Has anyone noticed their NL Pure binoculars misting up? (2 Viewers)

[Mike Hunter]

Hi all

I'd be grateful for any views and feedback from members on whether they have found their NL Pure binoculars misting up on use.

Some background first. I'm a keen world birder and have used Swarovski binoculars for at least 15 years. More recently I was fortunate to be able to spend three months travelling and birding in a variety of habitats, from lowland forest to extended periods on ships.

Optically these are the best 10x42 binoculars out there in my view. Field of view, brightness and image clarity are superb. I'm really pleased I purchased the 10x42 NL Pure for my two ship trips. Through an improved ergonomic design they are lovely to hold, fit comfortably in the hand, and are well balanced. I was able to use them for hours without eye strain.

However, I found a phenomenon I've never experienced in Swarovski binoculars before, and it was a big shock to find that the external glass of the eye lenses misted up easily in certain situations. It typically happened in tough conditions, often when I was walking uphill, in lowland humid forest, where my body heat caused the eye lenses to mist up. Basically if you're 'running hot' then heat transfers to the glass and mists up the eye lens. A birder I was travelling with found the problem so annoying and serious that he's thinking of shifting to Zeiss. Other birders on one of the ships were also reporting concerns.

The central issue appears to be the lens coating, and I've heard Swarovski changed its lens' coatings perhaps in advance of legislation changes? It's not simply a case of cold binoculars being exposed to warm air. I used 8.5x 42 ELs in forest for a decade in equally humid forest conditions and never experienced the misting of the NLs. I also used other binoculars when in the tough conditions and no misting.

I realise there will be many members perfectly happy with their NLs. I'd stress that misting occurs in tough conditions, and if you haven't experienced such tough conditions then you might find this thread odd. I'm really keen to hear from those members that have found their NL Pure binoculars misting up unexpectedly, and when this typically arises.

In my experience I'd summarise thus: brilliant optics but flawed. Many thanks

Mike Hunter
UK

 

[hongyan]

Hello, starting from 2020, Swarovski has changed the coating of the eyepieces for environmental protection. I also have a NL1042. The problem you mentioned has also troubled me for a long time. So much so that I had to go back to using my old EL1042. Or you can try Swarovski or Zeiss anti-fog cleaner.

 

[Owene]

Yes they do. No idea if it’s worse than previous models or competitors but yes they do

 

[Will K]

I have no experience with using my NLs in extreme environmental conditions, but I am curious to read about the practical limits of these binos.

The temperature tolerances listed in specs are pretty standard, as far as I am aware, but that doesn't always equate to actual user experience, when a variety of other factors are in play, e.g. humidity, fluctuating temp, bino age, user habits, etc. The previously mentioned change in the manufacturing process does seem like the culprit.

For glasses wearers, this issue may also be reduced because of limited transmission of body temperature and increased air circulation. Other threads have covered similar variables before.

 

[tenex]

The central issue appears to be the lens coating, and I've heard Swarovski changed its lens' coatings

Yes, specifically the "Swaroclean" coating is no longer applied, as it involved PFAS chemicals that no one knows how to remove from the environment. This issue has been discussed here before. How much of it does Swarovski's production actually emit, vs other industries/uses? Could it be collected and re-used more efficiently? We don't know. Why would one spend $3k for the one alpha brand that now lacks such coating? A question of individual priorities, or judgment whether the earth can at this point be "saved". (Let us know how long your armor lasts, too...)

 

[Mike Hunter]

Or you can try Swarovski or Zeiss anti-fog cleaner.

Thanks - does this actually work and reduce misting do you know?

Mike

 

[Mike Hunter]

Yes, specifically the "Swaroclean" coating is no longer applied, as it involved PFAS chemicals that no one knows how to remove from the environment. This issue has been discussed here before. How much of it does Swarovski's production actually emit, vs other industries/uses? Could it be collected and re-used more efficiently? We don't know. Why would one spend $3k for the one alpha brand that now lacks such coating? A question of individual priorities, or judgment whether the earth can at this point be "saved".

My apologies I wasn't aware of previous discussions in this forum - I'll root through the 'back catalogue'. OK I understand now that it's the absence of a particular coating that is the issue. I wonder whether this also explains too why I felt my lenses got dirty more quickly than I'd normally expect [I'm a reluctant lens cleaner and could go days or even weeks without cleaning... but not the NLs...].

Thanks

Mike

 

[Ratal]

Yep.

It's why I'll never own a pair. The misting is due to the lack of anti droplet / hydrophobic coatings.

So yeah, Swaro did what they did, and I'm not touching another pair for love nor money.

My apologies I wasn't aware of previous discussions in this forum - I'll root through the 'back catalogue'. OK I understand now that it's the absence of a particular coating that is the issue. I wonder whether this also explains too why I felt my lenses got dirty more quickly than I'd normally expect [I'm a reluctant lens cleaner and could go days or even weeks without cleaning... but not the NLs...].

Thanks

Mike

It's a reduction to the coatings at both objective lens and eye piece. Swaro say it's for the environment, but the end result is binoculars that are not up to harsh environments unless are near constantly cleaned.

 

[Will K]

I'm a reluctant lens cleaner and could go days or even weeks without cleaning... but not the NLs...

I wonder if this change will also affect the health of the lenses, in the long term?

In general terms, perhaps glass coatings suffer from fatigue after they have been regularly cleaned for many years. And it is to be expected that some coatings are more durable than others. Do users really think that it is possible to clean your lenses 'too much'?

Obviously the manufacturers will fix a damaged pair, so long as it is still within the warranty period. (I believe that 10 years is standard for NLs, plus an extra year if you register them. That seems like a pretty good timeframe, but it doesn't really compare with a company like Vortex.) I hope I never have to find out, though.

Either way, it certainly won't benefit the environment if more people have to airmail their binos to Swaro for more frequent servicing! It sounds like a false economy.

 

[Scott98]

I love what Swarovski has done - and Nikon. They don't apply toxic chemicals to the lenses that go against my eyelashes.

Users are free to apply the toxic, cancer-causing chemicals if they want. It's not high-tech or expensive. They're spray-on organic chemicals. Hopefully I have removed the PFAS from my SF's through cleaning with alcohol and other solvents.

I have converted all my outerwear into brands like Jack Wolfskin and Vaude which do not use PFAS. I am horrified that I used Swix F4 wax on my cross-country and downhill ski eqiupment for years, it was based on PFAS long after they knew about the toxicity. I handled the bases of the skis with bare hands and my dogs stepped all over them in the back of the car as well.

FWIW....just another perspective. In case some are wondering WHY Swaro made their decision. The current generation of my family has been slammed by cancer, with no record of anyone having it in the past. I got it at age 20 and it's reduced my abilities and happiness in this life forever. The odds of someone born in America getting cancer during their lifetime in 1900 was 1 in 22. People born in the US today have a 40% chance of getting it, and rising. That's a 1000% increase.

 

[Will K]

Their intention is very much to be supported, of course. The R&D for healthy, ethical, and effective material production certainly needs to continue

 

[Richard D]

We managed for years without PFAS coated optics. It's likely that other European mnufacturers will have to follow suit soon due to proposed legislation.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

No none of the NL pures I use and have used (NL 8x32 and NL 8x42) never did mist up in my hands and moreover I also have not found any sign of glare using them.
Happy new Year.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Owene]

I had to get the glare reducer things for the 10x32. Still very very happy with the bins though

 

[Allen]

FWIW the more recent ATX scopes also lack the hydrophobic coating and I've also had issues with steaming up on very wet or misty conditions. So much so that on 2 twitches I couldn't use the scope for ages....it is on watch and if it becomes a regular problem I'll be changing it.

 

[Hermann]

FWIW the more recent ATX scopes also lack the hydrophobic coating and I've also had issues with steaming up on very wet or misty conditions. So much so that on 2 twitches I couldn't use the scope for ages....it is on watch and if it becomes a regular problem I'll be changing it.

I don't get it. Hydrophobic coatings are a fairly recent invention, and you make it sound as though they are essential in the field. Well, no, they aren't. People successfully used optics without hydrophobic coatings in wet and misty conditions for decades, and they even - gasp! - went on twitches.

If your optics steam up in wet and misty conditions there's a simple remedy: Just clean them! It's not that hard, you know.

Hermann

 

[Conndomat]

I got it at age 20 and it's reduced my abilities and happiness in this life forever. The odds of someone born in America getting cancer during their lifetime in 1900 was 1 in 22. People born in the US today have a 40% chance of getting it, and rising. That's a 1000% increase.

Hello Scott,

I am really sorry that you are suffering from this terrible disease and I wish you all the best.

But it's always a problem with statistics, you have to take different aspects into account.
Just one important factor is that in 1900 the life expectancy for men was 45 years and for women 48 years!
Today, men live an average of 78.5 years and women over 83 years, which is a significant reason why people nowadays often develop cancer.
The figures are from Germany, but it will be very similar in the USA.

Andreas

 

[tenex]

An important fact to bear in mind is that thousands of synthetic chemicals are applied and released in modern industry that no one has ever heard of, that aren't even tested for and whose health effects have never been investigated at all because that isn't legally required until some sort of harm has been discovered... which would at this point be very difficult to trace to a specific chemical in most cases, PFAS being a rare exception. So dropping hydrophobic coatings from binoculars isn't going to have a measurable effect on cancer rates. Eyelashes contacting oculars (unlikely anyway given today's eye relief) would not be a prime concern for me; there are nasty chemicals everywhere to which one has far greater exposure. I don't think people understand the scale of the problem, and sadly it wouldn't really help much if they did.

 

[pbjosh]

An important fact to bear in mind is that thousands of synthetic chemicals are applied and released in modern industry that no one has ever heard of, that aren't even tested for and whose health effects have never been investigated at all because that isn't legally required until some sort of harm has been discovered... which would at this point be very difficult to trace to a specific chemical in most cases, PFAS being a rare exception. So dropping hydrophobic coatings from binoculars isn't going to have a measurable effect on cancer rates. Eyelashes contacting oculars (unlikely anyway given today's eye relief) would not be a prime concern for me; there are nasty chemicals everywhere to which one has far greater exposure. I don't think people understand the scale of the problem, and sadly it wouldn't really help much if they did.

I agree with your statement largely, but disagree with the statement that reducing PFAs isn't going to reduce cancer rates. It might or might not and we likely will never really know or prove it either way. However they are known carcinogens that we can work to eliminate. Yes we are surrounded by toxins but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and go back to leaded gas and doctors recommending cigarettes to pregnant mothers.

 

[ORKen]

I noticed the problem the first time I used them in cold weather. I found some relief by screwing the eye guards all the way in and using the forehead rest to keep my eyes away from the lens. After an hour or two they typically work fine.