New Nikon 8X42 HG (1 Viewer)

[Mikbul]

What a fine binocular! The first I have looked through that more than matches the 8.4X42 Audubon. Wider field, a little brighter and sharper with less weight (22 oz). These are a keeper!

 

[albie...]

You seem to be enjoying your new MHG's quite a bit . They are a decent binocular . Lovely playground you have there .

Because I had replaced both my Nikon 8x30 and 10x35 E2's with the Nikon MHG it took me roughly a year to fully appreciate my Nikon MHG 8x42 . All this because of astigmatism and the need to wear eyeglasses . The E2's didn't work for me because of the eyeglasses , huge bummer for me .
2-3 years later and I am enjoying my MHG's immensely .
In my opinion the Nikon MHG is at the point of diminishing returns for what it costs to buy . Outstanding binocular , ticks off all the boxes for me !

 

[Mikbul]

EDG has a smaller FOV and more money. I am not seeing any CA and you have to strain your eyes to look at the edge, smarter to move the bin a little. I like the wider FOV.

~$1000 Binoculars poll

Since the Alpha binoculars poll got a good response, I decided to start a poll for $1000 bins. I'm guessing this will get an even better response since these bins are more affordable. I expect this to be a close contest between Zeiss Conquest and Nikon Monarch HG. Vote for the binocular that you...

www.birdforum.net

 

[dries1]

Looks like they rounded the edge of the eyecups from the original design.

 

[albie...]

Not everybody sees CA. Look at a black furnace pipe on a house roof against a white sky. The MHG has a little CA in the center of the FOV also, which will affect the sharpness to a small extent. I think that is why the Zeiss Conquest HD is a little sharper on-axis. The EDG does have a smaller FOV, but it is a higher quality view, similar to an 8x56. An 8x56 FL or SLC doesn't have near the size of FOV of an 8x42 SF or 8x42 NL, but it has a higher quality view with much higher glare resistance and less optical aberrations. The glass in the EDG is no doubt a considerable upgrade from the MHG and is more expensive. It depends on your what you want. A higher quality FOV or a bigger FOV.

One of the reasons I got rid of the Celestron Regal ED 8x42 was because of CA yet others don't see it the way I do, I thought it was bad . I don't notice CA with the MHG although maybe it needs to be really bad for me to notice it .

 

[dries1]

I really feel sorry for you Dennis with the CA and all, must be a real pain.

 

[Mikbul]

Not everybody sees CA. Look at a black furnace pipe on a house roof against a white sky. The MHG has a little CA in the center of the FOV also, which will affect the sharpness to a small extent. I think that is why the Zeiss Conquest HD is a little sharper on-axis. The EDG does have a smaller FOV, but it is a higher quality view, similar to an 8x56. An 8x56 FL or SLC doesn't have near the size of FOV of an 8x42 SF or 8x42 NL, but it has a higher quality view with much higher glare resistance and less optical aberrations. The glass in the EDG is no doubt a considerable upgrade from the MHG and is more expensive. It depends on your what you want. A higher quality FOV or a bigger FOV.

Look, when the sun goes behind the tall pines in my front yard I look at the top of the pines and see no CA at the trees edges, if they pass that test for me I won't need to spend another $500-1000. The sun behind tall trees, no better real world test than that. I never nerd out and look at chimney pipes anyway. You can bash the HG all you want, I really don't care. LOL

 

[Scott98]

Hmmmm....when I ran through the HG's I didn't see much false color. The 8x30 MHG is significantly better than the 8x30 Swaro CL on false color. You may find a little breakdown at the outer edges and a little bit of false color out there, but not much. EDG is close to MHG in my eyes. For the extra weight and cost of the EDG, you get a little better focusing, a little better edge sharpness. But the MHG were equally bright and have wider FOV. And they weigh less.

As I said, some people may like them better than EDG regardless of cost. That's what Nikon USA will tell you anyway!

 

[dries1]

My HG resolution is just fine, no need for the Conquest.

 

[Mikbul]

Try looking at a Crow or a Raven if you have them. You need something black against a light or white back round.

The shady side of a 100' pine tree is pretty dark. I don't look at crows with my bins. Yesterday, chipping sparrows, American Goldfinch, bluebirds, cedar waxwing, red tail hawk, and by accident three vultures circling, NO CA! We could go on and on but what's the point?

 

[Patudo]

Excellent binocular - here's to many more years of you being as happy with them as you are today!

 

[Mikbul]

One thing I'd like to hear from HG owners is how is the leatherette? covering holding up?

 

[dries1]

Once a year I use 303 on the leatherette. No problems with it.

 

[Paultricounty]

One thing I'd like to hear from HG owners is how is the leatherette? covering holding up?View attachment 1531099

Seems to hold up very well, better than most Swarovski’s 😜. Mine are about two years old , no issues at all, and the material stays looking new. I’ve also had used a few of the MHG’s that were well used for quite a few years and the leatherette is the last thing to show wear. Enjoy those Nikos, what an elegant binocular.

 

[dorubird]

Yeah, HG leatherette it's very resistant and, at the same time, velvety to the touch, imitating leather textures! Also very beautiful!