UK binocular cleaning (1 Viewer)

Anyone recommend a good place to send a porro bin to be cleaned internally? My Nikon 8x32 SE needs seeing to. I know Optical Repairs (Tony Kay) on the south coast is decent, but not cheap. Is Action Optics in Hythe any good? Any others?

Nikon will do it, but they refuse to give a quote without seeing the item first, and they might charge a fortune.

I'm assuming this is beyond the ability of someone with good manual skills and reasonable intelligence, but no optical bench.

Glasgow Binocular Repairs have had a few positive comments on the forum but I've not tried them myself. They don't seem to have a website but a search tuns up a phone number.

I've had a chat on the phone with the Action Optics guy and his standard charges sounded reasonable but it was an old porro which I ended up cleaning myself.

David

I've used Richard Biggs at Action Optics and would recommend him without hesitation ; he is old school and completely straightforward.

Why shop on price alone, it costs what it costs.

Leif said:

Anyone recommend a good place to send a porro bin to be cleaned internally? My Nikon 8x32 SE needs seeing to. I know Optical Repairs (Tony Kay) on the south coast is decent, but not cheap. Is Action Optics in Hythe any good? Any others?

Nikon will do it, but they refuse to give a quote without seeing the item first, and they might charge a fortune.

I'm assuming this is beyond the ability of someone with good manual skills and reasonable intelligence, but no optical bench.

Click to expand...

These days, ANYONE who has a clue about what he's doing will not be cheap. As that brilliant--but INCREDIBLY HUMBLE--old repair tech is prone to say:

"There's a big difference between 20 years of experience and 1 year of experience 20 TIMES!"

Obviously, I have no idea what the inside of your bino looks like. But, I have seen others worry too much about cosmetics.

The following is from De-MYTH-tifying Binoculars:

19 “IT’S HARD TO KEEP THE LENSES AS CLEAN AS THEY NEED TO BE.”

Fallacy: Specks of dust on a binocular’s objective is can be major obstacles to good viewing.

Fact: The problems caused by most dust and dirt particles—even if they were a dozen times more numerous—would not be perceptible to most observers.

Binoculars have been brought to my shop for cleaning when, in fact, the image wouldn’t be noticeably degraded if the dust were a hundred times worse! In most cases, the particulate matter wouldn’t be distracting, or even observable to the owner.

To illustrate, I would stick a 1 1/2-inch, black suction cup on the objective lens of a 7x50 binocular and hand it to the customer without him knowing what I had done. Then, I would ask him to look out the window and report any problem he noticed.

When he replied "nothing”—which was almost always the case—I would ask him to turn the binocular around and look at the objectives and ask, “How many specks of dust would you have to get on your binocular to equal that?” With the customer now awestruck, the point is well made—especially since the suction cup almost filled one objective. . . .

Bill

Thanks all, good to hear praise for Action Optics, I'll give him a try.

Sadly they do need cleaning due to the onset of fungus, which is quite common in humid climes. I've had it in three lenses too, despite being stored in a plastic box with silica gel.

I've given up using silica gel and now run a dehumidifer under the cabinet my optics are stored in.

Try one and you'll just chuck the tiny packets of silica gel supplied by manufacturers straight in the bin !

I sent my Opticron Dioptron to Action Optics many years ago after they were dropped from a small distance onto the living room carpet.
He realigned and serviced them and done a really good job.

JOHN PAUL

Thanks John Paul.

Samandag: I have large bags of gel, they came with computers at work.

Leif said:

Samandag: I have large bags of gel, they came with computers at work.

Click to expand...

Yes, it wasn't a dig ... but if they don't work ...

Leif said:

Thanks John Paul.

Samandag: I have large bags of gel, they came with computers at work.

Click to expand...

Hi Leif, I have a pretty large bag of gel that I can "recharge" in the oven, are yours like that?

Samandag said:

Yes, it wasn't a dig ... but if they don't work ...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I realise now my response was rather abrupt, that was not the intention. Thanks for the information. I did not consider a cabinet due to the cost, but it may well be the best solution, given the cost of having optics cleaned and treated.

mooreorless said:

Hi Leif, I have a pretty large bag of gel that I can "recharge" in the oven, are yours like that?

Click to expand...

Yes, each bag is the size of my hand, and I have 4 or 5 bags. They change colour when saturated with moisture. I don't really understand what happened, as they should work! I heat them to recharge, as you say.

I've found running a dehumidifier to be a real eyeopener, although each situation is different, for me it's a better bet than trying to rely on silica gel. I have it placed just under my optics cabinet.

An inexpensive greenhouse hygrometer will point the way.

Dimplex do a good long lasting dehumidifier but there are others.

Samandag said:

I've found running a dehumidifier to be a real eyeopener, although each situation is different for me it's a better bet than trying to rely on silica gel. I have it placed just under my optics cabinet.

An inexpensive greenhouse hygrometer will point the way.

Dimplex do a good long lasting dehumidifier but there are others.

Click to expand...

Cheers, the hygrometer is a good idea, it'll tell me whether there is still an issue in which case the humidifier is a solution. The problems may only have been at my last house.

Just got the bins back from Action Optics, and I am surprised to see some smear marks on the external surfaces of the objectives, and the edges of the eyepieces. I could do better. Worse, the condensation like markings on the inner surfaces of the objectives are still there. I know that he opened them up, as the internal specks of dirt that were visible through the eyepieces have gone.

I have emailed Richard to hear what he as to say, but I am decidedly unimpressed. It is conceivable as the binocular has cemented objectives, the issues are in the balsam, but he made no mention of this. It is also conceivable the markings are etching of the glass by fungus, but again he made no mention of this. (I had a camera lens with fungus, and the repairer stated that some marks would still be visible after cleaning. He was correct, some minor marks remained, which had an insignificant effect on photos.)

The markings are clearly internal, and look like fine condensation, almost like tiny drops, each less than 1mm across, creating a sort of misty look. They have to be viewed with glancing light.

I also have the feeling of slight eye discomfort when viewing through them, which I do not have when using my Zeiss 8x42 HT.

The focus is now much smoother which is a significant improvement.

On the basis of this experience I cannot recommend AO. I have had camera lenses cleaned by Fixation, and another chap, and they came back immaculate, absolutely no smear marks on external surfaces, looking like new.

I received an email from Richard, and he states that he noticed that "the balsam between the two elements of the OGs has tiny bubbles in it.
The only way to 'cure' that would be to fit new OGs."

I am sure these bubbles are recent i.e. in the last year or two.

Sorry to hear of your problems getting this binocular cleaned, but I am quite surprised that a Nikon SE 8x32 has problems with the balsam or would it not have more modern lens cement, they are not that old?

Bencw said:

Sorry to hear of your problems getting this binocular cleaned, but I am quite surprised that a Nikon SE 8x32 has problems with the balsam or would it not have more modern lens cement, they are not that old?

Click to expand...

Good point. I'd be really surprised if the achromatic lenses on any Nikon SE's were ever glued with balsam. I would think some sort of photopolymer such as Norland 61 would have been used.

. Optics repairs in my experience are variable.
The Canon official repairer did a free warranty repair on a camera but I had to return it as the first repair was faulty.
I bought a very fine miniature broken Canon film camera for 1 pound and Canon repaired it for no cost and I used this camera for quite a time.
a really top end binocular was repaired by the maker for nothing and it had internal fungus but on disassembling the eyepiece one element obviously received a tiny chip on the edge. This has been blackened and I doubt whether most people would notice this tiny fault. Otherwise the binocular is now really excellent and I think that the edge chip has no effect on performance.
I find that numerous old Nikon lenses are full of dust and repairs are just not worth doing in many cases as the cost is more than the lens is worth.
Old Olympus lenses seem to be plagued by fungus especially the zoom ones. the value is often zero.

I dropped my much loved Minolta SRT101 16 foot onto concrete when trying to photograph the awful comet Kohutek, spelling? It was insured and the insurers repairer made a complete mess of the repair which took a year. Eventually Minolta repaired this themselves for me and it was as new even though the top plate and prism were smashed.
The day after I dropped the camera I bought another Minolta SRT new.

So what are the best options.
If possible, always keep to the maker to do the repairs even if they are more expensive.
If this is not possible, use an independent repairer. But there is no real guarantee that the item will be as new.

As to faults in cement between lens elements. Older non-Balsam cements such as in some 1950s and 1960s German cameras were plagued by bubbles and almost complete failure.
I haven't noticed it in modern cements. but I suppose it could occur.
1940s Kodak aero Ektar lenses usually have bad balsam faults.
Normally it is reckoned that lenses above 3 inch aperture should not be cemented.
1960s Japanese camera lenses often have oil on the irises but this seems to be cured by the 1970s mainly.
I had some Swiss Wild lenses that were repaired by a top British company but actually they didn't do a very good job although they were very difficult to disassemble as they were top quality aircraft lenses that were built to very high standards with very tight tolerances.

It pays when thinking of a repair to inspect the item extremely carefully before sending it off.

Incidentally, many of the Hoya own make camera lenses from I think the 1980s seem to contain hundreds of tiny bubbles in the glass.

And lastly, the best 8 inch Maksutov I've ever looked through had a main mirror that did not even approximate to round being roughhewn all the way round.

It is of course better not to need a repair in the first place.

LPT said:

Good point. I'd be really surprised if the achromatic lenses on any Nikon SE's were ever glued with balsam. I would think some sort of photopolymer such as Norland 61 would have been used.

Click to expand...

I used the term balsam since I don't have a clue what they use. Being Nikon, I'm sure they use decent cement.