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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="perseid28" data-source="post: 3257947" data-attributes="member: 104041">If it really turns out that Lotutec wasn't applied to a surface (this was just a possible explanation I happened to have), that could count as a QC glitch. But I'm not so sure about the 'dust in the binoculars' complaints. I bought a Leica Monovid last year that had quite a few dust particles in the objective side of the monocular; these were only visible when shining a bright light down the front of the barrel and I'm sure they would not affect the view. Was it poor QC, or did the Leica techs know that that tiny amount of contamination would not cause optical issues, and thus choose to leave it alone?In my Zeiss Conquest HD, the left barrel also had a certain amount of tiny particles (probably on the focusing lens that is just behind the objective), and I was certain it would not affect the view. In contrast, the Bushnell 7x26 Customs that I bought seemed to be completely free of any particulates. Does this mean that Bushnell has better QC than Zeiss or Leica? I don't think so. I'm sure all these companies take measures to keep their assembly rooms as dust-free as possible, but when some dust happens to slip in, there's no point in taking extra time to remove it if the amount is negligible.My Celestron NexStar 5 telescope from 2001 had particulates on the secondary mirror, and this never seemed to affect the view. My TeleVue 60 telescope also had dust on the rear surface of the objective lens. I think the moral of the story is: don't shine lights down the front of the barrels! If it doesn't affect the view from the eyepiece it isn't worth worrying about.</blockquote>

Verification