Swarowski NL pure 10x32 problem? (1 Viewer)

[Morsch]

HI

I think there is defects in coating or glass, on my NL PURE 10x32 (see attached video)

There is a difference in how the right and left sides respectively reflect the light, is there something wrong with the coating? Is the coating missing on one side?

I have done the same test with my 2 other Swarovski binoculars (SLC 7x42, CL Pocket 8x25) and there is not the same difference.

I got an answer from swarowski that I don't quite understand? maybe someone here can help with a "translation"?


Thank you for your message.

The coatings on your binoculars are absolutely OK.


Different colour of the coatings does not indicate the type of glass used or the quality of the coating.

The different residual reflection colours result from the production tolerances.

The better the final reflection, the more these tolerances influence the residual reflection colours.


We can therefore assure you that everything is in order with your binoculars.

Best regards


Is it okay or is it a fail??

All The Best
Morten

 

[dorubird]

Such differences are quite common and do not imply any problems! It seems that the lenses are part of different batches but they do not have different optical properties because the differences are very subtle. Use it with pleasure!

 

[Maljunulo]

You are supposed to look through them, not at them.

(but I repeat myself)

 

[Foss]

@ Morten,
I think Swarovski properly answered your question, but it never hurts to run it past the esteemed BF braintrust. Enjoy!

 

[tenex]

Such differences are quite common and do not imply any problems! It seems that the lenses are part of different batches but they do not have different optical properties because the differences are very subtle.

Exactly, with the understanding that "quite" means only "somewhat" common. I've never encountered a bin like this myself, but others here see far more than I do. Morsch, do you notice any difference in color cast between the two barrels in use? (Rotate them, because your eyes may vary too.)

"The better the final reflection, the more these tolerances influence the residual reflection colours."

To me, this is the puzzling sentence here. Was English the original language?

 

[Morsch]

Thank you for your replys.

I can understand that it is not completely abnormal to have different colored coatings on the lenses, but I have a hard time understanding it has no meaning?

I might have expected a quality product like Swarovski, to have a more consistent production.

I fully agree that I have to look in the binoculars and not at it 😊 I am satisfied with looking in it as such 😊 but it annoys me that my binoculars may not perform optimally, but It is difficult to assess when you cannot compare with another model 1:1.

If I compare the 2 tubes, it immediately seems as if one tube (the one that is not violet) is more "bright" and has better contrast than the other, but it is difficult to assess.

I have had and have quite a few binoculars, both Swarovski and other cheaper brands and I have never seen this before, so is it an expression of poor quality/quality control?

Has anyone else observed the same phenomenon?

Regarding the language @tenex, that was the answer I got from Austria, where they speak German after all 😊

 

[Conndomat]

I have had and have quite a few binoculars, both Swarovski and other cheaper brands and I have never seen this before, so is it an expression of poor quality/quality control?

Has anyone else observed the same phenomenon?

Hi,

you worry too much, slightly different compensation colors are not that rare!

https://www.osj-forum.de/file.php?9,file=4371,filename=17.12.2020_080.JPG

https://www.osj-forum.de/file.php?9,file=4376,filename=sw.jpg

I have a Swarovski SLC 15x56 and a Leica Noctivid 8x42 where this is clear, but it does not represent an optical impairment.
If you examine the lenses of different binoculars very closely under certain lighting conditions, you will notice that even coatings that look the same are often slightly different.

Normally the technicians are encouraged to use lenses that are as identical as possible, but sometimes that doesn't work, it's not a problem, use the binoculars and don't think about it.

Andreas

 

[Birdister]

The other thing to bear in mind is that if the lenses are replaced, there is the possibility of causing further damage (e.g. getting dust inside the binoculars, minor scratching during cleaning). If you cannot perceive any difference when looking through the binoculars I would just leave them as is.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Morsch, post 6,
The anti-reflex coatings on the lenses are very very thin and are only meant to remove unwanted reflections (and they are not color filters) . Reflection colors in such layers can sometimes vary and that does not affect the image in any way. If you do not believe me: buy a good physics textbook and start studying.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Perhaps this example may help for a better understanding of lesn coatings: have you ever blown soap bubbles: They show sometimes a complete color spectrum due to light reflections, but they do not work as a color filters. And lens coatings are alsovery very thin comparable with the thickness of soapbubbles. If you dismantle a binocular and remove the objective and look through it you will not see a colored image, but a crystal clear image as if you are looking through a glass window.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[agus_m]

buy a good physics textbook and start studying

Physics books tell us that the amount of incident light is equal to the transmitted + reflected light (assuming 100% transparency of glass). If a white source reflects more of a certain wavelenght, it means that that wavelength is slightly less transmitted. Maybe you are implying that such effect would not be perceptible by the human eye?

 

[OrangeO]

If I compare the 2 tubes, it immediately seems as if one tube (the one that is not violet) is more "bright" and has better contrast than the other, but it is difficult to assess.

I have had and have quite a few binoculars, both Swarovski and other cheaper brands and I have never seen this before, so is it an expression of poor quality/quality control?

I don't think it makes a functional difference BUT if this will affect your enjoyment of the binoculars and you have the ability to return or exchange them that wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to do. Reminds me of a watch I got that for the price I was disappointed that it had a dust spec inside. I considered returning it or getting it cleaned but as time wore on it didn't seem significant. The binoculars I just bought also have a dust spec inside.

I call it "Dust I.D." (trademark!), if I need to identify which one is mine I can just look for the spec of dust. There are other defects that I just can't get over.

Know yourself, if it's something you can get over keep them, but if you'll have a constant nagging feeling and dissatisfaction, it might be worth it to return them if possible.

 

[Maljunulo]

If it doesn’t affect the image, it is irrelevant, isn’t it?

Look through the small end, rather than looking at the big end.

If you can’t see a difference between the two tubes, then forget it, and enjoy the image.

 

[mwhogue]

You are supposed to look through them, not at them.

(but I repeat myself)

"It's deja vu, all over again!"

Mike

 

[Maljunulo]

"It's deja vu, all over again!"

Mike

 

[tenex]

If you examine the lenses of different binoculars very closely under certain lighting conditions, you will notice that even coatings that look the same are often slightly different.

I suspect you're right about this, and if I took a very close look I might find such a slight difference in one of our bins after all. I don't plan to.