Swaroclean, NOT the same... (1 Viewer)

[Mac308]

as the Leica or Zeiss coating?

My rep tells me that Swaroclean is not in the same league as the Zeiss Lutotec coating or Leica's hydrophobic coating. His information is that Swaroclean is a "treatment" Swarovski applies that will diminish within a year's use...


Yes? No?

 

[ingle1970]

i would think it unlikely , but you bring up a good point .
Do these types of coating degrade somewhat over time ?...

 

[Mac308]

If you notice, Swarovski hardly mentions the Swaroclean in any way... Leica and Zeiss both use their Hydrophobic coatings as a major marketing instrument. I've used both from Zeiss and Leica and they work. I haven't had a Swarovski binocular since 2004 so can't say, but it seems to me if Swaroclean were on par with what Leica and Zeiss offer, Swarovski would shout it from the rooftops...

 

[NDhunter]

I wonder how good some of these coatings are, there was a post of someone who thought the Lototec was delicate and easily scratched. Also, do they take away from
the optical clarity? Can anyone comment on that?
I would certainly trust the Alpha coatings over the newbie Chinese bins, what if they
start to peel and degrade after a period of years. I guess, tough luck!
It makes you think, doesn't it.

 

[ronh]

As house bino tech, I've cleaned my wife's EL probably a couple dozen times (alcohol and cotton balls) over two years, and it still works as well as ever, actually maybe a tad better than the Lotutec on my new Zeiss FL if anything. The FL has been made without and with the Lotutec type coating, but I've never seen mention of a difference in the view.

There have been, to my knowledge, two reports here on BF of scratches on Lotutec when cleaned with a microfiber cloth. Sure it could have had a piece of sand in it, but that's still kind of funny. I wish makers would rate coating toughness. My old Leica BA, now you can poke that one with a stick, but I'm being careful with these beauties.
Ron

 

[blizdas]

If you notice, Swarovski hardly mentions the Swaroclean in any way... Leica and Zeiss both use their Hydrophobic coatings as a major marketing instrument. I've used both from Zeiss and Leica and they work. I haven't had a Swarovski binocular since 2004 so can't say, but it seems to me if Swaroclean were on par with what Leica and Zeiss offer, Swarovski would shout it from the rooftops...

As I understand it, Bushnell was the first to patent and market this technology with their Rainguard coatings. For some reason, other manufacturers are able to use similar, maybe even identical coatings to achieve essentially the same effect, but are limited with how they can market them due to copyright issues. I wouldn't be surprised if Leica and Zeiss are able to aggressively market these coatings becuase of some sort of royalty agreement with Bushnell. The point being, I wouldn't judge the effectiveness of these coatings based on the degree in which a manufacturer is touting it. From my experience, all of these coatings appear to be equally effective/durable.

Ben

Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com

 

[Mac308]

You're absolutely correct about Bushnell's "Rainguard" and patent. I just suppose I would like something more definitive directly from Swarovski.

Thanks for your input however!

 

[blizdas]

You're absolutely correct about Bushnell's "Rainguard" and patent. I just suppose I would like something more definitive directly from Swarovski.

Thanks for your input however!

I hear what your saying. If Swarovski were to put out a more "official" or difinitive statement, I'm pretty certain that would require $$ going to the original patent holders on the technology, in this case Bushnell. I have a feeling Swaro has decided to hang on to their money and will continue to refrain from making a big deal about this coating.

Ben

 

[ThoLa]

As I understand it, Bushnell was the first to patent and market this technology with their Rainguard coatings. For some reason, other manufacturers are able to use similar, maybe even identical coatings to achieve essentially the same effect, ....

Ben

Ben Lizdas
Sales Manager
Eagle Optics
www.eagleoptics.com

the patent is held by the plant scientists who discovered the effect and elucidated its structural basis:

http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/16392

http://robinson-solutions.blogspot.com/2008/07/lotus-effect-hydrophobic-coatings.html

 

[Mac308]

According to you, they're NOT hydrophobic coatings... yet the second article you site, CLEARLY calls them "hydrophobic coatings."

Too funny...

 

[karpman]

The first article refers to them as that too in some way shape or form?
Interesting read for my little brain, These coatings basicly repel rain? And are in built to the optics not having to be re applied?

Sorry for the million questions im in the market for some bino's is all and trying to reasearch a little

cheers

Karpman

 

[Mac308]

Karpman, my understanding is they "displace" moisture. I have a Zeiss with the Lutotec coating and they do indeed work. I've also the Leica HD with a similar coating and water "practically vanishes" from the lens surface (in reality it goes to the outside of the glass where it pools and or runs off)... works great though!

 

[ThoLa]

According to you, they're NOT hydrophobic coatings... yet the second article you site, CLEARLY calls them "hydrophobic coatings."

Too funny...

According to me, Dr. Einstein, "hydrophobic" is not a good term. This statement is still accurate.

The "article" you are referring to is a blog site of a window-cleaner. A window cleaner! How many window cleaners with a PhD in physics or chemistry have you met?

So when a window cleaner puts a string of un-edited, un-proof-read, un-peer-reviewed words on the WebWebWeb you think it must be scientifically sound, immaculate eternal wisdom? 33

 

[dalat]

So when a window cleaner puts a string of un-edited, un-proof-read, un-peer-reviewed words on the WebWebWeb you think it must be scientifically sound, immaculate eternal wisdom? 33

No, but if it's cited by you, it must be at least eternal wisdom

I find that hydrophobic coating at my Ultravid most usefull when cleaning the bin. For a fingerprint, usually going over one time with a cloth is enough, while at a normal lense, this takes considerable rubbing. So I think this coating helps a lot to avoid scratches from cleaning.

In rain I do not see so much differences, yes, drops run off the lense a little easier, but in rain I still get bothering drops on my lens...

Florian

 

[Mac308]

According to me, Dr. Einstein, "hydrophobic" is not a good term. This statement is still accurate.

The "article" you are referring to is a blog site of a window-cleaner. A window cleaner! How many window cleaners with a PhD in physics or chemistry have you met?

So when a window cleaner puts a string of un-edited, un-proof-read, un-peer-reviewed words on the WebWebWeb you think it must be scientifically sound, immaculate eternal wisdom? 33

No, what's most funny is being lectured on the WWW by an arrogant person picking on nuances of language that still communicated well... THAT is funny.

There's nothing worse on the net than a Language Policeman...