• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Discolouration and rusty hinges on Zeiss SF (1 Viewer)

Lee

I think that the Trinovids hinge pin is stainless steel and the Ultravids is titanium. Stated in their literature as "weight saving." Is that correct?

Bob
Titanium would be more rust resistant. I remember seeing some Trinovids from Coastal areas that the strap lugs on the sides showed a little rust. Sea air is bad news.
 
No, I have not sent the binoculars back this time, and I think I won't. This is just a cosmetic issue that does not bother me much. I could probably remove the rust/stains with citric acid/toothpaste, like some other poster did.

HN
If you got a new pair it would probably just do it again anyway.
 
Ultravid does have a titanium hinge.
It's the best in the industry and completely rust proof.
If Leica's glass and coatings were equal to the other members of the Big 4, I would not consider another brand.
 
I am curious also about this staining problem also. Does it come from the environment or as you say sweaty hands........

Actually, I am saying just the opposite. Mine has had plenty of sweaty handling these last couple hot AZ summer months and no stains on mine.
 
Well, it didn't sell me a Swarovision, but it delayed my order on an SF from MidwayUSA (http://www.midwayusa.com/product/98...ism-rubber-armored-black?cm_vc=ProductFinding).

I've had Zeiss 7x50 Marine's for some years now, and never had a problem even with the bino's living in the temperature extremes of a vehicle (the bought used law enforcement edition Steiner's I had previously tore up in two years).

For a while now I have tried to buy new glass; first HT 8X42's and now the SF's, but all the "issues" posted have scared me off each time. One guy on this forum even had a hinge snap on his new SF's apparently and is on his third pair due to warranty issues. These issues stand in stark contrast to my experience with my own Zeiss and in contrast to the published reviews.

Is all the carping here indigenous to this forum and I can go ahead and drop the $2,600 for this glass without fear; or are the new SF's actually buggy in their initial production as alleged by some users?

Dwever,

Almost every new consumer product has "bugs," which is why despite Microsoft offering a free upgrade to Windows 10, I'm not biting. I had enough problems trying to tame Windows 8.1.

You're never going to find open bridge roof prism binoculars that are as indestructible as your IF EP Zeiss B/GA (or as good a defensive weapon in a pinch). The B/GA's porro design is simple by comparison, it doesn't have 11 or 12 glass elements, or twist-up, click stop eyecups, or internal focusing elements near the objectives, or a single front open hinge, which is the bin's weakest link.

OTOH, Pete Dunne threw the open bridge Nikon EDG I about 20 ft? and it landed eyecups down into the dirt like HN's hit the concrete from only 3 ft. with no force but gravity, and other than digging dirt out of the eyecups, the EDG was undamaged. Not sure if means the EDG I's frame was stronger than the SFs or it was just a matter of good luck for Pete and bad luck for Hagar.

The closest you could come is the 42mm Conquest HD. Did you see the video where it was run over by a truck tire, dragged down a dirt road from a rope tied to the truck bumper, and then shot with buckshot, once at a distance, once at close range, and it still functioned fine? The view is supposed to be near alpha, too, so you could save yourself $1600 and get a pair of more robust binoculars to boot if that's what's most important to you.

But if you want to step up to alpha quality optics and still get a robust design, I recommend you try a Swaro SLC. Hunters swear by them, and they get dragged through the Mud the Blood and the Beer and keep ticking for decades. Steve (mooreorless) replaced his 7x30 SLC after 20 years, and his 8x30SLCnew's will probably function w/out problems for 20 years, too.

The full sized (8x and 10x42) SLCs run about $1,800, and the view is superb, IMO, the 10x42 is sharp almost to the edge. You save $800 and get a more robust bin.

Brock
 
Hi Bob

I was talking about my wife's 1976 Leitz Trinovid, not any of the current range, apologies for not making that clear.

I don't know about the materials used in the current models, but statements such as 'stainless steel' aren't really that informative. As has been pointed out elsewhere they should be called stain-resisting, but its a bit too late to get rid of the more impressive 'stainless' tag. Commonly used grades range from AISI 430 type (Werkstoff 1.4016) with around 18% chromium and no nickel, to the stuff cutlery is made of ie AISI 304 type (Werkstoff 1.4301) containing the classic 18% Cr and 8% nickel, to much more resistant AISI 316 type (Werkstoff 1.4401) which adds some molybdenum to the mix for additional resistance to corrosion. Plus there are many other grades and special compositions for special applications.

Lee

1976? No wonder they rusted! They were made in the Iron Age.

I was born in the Chalcolithic Period, so no worries about rusting, but we did get struck by lighting a lot. :smoke:

<B>
 
Dwever,

The closest you could come is the 42mm Conquest HD. Did you see the video where it was run over by a truck tire, dragged down a dirt road from a rope tied to the truck bumper, and then shot with buckshot, once at a distance, once at close range, and it still functioned fine? The view is supposed to be near alpha, too, so you could save yourself $1600 and get a pair of more robust binoculars to boot if that's what's most important to you.

Brock

Right Brock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64FCbtKKqs. The Conquest HD is one tough SOB (B for Bin)

The Leica Trinovid also looks solidly built as does the Ultravid HD, but will they take this kind of abuse and survive? Doubt it.
 
Interesting stuff all this.

Steel-
I know people say there's no such thing as true stainless steel but I have a few dive watches Ive use for surfing over the decades..a few are vintage from the 60s and 70s...the best such steel is usually regarded as 904L, and the far more commonly used and cheaper 316L (most dive watches) grade. With some I've gone years without rinsing or washing off anything intentionally. No rust. No stains. Is that a true stainless steel...if a salt water exposed steel hasn't rusted or marked since the late 60s?

That zeiss hinge area looks a teeny bit rough I must say...do they all look like that?...could it just be early series production teething issues? It is a radical design shift for zeiss. They do seem to be phasing this bino out in a very slow manner, so perhaps the early adopters are indeed the QC for what will become a brilliant product!
 
Interesting stuff all this.

Steel-
I know people say there's no such thing as true stainless steel but I have a few dive watches Ive use for surfing over the decades..a few are vintage from the 60s and 70s...the best such steel is usually regarded as 904L, and the far more commonly used and cheaper 316L (most dive watches) grade. With some I've gone years without rinsing or washing off anything intentionally. No rust. No stains. Is that a true stainless steel...if a salt water exposed steel hasn't rusted or marked since the late 60s?

That zeiss hinge area looks a teeny bit rough I must say...do they all look like that?...could it just be early series production teething issues? It is a radical design shift for zeiss. They do seem to be phasing this bino out in a very slow manner, so perhaps the early adopters are indeed the QC for what will become a brilliant product!


My understanding (an I may be wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me)

The term rusting is used very loosely, corrosion is probably the better term. 316 will corrode given the right conditions. I have seen a bunch of 316 duct work corrode due to elevated temps and corrosive gases. If I recall 312 has better hi temp corrosion resistance than 316 so you have to pick your metal for the environment.

Galvanic corrosion of two dissimilar metals is probably the one that would be of concern with the binoculars. Something like a 904L thrust washer would probably lead to the magnesium binocular body corroding instead of the thrust washer. The thrust washer is sacrificial in this case, as was the hinge pin on the Leicas Lee mentioned.

Like I said, anyone feel free to correct me. This is all just conjecture on my part.
 
My house main gate is made of stainless steel and of course. I think it isn't a high grade steel like those used for watches or similars.
After some 20 years usage, there is no hints of any rust or corrosion. It has been experienced enough weathering.
 
My house main gate is made of stainless steel and of course. I think it isn't a high grade steel like those used for watches or similars.
After some 20 years usage, there is no hints of any rust or corrosion. It has been experienced enough weathering.

Sounds like they should have used what ever your gate is made of as a bearing surface then.:t:
 
Normal replacement car exhausts or mufflers, 18 months.
Stainless steel - 15 years.

Kitchen stainless steel - 40 years plus.

Bristol 188? aircraft didn't make it. Scrapped I think.

P.S.
One survives at RAF Cosford.
Titanium stabilised stainless steel.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information, perterra.

Here, muffler replacements are made to fail at 18 months so you keep buying more.
Original equipment 5 years.
 
Thanks for the information, perterra.

Here, muffler replacements are made to fail at 18 months so you keep buying more.
Original equipment 5 years.

It's a different horses for different courses thing. I'm far from knowledgable on metallurgy but I'm in the welding supply biz and have dealt with a bunch of plant maintenance guys dealing in corrosive environments.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top