Nikon 8x32 LX(HG) vs. LX-L(HG-L) (2 Viewers)

[dipped]

Hmm I will try and have a look the next time I'm at Minsmere where they have the 8x32 LXL. From memory and trying them in the shop the L's were a bit brighter than my HG/LX's but didn't seem to have as much contrast. I've not tried them directly outside and won't get the chance properly until the 29th.

I know you get used to the view through your own bins but personally I prefer the view through the HG/LX's.

Nev

 

[brocknroller]

Hmm I will try and have a look the next time I'm at Minsmere where they have the 8x32 LXL. From memory and trying them in the shop the L's were a bit brighter than my HG/LX's but didn't seem to have as much contrast. I've not tried them directly outside and won't get the chance properly until the 29th.

I know you get used to the view through your own bins but personally I prefer the view through the HG/LX's.

Nev

Nev,

Your memory serves you well. The LX L has better "apparent brightness" (not more light throughput) due to biased coatings (skewed toward the yellow, reds appear a bit orangey, blues a bit purplish, but those yellow finches look DayGlo yellow!), that is, as long as they are not perched in bright sunlight, in which case the brightness overwhelms the contrast in the LX L.

I tested my 8x32 LX against the 10x42 LX L I bought, and the little LX beat the 10x in detail when looking at brightly lit targets (such as counting the number of veins on leaves).

The LX L makes a gloomy day look less gloomy, but otherwise, I prefer the lead glass and original coatings on the LX models. More zzzzip to the image due to the better contrast and true to life colors.

The LX L also had noticeably more CA.

For birding, I recommend the 8x32 LX for better contrast, truer colors, and less CA; for hunting, the 8x32 LX L for better apparent brightness under overcast late fall/winter skies.

The weight difference btwn the midsized LX and LX L is negligible (not so with the full sized LX, which is 8 oz. lighter).

Another difference btwn the two is the armoring. The LX's armoring is harder and more durable, the LX L's is softer and gets scuffed quite easily.

I only had my 10x42 LX L two weeks, and already the armoring was starting to show some wear from normal handling.

It had a more pleasant feel, and was colored chocolate brown rather than black (not sure if they also changed the color on the midsized LX Ls), and had a smooth rather than pebbled top, so while it looked and felt a bit nicer, but it was not nearly as durable as the LX's armoring, which has held up nicely with frequent use.

The eyecups on the LX do not have detents, but from the three LX samples I've owned and two I borrowed each for a month, the eyecups hold their position in between all the way up and all the way down.

The LX eyecups are soft rubber mounted on a metal frame, which is nice, because some bins have plastic eyecups, which even with detents, will wear down eventually and come loose.

However, the soft rubber outer part of the eyecups on the LX do show wear after about a year of use.

Not sure about the LX Ls since I didn't have them that long, but I do know that the LX L's eyecups are made out of a different kind of rubber than the original LX's (more eco-friendly).

 

[[email protected]]

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 LX or LXL's are getting "Long in the Tooth" and are really falling behind in optical quality compared to what is out there. Get a Zen Ray 8x42 ED2. They are WAY better optically and they are way less money. I sold my Nikon 8x32 LXL's long ago and I'm glad I did. Optics don't compare with the top binoculars now.

 

[NDhunter]

Nikon LX or LXL's are getting "Long in the Tooth" and are really falling behind in optical quality compared to what is out there. Get a Zen Ray 8x42 ED2. They are WAY better optically and they are way less money. I sold my Nikon 8x32 LXL's long ago and I'm glad I did. Optics don't compare with the top binoculars now.

Dennis:
I tried the ZR 7x36, and found the problems with the glare, flare, etc.
I also found the focuser not to my liking, the cheapness of the plastic, etc.

Nikon's nice edges, great view, quality of build and smooth focus leave the cheaper ones behind.

For me I would sooner have a premiere Nikon than one of the new Chinese bins.

Jerry

 

[mooreorless]

Jerry I ended up trading Brock for his 8x32 LX and he got my 8x32SE and I like the 8x32LX a lot. Dennis is very opinionated and that is what it is his opinion.
Regards,Steve

 

[spacepilot]

Dennis:
I tried the ZR 7x36, and found the problems with the glare, flare, etc.
I also found the focuser not to my liking, the cheapness of the plastic, etc.

Nikon's nice edges, great view, quality of build and smooth focus leave the cheaper ones behind.

For me I would sooner have a premiere Nikon than one of the new Chinese bins.

Jerry

Hopefully the latest updates in the 7x36 Zen ED2 will fix the glare problem.

I've been looking at the 8x32 LX/LX-L as well for my backup on rainy days. But even used, the samples I've seen usually cost more than the Zen. And it doesn't have the water repelling coating, which I would like to have considering that it will most be used in wet weather. (The fact that the EDG doesn't have that kind of coating really bothers me, as well.) I would like to try the 7x36 ED2, which Charles told me will be in stock next week. I am aware of the superior mechanical quality of the LX from reading the reviews, and the better edge sharpness. But I hope the water repellent coating and larger FOV will make the Zen ED2 better suited for for my purpose. I hope I will not be disappointed.

Again, I have no affiliation with any bin manufacturers or vendors.

Ning

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis:
I tried the ZR 7x36, and found the problems with the glare, flare, etc.
I also found the focuser not to my liking, the cheapness of the plastic, etc.

Nikon's nice edges, great view, quality of build and smooth focus leave the cheaper ones behind.

For me I would sooner have a premiere Nikon than one of the new Chinese bins.

Jerry

I had both the Nikon 8x42 LXL and 8x32 LXL and I agree with you in that I loved the build quality of the binoculars especially the FEEL(and smell!) of the armor and I loved what is perhaps the smoothest focus on the market. I do not really like the plastic on the Zen Ray and I don't like the focus because it is too hard but one day I was comparing them to my Nikon 8x32 LXL and my Leica 7x42 Trinovids and the Zen Ray were actually better than both of them by a big margin. The Zen Ray had better resolution and after looking through them for awhile you really did not want to go back to the Nikon or the Leica. They were honestly that much better. I sold both the Nikon's and the Leica's after that day. The Nikon's are a great pair of binoculars except for their optics are behind the newer alphas hence you can get them for a discount. I just can't tolerate the optics after using the top alphas. I just wouldn't spend $500.00 to $600.00 for a Nikon 8x32 LXL when for another $400.00 you can get a Zeiss 8x32 FL demo or used model(Non-Loutec) on E-bay and to me you have the best. I am used to ED glass now and I can't put up with the CA of the Nikon LXL. If I bought a Nikon it would have to be an EDG (Or of course the 8x32 SE!). That is just the way I feel and what my eyes tell me and I think if you had a group of 50 people rank the Nikon LXL 80% of them would agree that they are not alpha class optics anymore. It's very EASY to see when you compare them. Sorry!

 

[brocknroller]

I had both the Nikon 8x42 LXL and 8x32 LXL and I agree with you in that I loved the build quality of the binoculars especially the FEEL(and smell!) of the armor and I loved what is perhaps the smoothest focus on the market. I do not really like the plastic on the Zen Ray and I don't like the focus because it is too hard but one day I was comparing them to my Nikon 8x32 LXL and my Leica 7x42 Trinovids and the Zen Ray were actually better than both of them by a big margin. The Zen Ray had better resolution and after looking through them for awhile you really did not want to go back to the Nikon or the Leica. They were honestly that much better. I sold both the Nikon's and the Leica's after that day. The Nikon's are a great pair of binoculars except for their optics are behind the newer alphas hence you can get them for a discount. I just can't tolerate the optics after using the top alphas. I just wouldn't spend $500.00 to $600.00 for a Nikon 8x32 LXL when for another $400.00 you can get a Zeiss 8x32 FL demo or used model(Non-Loutec) on E-bay and to me you have the best. I am used to ED glass now and I can't put up with the CA of the Nikon LXL. If I bought a Nikon it would have to be an EDG (Or of course the 8x32 SE!). That is just the way I feel and what my eyes tell me and I think if you had a group of 50 people rank the Nikon LXL 80% of them would agree that they are not alpha class optics anymore. It's very EASY to see when you compare them. Sorry!

Dennis,

I carefully compared the 8x32 LX to a 8x42 Promaster ED and a 10x42 EDG.

The LX was dimmer and not as high resolution (as you would expect from a middie vs. full sized bin), and it had more CA.

However, I didn't find that the Promaster or EDG beat the LX by a "big margin". In terms of contrast and color depth, the older LX held up very well against against the newer EDs.

The Promaster had a bit of an edge in resolution, just as the 8x42 LX does over the 8x32 LX and the 8.5xEL has over the 8x32 EL.

The 10x42, of course, out resolved them both.

However, I think if Nikon added an ED element and dielectric coatings to the LX, it would be on par with the newer EDs except slightly behind in resolution against the full sized bins.

The Nikon LX's superb lead glass and coatings were advanced for their time.

I've compared the LX (midsized and full sized) with p-coated roofs (not alphas) and porros, including the SE and EII, that were made around the same time, and the LX was noticeably ahead in contrast and color depth.

And no alpha or alpha clone has yet to beat the LX's smooth and precise focuser (if you get a good sample!).

For birders on a budget, a "pre-owned" 8x32 LX presents a very good value since the Chinese ED clones do not make an 8x32 (yet), and the Leica, Zeiss, Swaro EL, and Nikon EDG midsized bins are astronomically priced.

The 8x32 LX's "fatal flaw" for me was its lack of shallow thumb indents like the EDG. I couldn't hold it steady so I traded it for a newer 8x32 SE with upgraded coatings.

The LX still has more contrast and better color depth than the SE, and the SE's focuser is sluggish by comparison and not as comfortable since the wheel is smaller and thinner, but with the rubber dewshields I added to the barrels, the views are very steady through the SE.

For me, ergonomics triumphed over image quality (not that the SE is shabby by any means! but not quite on par with the LX).

So yes, I agree, the 8x32 LX is behind the latest and greatest alphas and alpha clones, but in a few years, those alphas and alpha clones will be behind whatever comes next.

It's a continuing battle to overcome the light leaks of SP prisms (except for Zeiss) and the problems created by fast f/4 or less optical systems of binoculars.

However, I only see incremental improvements on the horizon.

The Swaro EL Swarovision already has every innovation to come down the pike: open bridge design (led with that one), phase coated/dielectric coated prisms, HD glass, Eco-Glass, water repellent coatings, good close focus (5'), faster focuser, multiple layers of AR coatings, magnesium alloy body, on-the-focuser diopter adjustment (not sure if that was a step ahead, myself), long ER, twist up eyecups, WP/FP, and field flattener lenses (which surprisingly are not mentioned in the Eagle Optics ad), and a limited lifetime warranty.

So what do you add to that long list of attributes that would make the next gen EL substantially better??? A GPS tracking system to follow migrating birds?

The only thing I can think of is to make the warranty transferable (so I can buy one on the used market and No Fault, so even if you scratch the lenses or run the bins over with your Jeep Wrangler Safari Edition, Swaro will repair or replace your ELs at no cost to you, so that you know you will never again have to pay $2,500 for a pair of binoculars in your life!

Which, by the way, is only $1,100 less than I paid for my Nissan 240 Z sports car in 1973.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

I've pretty much stopped saying this but ...

The LX was dimmer and not as high resolution (as you would expect from a middie vs. full sized bin), and it had more CA.

Mid-size bins aren't dimmer than full size bins in daylight as your eye's entrance pupil stops down the exit pupil to be the same size regardless of the aperture. The "bigger is better applies at night" when you have an entrance pupil larger than the exit pupil of the bin.

The difference in brightness in this case is due to transmission of the bin (what fraction of light comes out the ocular for a given amount going in the ocular). That in turn is due to the quality of the AR coatings (mostly) and the mirror coating on the roof prism.

 

[[email protected]]

I've pretty much stopped saying this but ...



Mid-size bins aren't dimmer than full size bins in daylight as your eye's entrance pupil stops down the exit pupil to be the same size regardless of the aperture. The "bigger is better applies at night" when you have an entrance pupil larger than the exit pupil of the bin.

The difference in brightness in this case is due to transmission of the bin (what fraction of light comes out the ocular for a given amount going in the ocular). That in turn is due to the quality of the AR coatings (mostly) and the mirror coating on the roof prism.

Well said! And right on. Perfect explanation.

 

[NDhunter]

I had both the Nikon 8x42 LXL and 8x32 LXL and I agree with you in that I loved the build quality of the binoculars especially the FEEL(and smell!) of the armor and I loved what is perhaps the smoothest focus on the market. I do not really like the plastic on the Zen Ray and I don't like the focus because it is too hard but one day I was comparing them to my Nikon 8x32 LXL and my Leica 7x42 Trinovids and the Zen Ray were actually better than both of them by a big margin. The Zen Ray had better resolution and after looking through them for awhile you really did not want to go back to the Nikon or the Leica. They were honestly that much better. I sold both the Nikon's and the Leica's after that day. The Nikon's are a great pair of binoculars except for their optics are behind the newer alphas hence you can get them for a discount. I just can't tolerate the optics after using the top alphas. I just wouldn't spend $500.00 to $600.00 for a Nikon 8x32 LXL when for another $400.00 you can get a Zeiss 8x32 FL demo or used model(Non-Loutec) on E-bay and to me you have the best. I am used to ED glass now and I can't put up with the CA of the Nikon LXL. If I bought a Nikon it would have to be an EDG (Or of course the 8x32 SE!). That is just the way I feel and what my eyes tell me and I think if you had a group of 50 people rank the Nikon LXL 80% of them would agree that they are not alpha class optics anymore. It's very EASY to see when you compare them. Sorry!

Dennis:

I am amused at some internet types who offer opinions on very minor differences in optics, and flip to the newest offering.

Someday you may learn that each individuals eyes will have a different opinion! What you may like may not mean a thing to someone else.

I think I am right in saying that the Nikon LX, LXL now Premier, would be
rated as probably one of the top "20" in binoculars ever produced, recently or
today, even with the advent of the Chinese ED.

It seems you go through binoculars like my daughter goes through cheap shoes. Pretty fast.

There is a lot more to a binocular purchase than a quick look, think of warranty, long term use, for some binoculars are not a short term purchase
but may be for life. That is what separates the "men from the boys".

Jerry

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

I carefully compared the 8x32 LX to a 8x42 Promaster ED and a 10x42 EDG.

The LX was dimmer and not as high resolution (as you would expect from a middie vs. full sized bin), and it had more CA.

However, I didn't find that the Promaster or EDG beat the LX by a "big margin". In terms of contrast and color depth, the older LX held up very well against against the newer EDs.

The Promaster had a bit of an edge in resolution, just as the 8x42 LX does over the 8x32 LX and the 8.5xEL has over the 8x32 EL.

The 10x42, of course, out resolved them both.

However, I think if Nikon added an ED element and dielectric coatings to the LX, it would be on par with the newer EDs except slightly behind in resolution against the full sized bins.

The Nikon LX's superb lead glass and coatings were advanced for their time.

I've compared the LX (midsized and full sized) with p-coated roofs (not alphas) and porros, including the SE and EII, that were made around the same time, and the LX was noticeably ahead in contrast and color depth.

And no alpha or alpha clone has yet to beat the LX's smooth and precise focuser (if you get a good sample!).

For birders on a budget, a "pre-owned" 8x32 LX presents a very good value since the Chinese ED clones do not make an 8x32 (yet), and the Leica, Zeiss, Swaro EL, and Nikon EDG midsized bins are astronomically priced.

The 8x32 LX's "fatal flaw" for me was its lack of shallow thumb indents like the EDG. I couldn't hold it steady so I traded it for a newer 8x32 SE with upgraded coatings.

The LX still has more contrast and better color depth than the SE, and the SE's focuser is sluggish by comparison and not as comfortable since the wheel is smaller and thinner, but with the rubber dewshields I added to the barrels, the views are very steady through the SE.

For me, ergonomics triumphed over image quality (not that the SE is shabby by any means! but not quite on par with the LX).

So yes, I agree, the 8x32 LX is behind the latest and greatest alphas and alpha clones, but in a few years, those alphas and alpha clones will be behind whatever comes next.

It's a continuing battle to overcome the light leaks of SP prisms (except for Zeiss) and the problems created by fast f/4 or less optical systems of binoculars.

However, I only see incremental improvements on the horizon.

The Swaro EL Swarovision already has every innovation to come down the pike: open bridge design (led with that one), phase coated/dielectric coated prisms, HD glass, Eco-Glass, water repellent coatings, good close focus (5'), faster focuser, multiple layers of AR coatings, magnesium alloy body, on-the-focuser diopter adjustment (not sure if that was a step ahead, myself), long ER, twist up eyecups, WP/FP, and field flattener lenses (which surprisingly are not mentioned in the Eagle Optics ad), and a limited lifetime warranty.

So what do you add to that long list of attributes that would make the next gen EL substantially better??? A GPS tracking system to follow migrating birds?

The only thing I can think of is to make the warranty transferable (so I can buy one on the used market and No Fault, so even if you scratch the lenses or run the bins over with your Jeep Wrangler Safari Edition, Swaro will repair or replace your ELs at no cost to you, so that you know you will never again have to pay $2,500 for a pair of binoculars in your life!

Which, by the way, is only $1,100 less than I paid for my Nissan 240 Z sports car in 1973.

I agree with almost everything you said. I love the ergonomics of the Nikon LXL's. They are way superior to the Chinese clones. Too bad they couldn't update the optics with ED glass and sell them for about $600.00 but I guess then you would have the EDG which they want at least twice that for. So if you can put up with less than leading edge optics you can have a fine ergonomic package for around $500.00 in my favorite configuration 8x32.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis:

I am amused at some internet types who offer opinions on very minor differences in optics, and flip to the newest offering.

Someday you may learn that each individuals eyes will have a different opinion! What you may like may not mean a thing to someone else.

I think I am right in saying that the Nikon LX, LXL now Premier, would be
rated as probably one of the top "20" in binoculars ever produced, recently or
today, even with the advent of the Chinese ED.

It seems you go through binoculars like my daughter goes through cheap shoes. Pretty fast.

There is a lot more to a binocular purchase than a quick look, think of warranty, long term use, for some binoculars are not a short term purchase
but may be for life. That is what separates the "men from the boys".

Jerry

I agree they they might be in the top 20. But I want to be in the top 5! Optically they are not as good as the Chinese ED's there is no question about that but they do have better ergonomics and definitely better build quality and a WAY superior focus. The Chinese binocular builders should copy a Nikon LXL to see how a focus should be made. Right!

 

[brocknroller]

I've pretty much stopped saying this but ...

Mid-size bins aren't dimmer than full size bins in daylight as your eye's entrance pupil stops down the exit pupil to be the same size regardless of the aperture. The "bigger is better applies at night" when you have an entrance pupil larger than the exit pupil of the bin.

The difference in brightness in this case is due to transmission of the bin (what fraction of light comes out the ocular for a given amount going in the ocular). That in turn is due to the quality of the AR coatings (mostly) and the mirror coating on the roof prism.

Kevin,

No wonder you stopped saying that!

As a resident of Seattle, which is not known for its sunny days, I'm surprised that you would ever say it.

The difference btwn a full sized bin and midsized bin of equal or closely equal quality is quite apparent here in Cloudy Valley (we actually beat Seattle one year for the most cloudy days of any city in the nation - a dubious honor).

Or perhaps you have smaller entrance pupils than me? For me, the difference between my Audubon FMC and 8x SE or EII was quite noticeable on overcast days and in the winter.

Even with my MC Audubon, which has older coatings than the SE and EII, as light levels fall, the views through the Audubons look a bit brighter, though not as bright as the FMC model.

When I switched from the SE or EII to the FMC Audubon, I had to look up and check to see if perhaps a hole had opened in the cloud cover and the sun had lit up the landscape, but it usually hadn't, I was just getting more light to my eyes.

Same when comparing the 8x42 LX to the 8x32 LX on a typical late fall day or typical winter's day, and in the evening.

In comparing the CZJ 8x50 Octrarem to any of the above midsized bins during the dim, "dog days of winter," or in the evening at any time of year, the larger aperture and exit pupil of the 8x50s ruled.

On a sunny day, yes, the SE and Octarem were equals, but in the late fall/early winter, which is right now, there are not many sunny days. It's been cloudy to partly cloudy for almost three weeks now.

On some days, we get sun in the morning, but the clouds roll in by noon and it stays that way for the rest of the day and at night.

I usually don't get out to about 4 p.m. during the week, and by that time, light levels are quite low when it's completely overcast.

Now that I sold my FMC Audubon and Octarem, I'm seeing the limits of my midsized bins, literally.

The SE, EII, and LX are all great bins, but here in Cloudy Valley, particularly at this time of year, I could use a full sized FMC porro or full sized FMC "phase coated to the max" roof as a back up for when those clouds roll in but don't roll back out again until the jet stream dips down and skies become clear again.