Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison. (2 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison.

This is just one persons subjective opinions. The Nikon SE was the last run (550XXX) with the latest coatings.

Conditions:
Beautiful bright sunny day, about 60°F , Sun just overhead at noon overlooking a small body of water fed by the end of one of the open bays canals.

Fit, finish and feel:
Both have their own unique and excellent feel in the hands, both feel well made. The Nikons feels a little more robust and tougher, this is very subjective and may differ with others. The Nikon is more compact and dense feeling. The fully wrapped or encased rubberized armor feels thicker and heavier than the Zeiss. Of all the porros that I own and have tried over the years , the SE’s feel the best to me , they kind of melt into the palms of your hands. The texture is just right, very pleasurable, not slippery or tacky. The Zeiss feel a little cheaper , or maybe I should say less solid because of their size weight ratio, they don’t feel like EL’s or NL’s, but it’s very understandable why many would prefer it. The focusers on both are smooth, relatively light and buttery smooth , but the SF is superior in its feel, feed back and snap into focus.

Sharp and bright:
Both are extremely sharp. The SF is slightly sharper, object detail, wing structure resolution seem to be a tad better. The Nikons have more color saturation , color on everything seems to pop out a bit more, but the SF’s in this area are also very good. The Nikons have a warmer image, a gorgeous collection of color. I’m going to reserve my opinion on brightness for now , because of how bright it was today and I couldn’t see much difference between the two. I’ll spend some time with them late in day and early evening , and I’ll do an edit sometime in the next few days.

CA control and glare:
CA was almost nonexistent in the SF, I needed to try to induce it to see it. Under 90% of all observing under these lighting conditions there was no CA what’s so ever. The Nikons were also very good with CA control, it did creep in , in more instances when not necessarily trying to induce it. The blue ring in the SF is evident around part of the image circle and is evident consistently , unless one really pushes the eyecups deep into the eye sockets. Looking directly over the water with the sun above in that direction, clearly showed veiling glare at the bottom of the image. There was no glare in any direction in the Nikons.

Edge characteristics:
Surprisingly the edge sharpness seemed slightly better in the SE’s to me. It almost felt like the whole image circle was completely in focus all the way to the edge, whereas you could see a little bit of softness and distortion in the SF‘s. The FOV is so much larger in the SF so that the sweet spot appears bigger.

Summary and conclusion:
Considering that the Nikon’s are close to a 20+ year old design, it’s quite amazing how close in image quality these truly are to each other. If you take everything into consideration, focuser, FOV, resolution, CA control, water proofing, and can get past the blue ring (not a big deal to me) I’d say the the SF is the better all around birding and optical tool. And although I think the Nikon’s gorgeous color saturation is nicer , if I had to pick one, it would be the SF.

Paul

 

[dries1]

Nice pics Paul. The SE is still an awesome 8X32.

 

[Paultricounty]

Nice pics Paul. The SE is still an awesome 8X32.

The Nikons are phenomenal glass. I don’t use them a lot but every time I pick them up, I’m amazed at how good they are. There truly is not much separating these from the best of the best.

 

[Maljunulo]

I’m curious to know where you were that the sun was overhead at noon.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello Paul,

Blue ring? I never saw that in my SF 8x32.

I owned the Nikon 8x32 SE. By memory, I would write that on FOV alone the Zeiss SF is superior.


Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[dries1]

Arthur you never got along with the SE did you, and now you own the SF 8X32, is that correct?

 

[Paultricounty]

I’m curious to know where you were that the sun was overhead at noon.

New York, down state. Between 11:30-12:00 EST. Not perfectly overhead.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hello Paul,

Blue ring? I never saw that in my SF 8x32.

I owned the Nikon 8x32 SE. By memory, I would write that on FOV alone the Zeiss SF is superior.


Stay safe,
Arthur

Hi Arthur,
Some people see that ring, and some don’t. I think there’s been a few discussions here on Birdforum about it. I think it’s an individual thing , and it has to do with how you have the oculars tucked in to your eye sockets.
Some also see it in and one configurational and not in another with SF’s.

I don’t really don’t think that FOV alone in an optic makes it superior, far from it.

Paul

 

[Pinewood]

Arthur you never got along with the SE did you, and now you own the SF 8X32, is that correct?

Hello,

Yes. At the time I owned the Nikon SE, nineteen years, I got along better with the Leica 8x32BN and then the Zeiss 8x32FL. That is just an example of how using binoculars might be very personal. Therefore I always recommend trying before buying. My problem, kidney bean, with the SE is like the blue circle with the SF: some people see it; others do not.
Edit: Is the blue circle peculiar to 42mm SF’S. I have a 32mm SF.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[yarrellii]

It's always interesting to test yesterday's greatest against todays top dogs. A pleasure to read, thanks for posting, Paul.
It's another model, but for the last 3 years I've been doing a "yearly assessment" of the SE 8x32 against my Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision.
Three years ago I gave the SE as a present to my brother, who was starting to be interested in birdwatching and was hang up on the SE since the day I let him use it for the first time (while it was still mine). So now, a couple of times a year we meet and go birding together, so I have several opportunities to compare them both, and the more I do it, the more I'm amazed by the view through the SE, especially when it comes to contrast, depth of field (no surprise here, being a porro) and overall view. I've insinuated to my brother maybe swapping his SE for another more contemporary roof, but there's no way he'll agree to that, he's utterly in love with the SE and uses it on a weekly basis (as a matter of fact, I don't know how many hundreds of hours he has already put on them).

It's unlikely that we'll ever see it, but wouldn't it be nice that Nikon launched an updated SE series? I simply love the shape and size as well as the tactile aspect of the rubber armour. Such a gem.

 

[Patudo]

My problem, kidney bean, with the SE is like the blue circle with the SF: some people see it; others do not.

I do wonder how many more SEs they would have sold (and how many fewer HGs/EDGs!) if they had designed them with twist eyecups, and indeed sacrificed a little of that (excessive, IMO) eye relief for a little more field of view.

I experienced some blackouts with mine (10x42 format) but these mostly disappeared when I got a new pair of glasses/spectacles that had their lenses a bit further from my face, saving me from unsightly expedients such as sticking foam half-circles on the eyecups. It's an excellent binocular, but if my brother offered to trade it for say a 10x42 NL I'd say yes!

 

[Paultricounty]

It's always interesting to test yesterday's greatest against todays top dogs. A pleasure to read, thanks for posting, Paul.
It's another model, but for the last 3 years I've been doing a "yearly assessment" of the SE 8x32 against my Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision.
Three years ago I gave the SE as a present to my brother, who was starting to be interested in birdwatching and was hang up on the SE since the day I let him use it for the first time (while it was still mine). So now, a couple of times a year we meet and go birding together, so I have several opportunities to compare them both, and the more I do it, the more I'm amazed by the view through the SE, especially when it comes to contrast, depth of field (no surprise here, being a porro) and overall view. I've insinuated to my brother maybe swapping his SE for another more contemporary roof, but there's no way he'll agree to that, he's utterly in love with the SE and uses it on a weekly basis (as a matter of fact, I don't know how many hundreds of hours he has already put on them).

It's unlikely that we'll ever see it, but wouldn't it be nice that Nikon launched an updated SE series? I simply love the shape and size as well as the tactile aspect of the rubber armour. Such a gem.

Lol, he’s not letting go of those SE’s. I compared them to my EL’s and a few others, the SF as in this discussion, I also compared them to the Leica Ultravids, 8x30 Habicht’s, E2’s to name a few. They really do hold up very well.

Im not confident at all that Nikon will be coming out with a new SE , or any porro for that matter. I don’t think they’ll be coming out with anything high grade, Im one that thinks Nikons best day are behind it. Don’t be surprised if soon the MHG is either discontinued or MIC. I had called them last week to get a seven year old 18-200 Nikon lens serviced, they don’t service that lens anymore , no parts. They gave me a list of retailers that may be able to service them within a 20 mile radius. I called about seven of them, all said the same thing , bring it in they’ll take a look , but if it’s anything that needs parts, they can’t do anything.

 

[John M Robinson]

I’m curious to know where you were that the sun was overhead at noon.

Somewhere in the tropics, but I assumed he meant close to overhead, not technically 90 degrees zenith.

 

[PeterPS]

Nikon SE and Zeiss SF 8x32 comparison.

This is just one persons subjective opinions. The Nikon SE was the last run (550XXX) with the latest coatings.

Conditions:
Beautiful bright sunny day, about 60°F , Sun just overhead at noon overlooking a small body of water fed by the end of one of the open bays canals.

Fit, finish and feel:
Both have their own unique and excellent feel in the hands, both feel well made. The Nikons feels a little more robust and tougher, this is very subjective and may differ with others. The Nikon is more compact and dense feeling. The fully wrapped or encased rubberized armor feels thicker and heavier than the Zeiss. Of all the porros that I own and have tried over the years , the SE’s feel the best to me , they kind of melt into the palms of your hands. The texture is just right, very pleasurable, not slippery or tacky. The Zeiss feel a little cheaper , or maybe I should say less solid because of their size weight ratio, they don’t feel like EL’s or NL’s, but it’s very understandable why many would prefer it. The focusers on both are smooth, relatively light and buttery smooth , but the SF is superior in its feel, feed back and snap into focus.

Sharp and bright:
Both are extremely sharp. The SF is slightly sharper, object detail, wing structure resolution seem to be a tad better. The Nikons have more color saturation , color on everything seems to pop out a bit more, but the SF’s in this area are also very good. The Nikons have a warmer image, a gorgeous collection of color. I’m going to reserve my opinion on brightness for now , because of how bright it was today and I couldn’t see much difference between the two. I’ll spend some time with them late in day and early evening , and I’ll do an edit sometime in the next few days.

CA control and glare:
CA was almost nonexistent in the SF, I needed to try to induce it to see it. Under 90% of all observing under these lighting conditions there was no CA what’s so ever. The Nikons were also very good with CA control, it did creep in , in more instances when not necessarily trying to induce it. The blue ring in the SF is evident around part of the image circle and is evident consistently , unless one really pushes the eyecups deep into the eye sockets. Looking directly over the water with the sun above in that direction, clearly showed veiling glare at the bottom of the image. There was no glare in any direction in the Nikons.

Edge characteristics:
Surprisingly the edge sharpness seemed slightly better in the SE’s to me. It almost felt like the whole image circle was completely in focus all the way to the edge, whereas you could see a little bit of softness and distortion in the SF‘s. The FOV is so much larger in the SF so that the sweet spot appears bigger.

Summary and conclusion:
Considering that the Nikon’s are close to a 20+ year old design, it’s quite amazing how close in image quality these truly are to each other. If you take everything into consideration, focuser, FOV, resolution, CA control, water proofing, and can get past the blue ring (not a big deal to me) I’d say the the SF is the better all around birding and optical tool. And although I think the Nikon’s gorgeous color saturation is nicer , if I had to pick one, it would be the SF.

Paul

If you could keep only one porro, would you choose the SE or the Rangemaster? You have/had several SWA binos, which one is your favorite? I owned and tried quite a few SWA bnos and, when compared with the SE, none was a keeper.

 

[PYRTLE]

I owned a x 8 SE for many years, an impeccable binocular but just didn't use it after I bought an FL 8 /32 so sold it. I use an SF 8/42 ( black ) but am very tempted by its 32mm stablemate.... if only it came in a green.

 

[Paultricounty]

If you could keep only one porro, would you choose the SE or the Rangemaster? You have/had several SWA binos, which one is your favorite? I owned and tried quite a few SWA bnos and, when compared with the SE, none was a keeper.

Between the SE and Rangmaster , I’d choose the Rangmaster (FPO silverline or the Kowa). The overall feel of 10°, the DOF (7x) and more of that 3D effect out does the slightly sharper Nikon. An excellent condition , all coatings in tact, and well collimated Rangmaster is as good as it gets in a porro for me. A Nikon SE is another high quality porro, one of the best, but it’s not a window on the world effect, like a Rangemaster. Might be a slightly harder choice if we through in the Habicht’s, but I’d still take the Rangmaster. Of all the SWA binos, my favorites are the FPO and Kowa Rangemasters then the Swift Holiday/Panoramic MKII’s.

Pictures: Newest/last Swift Holiday MK2, older mid production (a tank) Swift Holiday MK2, Kowa and FPO Rangemaster and Nikon SE’s.

 

[yarrellii]

@Paultricounty Wait, you got two SE?? 😲


Gotta get me one of those Rangemasters, I guess they're not that common over here in Europe. I don't recall seeing many for sale. One thing I'd like to know is whether I can make use of the whole FOV, ideally with WA Porros, like the E2 I simply can't see the entire FOV (and I don't use glasses). With contemporary WA roofs I tend to be luckier. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if I can find a nice Rangemasters, I thought they were only produced by Bushnell.

 

[Paultricounty]

@Paultricounty Wait, you got two SE?? 😲

I had four, past two of them on to others to enjoy, because I’m like that 🤣.

Gotta get me one of those Rangemasters, I guess they're not that common over here in Europe. I don't recall seeing many for sale. One thing I'd like to know is whether I can make use of the whole FOV, ideally with WA Porros, like the E2 I simply can't see the entire FOV (and I don't use glasses). With contemporary WA roofs I tend to be luckier. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if I can find a nice Rangemasters, I thought they were only produced by Bushnell.

Nooo, a lot of history here on these babys. To start with , Bushnell never made binoculars, they contracted out to Japanese optical makers. There’s some great detailed history on Rangmasters and the multiple configurations on cloudy and here on BF that go way back.

A brief summary here, It all started in 1951 with the first Bushnell FPO (Fuji Photo Optical) Bk7 IF version. The story goes something like Mr Bushnell went the Fuji and asked them to build the best binoculars in the world, and not worry about price. I believe the early BAK-4 came out in 1954 and went to 1959, all with 14 mm of very usable eye relief. You can see the whole FOV with the field stops all the way to the outer edge, marvelous. 1960-1962 Bushnell had Kowa make them. Then in 1963 to the 70’s came the Tamron 11° batwing version , bricks with about 10mm eye relief. The hard thing is to get ones (any 60-70 year old bins for that matter) in good well maintained condition, especially binoculars that were made in very small numbers because they were $150 back in the day, which is equivalent to about $1500 to $1700 today.

Read up on it, if you’re interested, I’m selling a pair right now, it’s on cloudy and the bay, very good condition, it’s an early BAK4 IF version. It’s the one on the left in the pictures from my collection of rangemasters.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

... Rangemasters, I guess they're not that common over here in Europe. I don't recall seeing many for sale. One thing I'd like to know is whether I can make use of the whole FOV, ideally with WA Porros, like the E2 I simply can't see the entire FOV (and I don't use glasses). With contemporary WA roofs I tend to be luckier.

I have a feeling the Bushnell brand - or rather re-brand - was never that popular on this side of the Atlantic. I don't even think the extra wide 7x35 category of binoculars were popular either; 7x35 as a configuration seems to have been much more widely used in the US (besides the extra wides, there were things like Bausch & Lomb's highly rated 7x35 Zephyr). It was quite interesting to see Binocollector found some 7x35 extra wides in Germany - I wonder which JB/JE manufacturer produced these. When I wanted to try a 7x35 extra wide I got mine (a Swift 766, which you're very welcome to try if you visit London), from a US seller - thank you Mr Wiley! Birdforum member wllspd has a later Rangemaster (Tamron made) that I'm sure he'd let you try if your schedules coincided. The FPO version is supposed to be slightly to somewhat better (different users appear to have different opinions), but I suspect not by as much as the difference in asking prices today, which is considerable.

I recall your post on not being able to see the full field of view of your Nikon EII and other binoculars. It really surprised me to read it, and I'm glad I don't have that problem: it would be frustrating to have a 154m field of view binocular but not be able to use its full capabilities (although I wouldn't at all mind not needing to use glasses!). It can't possibly be an issue with setting up the binoculars, given the experience you have, so can only be some aspect of your physiology. Have you ever had folks with similar features to you try the binoculars you've had trouble with, and can they see the whole FOV?

PS. we should organize a Birdforum members' binoculars meeting... it could save some of us a lot of money by being able to look through binoculars we would otherwise need to buy in order to try!

 

[Patudo]

I owned and tried quite a few SWA bnos and, when compared with the SE, none was a keeper.

Would love to know which ones you tried. I recall (pardon me if I'm wrong) you had the French 8x30 with the remarkable field of view at one stage? I have to admit that would be one I'd really like to look through!

The thing about the SE is that its qualities (flat field, long eye relief, excellent coatings etc) can be duplicated by quite a few modern roof binoculars, but there is no modern version of the Rangemaster and binoculars of that type. There have been some wide field porros made recently, but in smaller formats (eg. the PRC-made MoonStar 6.5x32, which seems to have gotten very positive reviews).

I guess sales/the market, as one of the folks here is so fond of saying, is the ultimate decider. Nikon had their well-regarded 9.3 degree 7x35 model for some time but dropped it. I am a little surprised though that one of the PRC manufacturers has not attempted a wide field 7x35. With modern eyepiece designs now enabling longer eye relief and better edge performance, a widefield 7x35 with modern coatings sounds like it ought to be a viable sales proposition. But I'm sure the manufacturers know their market better than I do.