Nikon 8x32 LX(HG) vs. LX-L(HG-L) (1 Viewer)

angelo225544 · Feb 28, 2008

I have long wondered whether Nikon's use of Eco-Glass in the LX-L's altered its optical performance. I know this has been discussed in previous threads, but perhaps the question is worth revisiting in light of the great closeout prices on LX-L's. This is a moot point with the 42mm version - the weight difference alone strongly favors the "L" version. I have owned a wonderful pair of the original Nikon 8x32 LX's(HG's) for several years. I bought them used, so with no warranty, and could never justify spending nearly double for the newer "L" version, for the one ounce weight savings. But I couldn't resist Eagle Optics closeout price of $788 with free shipping, so I just bought a pair, and I am looking forward to comparing the two when it arrives. I find it hard to imagine any optical improvement over the 8x32 LX, which is very nearly perfect in most respects. But I won't decide to keep the brand new "L", even with its 25 year warranty, unless it fully equals the original version. I'm just wondering if anyone else has made this switch, or has been considering it. The new Nikon EDG models look impressive, but for an additional $1000 - and with very similar specifications to the current models - I don't think so! I'll be back in a few days to report my findings.

jacquot · Feb 29, 2008

The LX has received accolades on these forums. The Nikon warranty does extend to second owners, you just have to pay the $20 when you send them in, as I remember. It is the initial 25 year no cost version that is lost. The service provided is another matter and I have read varying experiences and fortunately never had to test it. I have tested the Zeiss warranty and am neutral at best as to the service. I am sure the new HD binos will be an improvement, but the difference in cost is huge. I have the 8x32 LX and they are great.

elkcub · Feb 29, 2008

Angelo,

I haven't compared it to an LX, but one of the best decisions I ever made was to buy a factory reconditioned 8x32 LX L for just $699.99 a few months ago. Absolutely stunning performance, with focus control that's even faster than my beloved 10x42 SLC.

Of course, I'm very interested in your side-by-side comparison, and suspect that color rendition may prove to be slightly different (more spectral yellow content), but different doesn't equate to worse. I love these binoculars!

Ed

trealawboy · Feb 29, 2008

I'm reluctant to detour this thread away from the undoubted optically quality of the HG/LX line, but I find myself getting frustrated by the poor durability of the eyecups of these binoculars. I've had a pair of HG 8x32 for 3-4 years now and have already had the eyecups replaced once. They are now in need of replacement again. I don't feel they are getting excessive or abusive use. Why then do the deteriorate so quickly? The front badges have dropped off too.

I love the optics and the focussing of these bins, but I'm now considering switching to another brand because of the eyecups issue. I'll wait to see if the EDGs look better in this respect, if not, then I'll be looking at the Teutonic trio for an alternative. My Zeiss 10x40 BGAT lasted 20 years with barely a hint of wear.

jacquot · Feb 29, 2008

I've had no problem with my Nikons, but the FL's summered in Germany after having them for 6 months. I'm not sure anyone has the quality/durability corner these days.

dogfish · Feb 29, 2008

yes, and I'm on my third pair of Zeiss FL 7x42s. Focusing went on one, and the other let in water. Optically superb, but serious questions about build quality/quality control.
Sean

elkcub · Feb 29, 2008

What are the symptoms of eyecup deterioration with your LX?

Taxboy · Feb 29, 2008

Is the UK getting any good end of line deals like our friends across the water ?

NoSpringChicken · Feb 29, 2008

Taxboy said:
Is the UK getting any good end of line deals like our friends across the water ?

I keep looking but I haven't spotted any yet. I had another look through the 8x32 HG Ls on Sunday and for me they are still just about the nicest binoculars I've tried. They are also already several hundreds of pounds cheaper than most of their rivals.

The only slight problem I noticed is that the strap attachment point is towards the bottom rather than at the side of the binoculars, which might make them hang awkwardly. The examples I have tried so far haven't had a strap attached.

I, too, would like to know what the problem with the eyecups is.

Ron

SteveClifton · Feb 29, 2008

I'm reluctant to detour this thread away from the undoubted optically quality of the HG/LX line, but I find myself getting frustrated by the poor durability of the eyecups of these binoculars. I've had a pair of HG 8x32 for 3-4 years now and have already had the eyecups replaced once. They are now in need of replacement again. I don't feel they are getting excessive or abusive use. Why then do the deteriorate so quickly? The front badges have dropped off too.

This is exactly my experience with a pair of 2 year old HG's. The rubber eyecups become distorted and pull away from the hard metal/plastic? body of the twist-up eyecup underneath. Labels also fell off mine too.

I contacted Nikon UK a couple of weeks ago and asked to buy 2 new pairs. I was asked to send them in for repair, and refused (don't Nikon understand that birders don't want to be without their bins for weeks on end?). In the end I persuaded them to send them by post, but they could only spare one set as they are in short supply (I wonder why?). They wouldn't charge me for them, but this is far from ideal in their 'flagship' model.

Optics are superb though, and at the price I paid, I won't be swapping anytime soon,

Steve

jacquot · Feb 29, 2008

No Spring Chicken,
The binos do hang pointing into the body somewhat. I notice it, but it is no deal breaker for me. I got my 8x32 pair for just over $500 as a demo pair about 18 months ago. For me they have great handling, great flat view, as well as noticeable CA that I seem to have adjusted to. Very good glass overall. I wear specs so I don't fiddle with the eyecups, no problems there. Hard to beat if discounted.

Kumlieni · Mar 2, 2008

Angelo,

The official line from Nikon is the LX and the LXL are identical optically. When I have tested them side by side it always seems that the LXL has a tiny bit more "pop". They just seem to have better contrast and brightness, but it is very, very close.

As for the eyecups, there certainly is an issue with the LX/LXL line. The soft rubber covering the metal frame quickly cracks and often falls off leaving exposed metal. Improving the eyecups for the new EDG was one of the major points we stressed to the design team. I'm happy to say the the new design is an enormous improvement.

For current LXL/HGL owners, you can always have any issues related to the eyecups repaired. I admit it is an annoying flaw in an otherwise excellent binocular.

I love the new EDG. No question it is a superior binocular, but my LXLs will be remembered fondly.

Cameron

angelo225544 · Mar 5, 2008

My 8x32 LX-L's arrived a couple of hours ago. So far I see 3 VERY SUBTLE optical differences. First is that the characteristics of chromatic abberation have changed VERY SUBTLY. The LX displays a slightly broader, but fainter green/purple band, at the edges of the frame in very high contrast situations. The LX-L differs in that the CA band is slightly narrower but also deeper in color. Second, the LX-L seems to have a subtle, but consistent edge in stray light control. In backlit situations, I see slightly less less spillage into shadow areas in the LX-L. Third, probably due more to sample variation than anything else, I am seeing slightly better resolution of fine detail in my LX than in the LX-L. All three of these observed differences are so subtle as to be virtually insignificant. Since ownership of the LX-L includes warranty coverage that I don't have with my LX's (purchased used), I will be keeping the LX-L's. As always, Eagle Optics' service was flawless. Thank you to all who have participated. Separately...Nikon states on their waranty form that "This warranty extends to the original consumer purchaser only and is not assignable or transferable."

angelo225544 · Mar 6, 2008

angelo225544 said:
My 8x32 LX-L's arrived a couple of hours ago. So far I see 3 VERY SUBTLE optical differences. First is that the characteristics of chromatic abberation have changed VERY SUBTLY. The LX displays a slightly broader, but fainter green/purple band, at the edges of the frame in very high contrast situations. The LX-L differs in that the CA band is slightly narrower but also deeper in color. Second, the LX-L seems to have a subtle, but consistent edge in stray light control. In backlit situations, I see slightly less less spillage into shadow areas in the LX-L. Third, probably due more to sample variation than anything else, I am seeing slightly better resolution of fine detail in my LX than in the LX-L. All three of these observed differences are so subtle as to be virtually insignificant. Since ownership of the LX-L includes warranty coverage that I don't have with my LX's (purchased used), I will be keeping the LX-L's. As always, Eagle Optics' service was flawless. Thank you to all who have participated. Separately...Nikon states on their waranty form that "This warranty extends to the original consumer purchaser only and is not assignable or transferable."

Update: 3 hours of testing since my original post, I have uncovered a dealbreaker that I can't explain. The LX-L is considerably more sensitive to less-than-perfect eye centering. At first, I thought perhaps the LX-L's eyecups were slightly smaller (or shorter) and perhaps I was misaligning them to my eyes. This is not the case. I would equate the difference to that between most 8x32's vs. most 10x32's - the 10x being noticeably less tolerant of even slight misalignment to the eyes - due to its smaller exit pupil. But in this comparison, I'm at a loss to explain why this is happening. I'm hoping someone may be able to explain how this can happen since the optical formula, eye relief and distance from occular glass to the end of the eyecup when fully extended, are all identical - at least in theory. The LX-L's are now headed back to Eagle Optics. Might this be evidence of optical compromises resulting from the use of Eco-glass? It seems that Zeiss had similar problems with the original "pre-FL" Victory series' "Advanced Optical System". In both cases, the manufacturers turned to the use of FL/ED glass to regain what was lost in the move away from leaded glass. This is speculation on my part - I hope someone can shed more light on it.

dipped · Mar 6, 2008

I've been following this thread with some interest as I have the same HG's you are now keeping.

What puzzles me is that I have a Nikon pamphlet dated 2002 which gives details on the HG's in which it states that they use ECO glass. So I wonder if your HG's are pre 2002 and at what point Nikon started to use eco glass in the HG's.

Nev

henry link · Mar 6, 2008

Could you describe exactly what you mean by "sensitive to less than perfect eye centering" ? Blackouts? Loss of image quality? Is the problem in both barrels? Does the direction of the decentering matter? I experienced considerable lateral CA directly on axis with a 8x32 LX L from slight pupil decentering. Could that be related to what you saw? Another possibility is misalignment of the optical elements in one or both barrels, not so uncommon in binoculars.

Henry

elkcub · Mar 6, 2008

dipped said:
I've been following this thread with some interest as I have the same HG's you are now keeping.

What puzzles me is that I have a Nikon pamphlet dated 2002 which gives details on the HG's in which it states that they use ECO glass. So I wonder if your HG's are pre 2002 and at what point Nikon started to use eco glass in the HG's.

Nev

Good point! We don't really know when the eco-glass was introduced, and there may have been coating improvements also not advertised during the commercial lives of the LX/LXL. As I found out the hard way comparing Type 4b Swift HR/5 Audubons, advertisements are not a completely reliable way to establish the make up of individual specimens.

Blue skies,
Elk

angelo225544 · Mar 6, 2008

henry link said:
Could you describe exactly what you mean by "sensitive to less than perfect eye centering" ? Blackouts? Loss of image quality? Is the problem in both barrels? Does the direction of the decentering matter? I experienced considerable lateral CA directly on axis with a 8x32 LX L from slight pupil decentering. Could that be related to what you saw? Another possibility is misalignment of the optical elements in one or both barrels, not so uncommon in binoculars.

Henry

Thank you, Henry. I think what I was seeing with respect to this issue is more the result of the subly different eyecups than any optical issue. I re-tested both binoculars this morning. When properly positioned with respect to identical eye relief, they perform identically. I think I have a tendency to hold the LX-L slightly closer to my eye - perhaps the result of the newer eyecup? So, I believe it was nothing more than blackouts - easily remedied.

angelo225544 · Mar 6, 2008

elkcub said:
Good point! We don't really know when the eco-glass was introduced, and there may have been coating improvements also not advertised during the commercial lives of the LX/LXL. As I found out the hard way comparing Type 4b Swift HR/5 Audubons, advertisements are not a completely reliable way to establish the make up of individual specimens.

Blue skies,
Elk

Thank you, Nev and Elk. I can confirm that Nikon's coatings changed quite noticeably in color between my LX and the LX-L I used for this comparison. I found the newer coatings are slightly superior in resisting flare - subtly blacker-blacks in backlit situations.
The two reasons I ultimately decided to keep my LX's are: I can't stand the thought of trading down in resolution - and this may be nothing more than normal sample variation favoring my original pair. Both barrels of my LX independently and consistent out-resolved both barrels of the LX-L I tested. Secondly, the LX has a warm color cast that produces beautifully rich reds - Ultravids also do this - and I just love the subjective "look" of the image. By comparison, the 8x32 LX-L, Swarovski 10x42 SLC, and 8x32 Zeiss FL appear washed out with respect to "reds". I find this warm color cast very useful when observing distant terrestrial subjects, as it offsets the blue atmospheric haze. I don't know if the color difference I saw is attributable to glass or coatings (or both), but I do have a strong preference for the image provided by the LX. It just took me alot of time to figure out why. I started this comparison with a predjudice in favor of the newer LX-L - I really wanted to like them and keep them, waranty and all. In the end, I couldn't, but I'm not prepared to say either is better. My color cast preference is highly subjective, and the difference in resolution is likely due to sample variation.

NDhunter · Nov 21, 2009

I'm looking at getting a pre-owned 8x32, in either the LX or LXL, and found this thread interesting, so I am reviving this, to see if anyone can add anything here. It seems the
used market would price both close to the same.
I understand the LXL has 3 position click eyestops, as I have one, but the LX has a screw out cup instead.
The weight is close to the same, so that does not matter to me.
Anyone with opinions here? I am not bothered by CA, but I like brightness, if there is
much of a difference.

Nikon 8x32 LX(HG) vs. LX-L(HG-L) (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread