True, there are some positives but there are also MANY negatives. It seems everyday somebody else is finding something wrong with them. We can't overlook these problems and just shove them under the carpet like the Zeiss fanboys want to. This isn't just High North with problems now it is a whole bunch of different people.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Victory SF: Condensation on ocular lens (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter J899
- Start date
perterra
Well-known member
Do we know this is a problem. External fogging is normal given the right circumstances
I don't want to shove any problems under the carpet Dennis, but I differ from you in what I regard as a problem. Certainly I don't regard the trivial examples that you are stringing together as 'problems' with the SF model. Particles inside the barrels? Find me a brand or model that hasn't had this. Brown finger marks on three pairs of bins due to causes unknown? Some marks inside the barrels that haven't caused a problem but, well, you think are problematic for some reason? And now, condensation on the outside of a lens indicates a deep-rooted problem: for Pete's sake!
I don't wish to minimise the disappointment of anyone who finds particles inside their bins and feel they need to return them for this or other reasons, but this is not some indicator of a syndrome of problems.
SF isn't perfect and I have said so in my test. HN feels satisfied with the eyecups but I feel that while they do the job they are not up to the standard I feel appropriate to SF's asking price, and I have informed Zeiss of my opinion.
It is a dead give-away as to your motivations that you describe these few issues as MANY and down-play the many endorsements that I quoted. It is also instructive that you don't find the many reports of veiling glare/rubbish focusers/rolling ball/false pupils levelled at EL as at all constituting a 'problem'. Actually I don't either but thats because I don't jump to childish conclusions.
Here is what it boils down to. You are terrified that SF is better than EL because as you said a couple of years ago, you hate owning a loser, so you are desperate to string together any criticism that comes SF's way.
Lee
Last edited:
perseid28
Well-known member
Getting back on topic, my Conquest HD had different color coatings on the objective and eyepiece lenses; the objectives were orange while the surface of the eyepiece was nearly invisible. Since both surfaces displayed the same hydrophobic characteristic, I would assume the Lotutec coatings are actually invisible and are placed on top of the normal multicoatings. If this is indeed the case, I'd also assume that it wouldn't be difficult for the technicians to fail to coat one of the lens surfaces with Lotutec and not realize the mistake. I think a call to Zeiss service would be more worthwhile than quibbling over Zeiss vs Swarovski.
Not just on one ocular and not the other.
Good idea. It could very well be missing the Lotutec coating.
I would say condensate on ONE ocular IS a problem. If it was on both no. There is something wrong if condensate forms on just one ocular. The difference between the SF and SV are the problems in the SV are design problems and the SF's problems are QA problems. The glare and sticky focusers and RB are problems inherent in the DESIGN of the SV. They are not there because somebody forgot to apply the Lotutec coating to the ocular lens like the SF. Because these are QA problems in the SF that is where my concern lies. Zeiss is getting sloppy on their QA.
HighNorth
Well-known member
Hi Dennis! Please don't implicate me in your cheap crusade against the SF! I own both the Swarovski 8x32 EL SV and the Zeiss 8x42 SF, and guess which one I pick 98 % of the time? Yeah, it's not the Swaro!
HN
HighNorth
Well-known member
I could just be that one ocular was colder than the other, or the binocular heated up unevenly, and hence the ocular stayed fogged up for longer. That said, I have used the SF for more than an hour in - 25 C, and everything on it worked flawlessly. And this was the very first production run mind you!
HN
That doesn't seem logical that oculars separated by less than a few inches would be at different temperatures.
I guess that could be it. I was concerned because it was just the left occular, and it persisted for quite some time. I was holding the binoculars with two hands, though, so I wouldn't have thought that the barrels could have had much in the way of temperature difference, but I may be wrong. I'll try to see if I can reproduce the issue and will report back.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Taking a quick break from the monotony to put in my 2 cents (3 cents adjusted for inflation). No, I'm not one of the 20 people on the US who owns an SF, nor the 100 people who have tried one, but it seems that what users are dealing with is a case of growing pains. None of these issues are fatal flaws. The worst is the stains and that seems to be user dependent (as do most "issues" that users report about bins on BF).
When Nikon made the HGL, it chose to use a softer rubber than it had on the original Venturer, which could in time become a bit slippery (or "slippy" as the locals say here). It had a nice feel in the hand, as does the soft rubber armoring on the M5, M7 and P7, but it attracted dust easily like those bins do, too, and handling the HGL caused the armoring to blotch in spots where you fingers/palms contacted it the most, which sounds similar to what we've heard about the SF's armoring except people are calling it "stains."
Whenever I look at used HGL for sale, it usually looks blotchy. I had mine only two weeks, and already it was getting blotchy ("stained" if you will). Fortunately, some rubbing with a cloth in one direction minimized the appearance of the blotches and I sold it before it looked like it was 10 years old rather than two weeks old.
Finding a material that is at once supple and resistant to marks is probably not easy. From what I've seen from handling about 40 binoculars, you seem to get one or the other, but not both. It's in the molecules.
Two have seen specks in their samples (a lot more have seen specks in Leica UVs), and one has rust on the hinges "thrust washer" (say it three times and it's yours forever). And, what started the ball rolling (no pun intended) was HN's infamous drop test, which the SF failed.
Of course, if I had just plucked down $2,600 on a bin, I certainly would expect it to be without flaws, but if I downloaded Windows 10 for free, I'm sure I would find it annoyingly filled with "bugs." So, no thank you, I won't be your guinea pig, MS.
But those who decided to jump on the "latest and greatest" from Zeiss are the guinea pigs. They are Zeiss' field testers. So the stains, the rust, the specks, and now possible differences in coatings between two lenses (can't see it in the photos, but the users would be in a better position to tell) are all part of the experiment.
Fortunately, it seems that if you're not happy with your sample, Zeiss will give you another one, and if that one doesn't suit you either, they will send you yet another, and this might go on and on until finally they have worked out all the "bugs" in a year's time and you won't find these issues with the perfected SF.
It reminds me of the differences in J.D. Power's Initial Quality Reports and Car & Driver's year-long driving test of the same vehicle. A car that might rank high in initial quality might show serious flaws at 50,000 miles and one that might have had some problem going out the gate might prove very reliable 50,000 miles later. You can't know until you get them out there and use them.
I agree about the Swaro/SF comparisons, some of those seem to be aimed at promoting one's favorite brand, which is a problem I personally run into time and time again on these forums. As Arthur point it succinctly:
Some binocular owners believe that their favourite glass deserves reverence, even obeisance, as their binocular becomes a fetish, [they] seem to identify far too closely with their possessions.
Well, that's my break, for those who are off today, what the hell are you doing inside on a Saturday afternoon. Good out and watch some birds!
Brock
When Nikon made the HGL, it chose to use a softer rubber than it had on the original Venturer, which could in time become a bit slippery (or "slippy" as the locals say here). It had a nice feel in the hand, as does the soft rubber armoring on the M5, M7 and P7, but it attracted dust easily like those bins do, too, and handling the HGL caused the armoring to blotch in spots where you fingers/palms contacted it the most, which sounds similar to what we've heard about the SF's armoring except people are calling it "stains."
Whenever I look at used HGL for sale, it usually looks blotchy. I had mine only two weeks, and already it was getting blotchy ("stained" if you will). Fortunately, some rubbing with a cloth in one direction minimized the appearance of the blotches and I sold it before it looked like it was 10 years old rather than two weeks old.
Finding a material that is at once supple and resistant to marks is probably not easy. From what I've seen from handling about 40 binoculars, you seem to get one or the other, but not both. It's in the molecules.
Two have seen specks in their samples (a lot more have seen specks in Leica UVs), and one has rust on the hinges "thrust washer" (say it three times and it's yours forever). And, what started the ball rolling (no pun intended) was HN's infamous drop test, which the SF failed.
Of course, if I had just plucked down $2,600 on a bin, I certainly would expect it to be without flaws, but if I downloaded Windows 10 for free, I'm sure I would find it annoyingly filled with "bugs." So, no thank you, I won't be your guinea pig, MS.
But those who decided to jump on the "latest and greatest" from Zeiss are the guinea pigs. They are Zeiss' field testers. So the stains, the rust, the specks, and now possible differences in coatings between two lenses (can't see it in the photos, but the users would be in a better position to tell) are all part of the experiment.
Fortunately, it seems that if you're not happy with your sample, Zeiss will give you another one, and if that one doesn't suit you either, they will send you yet another, and this might go on and on until finally they have worked out all the "bugs" in a year's time and you won't find these issues with the perfected SF.
It reminds me of the differences in J.D. Power's Initial Quality Reports and Car & Driver's year-long driving test of the same vehicle. A car that might rank high in initial quality might show serious flaws at 50,000 miles and one that might have had some problem going out the gate might prove very reliable 50,000 miles later. You can't know until you get them out there and use them.
I agree about the Swaro/SF comparisons, some of those seem to be aimed at promoting one's favorite brand, which is a problem I personally run into time and time again on these forums. As Arthur point it succinctly:
Some binocular owners believe that their favourite glass deserves reverence, even obeisance, as their binocular becomes a fetish, [they] seem to identify far too closely with their possessions.
Well, that's my break, for those who are off today, what the hell are you doing inside on a Saturday afternoon. Good out and watch some birds!
Brock
HighNorth
Well-known member
If you think it is a problem, I would notify Zeiss, and have it sent in for a checkup. My second SF (after I broke the hinge on the first one by dropping it on a stone floor) had a speck in the optics. Zeiss acknowledged this, and offered me a replacement binocular.
HN
perseid28
Well-known member
If it really turns out that Lotutec wasn't applied to a surface (this was just a possible explanation I happened to have), that could count as a QC glitch. But I'm not so sure about the 'dust in the binoculars' complaints. I bought a Leica Monovid last year that had quite a few dust particles in the objective side of the monocular; these were only visible when shining a bright light down the front of the barrel and I'm sure they would not affect the view. Was it poor QC, or did the Leica techs know that that tiny amount of contamination would not cause optical issues, and thus choose to leave it alone?
In my Zeiss Conquest HD, the left barrel also had a certain amount of tiny particles (probably on the focusing lens that is just behind the objective), and I was certain it would not affect the view. In contrast, the Bushnell 7x26 Customs that I bought seemed to be completely free of any particulates. Does this mean that Bushnell has better QC than Zeiss or Leica? I don't think so. I'm sure all these companies take measures to keep their assembly rooms as dust-free as possible, but when some dust happens to slip in, there's no point in taking extra time to remove it if the amount is negligible.
My Celestron NexStar 5 telescope from 2001 had particulates on the secondary mirror, and this never seemed to affect the view. My TeleVue 60 telescope also had dust on the rear surface of the objective lens. I think the moral of the story is: don't shine lights down the front of the barrels! If it doesn't affect the view from the eyepiece it isn't worth worrying about.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
What a sewer this place has become......
And I make one comment about how threads like this are unnecessary and the standard ''fanboy'' claim is thrown out from the Swaro owners.
I'm taking another vacation from fools like Dennis that monopolize and infuriate and generally just drag this place down to his level of stupidity.
And I make one comment about how threads like this are unnecessary and the standard ''fanboy'' claim is thrown out from the Swaro owners.
I'm taking another vacation from fools like Dennis that monopolize and infuriate and generally just drag this place down to his level of stupidity.
I don't own a Zeiss bino, and I've only one Swaro left (SLC 15x56), so I don't have a dog in this fight. But allow me to bark or howl a little....the OP says condensation occurs on the outside only, of one ocular. I humbly suggest this has nothing at all to do with the OP's bino, and more to with the OP's tear-ducts. I have a condition called 'watery eye' in my left eye only, and occasionally find the same...on cold mornings, one ocular fogs a little extra. Younger BF-ers take note...as you age, things turn to sxxt. Now I'm going to check a mountain-biking forum, and have a real fight with someone about stuff I know nothing about.
.Be careful not to categorize satisfied owners as "fanboys".
Also, recall that some feel compelled to defend their choices against any and all criticism, because so much of their persona is wrapped up in those choices.
These are general comments, and not directed at any individual here.
