Nikon 10x35 E11 (3 Viewers)

[brocknroller]

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.

Here's Allbinos light graph of the 10x35 E2 model you have and its graph for the 10x42 EDG. You can see how the transmission dips in the blue and rises in the red on the E2. That gives the overall view a darker but warmer tone. The new version like your 8x30, has a flatter light curve that is probably higher in the blue (I haven't seen the 10x 020, only the 8x 82, but I would expect them to be similar in color rendition and brightness).

I compared the Shin'nin 8x30 E2 (means "new" in Japanese, or in English "Shin'nin New" ) with the 8x42 EDG II, and the color rendition and micro contrast (to use Tobias Meenie's term for texture sharpness) was similar. But here's the kicker, so was the level of CA control, and the E2 does not have ED glass! Nikon's new glass and new coatings, which I hope they are using in the HGs, is the best they have ever made.

Nikon's first attempt at lead-free glass were not to my liking. Even in the 8x32 550, I saw more CA than in the previous lead glass versions. The lead glass LX already had more CA than I'd like but when they switched to lead-free glass in the LX L, it got worse. So did the color rendition, which was closer to true in the lead glass LX. At the time, I posted a link to a study that showed more CA through microscopes with lead-free glass vs. lead glass.

As optics makers learned, you can't take out the lead and arsenic and not replace them with suitable substitutes. Not sure what Nikon is using in its "Eco-Glass" now, but it's the best they've made.

When I looked through the Nikon EDG for the first time (before the loose focuser slid off and hit me in the head), my mind was totally blown like Jim on Taxi (Christopher Lloyd). Then again, it might have been a concussion.

I watched a soccer game across the street from the house with the 10x42 EDG and 8x32 LX and compared the blue jerseys, and it was like I had never seen blue before in my life! Really blew my mind when I looked at bluebirds (oh, so that's how they really look, not just in birding books!).

I was a longtime fan of the famous Nikon "Red Bump" coatings, but now I'm a Flatlander!

To coin the BF Bard from "Colorada": Once you go Flatta, can you ever go backa?

You need to be a longtime BF member to remember that Dennis thread.

Glad you like your 10x E2s.

Brock

 

[Harber8]

Here's Allbinos light graph of the 10x35 E2 model you have and its graph for the 10x42 EDG. You can see how the transmission dips in the blue and rises in the red on the E2. That gives the overall view a darker but warmer tone. The new version like your 8x30, has a flatter light curve that is probably higher in the blue (I haven't seen the 10x 020, only the 8x 82, but I would expect them to be similar in color rendition and brightness).

I compared the Shin'nin 8x30 E2 (means "new" in Japanese, or in English "Shin'nin New" ) with the 8x42 EDG II, and the color rendition and micro contrast (to use Tobias Meenie's term for texture sharpness) was similar. But here's the kicker, so was the level of CA control, and the E2 does not have ED glass! Nikon's new glass and new coatings, which I hope they are using in the HGs, is the best they have ever made.

Nikon's first attempt at lead-free glass were not to my liking. Even in the 8x32 550, I saw more CA than in the previous lead glass versions. The lead glass LX already had more CA than I'd like but when they switched to lead-free glass in the LX L, it got worse. So did the color rendition, which was closer to true in the lead glass LX. At the time, I posted a link to a study that showed more CA through microscopes with lead-free glass vs. lead glass.

As optics makers learned, you can't take out the lead and arsenic and not replace them with suitable substitutes. Not sure what Nikon is using in its "Eco-Glass" now, but it's the best they've made.

When I looked through the Nikon EDG for the first time (before the loose focuser slid off and hit me in the head), my mind was totally blown like Jim on Taxi (Christopher Lloyd). Then again, it might have been a concussion.

I watched a soccer game across the street from the house with the 10x42 EDG and 8x32 LX and compared the blue jerseys, and it was like I had never seen blue before in my life! Really blew my mind when I looked at bluebirds (oh, so that's how they really look, not just in birding books!).

I was a longtime fan of the famous Nikon "Red Bump" coatings, but now I'm a Flatlander!

To coin the BF Bard from "Colorada": Once you go Flatta, can you ever go backa?

You need to a longtime BF member to remember that thread.

Glad you like your 10x E2s.

Brock

Thanks!

 

[Scott98]

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.

This photo is probably 20 years old, it's possible that Tele Vue is using better coatings now. But they weren't in the 90's, that's for sure.

You could be right about the NL's optics, it's all speculation here, I'm not privy to the design specs on these of course. The 56mm SLC do look good though! More aperture always makes things look a little better too, all else being equal. We don't have 50mm or 56mm NL Pure to compare.

I did get to do a head-to-head with the 10x56 SLC and 10x50 Ultravid+, both excellent and very clean optics, I though the SLC had a slight improvement on veiling glare around the full Moon when I compared them (I think VG is the right term - just a little more halo of extra light around the Moon).

Something did get better going from Nikon LXL to EDG - when my recent 7x42 EDG arrived I took them out at night, looking at bright stars and Jupiter's disk I could immediately see an improvement in sharpness and contrast with the EDG. The EDG did add the prism spikes around the Moon and streetlights though.

 

[brocknroller]

This photo is probably 20 years old, it's possible that Tele Vue is using better coatings now. But they weren't in the 90's, that's for sure.

You could be right about the NL's optics, it's all speculation here, I'm not privy to the design specs on these of course. The 56mm SLC do look good though! More aperture always makes things look a little better too, all else being equal. We don't have 50mm or 56mm NL Pure to compare.

I did get to do a head-to-head with the 10x56 SLC and 10x50 Ultravid+, both excellent and very clean optics, I though the SLC had a slight improvement on veiling glare around the full Moon when I compared them (I think VG is the right term - just a little more halo of extra light around the Moon).

Something did get better going from Nikon LXL to EDG - when my recent 7x42 EDG arrived I took them out at night, looking at bright stars and Jupiter's disk I could immediately see an improvement in sharpness and contrast with the EDG. The EDG did add the prism spikes around the Moon and streetlights though.

No doubt TV's AR coatings have improved as they have with all premium brand optics and even many lower priced bins as new technology costs lower and "trickles down." For example, initially, only premium roof prism binoculars had ED glass, but today even some moderately priced bins have ED glass. Ditto for trickle down with p-coatings, "silver" coatings, dielectric coatings, and though I haven't seen it yet, I'm expecting trickle down with hydrophobic coatings. Don't bird in the rain (or sing), so I'm not following that trend.

You saw prism spikes around the Moon? I didn't see that with the 8x42 EDG, then again, I didn't buy it to look at the Moon or streetlights, but I did look at the Moon, and it looked very clean, particularly Quarter Moons where you can see the 3-D craters. I have seen spikes on some bright stars with other roofs though never with porros. CA control is a good test for the Moon.

Allbinos critized the EDG for ghosting from streetlights, but again, I don't use the EDG at night. The field where I observed the sky at night where I lived for nearly 30 years had only two streetlights, one in the park (blocked by a tree line) and another at the end of the block (a neighbor erected it), blocked by woods. I had no issue with my 12x50 SE, but you can buy Field Optics Research eye shields for stray light.

Eye Shield Compact Size

One Set of compact size EYESHIELDS for compact binoculars.These EYESHIELDs will come with camo exterior packaging instead of the Birder packaging. We apologize for any inconvenience

www.fieldopticsresearch.com

Allbinos didn't praise the EDG for daytime flare control, they only judge that in terms of light leaks around the exit pupils. The EDG is excellent at flare control, and not surprisingly, has dark exit pupils. Allbinos said:

Very good performance. Almost no flares visible. Drak background around pupils. (sic)

The LXL's lead-free glass was Nikon's first try, and they did not find suitable substitutes for the lead and arsenic, but Nikon's latest glass found in the 82xxx 8x30 E2 is soooo good that comparing it to the EDG, the CA control was very similar, and it doesn't have ED glass! The micro contrast (texture detail) is also noticeably better than the previous "Red Bump" glass/coatings E2.

But Nikon doesn't play up its innovations, a huge marketing mistake, IMO, but to my eye Nikon's latest Hikari top glass is competitive with Schott's top glass. Wish I could cite a study that verifies that.

Here's a tour of Hikari Glass:

Glass for geeks: An in-depth tour of Nikon’s Hikari Glass factory

I've been on a lot of factory tours with various camera and lens manufacturers before, but had never had a chance to see how the optical glass was made that goes into the lenses we use every day. So I was really happy to receive…

www.imaging-resource.com

Brock

 

[puprescue]

thanks for posting the article re a visit to Nikon glass factory in Japan. makes it easier to understand why high end Nikon optics are expensive.

my newly acquired 8X30 E11's and 10X35 E11's are by far my favorite binoculars in a small collection [no Alpha's]. the 10X35 E11 is the binoc i reach for when i want to really see what something looks like through my very compromised eyes. i doubt i would enjoy an image looking through $5000 binocs anymore than with my Nikon 10X35 E11's. the 8X30 E11's are just a small step behind the 10X35's.

 

[brocknroller]

thanks for posting the article re a visit to Nikon glass factory in Japan. makes it easier to understand why high end Nikon optics are expensive.

my newly acquired 8X30 E11's and 10X35 E11's are by far my favorite binoculars in a small collection [no Alpha's]. the 10X35 E11 is the binoc i reach for when i want to really see what something looks like through my very compromised eyes. i doubt i would enjoy an image looking through $5000 binocs anymore than with my Nikon 10X35 E11's. the 8X30 E11's are just a small step behind the 10X35's.

$5,000 binoculars!? Did they bring out an NL Even Purer?

If you have E2s with the Nikon's latest glass and coatings, they are alpha quality. In fact, someone who bought the 100th Anniversary Edition 8x30 E2, which I also have (only 400 were made), posted a thread on BF stating that they were alpha quality. I had to see for myself, so I bought one, and when I compared it to the 8x42 EDG, I was surprised at how close they were in terms of macro contrast, micro contrast, and CA control even though I read Tobias Meenie's rave review.

Unbenanntes Dokument

The two issues that people have with the E2s are the short ER (for eyeglass wearers) and the lack of waterproofing. I don't wear glasses except for reading, and I don't go birding in the rain or in rain forests, or in very cold weather (desiccant prep seems to prevent fogging). But for eyeglass wearers and those who watch birds under adverse climate conditions, they would prefer high ER roofs.

Another issue might be the close focus, but I find it sufficient for even butterflies.

For fair weather, non-eyeglass wearers, the new 8x and 10x E2s with their extra wide FOV offer a great value in birding optics.

Brock

 

[tenex]

(to use Tobias Meenie's term for texture sharpness)

even though I read Tobias Meenie's rave review.

Tobias Mennle. (That's the second time, I hope it's poor vision not some nasty joke.)

 

[brocknroller]

Tobias Mennle. (That's the second time, I hope it's poor vision not some nasty joke.)

tenex,

A combination of trifocals and typos. Now if I had addressed you as Kleenex, that would some clean joke.

 

[mwhogue]

$5,000 binoculars!? Did they bring out an NL Even Purer?

If you have E2s with the Nikon's latest glass and coatings, they are alpha quality. In fact, someone who bought the 100th Anniversary Edition 8x30 E2, which I also have (only 400 were made), posted a thread on BF stating that they were alpha quality. I had to see for myself, so I bought one, and when I compared it to the 8x42 EDG, I was surprised at how close they were in terms of macro contrast, micro contrast, and CA control even though I read Tobias Meenie's rave review.

Unbenanntes Dokument

The two issues that people have with the E2s are the short ER (for eyeglass wearers) and the lack of waterproofing. I don't wear glasses except for reading, and I don't go birding in the rain or in rain forests, or in very cold weather (desiccant prep seems to prevent fogging). But for eyeglass wearers and those who watch birds under adverse climate conditions, they would prefer high ER roofs.

Another issue might be the close focus, but I find it sufficient for even butterflies.

For fair weather, non-eyeglass wearers, the new 8x and 10x E2s with their extra wide FOV offer a great value in birding optics.

Brock

IIRC based on fairly recent browsing, used Nikon WX sometimes pop up in the $5000 / 5500 range.

It never occurred to me to A/B compare my Anniversary 8x30 or recent 10x35 E II with EDG II 10x32 or 7x42. Should be interesting.

The ER on either E II is just enough for me to get the full FOV.

Mike

 

[robert kirk 9765]

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.

There you go mate, keep it simple if it works don't fix it, I would like the 8x30 E2 but silly money buys not-so-silly food and these days that counts more.
Good health to you and happy birding friend.

 

[brocknroller]

IIRC based on fairly recent browsing, used Nikon WX sometimes pop up in the $5000 / 5500 range.

It never occurred to me to A/B compare my Anniversary 8x30 or recent 10x35 E II with EDG II 10x32 or 7x42. Should be interesting.

The ER on either E II is just enough for me to get the full FOV.

Mike

Mike,

I forgot about the Über-expensive WX! Not a birding bin except for those with Arnold-sized biceps.

You own an AE 8x30 E 2, et tu? If so, that's five of us on BF with AE E2s. I bought them based on Tobias's review. I didn't know then that they had the same optics as the 82xxxx black body version, and neither did he. Here's his thread on BF:

Nikon 8x30 E2 100th anniversary - improved coatings/mini review

First impression: This is now a bright glass with neutral colours! I tested the E2 in 2015 and 2017 and came to the conclusion that it was not good enough to keep it. Now with a third sample, this time from the 100th anniversary edition (I played around with it for about two hours over a course...

www.birdforum.net

When I looked through the AE 8x30 E2 and compared them side by side with a 2016 8x30 E2, I was surprised at how much better the AE's optics were. The colors were neutral like the EDG II (perhaps even whiter whites), the CA control was much improved, and it even controlled flare better than the 2016 model.

The texture sharpness was noticeably better when I compared the "old E2" with the new (only a year apart). I looked at the detail on the rose bush's roses' stamen and pestles, and I could see finer detail with the AE 8x30 E2. I also found some tiny fly larvae, which were the culprits behind the holes in the rose bush's leaves.

Then when I compared the AE E2 to the EDG II, I found the images similar in all aspects except for field curvature in the E2 and the much better 3-D view. On sunny days, they looked as bright. And it was lighter and easier to hold steady. So, I decided to sell the 8x42 EDG II, which was hard for me to hold steady, but I ended up trading it for an 8x32 EDG II. The 8x32 EDG's image is more similar to the 8x32 SE's than the 8x42 EDG's.

It was hard to believe that updated coatings alone could account for the differences, so I concluded Nikon had also upgraded the E2's glass. I was going to sell the AE edition and buy the 82 black body version, but only if I can recoup my money. If not, I'll keep them and use them.

Right now, I use them for refernence only, because I'm hoping they will increase in value over time, so I want to stay "like new." I figure by Nikon's 200th Anniversary I should be able to sell them and use the money to buy a Tesla Roadster.

Glad the ER on the 8x30 E2 works for you with glasses.

Brock

 

[mwhogue]

Thanks for this helpful info and link Brock. When I was shopping for an E 2 8x30 several years ago I ran across a "used" AE that was mint for @ $125 more than a new standard model. Part of my rationalization for spending the extra money was the hope that the AE version would be assembled with more attention to tolerances, QC, perhaps even specially selected examples of lenses as you suggest, and presuming it would have at least the most updated if not "special" coatings. In any event I love them and in view of recently increasing prices of the E 2 (along with everything else) I'm glad I jumped on the AE when it was available.

Mike

 

[tenex]

Part of my rationalization for spending the extra money was the hope that the AE version would be assembled with more attention to tolerances, QC...

It was hard to believe that updated coatings alone could account for the differences...

I think they must. I'd love to understand coatings better, because today they're responsible for so much more than raw transmission. The AE models may have been cherry-picked in QC (hard to guess) and to me a white logo looks better than gold, but most likely this was just the occasion for people to notice and appreciate the new coatings that subsequent EIIs also have. I'm very impressed that Nikon took the trouble to do this with such a niche model. If the old ones were like what I saw (and disliked) years ago on SEs, this makes a huge difference. My ordinary 82xxxx EII is quite special now too.

 

[brocknroller]

I think they must. I'd love to understand coatings better, because today they're responsible for so much more than raw transmission. The AE models may have been cherry-picked in QC (hard to guess) and to me a white logo looks better than gold, but most likely this was just the occasion for people to notice and appreciate the new coatings that subsequent EIIs also have. I'm very impressed that Nikon took the trouble to do this with such a niche model. If the old ones were like what I saw (and disliked) years ago on SEs, this makes a huge difference. My ordinary 82xxxx EII is quite special now too.

I appreciate, too, but I really wish Nikon had resurrected the 8x32 SE for the AE. I really like the SEs, it was sharper and had better contrast than the E2s made at the same time, and looking at Allbinos' light transmission graphs, you can see how the SE's light transmision is higher than the 1998-2014 E2, and that it also transmits higher in the blue end than the E2, but both have a bump in the red, which tends to make the image look darker on cloudy days.

For the SE, Nikon would defintely have to upgrade the glass since their original lead-free glass in the 550xxx model showed more CA than the lead-free glass and more CA than the AE 8x30 E2. Hikari Glass's latest lead-free glass is much improved over its first effort, which did not have suitable substitutes for the lead and arsenic that was removed. I also saw this difference going from the lead glass Nikon LX to the lead-free glass LXL.

This is what made me suspect that Nikon had upgraded its glass and its coatings in 2017 on the E2s. It had already upgraded the coatings going from the 8x32 EDG II to the 8x42 and 10x42 EDG II.

The AE 8x30 EII's flatter spectrum coatings are like the 8x42 EDG II whereas the 8x32 EDG II's coatings are more like the 8x32 SE. Allbino's light graphs show this.

So, I can understand how the brighter views and better color rendition on the AE 8x30 E2 are caused by the upgraded AR coatings. What made me thing Nikon had also improved its glass in 2017 was the fact that CA control in the AE E2 was markedly improved when I compared the 2106 to the AE E2 looking at snow covered tree limbs. I saw red and green fringing on the limbs with the older model but none with the AE. I also saw none with the 8x42 EDG. I didn't have the SE then, so I couldn't compare them also, but its a lead glass model, so I would expect to be better than the older E2 but not as good as the AE E2 and 42 EDG II.

Also suprising was the increased flare control. The 2016 E2 flared when I pointed the E2 at close angles to the sun whereas the AE E2 didn't flare unless I had the sun right above the bins, and then the flaring was not as extreme as the previous model. I'm not sure how AR coatings alone could improve this since its due to the light leak around the exit pupils (see photo).

Brock

 

[dries1]

Is there any direct info/evidence that the SE 8X32 ever contained leaded glass? Perhaps Henry Link could elaborate.

 

[brocknroller]

Is there any direct info/evidence that the SE 8X32 ever contained leaded glass? Perhaps Henry Link could elaborate.

According to a camera forum I read (see if I can find the link again), Nikkor camera lenses made before 2009-2010 contained lead glass, so it would make sense that their binoculars also changed over at that point or not too long after. Nikon like other optics makers switched to lead-free glass due to a change in enviornmental standards that were coming shortly in Europe.

Nikon announced that their new bins had "Eco Glass" including the last version of the SE (550xxx). Nikon states this in their description in its archive: Manufactured Responsibly with Lead and arsenic-free Eco-Glass™

Error | Nikon USA

Shop the latest mirrorless & DSLR cameras and NIKKOR lenses from the official Nikon eCommerce site. Explore our innovations and photo equipment!

www.nikonusa.com

Ditto for the LX L.

Error | Nikon USA

Shop the latest mirrorless & DSLR cameras and NIKKOR lenses from the official Nikon eCommerce site. Explore our innovations and photo equipment!

www.nikonusa.com

A guy selling an 8x32 SE 504 on eBay had that description on his ad. I asked him where he got the information and he sent me that link. I told him the 504 had lead glass, which controlled CA better. He changed the description and touted its leaded glass, and it sold it two days later! Maybe coincidence I don't know but he had it up for a couple weeks. I was more concerned if it has balsam separation. Once bitten, twice shy.

Not everybody agreed with me that Nikon's first attempt at lead free glass showed more CA, so I dug around and found this study by Ohara comparing microscopes made with lead and lead-free glass, and it agreed with my observations.

Here's the BF thread in which I first posted it.

Lead vs lead free glass

I keep finding articles like these http://www.zemax.com/kb/articles/158/3/Take-Care-With-Exact-Equivalent-Glasses/Page3.htmlhttp://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchive/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1803257/page/35/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1http://www.bohemianimports.com/index.php?pr=Leaded

www.birdforum.net

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

Here's another BF thread where other members are catching on that lead glass was better. Not just Nikons but Leicas. That's when Nikon and the BIG THREE started adding ED glass to compensate.

After seeing how well the AE 8x30 E2 corrects for CA, it appears that ED glass may not be necessary in porros with the latest lead-free glasss and AR coatings, but probably will still be needed with roofs due to their high number of lens elements. Note the complaints about CA in the CL Companinon (Gen 2), which does not have HD/ED glass. Perhaps Gen 3 will.

Lead And Arsenic Is A Good Thing!!

Well, it is when its in optical glass.Having owned most of the top roof prism binoculars I have come to realize that we have taken a backward step in the quality of the view since eco-glass has been introduced or to put it another way since lead and arsenic have been removed from optical...

www.birdforum.net

 

[brocknroller]

Found the year Nikon introduced Eco-Glass in 100% of their binoculars: 2005. See attachment.

Earlier than I thought. Thanks to Ed (elkcub). I miss all those guys. Ed, Frank D., Fiddler, Tero, Bob (ceasar).

However, I don't think I have all the years of manufacture of the Nikon SEs to correlate what serial #s had lead and which had lEco-Glass glass, but rather basing that on what I saw through the binoculars. I had a YOM list of the 8x32 SEs a long time ago, but I'm not sure if I still have it on my old computer.

Easier to tell with the LX since Nikon changed to lead-free glass on the LX L, which I bought when it came out in 2006. I was very disappointed with the view (CA and color rendition) vs. the LX. The softer armoring also showed signs of wear after only two weeks!

I suspect Nikon changed to lead-free glass in the 8x32 SE 550xxx because of the change in serial #s.

Previous 8x32 SE numbering went from 500-505. Just as Nikon changed the AR coatings (and perhaps glass) in the 8x30 E2 starting with 82xxxx and 020xxx with the 10x35 E2, it makes sense they would make a serial number change with the Eco-Glass 8x32 SE.

It also looked that way when I compared the 8x32 SE 550 to the 503, with the 550s showing more CA on snow covered tree limbs.

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

Is there any direct info/evidence that the SE 8X32 ever contained leaded glass? Perhaps Henry Link could elaborate.

Okay, I can finally provide you with "direct evidence" that the Nikon 8x32 SE contained lead glass. I had to dig back into Stephen Ingraham's review on Better Desired from Feb. 1998 and compare that with the date Nikon gave in its optical glass history for when all its binoculars had Eco-Glass (2005).

In the fall of 1997, Stephen Ingraham attended a Nikon School of Birding at L.L. Bean and was handed serial #1 of the 8x32 Superior E. He got another chance to use it the next weekend in Wisconsin, and had a production sample for testing two months later (serial #86).

Interesting since the earliest serial # for the 8X32 I have found on BF and CN is 500xxx. I don't know anyone who had one with single or double digit number. Could be they were a test batch from 1997?

The 10x42 SE preceded the 8x32 SE and 12x50 SE, so the SE series was launched in 1996. Steve Moore had one of the first model 001xxx 10x SEs.

Here's Ingraham's review with dates and numbers.

Nikon Superior E 8x32 | Better View Desired

Brock

 

[dries1]

still no mention if leaded glass used. The hg lx 8x10x32 had eco glass when introduced 2002, it was never produced with leaded only unleaded.
So regarding the SE 8x32 we do not know when or if lead was used in 1998.
Only Nikon knows the answer.