Zeiss SFL 8x40 Rubber Coating becomes Bubbled (1 Viewer)

[Patudo]

My instruction is that if they are going to be replaced that some one tests out the replacement that it should be equal too or better than the one being replaced. I usually have three criteria I ask to be checked.

... and do you think they actually do this? ...

 

[Paultricounty]

I think this is a problem of the material themselve, because I can see this on the eyecups that on the points where there is contact with the skin, the material blows up. The eyecups are not the problem, because I can change them easy and for free, but the rubber coating on the Bino is a problem. And when this is a problem with the material and not the glue, than the question is. Sent in, become a new one, ant what’s with this in one year or so. Comes the problem back? Because of this thing for me it is interesting iam the only one with this problem, or there are other Binos out where the coating fails?!? The SFL is a young Bino, and most people who have it purchased hav not so much use on them I think. Iam be interested what we will see in the future.

No, there are no other binoculars that have problems with the armor cracking, lifting, or bubbling, only Zeiss 😳😜🤪😲. Oh , don’t look at any posts about Swarovski, nothing to see there, just move along. 😵‍💫.

To be serious, your Zeiss are expensive, you pay hard earned money to buy quality, you should send them in and let Zeiss take care of it. I think after the slight hassle you will be satisfied. Zeiss never let me down, nor have any of the other manufactures (except Opticron) let me down.

Good luck

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

... and do you think they actually do this? ...

Zeiss did it once, the other time they said it was coming form another location so they couldn’t. They did say , if not happy send them back and they’ll replace with another one.

Vortex did this for me twice, and I spoke with the person who hand picked the bino.

When having an Ultravid replaced (they didn’t have a simple spacer ring that had slightly discolored) the service department doesn’t have replacements , it comes from another location. As a courtesy they had that Binocular shipped to New Jersey service department instead of directly to me and had it checked out by the tech before shipping to me. They actually held on to the one I sent in. I will tell you that I rarely see deviation from unit to unit with Leica. Btw, they did A replacement as a courtesy and that was after checking out the binoculars I sent them , that were a year and a half old but there was nothing wrong with them and they met all specs. They informed me that the slight Discoloration or oxidation around the internal spacer has no effect and will not get worse. Yet they still replaced them to satisfy the customer. I’m very impressed with their customer service.

Kowa also sent me a replacement of a Genesis that the rep had in his hands as we spoke on the phone.

Swaro just sent a Habicht back to Austria to lighten up the focuser for me. They said if any issues and if had to replaced (very doubtful in this scenario ) they couldn’t hand pick replacement because these have to be ordered.

So it is done , but it may depend on where you live, where your sending them in and the whole Geographic thing.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

I meant - where replacements were made, do you think they "tested out the replacement that it should be equal too or better than the one being replaced"? And if so, how exacting do you think the staff member doing the checking is? If chromatic aberration is one of the three criteria you've set down in writing, how do you know the individual checking the replacement for you has the same sensitivity to CA as you? If resolution is one of the criteria, do you just go with his/her's call that the replacement has the same (or better) resolution than the original, or do you require results in arc minutes or a similar objective test? All of us would love for our replacement binoculars to be selected for sharpness by someone like Typo, but how many folks have that kind of perception? If, when it came back to you, you thought the replacement had more CA or was less sharp despite your instructions, how much of a stink do you raise?

Also, if you were the person at Zeiss/Vortex etc - how many replacement units would you test in order to find one "equal to or better than the one being replaced"? Two? Three? More?

 

[Paultricounty]

I meant - where replacements were made, do you think they "tested out the replacement that it should be equal too or better than the one being replaced"? And if so, how exacting do you think the staff member doing the checking is? If chromatic aberration is one of the three criteria you've set down in writing, how do you know the individual checking the replacement for you has the same sensitivity to CA as you? If resolution is one of the criteria, do you just go with his/her's call that the replacement has the same (or better) resolution than the original, or do you require results in arc minutes or a similar objective test? All of us would love for our replacement binoculars to be selected for sharpness by someone like Typo, but how many folks have that kind of perception? If, when it came back to you, you thought the replacement had more CA or was less sharp despite your instructions, how much of a stink do you raise?

Also, if you were the person at Zeiss/Vortex etc - how many replacement units would you test in order to find one "equal to or better than the one being replaced"? Two? Three? More?

All good questions Patubo. I really can’t answer all of them definitively because I don’t know. In the case of the Leica UV, they kept the one I sent in for side by side comparison to make sure the focuser and hinge were equal or better than the , lets call it the defect. It really was fine, everything on it was superb. I really wrestled with sending it in. So in that case is was easy to make sure the mechanics were good and the other criteria , collimation (thats easy) and just making sure it’s a nice clean unit. In this case the replacement was excellent. With Leica there really isn’t much variation , I give them credit.

In vortex example on one of the Vipers , three were taken out of the box and checked the focuser, hinge and overall function, then once chosen, I’d like to assume the collimation was checked, especially considering that was one of the complaints on the one being replaced. In that case the rep said, I got a cherry for you. That was nice, still have that one and it is a cherry. On the other unit it was the focuser and diopter issue, the replacement was excellent.

Zeiss was more complicated because one return came from another location. The other of the ones that they had on hand , I was told the one they had picked and checked met my criteria. On both of those returns I was satisfied with the replacements.

The Kowa rep, I’ve had history with , and he really knows his stuff, so I had the utmost confidence in his pick.

Only had one issue with having to put up a stink, that was with Nikon MHG, but as we know they don’t hand pick anything. In Nikons case the left hand doesn’t usually know what the right hand is doing.

I don’t think my method is full proof for sure, but I make sure I communicate my OCD condition throughout the process to who ever I’m talking to, emailing and with making reference to my hand written letter that accompanies the binoculars sent in. You know the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I could go on but I’ll spare you. I’ve been pretty lucky with this system of sincere, friendly communication. Sad though that QC is so sporadic on optics costing from $500 to $2500.

Imo of the six manufacturers of most consistent and least issues ,my experince goes something this.

Best to worst in order. Not necessarily talking about Customer Service, just unit to unit consistency.
Leica
Swarovski
Kowa (Genesis line only, can’t speak for the MIC).
Zeiss
Nikon
Vortex
Opticron

Paul

 

[Dennis Mau]

I think this is a problem of the material themselve, because I can see this on the eyecups that on the points where there is contact with the skin, the material blows up. The eyecups are not the problem, because I can change them easy and for free, but the rubber coating on the Bino is a problem. And when this is a problem with the material and not the glue, than the question is. Sent in, become a new one, ant what’s with this in one year or so. Comes the problem back? Because of this thing for me it is interesting iam the only one with this problem, or there are other Binos out where the coating fails?!? The SFL is a young Bino, and most people who have it purchased hav not so much use on them I think. Iam be interested what we will see in the future.

This sounds like a similar problem as with the Swarovski armour. The manufacturers are being forced to make the armour biodegradable and environmentally friendly, but the result is an armour that deteriorates in a short period of time. I wonder if the SF will have armour problems once people have had them for a while. This is a good reason to stay with the older binoculars. They never knew what biodegradable was!

 

[Paultricounty]

It's just the bino shaping to your hands much like those memory foam mattresses.

On a serious note: that is worrying, especially in view of Zeiss' evasive answer. Mine has not done that (yet) but I am now rather more leery of trading my Habicht 8x30 in for a SFL 8x30.

I Definitely wouldn’t do that unless you just want something new, the spice of life thing.
Not really sure what you’d be gaining other than something new.

The only gain that I see is a more enjoyable focuser.

Paul

 

[Dennis Mau]

It looks like the armour bubbled up from heat. I think heat and UV are what destroyed the Swarovski armour also, not DEET.

 

[Aquaplas]

It looks like the armour bubbled up from heat. I think heat and UV are what destroyed the Swarovski armour also, not DEET.

But this is not the thing. The maximum temperatures my SFL have done was 30 degrees here in Austria when I walked through woodlands. I never lay my Bino in a hot sunny place. I never let my Bino in the car. The only thing I can imagine is that the rubber reacts with Hand Sweat. The rubber blows only on the area where I lay my fingers on when I hold them.

 

[Paultricounty]

Its a defect, send it back. Ive been with people with SFL's and SF's laid in the sun on pick nick benches for over a half hour, used with sweaty hands and bug spray, no issues.

 

[Dennis Mau]

But this is not the thing. The maximum temperatures my SFL have done was 30 degrees here in Austria when I walked through woodlands. I never lay my Bino in a hot sunny place. I never let my Bino in the car. The only thing I can imagine is that the rubber reacts with Hand Sweat. The rubber blows only on the area where I lay my fingers on when I hold them.

So the armour actually swelled and blew out like a balloon? That is really strange!

 

[dries1]

It looks like the armour bubbled up from heat. I think heat and UV are what destroyed the Swarovski armour also, not DEET.

So how do you know that, it could be a combination of the two.

The SFL is new to the market place, it is likely a bad batch of armor formula.

 

[Dennis Mau]

So how do you know that, it could be a combination of the two.

The SFL is new to the market place, it is likely a bad batch of armor formula.

I agree, it could be a combination of the two. A lot of times things are more complicated than they seem. I think it could be from a change in armor formulation to comply with EPA regulations like Swarovski to make it more biodegradable or environmentally friendly.

 

[Aquaplas]

So the armour actually swelled and blew out like a balloon? That is really strange!

Yes, ist starts Months ago bevor the hot Summer comes in Austria. And now it comes more and more. My theory is, it come from Hand Sweat. The strange thing is, it is only on the inner Side of the tubes. Outside the rubber coating is still perfekt.

 

[chill6x6]

No disrespect to the OP as I hate this happened to his binocular. Always a PITA to have to send stuff back, etc.

BUT....are we just talking about ONE binocular here? The reason could be ANYTHING. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, ist starts Months ago bevor the hot Summer comes in Austria. And now it comes more and more. My theory is, it come from Hand Sweat. The strange thing is, it is only on the inner Side of the tubes. Outside the rubber coating is still perfekt.

Isn't the armour different on the outside, though? It looks tougher.

 

[Aquaplas]

Isn't the armour different on the outside, though? It looks tougher.

Yes it is. Is harder and Thicker. And has some fine Textur on it.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes it is. Is harder and Thicker. And has some fine Textur on it.

That is probably why it isn't blown out like the inner part. That is weird how that blew out.

 

[ragin-cajun]

One thing I did not like about the SFL was the armour felt rubbery cheap. One negative I have with all zeiss binoculars.

 

[Swissboy]

One thing I did not like about the SFL was the armour felt rubbery cheap. One negative I have with all zeiss binoculars.

I'd have no problems taking my SFL30 to a classic concert in major locations. Thus while there is a certain "rubbery" feeling, it provides security for not accidentally dropping them.