One Careful Owner ! (1 Viewer)

[Owlbarred]

As Jane Goodall's...View attachment 1501361

Trivia question: Name the brand of the binoculars she is holding.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

RichardD, post 2,
Your suggestion that the destruction of the cover might be caused by DEET or a compound comparable with DEET seems to me correct, I have seen terrible DEET victims in the past years. Fortunately Swarovski has a very able repair service. As a user you must be aware of the risk of this type of compounds.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[vergan]

Trivia question: Name the brand of the binoculars she is holding.

Old Zeiss (7x42)?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Owlbarred, post 21
Seems to me Hensoldt Dialyt 8x30 (1948-1955) or 8x32 (produced from 1955).
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Jos Stratford]

RichardD, post 2,
Your suggestion that the destruction of the cover might be caused by DEET or a compound comparable with DEET seems to me correct, I have seen terrible DEET victims in the past years. Fortunately Swarovski has a very able repair service. As a user you must be aware of the risk of this type of compounds.
Gijs van Ginkel

Still a major fault of Swarovski ...they have to understand their optics are used outside, frequently in places where they will be exposed to damp environments, hot environments, environments where users are likely to use insect repellents, etc, etc

Its like saying someone complaining that their umbrella is broken after using in the rain should be aware of the risk of using outside 🙂

 

[Richard D]

Still a major fault of Swarovski ...they have to understand their optics are used outside, frequently in places where they will be exposed to damp environments, hot environments, environments where users are likely to use insect repellents, etc, etc

Its like saying someone complaining that their umbrella is broken after using in the rain should be aware of the risk of using outside 🙂

Many insect repellents are fine, but DEET is a well known plastic solvent - I don't think you can blame camera or binocular makers for damage caused by people using plastic solvents on their products.

 

[wllmspd]

As long as they didn’t put plasticky fingers on the lens…

Peter

 

[Viraj]

Many insect repellents are fine, but DEET is a well known plastic solvent - I don't think you can blame camera or binocular makers for damage caused by people using plastic solvents on their products.

Then why this problem only occurs in Swarovski binoculars? It is still a drawback that should be addressed by Swarovski. This problem is not only happened by DEET use. Wet, humid, tropical environmental conditions can cause this degradation too. Of course, anyone can buy binoculars from other brands if they want to use them in harsh environments 😀 However, it is pity to get a superb optics package with delicate exterior. BTW it seems, not like many of us the owner of this binoculars really used them. Definitely he is not a collector 😀

 

[Richard D]

Then why this problem only occurs in Swarovski binoculars? It is still a drawback that should be addressed by Swarovski. This problem is not only happened by DEET use. Wet, humid, tropical environmental conditions can cause this degradation too. Of course, anyone can buy binoculars from other brands if they want to use them in harsh environments 😀 However, it is pity to get a superb optics package with delicate exterior. BTW it seems, not like many of us the owner of this binoculars really used them. Definitely he is not a collector 😀

It doesn't just occur with Swarovski, it's a problem with any make that uses plastic rather than rubber armour. Most photographers wouldn't touch DEET with a bargepole because of the way it damages kit. Water won't degrade plastic - I suspect again damage in tropical environments is likely down to an insect repellant containing DEET or similar compounds. The armour isn't particularly delicate if you don't use solvents, but Swarovski may well be looking at the formula, as obviously the rearmouring is a cost to them. I've no idea why the owner let them reach that point - Swarovski will rearmour them if they start showing damage.

 

[Viraj]

It doesn't just occur with Swarovski, it's a problem with any make that uses plastic rather than rubber armour. Most photographers wouldn't touch DEET with a bargepole because of the way it damages kit. Water won't degrade plastic - I suspect again damage in tropical environments is likely down to an insect repellant containing DEET or similar compounds. The armour isn't particularly delicate if you don't use solvents, but Swarovski may well be looking at the formula, as obviously the rearmouring is a cost to them. I've no idea why the owner let them reach that point - Swarovski will rearmour them if they start showing damage.

Swarovski clearly mentioned that they use eco friendly, biodegradable material. So, it is not only DEET but also the extreme conditions in tropics. I have not seen this kind of extensive reports of armor degradation for binoculars from any other brand.

Definitely, Swarovski will replace it free of charge. But sending the binoculars once a year or once two years for repair is not convenient for many people. Especially, someone having only one pair of binoculars may know the pain 😀

 

[brocknroller]

Owlbarred, post 21
Seems to me Hensoldt Dialyt 8x30 (1948-1955) or 8x32 (produced from 1955).
Gijs van Ginkel

Good eye! I would have also guessed 7x42 due to the length of the binoculars, which would have served her well in the jungle, but when I saw your post, I took another look and the objectives do look smaller. Unusually long FL for an 8x30 especially these days when the trend is "smaller is better." AK prisms?

 

[master5]

Jane Goodall

Hensoldt Dialyt 8x32

______

Jane Goodall

Swarovski EL 8.5x42 or 10x42 ( foto 2017)

 

[NDhunter]

Still a major fault of Swarovski ...they have to understand their optics are used outside, frequently in places where they will be exposed to damp environments, hot environments, environments where users are likely to use insect repellents, etc, etc

Its like saying someone complaining that their umbrella is broken after using in the rain should be aware of the risk of using outside 🙂

Agreed, this is not a Deet problem, it is a Swarovski problem. Very disappointing.
Jerry

 

[master5]

Jane Goodall

Hensoldt Dialyt 8x32

1948-1963 | Dialyt | 8 x 32 | FOV 150yd/1000yd = 8 deg.36'. 570 gm. Price $157.(1961) Sold after 1955

 

[wllmspd]

Doubt many end up like this though. I would guess most Swarovski are well taken care of, though I did witness the elastic properties of the armour recently in a hide… they bounced and seemed to function perfectly at her their minor ordeal.

Peter

 

[brocknroller]

1948-1963 | Dialyt | 8 x 32 | FOV 150yd/1000yd = 8 deg.36'. 570 gm. Price $157.(1961) Sold after 1955

Jane Goodall

Hensoldt Dialyt 8x32

______

Jane Goodall

Swarovski EL 8.5x42 or 10x42 ( foto 2017)

Apparently, she still prefers long binoculars.

 

[henry link]

...or not.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Viraj, post 28,
In my opinion you jump too fast to conclusions. I ave used many binoculars from different brands under all sorts of conditions also different Swarovskis: slc, EL's and not one of these binocuars suffered from damage to the armor. I was aware of the risks of DEET, so we took care when we had to use it. We never had any binocular in the past decades from whatever brand that suffered from armor problems but we always took care to clean them properly after use.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[dries1]

Those binoculars look abused, who knows what other chemicals the owner used when handling the glass. I also hear, I never use that stuff, then one sees them spraying the stuff over everything when being eaten alive by the tiger mosquitos.

 

[Scott98]

interesting pics of Jane Goodall - it looks like 2 of those pictures with the Dialyts are 15-20 years apart and they barely aged (the binos). Looks like the same pair.

Just think about the what the DEET does to your internal organs! I used that stuff all during childhood and regret it. I've got a couple effective herbal sprays now and bug-netting clothing for when it gets bad. Most spray-on repellants sweat off quickly in hot weather anyways.