Nikon HGs (1 Viewer)

[NDhunter]

A good read on the original HG, LX binoculars is found on "Better View Desired", by Steven Ingraham.
When these were introduced in the mid 90's they were at the very top. Maybe someone can post a link....
These are special, I have the 8x42 LX, and more recently the 8x32 Premier. As mentioned above, the smoothest focuser
available in a binocular.
Jerry

 

[Scott98]

Interesting - I had my 8x42 HG L's out along with the SF 8x42 I just bought to replace them. I noticed the HG's are significantly heavier, even though both binos are spec'd at ~27 ounce weight.

I double-checked, I got the Nikons in 2009 from a buyer who said they were bought that year as a new pair. He advertised them as "Nikon Premier LX L". Is that the same thing as HG L? It says "L" and 7 degrees on the nameplate. No way this is the leaded glass version right? Those went away years earlier? They appear identical to the 8x42 HG L on allbinos.com.

The views through the SF are an upgrade in every way, yet the use-ability of the Nikon is off the charts....so comfortable. The compact body settles right into your and hands and points so naturally at targets, and the ease and speed of focusing is amazing, still even better than the SF for me. Absolutely no problems or maintenance needed on the Nikons after 13 years, I can't detect any signs of use on the body or the lenses. Don't think I'll be able to sell them, I think they'll be my foul-weather and car binocular going forward.

 

[dorubird]

Scott98,
There are two versions:
1 HG (Premier LX) and
2 HG L (Premier LX L)
Both have 7.8 degrees. The first has lead optics, the second version is lead-free. The second one is a little lighter ("L" from Light)

 

[dries1]

The original HG/LX 8X32/10X32 were always lead free when they were introduced in 2002, the brochure states lead free glass.
The early versions of the original 8 and 10X42 HG/LX introduced in 1996/1997, likely contained lead in the glass like the original SE 10X42 introduced that year.

 

[Scott98]

Thank you - this one is definitely "L", I will have to weight them to satisfy my curiosity, maybe I'll try the Post Office

 

[dries1]

I have both the original HG/LX in 8 and 10X42 as well as the 32s, and the 42s are by far heavier than the later LX/L models, at least 150 grams more in weight. The weight has everything to do with the composition of the case material.

 

[Scott98]

I found myself in a Whole Foods this morning, they had a nice digital scale so I went back to the car and got the 8x42's. I held the strap up in the air but the rainguard was in place, I got 1.83 pounds which is 29 ounces, so pretty much right on-spec. Next time I'll bring the SF! Staring to wonder about them, supposed to be ~28 ounces, maybe they're a bit lighter or something.

 

[ananda]

The original HG/LX 8X32/10X32 were always lead free when they were introduced in 2002, the brochure states lead free glass.
The early versions of the original 8 and 10X42 HG/LX introduced in 1996/1997, likely contained lead in the glass like the original SE 10X42 introduced that year.

Can you tell which one is lead based on the photo?
and how true is it that the color rendering is beautiful, “realistic” in lead glass than in lead-free glass?

 

[Scott98]

Those are some beautiful-looking 8x32's! Nice score finding them in such great condition.

I have no idea if there's "leaded glass" in there but I would certainly hope there isn't. Makes them heavier with no optical benefit. They look so new I highly doubt they're old enough to have the old glass. The Swaro strap the person used is also fairly new.

 

[NDhunter]

Can you tell which one is lead based on the photo?
and how true is it that the color rendering is beautiful, “realistic” in lead glass than in lead-free glass?

This is the original version, and has leaded glass. I have the 8x42 LX, and it is superb, and the best focuser I have
ever tried. If you see a later version, it will have "L" in the armor. There is a very nice review of this model
on the website, "Better View Desired", it was among the best available binoculars at that time.
The older models were heavier than the later LXL, HG L models. The 8x32 models were closer in weight, just changes to the chassis etc. I also have the 8x32 Premier, which is the latest of the series, same as LXL.
Any of the LX, HG models are excellent.
Jerry

 

[mnich]

I also have visible differences in the individual HG models. The 10x42 HG is from 1999, and has lead lenses. The younger HGL is already in the eco version. Unfortunately, not all changes are always for the "better". The older model has a clearer view, lower CA and better color saturation. This does not mean that the smaller one is bad... No, it is quite pleasant to watch and I like it more than the EDG. I mean, the EDG has a better image technically, but the HGL has a more pleasant image... although it is difficult to explain your own taste... But when you directly translate between HG and HGL, the difference is obvious in favor of the older model.

 

[blankmag]

still got mine 8x42 says ag 002987 serial number so i think lead glass .bought new from infocus at least 20 years ago stoped active birdwatching 2005 june last entry in my old log book. looked at swarovoski top end model (at the time) and zeiss top end model .just could not get on with the swaroski at all so it was a choice between the nikon and zeiss nothing in them (to me)optics wise just the price nikon cheaper and feel the nikons just felt great in the hands and the ease of use was superb.still in as new condition tho strap has been replaced and so has the rainguard .will keep these but will look at at a pair zeiss 10x40 sfl to see if im missing out but they will have to be a massive inprovement to justify the cost

 

[tenex]

In all these years I've never seen any HG(L) or EDG models in a store. I'm quite sure I wouldn't have enjoyed the small FOV in the HGs. How do fans of these models think the current Monarch "HG" compares, and is there an obvious trend over time in these designs?

 

[ananda]

but, I still don't understand what the advantages of lead glass are, does it show more saturated colors?

 

[dorubird]

In all these years I've never seen any HG(L) or EDG models in a store. I'm quite sure I wouldn't have enjoyed the small FOV in the HGs. How do fans of these models think the current Monarch "HG" compares, and is there an obvious trend over time in these designs?

In my opinion, even with the 32mm vs 30mm objectives, the brightness is a bit lower than the smaller MHG 8x30, maybe due to the older technology with silver coating on the prisms. Likewise, the center resolution perception in the Nikon HGL 8x32 is a little bit lower than newer Monarch HG 8x30. But the edge resolution in the HGL is fantastic 100% of the FOV. Also, the ease and naturalness of HGL's viewing is greater than in the MHG 8x30. Personally, I liked HGL 8x32 a lot but it was a bit heavy and bulky, and has a slightly larger distance between the eyepieces than the distance between the objectives (like a slightly reverse porro construction) which gives it a flatter image, not so 3d.
That's why I changed it to Nikon MHG 8x30

 

[agus_m]

In all these years I've never seen any HG(L) or EDG models in a store. I'm quite sure I wouldn't have enjoyed the small FOV in the HGs. How do fans of these models think the current Monarch "HG" compares, and is there an obvious trend over time in these designs?

I wonder the same. I have a MHG 10x42, but I haven't had the original HG to compare. My theory from what I read, these MHG should be a continuation, or an improvement over the HG models. The edge-to-edge sharpness might not be as good, but at the same time, the wider FOV would compensate for this so that the resulting sweet spot in degrees might be even better in the new MHG.
But at the same time, this might not be the case since we know the optical design of the old HG, which is rather similar to the EDG (and this could be the evolution of the HG rather than the MHG), and we don't know anything about the optical design of the MHG.
I suspect that the latter could have less lens elements to reduce weight, hurting its optical performance, we'll never know.

 

[ananda]

I also have visible differences in the individual HG models. The 10x42 HG is from 1999, and has lead lenses. The younger HGL is already in the eco version.

but, I still don't understand what the advantages of lead glass are, does it show more saturated colors?

 

[mnich]

but, I still don't understand what the advantages of lead glass are, does it show more saturated colors?

I think that better color saturation in leaded glass is not a rule. It is rather a combination of several factors, including the design based on such glass. In HG - for example, this is helped by the silver coating on the prism mirror, or the specific characteristics of the transmission graph with a maximum in the red spectrum, as Leica UV binoculars did before HD Plus. Leica binoculars of course have dielectric coatings. I have a few binoculars from the period when silver coatings were more common and you can see a slight warming of the image in such a design. Personally, I do not like modern dielectrics, which are extremely bright and neutral, but lose this pleasure of viewing, especially on very bright sunny days.

Returning to Nikon, of course, MHG will be a better design for everyday use, especially for bird lovers, but for an optics collector, things may look a bit different. Holding the HG in your hand, you feel this "weight" - the quality of the construction, in contrast to the MHG - a bit "toy-like", although the MHG is made of the highest quality materials, and the design is extremely successful, it does not give such a "high" as the HG.

Finally on the subject of leaded glass, a lot of old optics from the 70s, 80s and 90s have leaded glass built in, and yet they are not impressive in terms of image coloring. As I wrote earlier, this is a conglomeration of several parameters in one housing, which can result in the effect of "tweaking" colors.

I will also add that from a technological - scientific perspective, I cannot explain the phenomenon of color saturation in optical glass with the addition of lead. Maybe someone on this forum will come along and be able to delve deeper into the issue, I would be happy to listen.

 

[pete wragg]

I still have the original heavy 8x42 HG.
Still fantastic after all these years.
There was a reason why they added lead and arsenic to the glass, and it wasn't to make them heavier and toxic, it was because it makes them better!

 

[Scott98]

IMO the advantage the HG's have over the MHG's is better mechanical quality - the focuser. On my 8x42 LXL's the focuser was EDG-grade, a clear step up from the MHG. I think I might prefer the MHG optics though. My 8x42's had quite a bit of false color. Compared to an 8x42 EDG, everything was a bit sharper and more clarity in the EDG, with no CA. I think the coatings got better in addition to reducing CA.

The other thing the 8x42 had was excellent edge sharpness. When I tried the 8x42 and 10x42 MHG the edges weren't as sharp. Don't know about the 32mm HG's though, could be different.