. They are going to suck more light in no matter where you use them.

 

[ceasar]

I agree with Tobias about the EDG being darker than the SV or HT but it was my own comparison that made me reach that conclusion. To my eyes the EDG is darker than the SV or HT. I am not saying the EDG is a dark binocular just that it is darker than the SV or HT. If you just had the EDG you would think it is fine which it is. It is just that when you compare the three the EDG is more subdued to my eyes. The HT is the brightest of the three but the SV is close. I was referring to the transmission of the comparable 10x42's which is what the thread is about. The 10x42 EDG is 88.5% and the Swarovision 10x42 SV is 90.8% and even the Zeiss 10x42 FL was 95.5% according to Allbino's. They didn't test the transmission on the HT but I think Zeiss says it is 95%. So the Zeiss and the Swarovski tested quite a bit higher. The Zeiss and the Swarovski are also more neutral in color so to my eyes they appear brighter. If the the SV and HT have better light transmission it has to be the glass or coatings. To get a 6% increase in transmission I would guess glass is making the biggest difference with Zeiss using the HT Schott glass. The coatings on all three are probably allowing very little light loss.

Dennis,

A couple of things if you please?

1. Allbinos does not give overall transmission values. It shows a graph from which you can extrapolate values from specific parts of the light spectrum.

Also I haven't found an Allbinos graph of the Zeiss 10x42 FL which shows 95.5% transmission. If you know of one please advise me because I own a Zeiss 7x42 Victory T* FL Lotu Tech. I'm curious about its potential transmission and Allbinos has not tested or ranked any 7x42s.

2. I have not been convinced that the transmission graph of a binocular which shows a higher percentage in the near ultra violet range of the spectrum than elsewhere is any brighter or better as a practical, as opposed to theoretical, matter than one which shows a higher percentage from the middle of the spectrum into the red range of the spectrum as long as their total transmission averages are close.

Bob

 

[looksharp65]

Last spring (or was that 2014?) I brought my EDG II 7x42 to the local nature reserve, hoping to see Great Snipes.
20 minutes after sunset, looking towards the last remnants of daylight in NW, I saw the black silhouette of a Common Redshank with the sky reflected in the still water for a background. The distance was about 50 meters.
I could see that its legs were red. This is not what I would call a dark binocular. I know I would have seen it with a 7x42 FL too, but at the expense of the notorious FL colour rendition that kills the fine hues of peach and pink.

Neither would I say the EDG II has a warm colour rendition, I would rather describe as neutral with an increased saturation. The 8x32 HG was definitely reddish. The Meostar 8x32 is warm, or, to be a little mean, yellow.
The 10x32 FL's brightness was awesome, but honestly, its colour rendition was dull.
I tried a Kite Bonelli (old version) and it was yellow. I have also tried older (pre-ED3) Chinese clones and they were yellow. The Kowa Genesis is interesting but has a similar colour problem as does the FL.
The Monarch 7 8x42's colour is difficult to describe, but I think it is somewhat lacking, it's indeed bright but there's something aggressive about the view I can't put my finger on. It looks over-processed.

Since I'm feeling pretty satisfied with my current selection, I will not rush to get the latest and greatest. Neither do I really need to defend my choice as pretty much of this and other threads degrade to silly cockfighting. But I need to object when silly statements about the EDG being dark and its colour skewed come up. It's simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

//L

 

[[email protected]]

The EDG II is not dark it just isn't quite as bright as the SV or HT and is has a slight bit more reddish hue compared to those also. In a lot of ways it is better than those two especially in flare control but it is less bright. I understand people wanting to defend their binocular but every binocular has their weak and strong points. The SV has more flare than the EDG. If flare control is important to you you would prefer the EDG. I personally like a brighter binocular and I preferred the ergonomics and totally sharp FOV of the SV so I kept the SV.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

A couple of things if you please?

1. Allbinos does not give overall transmission values. It shows a graph from which you can extrapolate values from specific parts of the light spectrum.

Also I haven't found an Allbinos graph of the Zeiss 10x42 FL which shows 95.5% transmission. If you know of one please advise me because I own a Zeiss 7x42 Victory T* FL Lotu Tech. I'm curious about its potential transmission and Allbinos has not tested or ranked any 7x42s.

2. I have not been convinced that the transmission graph of a binocular which shows a higher percentage in the near ultra violet range of the spectrum than elsewhere is any brighter or better as a practical, as opposed to theoretical, matter than one which shows a higher percentage from the middle of the spectrum into the red range of the spectrum as long as their total transmission averages are close.

Bob

1) Allbino's gives overall transmission figures. Here is the link for the Zeiss 10x42 FL which is 95.5%.
http://www.allbinos.com/108-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_10x42_T*_FL.html

2)The total transmission of the 10x42 EDG is 2 to 6% lower than the SV and HT. Zeiss lists the HT at 95% transmission. Here is a link just click on the reviews for total transmission on the 10x42 EDG and 10x42 SV.
http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html
http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/.../victory-ht-binoculars.html#models#position-2

I did some research on your Zeiss 7x42 FL and I found a transmission figure of 93%. So it is very good just like the 10x42FL. All those big Zeiss FL's have AK prisms just like the HT which keeps the transmission high.The big Zeiss with the AK prisms are the top transmitting roofs on the market. The only thing that will beat them is a good porro like the Habicht 8x30 W(95% transmission) or Fujinon 7x50 FXT(97% transmission).

 

[NDhunter]

Last spring (or was that 2014?) I brought my EDG II 7x42 to the local nature reserve, hoping to see Great Snipes.
20 minutes after sunset, looking towards the last remnants of daylight in NW, I saw the black silhouette of a Common Redshank with the sky reflected in the still water for a background. The distance was about 50 meters.
I could see that its legs were red. This is not what I would call a dark binocular. I know I would have seen it with a 7x42 FL too, but at the expense of the notorious FL colour rendition that kills the fine hues of peach and pink.

Neither would I say the EDG II has a warm colour rendition, I would rather describe as neutral with an increased saturation. The 8x32 HG was definitely reddish. The Meostar 8x32 is warm, or, to be a little mean, yellow.
The 10x32 FL's brightness was awesome, but honestly, its colour rendition was dull.
I tried a Kite Bonelli (old version) and it was yellow. I have also tried older (pre-ED3) Chinese clones and they were yellow. The Kowa Genesis is interesting but has a similar colour problem as does the FL.
The Monarch 7 8x42's colour is difficult to describe, but I think it is somewhat lacking, it's indeed bright but there's something aggressive about the view I can't put my finger on. It looks over-processed.

Since I'm feeling pretty satisfied with my current selection, I will not rush to get the latest and greatest. Neither do I really need to defend my choice as pretty much of this and other threads degrade to silly cockfighting. But I need to object when silly statements about the EDG being dark and its colour skewed come up. It's simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.

//L

I agree with you entirely, I reported my thoughts earlier here on the EDG.

I called out Mennie from the start with his use of the word, "dark", that
he used in his review of the EDG.

It is a phenomenal binocular, but not dark. He had it half right.

As mentioned above the EDG may not be as bright as an AK prism
Zeiss, and we know there are incremental improvements in coatings
and glass in every new generation of binoculars.

Jerry

 

[adhoc]

This post 2 days ago in another thread may be useful to this discussion, and another current one, on "sparkle".

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis, post 154,
Zeiss used Schott HT glas to increase the amount of light transmitted by the optical system and the company was very proud that the HT had a light transmission of 95,2% , which was, as far as I know the highest light transmission for a roof prism binocular Zeiss had ever produced. With our measurements we have confirmed the transmission data published by Zeiss. Now you refer to the 10x42 FL as having a transmission of 95,5% ( +/-3% according to Allbinos, so the transmission could also be 98,5%), so does that not ring a bell that something might be wrong somewhere? Swarovski publishes a value of 96% transmission for all Habicht types, we found the same. We were as yet never able to find 97% transmission for any of the Fujinons we measured, so there is room for some more study.
With respect to observed brightness: there is no measurable parameter to my knowledge for brightness, as far as I kow it is the psychological experience which comes about by high light intensity (high light transmission) combined with the color balance of the observed objects and that combination may also give rise to the more poetic expression of "sparkle"as an attempt to describe ones feelings upon using a particular binocular.

Gijs van Ginkel

 

[PHA]

Hi,

I have both, Zeiss 10x42 HT and the great Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA. In daylight they resolve details almost equal with the differences known between a roof and a Porro. But, for night or very low light use, I chose the Habicht. Both are almost indistinguishable about light transmission and resolving power, but is amazing what can do the 3D vision the Habicht has, at least for me...!

PHA

 

[[email protected]]

Hi,

I have both, Zeiss 10x42 HT and the great Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W GA. In daylight they resolve details almost equal with the differences known between a roof and a Porro. But, for night or very low light use, I chose the Habicht. Both are almost indistinguishable about light transmission and resolving power, but is amazing what can do the 3D vision the Habicht has, at least for me...!

PHA

Interesting that the Habicht porro would have an advantage under low light conditions against the "King" of low light roof's the Zeiss HT. Those Habicht porro's are an amazing binocular. The transmission and crystalline image and sparkle and 3D are phenomenal.

 

[SuperDuty]

Seems like I've heard those descriptions before. :-O

crystalline image and sparkle