What binoculars are as good as Nikon Superior E? (1 Viewer)

[Jaywalk]

Are there any bins (preferably in the $1000 range) that are as good as the Nikon Superior E 8x32?

I bought the SE in the year 2000 and it was my sole bin until 2016 when I bought the Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF to replace it. The SF is still my primary binocular, but I'm still perfectly happy with the SE's optics, though its eye relief and water resistance remain issues. The SF had advantages of being arguably more robust, waterproof, and a much better view with the eyeglasses I was then and now wearing - virtually a perfect bin for me. The 8x42 SF's only disadvantage is that it's considerably heavier - it's 28 ounces (792 grams) vs the SE's 22 ounces (622 grams). Eight years ago I didn't think that extra weight made any difference, but now it does.

My quest now is to find an 8x30/32/33 roof prism that's lighter in weight - no heavier than the SE and preferably lighter. - It should match or better the SE optics but improve on its view, but not by going all the way up to $2500 - $3000 alphas.

I've read the reviews on the Nikon 8x30 MHG, the Zeiss 8x32 Conquest, the Kowa 8x33 Genesis, and several others, plus the Zeiss 8x30 SFL (over the current dollar limit) and probably a few others, but none of the reviews compared them to the SE - not surprising, because it's an old bin.

I have satisfied myself (B&H orders and returns) that $500 binoculars won't satisfy my admittedly first-world problem. I believe it's an article of faith here that $1000 bins are all optically good with minor handling variations. If so, will the $1000 limit work for me or do I need to go upscale, instead, and how far up?

 

[Binastro]

I don't know about 8x32 but my 10x42 HD Conquest is as good as the 10x42 SE.
The field of the SE is 6 degrees and the Conquest HD 6.65 degrees.
The edge of the Conquest is worse than the edge of the SE but if one limits oneself to 6 degrees on the 10x42 Conquest HD then the star images are just as good as the edge stars on the 10x42 SE.

I have 8x32 and 10x42 Conquest HD and SE.

I cannot use the SEs because of blackouts.

The 8x32 Conquest HD has some glare that is fixed with a straight mask 4.5mm wide. This brings it down to about 8x30.

However, some may not notice this glare and the Conquest HD 8x32 may be an alternative to the 8x32 SE.

I feel that the star images of the SE are so good because the field has been limited deliberately.

My own Nikon MHG 8x42 is a very poor early example that has dreadful glare and is for me unusable.
Obviously later versions are better as everyone seems to love them.

Perhaps try a Conquest HD 8x32 side by side with a 8x32 SE.

There is of course sample variation.

Regards,
B.

 

[Jaywalk]

I cannot use the SEs because of blackouts.

I don't have blackouts - cupping my index fingers over the folded eyecups and bracing them against my brow is automatic at this point. It doesn't make them waterproof, though.

I suspect you're right about a purposely-restricted view on the SE. I can live with it but I wouldn't mind an increase.

 

[Paultricounty]

Id start by asking you a question, how much of a difference or improvement do you see from your 2000 E2 and the SF?

I’ve compared every one you mentioned side by side with both an early SE (301-305) and the slightly improved last run (550) of the SE’s. I’d say there’s not much separating the $1000 range roof options available today with the SE, other than wider FOV, water proofing and maybe some ergo improvements.

So to me a noticeable difference (in roofs) would be the Zeiss SFL in 40, or even the 30 if you really want tiny and light. The Leica Ultravids are great and a step up from the SE but eye relief would be the deal killer for you. I don’t think any of the $1000 range will impress much from the SE.

Id say the best of both worlds and the best of the best would be the Swarovski 8x32 EL or maybe the SF in 32. You should be able to find used in good condition around $1500, give or take.

Paul

 

[Jaywalk]

Id start by asking you a question, how much of a difference or improvement do you see from your 2000 E2 and the SF?

The presentation, the view, is much easier/better on the 8x42 SF, which I'd say is perfect for me. Focuser is equivalent. Optically, I find it hard to choose between my SE (not E2) and the SF. I suspect other people might find the SF clearly superior, but perhaps their eyes are better, or younger. The SE was fine for me before I wore eyeglasses. Other people who wear glasses have used our SE and haven't had any issues.

You're confirming my hypothesis that the $1k binoc optically is roughly equivalent optically to the SE. I'm not sure I'd see the difference with an 8x32 SF and the SE, so I don't want to award B&H yet another open box of their alpha bins to dispose of. I do/did see a marked difference between the SE/SF and the B&H $500 bins I returned over the past two weeks, however.

Another aspect I haven't mentioned is that I have never sold a pair of binoculars - I've given them away - so the better retained value of a Zeiss/Swaro isn't a concern.

 

[Paultricounty]

The presentation, the view, is much easier/better on the 8x42 SF, which I'd say is perfect for me. Focuser is equivalent. Optically, I find it hard to choose between my SE (not E2) and the SF. I suspect other people might find the SF clearly superior, but perhaps their eyes are better, or younger. The SE was fine for me before I wore eyeglasses. Other people who wear glasses have used our SE and haven't had any issues.

Sorry I meant SE not E2. If you can’t see the difference, or much of one between the SE and SF , then why would we even be considering something in that price range, certainly all those $1000 binoculars your looking at would compare with the SE, and would have better eye relief. Maybe that’s your solution, something similar in optical quality, yet a roof and better eye relief.

You're confirming my hypothesis that the $1k binoc optically is roughly equivalent optically to the SE. I'm not sure I'd see the difference with an 8x32 SF and the SE, so I don't want to award B&H yet another open box of their alpha bins to dispose of. I do/did see a marked difference between the SE/SF and the B&H $500 bins I returned over the past two weeks, however.

If you already said you don’t see the difference between the SF 8 x 42 and the 8x32 SE then the only reason for the SF 32 would be weight, size and eye relief. If you like the SF42 , you’d probably love the 32. It’s everything the 42 is in 90% of viewing conditions.

Another aspect I haven't mentioned is that I have never sold a pair of binoculars - I've given them away - so the better retained value of a Zeiss/Swaro isn't a concern.

I really wasn’t considering value, I was just putting those two out there for their quality, size and weight.

 

[Patudo]

OP could you please clarify the eye relief issues you're having with the SE - are you getting blackouts, not able to see the full field of view, or...? A lot of folks actually find the SE's eye relief overly long.

Are you using glasses? In your post #3 it doesn't sound like you're using glasses, but in post #5 you say you are.

 

[Jaywalk]

OP could you please clarify the eye relief issues you're having with the SE

I do wear eyeglasses, but it wasn't a one day, no, and the next day, yes; there was a period when I wore them occasionally. With eyeglasses on and eyecups rolled down, eye relief is too long. To compensate I curl my forefingers overlapping the end of the eyecups and brace that against my brow; the folded eyecups don't touch my glasses. It's a way to hover, but braced. Using that method for years is probably the reason I'm happier now using my middle finger to focus.

 

[Ignatius]

Excuse my obtuseness, Jaywalk, but why do you roll the eyecups down only to insert your fingers to get the richt distance? Why not leave the cups straight up and gently rest them on your spectacles?

 

[Jaywalk]

why do you roll the eyecups down only to insert your fingers to get the richt distance? Why not leave the cups straight up and gently rest them on your spectacles?

Doesn't work. Can't see the field stops.

 

[14Goudvink]

Doesn't work. Can't see the field stops.

Have you tried rolling the eye-cups half way or three quarters down? It works for me with the SE 10x42.

Best,


George

 

[Jaywalk]

I considered it at one point but wanted to treat them gently since I understand replacements aren't available.

Edit: I've pulled them up part way from full down, and the view looks good. They don't seem to want to stay there against eyeglass pressure - tends to collapse - so I'll let them sit for awhile to see if they like that position better.

 

[Jaywalk]

I really wasn’t considering value, I was just putting those two out there for their quality, size and weight.

I considered retained value until I realized I don't sell binocs. That opens up the Kowa Genesis 8x33, but the eye relief might be too short. The the turmoil at Meopta had me take a step back from the Meostar. The Leica Retrovid 7x35 would be a player, except no nitrogen filling.

I'm not the first person to discover perfection doesn't exist.

 

[Paultricounty]

I considered retained value until I realized I don't sell binocs. That opens up the Kowa Genesis 8x33, but the eye relief might be too short. The the turmoil at Meopta had me take a step back from the Meostar. The Leica Retrovid 7x35 would be a player, except no nitrogen filling.

I'm not the first person to discover perfection doesn't exist.

I hear you, my wife says the same thing. All kidding aside, I guess the trick is to find the best balance if we were to only have one pair of binoculars. A lot of guys that don't want to have a collection will have a few to meet different observing criteria. If were hiking short distances and have places to sit, then a nice 8x or 10 X 42/50 can be great. On those more difficult walks or rough terrain hikes, lighter is better. The Genesis is fantastic glass and built tough, imo the best of that lot. The eye relief of course is something you maybe sensitive too, although I wouldn't go by the shear spec numbers, that sometimes can be misleading. I have bins that have less eye relief, but have a more comfortable eye box, so design can play a role.

I guess B&H will need to get a call.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

With eyeglasses on and eyecups rolled down, eye relief is too long. To compensate I curl my forefingers overlapping the end of the eyecups and brace that against my brow; the folded eyecups don't touch my glasses. It's a way to hover, but braced.

Gotcha. Nikon (deliberately?) handicapped the SE when they gave that long eye relief design rubber eyecups. I have two pairs of glasses, one places the lenses further from my face than the other. My SE (10x42) is more prone to blackouts if I'm wearing the closer fitting pair.

Nikon EII eyecups will apparently fit the SE: I'd much rather order a pair and either trim them down to the correct length, or stick foam circles to them (check out this link) to get them at the right distance than use my fingers as spacers in the way you describe. That said, your main issue with the SE seems to be waterproofing rather than eye relief - if you're happy with the way you currently hold/use it, there's no need to change.

I can't advise you from personal experience as to what might be better than your SE, but there have been some interesting comparisons over the years with eg. the 8x32 Swarovski EL and other alphas. The majority opinion would indicate you might be better off looking for a secondhand alpha 8x32 rather than a new $1000 class binocular. This is a good one to start off with: (4) Quality 8x32 Binoculars- Swarovski EL, SV and Nikon EDG II, SE~ My Impressions

 

[Sancho]

Oberwerk SE 8x32. Heavier though. But waterproof.

 

[Paultricounty]

I did a short side by side comparison review of the Nikon SE and the Zeiss SF both in 8x32 back in 2023.

Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison.

Paul

 

[Elkhornsun]

I find the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 binoculars which is excellent optically as well as being compact and lightweight. At 4.8 x 4.7 inches in size and weighing only 16.4 ounces I kept these in my primary vehicle to have readily available. I own these as well as the Swarovski 8x30 CL Companion binos and the I can find no discernible difference in image quality between these the Nikon ones. At less than $500 I do not worry about having the Nikon binoculars stolen.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1664162-REG/nikon_16763_8x30_monarch_m7_binoculars.html/specs

 

[MiddleRiver]

I'll admit it's self-serving to say this (since I have relevant bins for sale in classifieds), but even if i didn't, I would still say that if $1000 is your limit, I'd be looking for something used or on sale (open box, demo, etc.). I've found quality to go up in 'steps' and the diff between $400 and $500 is not much, but $400 and $900 is quantifiable, and $900 and $2000 as well. For $1000 you should be able to find something alpha class if you shop carefully and accept less than NIB.

 

[Scott98]

There's a whole world of options in small 8x roofs. You could go with one of the lighter, smaller ones like Nikon MHG 8x30 or a regular 8x32 model. I would try them out in person. It's the only way to sort out the options, especially if you're seeking eye relief, more comfort, less blackouts, you absolutely need to test them yourself to evaluate IMO.

I tried the MHG's at the store again last week - I still don't like the focusers in the MHG. The Zeiss SFL focusers are much better IMO. I didn't like the focuser in the Swaro 8x30 CL either.

It might be hard to find optics you like vs. the SE's. I was just on a birding tour this weekend with a guy that used 8x32 SE's all day. The SE's are some legendary porros and it takes high-end roofs to compete with the best porros. I use some older 7x35 Nikon E porros for my small bino. I have 8x42 SF's as well.

I might actually consider 8x40 SFL for smaller, lighter binos to go with the 8x42 SF's. I'm just not impressed by the $1000 roofs in general I guess. The 8x40 SFL focuser seems just as good as the SF one. The optics are similar, just slightly below SF. I would probably try to find some kind of discounted or used pair of 8x40 SFL rather than spend $1000 on Monarchs but that's just me. The 8x30 SFL would be nice & small, I haven't tried those yet.