NL Pure 8x42 eyepiece lens edge issue. Is this common? (1 Viewer)

[greenxmleigh]

Hi There,

A good day to you all.

I have purchased a pair of NL Pure 8x42 in this Sep and am looking to see if anyone has had similar experience.

I have attached two pictures where a small portion on the edge appears to be not coated or perhpas I just could not identify via eyes very precisely and my assumption was wrong. I have been using Swarovski Lens Cleaning kit for cleaning and am 100% sure this symptom was observed from my day one. By the way, this symptom does not provide any nagative impact while observing.

Your random comment, feedback and thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and you all have an amazing day.




Cheers,

Green

 

[Mike Crawley]

I would report this to the dealer you bought the binoculars from, I imagine they would welcome the feedback. They might even replace them with a new pair.

 

[greenxmleigh]

I would report this to the dealer you bought the binoculars from, I imagine they would welcome the feedback. They might even replace them with a new pair.

Thanks Mike. My dealer was unable to identify if this is a product issue from the same pictures shared in this thread without sending them to Austria that is why I am looking for feedback from this forum.😊Perhaps I need to bring them to my dealer next time.

 

[Mike Crawley]

Good Luck

 

[pm42]

I checked mine and they do not exhibit this: they are perfect.
As greenxmleigh said, this has no impact on the image but I would send the pictures to Swaroski and ask for their opinion.

If not already done, this is a good opportunity to create an account on their website, register the binoculars and so on.

 

[greenxmleigh]

I checked mine and they do not exhibit this: they are perfect.
As greenxmleigh said, this has no impact on the image but I would send the pictures to Swaroski and ask for their opinion.

If not already done, this is a good opportunity to create an account on their website, register the binoculars and so on.

Thank you pm42. I am glad to know that not everyone is experiencing this symptom, much appreciate your prompt reply. I did create an account just now and threw this query to Swarovski's Customer Support. 😊

 

[henry link]

Folks, this is completely benign. What we see in the photos is the rim of the eyelens, which is only visible at all when the eyecups are removed. With the eyecups in place for normal use this rim is snugged up behind the slightly smaller eyecup opening where it never sees the light of day and has absolutely no effect on the binocular's performance.

 

[birdcat]

I would check with the manufacturer. I had a pair of Zeiss 8x32 SF replaced recently for small reflective marks under the surface of the eyepiece edge. Not saying these are at all similar issues, just saying my issue appeared small and they were replaced.

 

[greenxmleigh]

I would check with the manufacturer. I had a pair of Zeiss 8x32 SF replaced recently for small reflective marks under the surface of the eyepiece edge. Not saying these are at all similar issues, just saying my issue appeared small and they were replaced.

Thank you birdcat. I have reached out Swarovski for opinions last night; they mentioned that the lens should not be split for a brand new pair and asked me to send them in for repair. Thanks.

 

[james holdsworth]

I’d go with Henry’s take…..if it is something, it’s going to be so far from the EP edge you would never see it. You have to decide if you want the hassle of shipping them out, you not having them for weeks and the possibility they come back either unfixed or worse.

 

[jaymann]

This is common. I just received my 8x56 SLC from eurooptics. It has similar issue and some dust inside the lenses. It is unfortunate and not acceptable but very common in my experience.

 

[greenxmleigh]

Thank you all.

With an attached picture, Swarovski has offically responded that this is a product issue and asked me to either return or send them in for repair. They described this symptom as "lens split"; I am assuming there are multiple physical layers in a lens and in my case a broken edge has occurred on the first layer. The broken edge gets expanded vertically a bit and the coating was completed on top of it, and eventually this pair gets passed a quality check.

I am really hoping no one else experiencing the same or similar. I have recently purchased a CL Curio (Orange) and I think that I will stick with that until this pair gets back, perhaps in 3 months.

Cheers,

Green

 

[glock24]

I've always found it better to look through my binoculars rather than look at them . . .

 

[henry link]

Hi Green,

I won't have much access to the computer today, so I'll have to get back to you about both the lens edge and the question of DOF tonight or tomorrow.

I will say that the slightly sloppy look of the exposed joinery between the raw lens edge and the eyepiece housing is of no consequence at all. Sometimes this sloppiness is covered by the lip of the opening in the eyepiece housing and sometimes (as in the NL) by the lip of the opening in the eyecup, but its appearance when exposed is completely harmless in either case.

I'm going to guess that the English word "split" is not a good translation and should have been the word "chip" to describe the tiny defect in the exposed lens edge, which I'm sure you can see is completely covered when the eyecup is in place.

Henry

 

[birdcat]

If you're paying top dollar for something, I don't think it's wrong to expect a well executed product. Makes me think of a Tesla with mis-aligned door panels. Critical to the operation of the product? No. But I still would prefer one that appears to be built properly.

 

[Mike Crawley]

let’s not forget that the wonderful folks at Swarovski have taken ownership of the problem and offered to rectify the fault.

 

[PYRTLE]

I am surprised that there appear to be the tiniest of "chips" to both the ocular lens edges, regardless of the fact that they will not affect the users view in any way once covered by the eyecups; just the niggle to the user that they exist in the unit. Also that the pair passed the various lens quality checks ( including manual inspection ) before assembly......perhaps this is where the faults were incurred.
However, as is usual, is Swarovski's exemplary attention to satisfying the end user by replacing or repairing the binoculars.

 

[jaymann]

I am surprised that there appear to be the tiniest of "chips" to both the ocular lens edges, regardless of the fact that they will not affect the users view in any way once covered by the eyecups; just the niggle to the user that they exist in the unit. Also that the pair passed the various lens quality checks ( including manual inspection ) before assembly......perhaps this is where the faults were incurred.
However, as is usual, is Swarovski's exemplary attention to satisfying the end user by replacing or repairing the binoculars.

I have not seen issues like these in Steiner or Meopta even in their cheapest products. I am just surprised why Swarovski is having so many issues lately.

 

[Binastro]

Probably the correct repair is to blacken the tiny faults with two layers so that there is no chance of moisture affecting the lens elements.

Regards,
B.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi There,

A good day to you all.

I have purchased a pair of NL Pure 8x42 in this Sep and am looking to see if anyone has had similar experience.

I have attached two pictures where a small portion on the edge appears to be not coated or perhpas I just could not identify via eyes very precisely and my assumption was wrong. I have been using Swarovski Lens Cleaning kit for cleaning and am 100% sure this symptom was observed from my day one. By the way, this symptom does not provide any nagative impact while observing.

Your random comment, feedback and thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and you all have an amazing day.

View attachment 1418717

View attachment 1418718
Cheers,

Green

Looks like the metal ocular frame missing or scratched off paint.send to Swarovski, they may even supply free shipping label. Don’t accept defects at this price point. Good luck.