Has build quality diminished? Optics are superb but the housing, focus, . . . (1 Viewer)

[henry link]

There was a time when the exposed parts of high end binoculars demanded a level of fine fit and finish that is mostly no longer required today when nearly all binoculars are encased in a molded rubber jacket. I haven't seen any of these, but the only modern binoculars that might have a fine finish that compares to the old leatherette covered Zeiss West Porros and Dialyts or Leitz Trinovids would be the Leica Retrovids, the Ultravid BL and perhaps the current black Nikon EIIs. I don't include the Swarovski Habichts because (correct me if I'm wrong) they appear to have been cheapened by a dull speckled paint job and silk screened lettering.

Of course, the fine finish of those old binoculars was easily damaged and told us nothing about the durability of their internals, but it's quite a thrill today to see one of those old beauties in mint condition.

 

[MiddleRiver]

There was a time when the exposed parts of high end binoculars demanded a level of fine fit and finish that is mostly no longer required today when nearly all binoculars are encased in a molded rubber jacket. I haven't seen any of these, but the only modern binoculars that might have a fine finish that compares to the old leatherette covered Zeiss West Porros and Dialyts or Leitz Trinovids would be the Leica Retrovids, the Ultravid BL and perhaps the current black Nikon EIIs. I don't include the Swarovski Habichts because (correct me if I'm wrong) they appear to have been cheapened by a dull speckled paint job and silk screened lettering.

Of course, the fine finish of those old binoculars was easily damaged and told us nothing about the durability of their internals, but it's quite a thrill today to see one of those old beauties in mint condition.

Having recently owned BL's (and now missing them!) and currently owning/using Retros, I have to agree with that much. They build quality and fit/finish are superb and they feel very 'old school'. I was using the Retros yesterday and thinking how the knurled focus knob reminded me of quality optics from 40 years ago when I used microscopes and other items in labs that had adjustment knobs. I love my wife's new little 8x30 HG's but to look at that focus knob, is... well I'll just say it's not quite the same :-}

In general, where Leica glass 'falls behind' in some specs (FOV, ER...), I do think they have uniformly maintained a very high quality of finish - maybe the highest). Thank goodness for that. The UV focuser criticism is I think is a result of their attempt to make a greaseless system. But other than that, it's never been a problem for me (two UV's so far).

 

[b_reynolds_ak]

Were your ones owned by your friend new by chance? I've found the NL focus tends to smooth out over time..

I’m not sure. He uses them fairly often though. The feel varies on every NL or EL I try, wether gritty feeling, dead areas that are loose or stiction points. Whereas all the current Sf and SFL’s I’ve had in hand are uniformly smooth.

 

[PW42]

There was a time when the exposed parts of high end binoculars demanded a level of fine fit and finish that is mostly no longer required today when nearly all binoculars are encased in a molded rubber jacket. I haven't seen any of these, but the only modern binoculars that might have a fine finish that compares to the old leatherette covered Zeiss West Porros and Dialyts or Leitz Trinovids would be the Leica Retrovids, the Ultravid BL and perhaps the current black Nikon EIIs. I don't include the Swarovski Habichts because (correct me if I'm wrong) they appear to have been cheapened by a dull speckled paint job and silk screened lettering.

Of course, the fine finish of those old binoculars was easily damaged and told us nothing about the durability of their internals, but it's quite a thrill today to see one of those old beauties in mint condition.

I don't know if there has been a recent change but my 2015 Habicht have a leatherette rather than a speckled paint job and I think are beautifully made.

 

[henry link]

I meant the paint job on the metal surfaces. In Tobias Mennie's review of a 2009 8x30 Habicht he claims that the prism plates are now made of plastic. I'm not so sure about that. I know my old Habicht from 1990 has engraved printing on prism plates made of a ferrous alloy of some kind that attracts a magnet. It also has a smoother paint job than the new ones (at least judging from close up photos.)

I tried to make a photo that would convey something of the ultra-smooth, almost mirror like paint finish on my mint 8x50 Zeiss West Porro. The real thing brings tears to my eyes.

 

[PW42]

I meant the paint job on the metal surfaces. In Tobias Mennie's review of a 2009 8x30 Habicht he claims that the prism plates are now made of plastic. I'm not so sure about that. I know my old Habicht from 1990 has engraved printing on prism plates made of a ferrous alloy of some kind that attracts a magnet. It also has a smoother paint job than the new ones (at least judging from close up photos.)

I tried to make a photo that would convey something of the ultra-smooth, almost mirror like paint finish on my mint 8x50 Zeiss West Porro. The real thing brings tears to my eyes.

I was intrigued so I have just tried the magnet test which it passed.

The paint on mine certainly appears to be excellent quality and looks similar to your picture (lovely looking binos by the way) although not as shiny.

Anyway things may have changed since mine were made.

 

[crinklystarfish]

I'm very careful with all of my optics and don't even ordinarily attempt to use them in rain or harsh conditions. Most of them have proved utterly reliable and have developed no issues.

Notwithstanding, binoculars procured in the past 15 years or so:

1. Nikon Monarch M7 - Eyecups deteriorated. Replaced by Nikon FoC at about six years.
2. Swarovski CL Pocket - Loose (left) bridge hinge (fixed myself). Eyepiece rubbers failed and detached from eyepieces. Replacement eyepieces sent out by Swarovski FoC at about three years.
3. Nikon Monarch HG - Left ocular came loose and rocked about in the body. Rubber armour detached from body. Both fixed FoC by Nikon at about five years.

Procured between about 15 and 30 years ago:

1. Leica Trinovid BN - Internal focusing mechanism failure (would not focus to infinity). Binocular replaced FoC by Leica with a brand new Ultravid at about 20 years!
2. Leica Trinovid BA - Developed far too much internal detritus. Binocular replaced by Leica FoC at about one year.

FWIW I, my 12x42 NL Pure has been in very frequent use since about March 2021 and, so far, remains as good as new.
FWIW II, I have a Nikon EII porro that has seen regular use over about eight years and in spite of the lack of armour, waterproofing and generally more exposed mechanicals it too, so far, remains as good as new.

Conclude what you will: or nothing at all...

 

[Bako]

I was intrigued so I have just tried the magnet test which it passed.

The paint on mine certainly appears to be excellent quality and looks similar to your picture (lovely looking binos by the way) although not as shiny.

Anyway things may have changed since mine were made.

Hi, you write that the habicht passed the magnetic test, does that mean the prism cover is metal?

 

[PW42]

Hi, you write that the habicht passed the magnetic test, does that mean the prism cover is metal?

The plates alongside the focus wheel where "Habicht" and "8x30W" are inscribed are metal (well, a magnet sticks to them).

 

[henry link]

After a little more investigation I need to back off from my earlier claim that the Swarovski Habicht's prism covers are made from a ferrous metal. They could be made from a non-ferrous metal like aluminum, but I think the magnetic attraction is not coming from the covers themselves, but from a metal clip (probably steel) and/or its securing screws used to press the prisms against the prism self. There is a much stronger attraction coming from the rear prism cover, where the clip is just beneath the cover than from the front prism cover, where the clip is farther away from the cover.

I still doubt that the covers are plastic, but I can't really think of a way for me to test that with my recent rubber armored pair. My old pair definitely has metal covers as evidenced by bright metal showing on worn edges.

 

[dorubird]

My new Habicht 7x42 (manufactured in 2022) has the outer plates on the prisms made of metal. No metal part of these binoculars is attracted to the magnet, because they are made of magnesium or aluminium. I realized that it is metal by doing this: after leaving bino in the cold temperature for 10 minutes, everything was cold (prism plates covers, objective rings, the bridges, the axis), except the leatherette skin and the rubber of the eyepieces. Everything that is not metal stayed warmer compared to metal magnesium parts.

...the only modern binoculars that might have a fine finish that compares to the old leatherette covered Zeiss West Porros and Dialyts or Leitz Trinovids would be the Leica Retrovids, the Ultravid BL and perhaps the current black Nikon EIIs. I don't include the Swarovski Habichts because (correct me if I'm wrong) they appear to have been cheapened by a dull speckled paint job and silk screened lettering...

Yes, E2 has a much more carefully developed design and finishes than Habicht. The example of printing "HABICHT" is a conclusive one.

 

[Patudo]

Years ago beginning with a task-force in state law enforcement, I had a pair of Zeiss 7X50 Marines that lived on my dash-board, they were alphas in their own right. I have never seen anything since approach their build quality. Except for scuffing to the armor from countless falls to the vehicle floor, they remain perfect.

I think it's fair to say most binoculars nowadays are not made to endure that kind of abuse. But then, how many users really need them to be that tough? I'd reckon the NLs etc are built well enough for what most users put them through, and for those who truly need something tough there are the Fujinons and other military spec devices.

Also, how many non-military binoculars from the good old days were as tough as your Zeiss 7x50 B/GA? If you chucked the beautiful 8x50B in Henry's photo around in the manner you described above, I'll bet it would, very soon, be very far from "perfect"...

I found myself finally making a purchase this year where the foremost concern was robustness instead of optics. My primary binoculars now are a pair of $3,599 8X42 EL Range TA's instead of the slightly optically superior NL Pure. So far so good. I hope in general I am wrong.

Interesting - I remember reading some posts a while back that suggested you'd found your one true love in the Noctivid - what happened there?

 

[pbjosh]

I have been in SE Asia for about 6-7 weeks now and have seen about 10 pairs of NLs in use, most with varying levels of damage / missing parts. The most common issues are the little black plugs for the objective cover wires which go missing and the eyecup rubber rings which detach and fall off. I have also seen two of the strap mounting lugs pull completely out of the binocular. Given how tight the ocular covers fit I wonder if the ocular covers are tearing the eyecups apart or if the eyecups are just not up to snuff.

I also have two friends complaining nonstop about fogging issues (both previously had ELs), and was told though don’t know that anti moisture coatings were reformulated and seem to be inferior to prior models.

My take is the optics are tremendous, the fogging issue is unfortunate, and external bits and attachments are a strong example of over-engineering.

I was not happy with a broken focuser on my SFs on a trip last year, and unfortunately had to fight with Zeiss a bit to get them repaired under warranty, but otherwise am very happy to not have them falling apart.

No bins are perfect of course but I have been a bit surprised and disappointed by the number of problems with the “improved” external bits of the NLs.

 

[dries1]

Let them have the SF for the same amount of time with the same handling, then see what happens.

 

[pbjosh]

Let them have the SF for the same amount of time with the same handling, then see what happens.

I’ve been using my SF under these conditions for longer than the NLs have been on the market. Not trying to endorse one vs the other, just sharing my experience. No problems with the SF armor / exterior bits, though obviously the broken focuser was a fatal issue mid trip.

 

[dries1]

I will always believe that the Swarovski SV / NL is better built than the SF and I have had the SF and own many from the big three and Nikon. No going back for me. We always believe the one we have is the best.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

I will always believe that the Swarovski SV / NL is better built than the SF and I have had the SF and own many from the big three and Nikon. No going back for me. We always believe the one we have is the best.

Well, some still believe the earth is flat!!

 

[MiddleRiver]

Perhaps Leica, tho falling short in specs, really is the better ‘build’? Honest question…

 

[pbjosh]

I will always believe that the Swarovski SV / NL is better built than the SF and I have had the SF and own many from the big three and Nikon. No going back for me. We always believe the one we have is the best.

I have had an EL in the past and have an NL and an SF now. I don’t think either is the best, particularly. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Viraj]

I also have two friends complaining nonstop about fogging issues

Regarding fogging issue, I would like to mention my experience as well. I have an NL 8x42 and Habicht GA 10x40, both made in 2022. I have never experienced fogging issue with NL, even with winged eyecups. However, the use of Habichts with winged eyecups is impossible due to fogging issue. It might be a problem because of their short eye relief as well. It seems Swarovski removed hydrophobic coating from all of their products.