• 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.

NL Pure condensation on eye pieces (1 Viewer)

SUPPRESSOR

Well-known member
England
Have I mentioned the retailer ?
No.

I can't believe were having the Jan.

Are you seriously telling me that a supplier can tell a retailer who they sell equipment to ? Really !

I'm sharing this information because I was told that Swarovski were happy to do a pre inspection check to my face, but behind my back they were telling the retailer a completly different story.
Is that the Austrian interpretation of trust and customer service ?

May I ask as a customer do you sell equipment only to those individuels that supplier dictates as worthy because they complained about a product that was clearly faulty ? Or maybe you don't want to share that information on the biggest binocular forum in the world ...

Cheers
Tim
Me thinks one protesteth a little too much.
 

jan van daalen

Well-known member
Have I mentioned the retailer ?
No.

I can't believe were having the Jan.

Are you seriously telling me that a supplier caby replacing the armor free of chargen tell a retailer who they sell equipment to ? Really !

I'm sharing this information because I was told that Swarovski were happy to do a pre inspection check to my face, but behind my back they were telling the retailer a completly different story.
Is that the Austrian interpretation of trust and customer service ?

May I ask as a customer do you sell equipment only to those individuels that supplier dictates as worthy because they complained about a product that was clearly faulty ? Or maybe you don't want to share that information on the biggest binocular forum in the world ...

Cheers
Tim
Hi Tim,

Yes, it is me, the Jan:)

I was just wondering why you felt the need to share "confidential received" info brought to you under that condition from a retailer on a Forum. You had already made your points extensively clear regarding your experiences with Swarovski's Customer Support and the quality of Swarovski optics.
That's all.

To answer your questions;
FWIW, I've never ever had the experience that a brand told me not to sell and to be honest I find it hard to believe it happened.
My experience with Swaro's CS is in complete contradiction with your experiences. Further more, I've sold multiple items more than your 15 investigated NLPures and the one and only massif complain is its terrible objective cover. Some even brake coming out of the box, but that's the only issue besides one issue with a cut in the rubber armoring of which the customer said it occurred spontaneously. A matter solved by Swaro's CS by replacing the armor for free.

Having said all this, your experience is reality and happened to you.

Jan
 

ticl2184

Well-known member
Hi Tim,

Yes, it is me, the Jan:)

I was just wondering why you felt the need to share "confidential received" info brought to you under that condition from a retailer on a Forum. You had already made your points extensively clear regarding your experiences with Swarovski's Customer Support and the quality of Swarovski optics.
That's all.

To answer your questions;
FWIW, I've never ever had the experience that a brand told me not to sell and to be honest I find it hard to believe it happened.
My experience with Swaro's CS is in complete contradiction with your experiences. Further more, I've sold multiple items more than your 15 investigated NLPures and the one and only massif complain is its terrible objective cover. Some even brake coming out of the box, but that's the only issue besides one issue with a cut in the rubber armoring of which the customer said it occurred spontaneously. A matter solved by Swaro's CS by replacing the armor for free.

Having said all this, your experience is reality and happened to you.

Jan
Thanks Jan...

Yes ..

It is my experience along with many other individuals.

I'm just saddened how Swarovski have dealt with this...
Going behind my back and telling the retailer NOT to sell any other products to me is pretty low, especially when they recognised the fault and told me they were happy to go ahead with a quality inspection.. I imagine Swarovski know the individual concerned but will do nothing about it.

As far as I'm concerned the matter is now dropped. I've voiced my opinion and wish no harm to Swarovski Optik.
I just hope in future they actually listen to the customers there supplying to and not go behind their backs with childish behaviour..

I imagine we now live in a different world whereby the customer is NOW apparently always wrong...

Best regards..

Tim
 

Binofriend

Member
Supporter
Germany
I had a similar issue with my 10x42 NL Pures. Condensation build-up on the lenses. I didn't have any other binoculars to compare the NL's to at the time, but I figured something wasn't quite right.

Does Swarovski use 'Swaroclean' (or whatever the Lotu-tec equivalent is called) on the new NL Pure?
Hello NZbinodude and all interested parties

I know from reliable sources that the "SwaroClean coating" still used on EL's has been discontinued on NL's for environmental reasons. It is about avoiding the non-degradable heavy metal lead (in connection with SwaroClean!!), which remains in the liver at the end of the food chain in humans.

I do not know if Swarovski has found an adequate and unproblematic substitute for the SwaroClean coating in the NL.
the SwaroClean coating.

After searching forums, it seems to me that the issue with eyepiece lenses fogging up quickly is not an exotic occurrence with the NL.

Now I also found posts where users of these binoculars describe that they did not notice eyepiece fogging in either cold or hot weather. A professional weather expert
confirmed to me that there are always zones in the world where the humidity is so low that even at low temperatures rapid condensation on the eyepieces can hardly occur.

I do not live in such a favorable place. Therefore I simply thought: Then the NL is probably only a binocular suitable for summer in my environment. But I was wrong. About a week ago, I was on an observation tour on a rather warm summer day. The highest temperature was 27°C. Around 21:30 (CEST) the temperature dropped to 16°C and both eyepieces fogged up after about 45 sec. of continuous observation.

No miracle with such a rapid temperature decrease, one could say. No!: There are moisture repellent coatings according to the principle of the lotus flower especially for such situations. Why does my EL 10x50 stay fog-free in such a situation?!!! And that for a decade and just as with my other binoculars. (e.g. ZeissVictory SF 8x42 , Leica 10x50 Ultravid HD....I have repeatedly conducted tests using both Swarovski NL 8x42 and EL 10x50 binoculars under the same conditions, with the result that the NL was the only one to fog up.

Still, I like the NL 8x42 a lot. It provides an exceptionally sharp and bright highly aesthetic image. And there is one helpful measure: you have to keep the eyepieces cold. Because only when the body's own heat radiation hits the lenses of the NL, condensation occurs. 1st: Turn the eyepiece sleeves to the third click. 2nd: Place sleeves only at the top of the eyebrows, so that cool air can enter the sleeve chamber well from below.

One last thing: A pair of binoculars costing 2850 Euros should probably be very good in all respects and equally unproblematic. But failure is human and fortunately can often be fixed. If Swarovski were to issue a recall, and optimize the coating on the eyepieces, we are all called upon to honor that behavior and not think, never mind, we'll never buy anything from them again.

Binofriend


 
Last edited by a moderator:

tenex

reality-based
The only other 'nit' I can pick at is the slower focuser. I don't know why they thought that was necessary.
I wonder about that also. Does this mean that Swaro has targeted the NL at hunters and/or general "nature observers" more than birders, while the EL is (still) seen as the true birding glass? I have increasing difficulty guessing the rationale behind Swaro's fluctuating product lines...
 

NZbinodude

Well-known member
Ich weiß aus sicheren Quellen, dass die bei den EL's noch eingesetzte "SwaroClean-Beschichtung" bei den NL aus Gründen des Umweltschutzes nicht mehr angewendet wurde. Es geht um die Vermeidung des nicht abbaubaren Schwermetalles Blei (im Zusammenhang mit SwaroClean!!), welches am Ende der Nahrungskette beim Menschen in der Leber verbleibt.





Mir ist nicht bekannt, ob Swarovski bei den NL einen adäquaten und unproblematischen Ersatz für


die SwaroClean-Beschichtung eingesetzt hat.





Nachdem ich Foren durchsucht habe, scheint es mir so, dass die Problematik mit dem schnellen Beschlagen der Okularlinsen bei den NL kein exotisches Vorkommnis ist.





Nun fand ich auch Einträge, wo Nutzer dieses Fernglases beschreiben, dass sie weder bei kalter noch heißer Witterung ein Beschlagen der Okulare feststellten. Ein professioneller Wetterexperte


bestätigte mir aber, dass es global immer wieder Zonen gibt, in denen die Luftfeuchtigkeit so gering ist, dass auch bei tiefen Temperaturen ein schnelles Kondensieren auf den Okularen kaum aufzutreten vermag.





Ich wohne nicht an einem solchen günstigen Ort. Darum dachte ich einfach: Dann ist das NL wohl in meiner Umgebung nur ein sommertaugliches Fernglas. Doch ich täuschte mich. Vor einer Woche etwa, war ich an einem ziemlich warmen Sommertag auf Beobachtungstour. Die höchste Temperatur war 27°C. Gegen 21:30 Uhr (MESZ) viel die Temperatur auf 16°C und beide Okulare beschlugen nach etwa 45 Sek. Dauerbeobachtung.





Kein Wunder bei so einer raschen Temperaturabnahme, könnte man sagen. Nein!: Es gibt doch extra für solche Situationen eben die feuchtigkeitsabweisenden Beschichtungen nach dem Prinzip der Lotusblume. Warum bleibt den mein EL 10x50 beschlagsfrei in solch einer Situation?!! Und das seit einem Jahrzehnt und genauso bei meinen anderen Ferngläsern. (z.B. ZeissVictory SF 8x42 , Leica 10x50 Ultravid HD....Ich habe immer wieder Tests durchgeführt, bei denen ich die beiden Swarovski-Gläser NL 8x42 und EL 10x50 unter denselben Bedingungen einsetzte, mit dem Ergebnis, dass das NL als einziges beschlug.





Trotzdem, ich mag das NL 8x42 sehr. Es ermöglicht eine außerordentlich scharfe und helle hochästhetische Abbildung. Und es gibt eine hilfreiche Maßnahme: Man muss die Okulare kalt halten. Denn nur wenn die körpereigene Wärmestrahlung auf die Linsen des NL auftrifft, kommt es zur Kondensation. 1.: Okularhülsen auf die dritte Einrastung drehen. 2.: Hülsen nur oben bei den Augenbrauen ansetzen, sodass von unten die kühle Luft in den Hülsenraum gut eindringen kann.





Ein Letztes: Ein Fernglas, welches 2850 Euro kostet, sollte wohl in jeglicher Hinsicht sehr gut sein und ebenso unproblematisch. Aber Versagen ist menschlich und kann zum Glück oft in Ordnung gebracht werden. Wenn Swarovski eine Rückrufaktion starten würde, und die Beschichtung der Okulare optimierte, sind wir alle aufgefordet, dieses Verhalten zu ehren und nicht zu denken, egal, bei denen kaufen wir niemals mehr etwas.





Binofriend








P.S: Ich bitte um Verbreitung meines Statements

Hello NZbinodude and all interested parties

I know from reliable sources that the "SwaroClean coating" still used on EL's has been discontinued on NL's for environmental reasons. It is about avoiding the non-degradable heavy metal lead (in connection with SwaroClean!!), which remains in the liver at the end of the food chain in humans.

I do not know if Swarovski has found an adequate and unproblematic substitute for the SwaroClean coating in the NL.
the SwaroClean coating.

After searching forums, it seems to me that the issue with eyepiece lenses fogging up quickly is not an exotic occurrence with the NL.

Now I also found posts where users of these binoculars describe that they did not notice eyepiece fogging in either cold or hot weather. A professional weather expert
confirmed to me that there are always zones in the world where the humidity is so low that even at low temperatures rapid condensation on the eyepieces can hardly occur.

I do not live in such a favorable place. Therefore I simply thought: Then the NL is probably only a binocular suitable for summer in my environment. But I was wrong. About a week ago, I was on an observation tour on a rather warm summer day. The highest temperature was 27°C. Around 21:30 (CEST) the temperature dropped to 16°C and both eyepieces fogged up after about 45 sec. of continuous observation.

No miracle with such a rapid temperature decrease, one could say. No!: There are moisture repellent coatings according to the principle of the lotus flower especially for such situations. Why does my EL 10x50 stay fog-free in such a situation?!!! And that for a decade and just as with my other binoculars. (e.g. ZeissVictory SF 8x42 , Leica 10x50 Ultravid HD....I have repeatedly conducted tests using both Swarovski NL 8x42 and EL 10x50 binoculars under the same conditions, with the result that the NL was the only one to fog up.

Still, I like the NL 8x42 a lot. It provides an exceptionally sharp and bright highly aesthetic image. And there is one helpful measure: you have to keep the eyepieces cold. Because only when the body's own heat radiation hits the lenses of the NL, condensation occurs. 1st: Turn the eyepiece sleeves to the third click. 2nd: Place sleeves only at the top of the eyebrows, so that cool air can enter the sleeve chamber well from below.

One last thing: A pair of binoculars costing 2850 Euros should probably be very good in all respects and equally unproblematic. But failure is human and fortunately can often be fixed. If Swarovski were to issue a recall, and optimize the coating on the eyepieces, we are all called upon to honor that behavior and not think, never mind, we'll never buy anything from them again.

Binofriend


P.S: I ask to spread my statement







Hello, NZbinodude and all interested parties,

I know from reliable sources that the "SwaroClean coating" still used on EL's has been discontinued on NL's for environmental reasons. It is about avoiding the non-degradable heavy metal lead (in connection with SwaroClean!!), which remains in the liver at the end of the food chain in humans.

I do not know if Swarovski has found an adequate and unproblematic substitute for the SwaroClean coating in the NL.
the SwaroClean coating.

After searching forums, it seems to me that the issue with eyepiece lenses fogging up quickly is not an exotic occurrence with the NL.

Now I also found posts where users of these binoculars describe that they did not notice eyepiece fogging in either cold or hot weather. A professional weather expert
confirmed to me that there are always zones in the world where the humidity is so low that even at low temperatures rapid condensation on the eyepieces can hardly occur.

I do not live in such a favorable place. Therefore I simply thought: Then the NL is probably only a binocular suitable for summer in my environment. But I was wrong. About a week ago, I was on an observation tour on a rather warm summer day. The highest temperature was 27°C. Around 21:30 (CEST) the temperature dropped to 16°C and both eyepieces fogged up after about 45 sec. of continuous observation.

No miracle with such a rapid temperature decrease, one could say. No!: There are moisture repellent coatings according to the principle of the lotus flower especially for such situations. Why does my EL 10x50 stay fog-free in such a situation?!!! And that for a decade and just as with my other binoculars. (e.g. ZeissVictory SF 8x42 , Leica 10x50 Ultravid HD....I have repeatedly conducted tests using both Swarovski NL 8x42 and EL 10x50 binoculars under the same conditions, with the result that the NL was the only one to fog up.

Still, I like the NL 8x42 a lot. It provides an exceptionally sharp and bright highly aesthetic image. And there is one helpful measure: you have to keep the eyepieces cold. Because only when the body's own heat radiation hits the lenses of the NL, condensation occurs. 1st: Turn the eyepiece sleeves to the third click. 2nd: Place sleeves only at the top of the eyebrows, so that cool air can enter the sleeve chamber well from below.

One last thing: A pair of binoculars costing 2850 Euros should probably be very good in all respects and equally unproblematic. But failure is human and fortunately can often be fixed. If Swarovski were to issue a recall, and optimize the coating on the eyepieces, we are all called upon to honor that behavior and not think, never mind, we'll never buy anything from them again.

Binofriend


P.S: I ask to spread my statement

Very interesting - thanks for the info.
 

tenex

reality-based
This is really very strange. Presumably future Swaro models will have this problem as well, perhaps even new production of existing models, if they've changed the Swaroclean formula. What are the full ecological consequences of manufacturing binoculars that have to be repaired or replaced when their "eco-friendly" coatings and armor fail in use?
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Clearly this a concern for workers, not us, (unless we lick lens, for some reason...). Cant blame them. Hopefully they'll find a replacement soon.
 

tenex

reality-based
Actually the main concern must involve waste products, otherwise they would be using worker-safety language instead of Umweltfreundlichkeit... presumably for eco-glass as well.
 

Binofriend

Member
Supporter
Germany
This is really very strange. Presumably future Swaro models will have this problem as well, perhaps even new production of existing models, if they've changed the Swaroclean formula. What are the full ecological consequences of manufacturing binoculars that have to be repaired or replaced when their "eco-friendly" coatings and armor fail in use?
Leica and Zeiss are currently able to apply functional moisture repellent coatings and are also under the claim to avoid environmentally harmful materials.

binofriend
 

NDhunter

Experienced observer
United States
Tim:
I have watched your posts and with my experience I think you are quite a complainer, bitcher, etc.

I suppose you should just shutup, you mention you have tested 15 of the NL binoculars. Not sure why, are you just
looking for your next complaint ?

If I was any seller or company I would tell you to get lost, your complaints lead me to believe you have some other motives.....
Or just a dupe with not much knowledge of binoculars.........

Jerry
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
I think the problem is that most posts in this forum are fairly well thought out, more or less pertinent, and are intended to help someone.

Tim's don't seem to meet any of those criteria.
 
Hello NZbinodude and all interested parties

I know from reliable sources that the "SwaroClean coating" still used on EL's has been discontinued on NL's for environmental reasons. It is about avoiding the non-degradable heavy metal lead (in connection with SwaroClean!!), which remains in the liver at the end of the food chain in humans.

I do not know if Swarovski has found an adequate and unproblematic substitute for the SwaroClean coating in the NL.
the SwaroClean coating.

After searching forums, it seems to me that the issue with eyepiece lenses fogging up quickly is not an exotic occurrence with the NL.

Now I also found posts where users of these binoculars describe that they did not notice eyepiece fogging in either cold or hot weather. A professional weather expert
confirmed to me that there are always zones in the world where the humidity is so low that even at low temperatures rapid condensation on the eyepieces can hardly occur.

I do not live in such a favorable place. Therefore I simply thought: Then the NL is probably only a binocular suitable for summer in my environment. But I was wrong. About a week ago, I was on an observation tour on a rather warm summer day. The highest temperature was 27°C. Around 21:30 (CEST) the temperature dropped to 16°C and both eyepieces fogged up after about 45 sec. of continuous observation.

No miracle with such a rapid temperature decrease, one could say. No!: There are moisture repellent coatings according to the principle of the lotus flower especially for such situations. Why does my EL 10x50 stay fog-free in such a situation?!!! And that for a decade and just as with my other binoculars. (e.g. ZeissVictory SF 8x42 , Leica 10x50 Ultravid HD....I have repeatedly conducted tests using both Swarovski NL 8x42 and EL 10x50 binoculars under the same conditions, with the result that the NL was the only one to fog up.

Still, I like the NL 8x42 a lot. It provides an exceptionally sharp and bright highly aesthetic image. And there is one helpful measure: you have to keep the eyepieces cold. Because only when the body's own heat radiation hits the lenses of the NL, condensation occurs. 1st: Turn the eyepiece sleeves to the third click. 2nd: Place sleeves only at the top of the eyebrows, so that cool air can enter the sleeve chamber well from below.

One last thing: A pair of binoculars costing 2850 Euros should probably be very good in all respects and equally unproblematic. But failure is human and fortunately can often be fixed. If Swarovski were to issue a recall, and optimize the coating on the eyepieces, we are all called upon to honor that behavior and not think, never mind, we'll never buy anything from them again.

Binofriend
Fascinated by the condensation “issue” and possible explanations I approached Swarovski directly and asked the question about SwaroClean and possible changes in condensation properties..
The answer was:
-quote - Swarovski gives top priority to sustainable products and reduction of environmental impact during their manufacture. Therefore the SWAROCLEAN coating is no longer applied to all SWAROVSKI OPTIK products. With this step all coatings become PFC-free. This change does not affect the optical quality of the product or its service life. The NL PURE series has been without SWAROCLEEAN since the beginning of production. For the EL binoculars, the coating was changed over in the course of 2020. – unquote-.

Condensation is obviously not an "optical property", hence I zoomed into the condensation properties in a follow-up question and directly asked to comment on effects from the change on possible condensation .

The answer was
-quote- According to our research and development department, it is assured that there are no optical disadvantages in quality or life time of lenses through this devoid of PFC. There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking. -unquote-

Anyone can draw their own conclusions from the answers of Swarovski.
PFC are fluorocarbons. This type of chemistry is in industry known amongst others for potentially creating hydrophobic (water repellant) properties to surfaces. The interesting point of Swarovski’s answer: “There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking” to me is the last part: “with proper use and stocking”…..
Does “proper use” mean “use under conditions when there is no condensation”?

Although I explicitly asked about Lead, there was no comment on that.

We “birders” are all nature lovers that should be concerned about environmental issues that threat our beautiful planet.
Personally I’m more than happy “to possibly pay a small price of some condensation in certain situations” to gain in the environmental area.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Fascinated by the condensation “issue” and possible explanations I approached Swarovski directly and asked the question about SwaroClean and possible changes in condensation properties..
The answer was:
-quote - Swarovski gives top priority to sustainable products and reduction of environmental impact during their manufacture. Therefore the SWAROCLEAN coating is no longer applied to all SWAROVSKI OPTIK products. With this step all coatings become PFC-free. This change does not affect the optical quality of the product or its service life. The NL PURE series has been without SWAROCLEEAN since the beginning of production. For the EL binoculars, the coating was changed over in the course of 2020. – unquote-.

Condensation is obviously not an "optical property", hence I zoomed into the condensation properties in a follow-up question and directly asked to comment on effects from the change on possible condensation .

The answer was
-quote- According to our research and development department, it is assured that there are no optical disadvantages in quality or life time of lenses through this devoid of PFC. There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking. -unquote-

Anyone can draw their own conclusions from the answers of Swarovski.
PFC are fluorocarbons. This type of chemistry is in industry known amongst others for potentially creating hydrophobic (water repellant) properties to surfaces. The interesting point of Swarovski’s answer: “There are no consequences of more condensation with proper use and stocking” to me is the last part: “with proper use and stocking”…..
Does “proper use” mean “use under conditions when there is no condensation”?

Although I explicitly asked about Lead, there was no comment on that.

We “birders” are all nature lovers that should be concerned about environmental issues that threat our beautiful planet.
Personally I’m more than happy “to possibly pay a small price of some condensation in certain situations” to gain in the environmental area.
They keep sticking that strawman of "no effect onoptical properties" right out there, don't they, and they really don't answer the question.

They respond to it, but they don't answer it, without a lot of weasel words.

Dose anyone know if Zeiss has discontinued its hydrophobic coatings?
 
I was positively surprised by Swaroski explicitely acknowledging the coatings have been removed for all products for PFC reasons anyway and they indeed deserve credit for that. “Corporate writing” is an art, and that asks for corporate readers. In this case it is pretty easy to “corporate read in between the lines” of these answers….

I expected an answer like “our coatings are key to the optical quality of our products and hence continuously under development to improve these. For reasons of intellectual property we cannot further comment on details of these improvements…. “. Would also have been corporate writing wouldn’t it?

In a way “not answering a question” is also an answer…..

I’m pretty convinced that Swarovski has a solid understanding about the effects of SwaroClean on condensation. Isn’t the coating designed for amongst others that property? Fluocarbon coating are in general water-hating. What else do you want if you want to achieve less condensation?
 

rpg51

Well-known member
Supporter
I think hydrophobic coating might cause the typical fog of condensation collect into beads and roll to the edge of the glass?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top