Poll - Trying to get some numbers on Swarovski rubber armour issues. (2 Viewers)

[bongobino]

There are a few threads going on about the problems with Swarovski's biodegradable armour. I just wanted to know how many are actually having problems with it.

Please post a photo of your binoculars if they are splitting/peeling /cracking, particularly the NL owners because so far I have only seen evidence of the ELs.

 

[tehri]

Very good initiative !!!!
Thx !!

 

[Wasabrot]

I do not own it myself but i write for my uncle who has a four year old 8.5x42 EL which I borrowed a couple of times.
Armour looks nearly new.

 

[Owlbarred]

A great idea, for sure. Do not be discouraged by the comments below: your poll has already provided a service and will yield useful information.

Good start and good intentions, but your poll needs work, esp. re: EL's. Owners of EL's prior to the armor switch are lumped in with those having the later armor version. This will clearly bias results. For EL's, it is imperative to categorize by armor type: 'original' ('classic, old'...) armor and 'new' ('revised, resdesigned...) armor.

Second, owners of both ELs and NLs range from collectors whose binoculars never go outside to those who use them regularly for long hours. That is central to the issue at hand. Some form of usage category is central to the question. Obviously, that is inherently problematic to assess without bias by respondents.

Good start: I wish I had solutions rather than mere suggestions.

 

[Mike Crawley]

I had a 2013 pair of 10x42 ELs with no problems with the armour for the first 9 years, I then damaged the left hand barrel in an accident and they were re-armoured by Swarovski
I traded those for a 2014 pair of 8.5x42 ELs with nothing wrong with the armour.
This time last year I bought a 2014 pair of 8x32 ELs with no issues with the armour.

 

[SGBirder]

Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally

 

[bongobino]

Good start and good intentions, but your poll needs work, esp. re: EL's. Owners of EL's prior to the armor switch are lumped in with those having the later armor version. This will clearly bias results. For EL's, it is imperative to categorize by armor type: 'original' ('classic, old'...) armor and 'new' ('revised, resdesigned...) armor.

The question for the poll is for the models after 2010 when they started using their current, so it should not skew the results. I would hopefully expect a pattern to show for those who are experiencing the issue.

 

[etudiant]

A great idea, for sure. Do not be discouraged by the comments below: your poll has already provided a service and will yield useful information.

Good start and good intentions, but your poll needs work, esp. re: EL's. Owners of EL's prior to the armor switch are lumped in with those having the later armor version. This will clearly bias results. For EL's, it is imperative to categorize by armor type: 'original' ('classic, old'...) armor and 'new' ('revised, resdesigned...) armor.

Second, owners of both ELs and NLs range from collectors whose binoculars never go outside to those who use them regularly for long hours. That is central to the issue at hand. Some form of usage category is central to the question. Obviously, that is inherently problematic to assess without bias by respondents.

Good start: I wish I had solutions rather than mere suggestions.

Not sure that the owner knows whether his glass has the 'original' armor or the 'new, improved, bio degradable' version.
In any case, bobgobino's survey is the first effort I've seen to pull together some real world numbers to scope the problem.
Respect!

 

[John Cantelo]

I hadn't realised that this was a widespread problem. I got my NL 10x42s just over 2½ years ago and have used them several times a week since. Within less than 6 months, the tethers on the objective covers disintegrated & were replaced. Earlier this year, the forehead rest I also purchased fell apart. It was just outside the two-year guarantee period for accessories but as a 'gesture of goodwill' Swarovski replaced it. Then in June, I noticed that the armour on one of the barrels had cracked. I sent them back to Swarovski last week & awaiting news ... The NLs are optically and ergonomically distinctly superior to the (second-hand) Zeiss 8x42s they replaced but they served me well for over 20 years with no issues.

 

[SGBirder]

I hadn't realised that this was a widespread problem. I got my NL 10x42 just over 2½ years ago and have used them several times a week since. Within less than 6 months, the tethers on the objective covers disintegrated & were replaced. Earlier this year, the forehead rest I also purchased fell apart. It was just outside the two-year guarantee period for accessories but as a 'gesture of goodwill' Swarovski replaced it. Then in June, I noticed that the armour on one of the barrels had cracked. I sent them back to Swarovski last week & awaiting news ... The NLs are optically and ergonomically distinctly superior to the (second-hand) Zeiss 8x42s they replaced but they served me well for over 20 years with no issues.

View attachment 1519505

Thanks for posting the first photo of NL armour degradation!

The tethers on the objective covers seem to be not very durable. The covers on my EL (which should be similar to the NL) have been replaced approx annually. Swarovski's been quite good about sending over replacement covers, no questions asked.

 

[tehri]

I got my NL 10x42s just over 2½ years ago and have used them several times a week since.

John, please, it would be very helpful to know what latitude you live in, what country, what climate... and is that where you used these NL's the most ?

 

[SGBirder]

Photos extracted from "Swarovski Binoculars Users" Facebook group. All photos belong to their respective owners.

While this may not add to the survey data, hopefully it will be a useful reference nonetheless.

 

[dries1]

The fourth fourth across from the top left seems like it needed to be sent in a decade ago.

 

[Conndomat]

Somehow the SLC are also missing, I thought there would also be problems with that?

Andreas

 

[etudiant]

Somehow the SLC are also missing, I thought there would also be problems with that?

Andreas

Andreas raises an interesting point, whether this issue is confined to just some of Swaros newer roof prism offerings or extends throughout the line, including even the porros. If the biodegradable Swaro armor coating is used everywhere, there should be examples of failure elsewhere.

 

[Hermann]

Andreas raises an interesting point, whether this issue is confined to just some of Swaros newer roof prism offerings or extends throughout the line, including even the porros. If the biodegradable Swaro armor coating is used everywhere, there should be examples of failure elsewhere.

The biodegradable armour is NOT used in the Habicht porros. They have either a leatherette covering or some (rather thick and heavy) rubber armour.

Hermann

 

[has530]

SLC's have an entirely different style of armor. Much thicker and springer rubber type. In my opinion much more resilient although my sample was cut improperly so it caught when adjusting the ipd and had to be replaced.

 

[John Cantelo]

John, please, it would be very helpful to know what latitude you live in, what country, what climate... and is that where you used these NL's the most ?

I've used them mainly in the UK plus the annual equivalent of a couple of months or so in southern Spain and more recently two weeks in Bulgaria

 

[tenex]

Somehow the SLC are also missing, I thought there would also be problems with that?

There are some SLC 56 photos in SG's assortment above, just no SLC 42 yet.

This poll doesn't allow multiple votes for different instruments. (My one NO should be counted as three.)

 

[SGBirder]

Somehow the SLC are also missing, I thought there would also be problems with that?

Andreas

I came across some cases of SLC but much fewer relative to the EL.