BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="F88" data-source="post: 3205799" data-attributes="member: 131692">Hi Jerry,Perhaps I didn't describe things well enough but the loose armour around the objectives doesn't appear normal at all. Perhaps a photo would have helped?There was an uneven gap between the hard material around the lens and the rubber armour which had a fair amount of play in it. Not what you'd expect on a $500 pair of binoculars let alone a $2000 pair, I'm sure if you'd handled them you would agree it's not right and by the sound of others who have contributed to the thread it isn't consistent with their sample.The main issue is the mechanics behind the diopter/focusing mechanism which makes up it's own mind where the diopter setting will roam to.Edit. Just to further clarify the loose armour around the objectives, where the hard material retaining the objective lens meets the soft rubber armour there is a gap which allows quite a bit of wiggle room for the rubber extension past the lens (bit that the lens cover seats into). When I tested the lens coatings for water repellency/cleaning I also noticed that water would enter this gap and could be squeezed out by pressing the rubber around the lenses to close up the gap.Hope that creates a clearer idea of what I mean in regards to ill fitting rubber. My theory is that the tight retaining rings that tether the lens caps to the body have flared out the rubber armour over time. When the tether rings are removed you can even see a firm imprint from where they were seated that look permanent.</blockquote>

Verification