I would return them for a refund and if you like them, buy another pair. Don't mess around, sending them back to Swarovski. They might come back to you worse.
-
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.
NL Pure 8x42 eyepiece lens edge issue. Is this common? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter greenxmleigh
- Start date
So true. Send them to Austria. SONA service is horrible.
If these companies are asking over 2k for optics, and I am an Alpha fan speaking here, then these optics need to be perfect.
The idea of Alpha, top of the line, best available etc means just that.
I absolutley would not accept that, at that price.
As much as I enjoy looking 'through' my bins, I am always amazed at the precision and technicalities of the instrument.... a secondary enjoyment of having top optics is the actual 'ownership' of such equipment.
And those 'TOP' or 'ALPHA' bins need to be spot on...... or don't bother!!!
Same goes for watches, cameras, cars.... as the price goes up, the standards need to be spot on.
Just my view.
The idea of Alpha, top of the line, best available etc means just that.
I absolutley would not accept that, at that price.
As much as I enjoy looking 'through' my bins, I am always amazed at the precision and technicalities of the instrument.... a secondary enjoyment of having top optics is the actual 'ownership' of such equipment.
And those 'TOP' or 'ALPHA' bins need to be spot on...... or don't bother!!!
Same goes for watches, cameras, cars.... as the price goes up, the standards need to be spot on.
Just my view.
henry link
Well-known member
The OP could be returning an optically excellent binocular because he noticed a totally harmless blemish on a lens edge that isn't inside the light cone and can't even be seen without removing the eyecups. As far as I can tell the actual optical quality of this pair is untested and therefore unknown. I've tested the optics of three samples of the 8x42 NL. Some of the six telescopes were better than others, but none one were totally free of the usual optical defects like spherical and chromatic aberrations, astigmatism and coma. The best telescope was quite good and much better than the worst one. If you want to be a nit picker it's a good idea to learn which nits are worth picking.
Henry, I understand that you are extremely knowledgeable in the world of optics, far more so than me.
But these are incredibly expensive 'top of the line' instruments.
I wouldn't accept a Ferrari with an exceptional engine, but bad shut lines.
Things need to be right at this level.
Exactly. Your binocular will probably come back in worse shape.
For $3K I wou
"The best telescope was quite good, and much better than the worst one." Wow! That doesn't say much for Swarovski's quality control. Every binocular should be equal in quality, after all, the customers are all paying the same price.
henry link
Well-known member
Would you accept a Ferrari with an exceptional engine, but with a tiny scratch on an inside surface of the dashboard, only visible if the dashboard is removed?
Dennis,
Swarovski's quality control is at least as good as the other "alphas". I don't think I've ever seen two sides of the same binocular that were exactly equal optically. If you learn how to test binoculars for optical defects you'll find plenty of them in all the premium brands. Then you'll have to learn how to tell which ones matter.
Last edited:
Some years ago, I met many Ferrari owners being one myself at the time.
Some of them bought them for the look, because they dreamed of it and did not use them that much. They were always very clean and "like new".
Other bought them because they were a lof of fun to drive, used them daily, went to racing days, etc. I even met a guy who said a Ferrari would be his first car when he was young and he managed it. It was also his only car.
We did not care about small dents and other minor "problems" because they were irrelevant for our use.
I guess the same is true with binoculars.
The only problem I see with the binocular is if there are tiny naked spots where moisture can get to the glass elements initiating fungus later on.
The fact that these spots are covered and not seen is not relevant.
However, if moisture cannot get to these spots then fine.
A good repairer would blacken any uncoated or unblackened parts to stop water ingress.
As to all binoculars being equal in quality. Well really!
There is no perfection in anything.
Except in wishful thing.
Regards,
B.
The fact that these spots are covered and not seen is not relevant.
However, if moisture cannot get to these spots then fine.
A good repairer would blacken any uncoated or unblackened parts to stop water ingress.
As to all binoculars being equal in quality. Well really!
There is no perfection in anything.
Except in wishful thing.
Regards,
B.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, if the owner puts the wear and tear in.
But from new, things need to be spot on, when companies are demanding such high prices.
if another Pair of Swaros DOES NOT have this problem, then these ones are sub standard whichever way you dress it up.
If they don't affect the view, or don't worry the user, then that is a personal choice, as to wether the 'fault' or 'discrepency' is acceptable.
But it would appear these are not 100%
It would bug me enough, so I would be someone who gets them seen to, or replaced.
Others wouldn't.
Dennis, bino manufacturers will have specifications for the optical performance of their binos and providing a bino meets their specifications they will pass it.
In this sense they are all equal and if you can't see the variations during normal viewing then variation between units is of no consequence. Put it another way, would you like to pay for the extra cost of ensuring all units are alike by the control of optical characteristics you can't see during normal viewing?
Lee
henry link
Well-known member
Lee and I have long disagreed about how visible the aberrations are in binoculars.
I've put up the link below a few times, but it's still the best visual example I can offer to show the damage done to image quality when a binocular's design allows axial aberrations to be a little too high, even when the raw resolution remains better than eyesight acuity.
www.birdforum.net
I've put up the link below a few times, but it's still the best visual example I can offer to show the damage done to image quality when a binocular's design allows axial aberrations to be a little too high, even when the raw resolution remains better than eyesight acuity.
Victory HT 8x42
Hello, Visiting my son at London, after been with him at his PhD in Economics graduation in the EUI (European University Institute), Firenze, Italy, I made a visit at Harrods. Just to take a look at the place. As the last year, they have DEALS in binoculars. Two were VERY GOOD SALE offers...
www.birdforum.net
This single statement sums it up perfectly for me.
Veracocha
Well-known member
Hmm! Now wishing I hadn't read this thread. I bought two new EL's Christmas Eve and just put them both under the magnifying glass to see what gives. My 10x32 are perfect in the area's shewn in the OP. However my 10x42 have three instances exactly like the OP in one lens, on the very outermost only. Like when you put a screen protector on your phone but the very edge isn't sitting right. Not an issue with the eyecups on but just enough of an issue for me to need to query it with Swarovski and very soon.
greenxmleigh
Member
I was told that Swarovski Quality Team was unable to find the same symptom(the same pictures posted in this forum) from my NL and the Head of Customer Management informed that the symptom could be removed during a cleaning process after collected. Could someone please explain how a missing edge symptom can be recovered by a cleaning process? To me that is non-sense. Thanks.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
This discussion reminds me of a story told to me by a Zeiss representative. He had a customer, who always looked into the new binocular (he perhaps wanted to buy) through the objective side and he took a flash light to see "spots"inside the binocular. Now light scattering can occur by particles/structures that are normally hardly or not visible by eye, but that customer decided that quality control or quality of this binocular was not up to his desired standard if he saw such a tiny scattering. Upon normal use of the binocular no problem could be seen.
Gijs van Ginkel
Gijs van Ginkel
