• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32 (2 Viewers)

You would not enjoy shipping from NZ if you think that is expensive. I posted a letter (single sheet of A4 in an envelope) by courier to London yesterday (just tracked and signature, not superfast delivery or anything) and the cost was equivalent to US$36.

To send something as valuable as binoculars to Europe from here would be several hundreds of dollars.
 
Why does it cost so much more for you to ship to Austria than the UK?
Swarovski distributor only does it via DHL, while I sent Vortex on my own via national post service. Maybe it takes more time, but it's a more economical option.

Insurance on the product value for Vortex is less by factor of 10.

Leica has multiple boutique stores in Singapore, similar 10 year warranty, I understand they will ship it off to Germany on their own cost, and no disintegrating armour problem. I might take them up on their invitation to compare their offerings with my tattered EL..
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230707_124411_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230707_124411_Chrome.jpg
    404.8 KB · Views: 18
Swarovski distributor only does it via DHL, while I sent Vortex on my own via national post service. Maybe it takes more time, but it's a more economical option.

Insurance on the product value for Vortex is less by factor of 10.

Leica has multiple boutique stores in Singapore, similar 10 year warranty, I understand they will ship it off to Germany on their own cost, and no disintegrating armour problem. I might take them up on their invitation to compare their offerings with my tattered EL..

Additional insurance costs makes sense.

I liked the Leica Noctivids - more CA than ELs and NLs, but for me not so bad that I found it distracting. Balance in the hand wasn't quite as good either, but they had a very engaging pleasant view to them -could happily use them.
 
They will certainly do that, but expect me to pay US$160 to send it back via DHL on my own dime. Despite having a local distributor in the same country/city. From the customer's perspective, that's not a fair or acceptable "solution" for what I paid for this product. I expect much more at this price point, product and service-wise.

I've recently sent my Vortex to UK (international warranty) for a warranty repair, paid the US$20 for the shipping. Came back fixed for the foreseeable future for that mechanical issue. Even received a cap as a goodwill/applogy gesture from Vortex. All this for a US$200+ product.
That is absolutely right. Swarovski company probably delivers to that dealer many products monthly or every 2 months. These companies(Swarovski) have yearly contracts with the delivery companies. It is as easy as to estate in the invoice that you will leave 3 boxes and you will pick 1 up to be resent to us (swarovski)
 
Additional insurance costs makes sense.

I liked the Leica Noctivids - more CA than ELs and NLs, but for me not so bad that I found it distracting. Balance in the hand wasn't quite as good either, but they had a very engaging pleasant view to them -could happily use them.
It's not nice to have green, sticky, rubbery particles crumbling off in your hand all the time 😓
 
It's not nice to have green, sticky, rubbery particles crumbling off in your hand all the time 😓

I can imagine. What's odd is it doesn't seem to have affected everyone, and I've not seen any reports of people having to return a pair for a second time, which is also odd if people are saying 2-3 yrs lifespan. I do wonder whether some batches were better than others, but it's all guesswork.
 
FWIW class action lawsuit is likely fruitless since Swarovski does not charge for the armor repair (except for the cost of mailing them the binos). My pair of binoculars was repaired in 2 weeks not counting time to send them and receive them (1 week each way)

Although my wife & I own 3 pairs of their binoculars as well a Swarovksi spotting scope and love their optical quality, my next new pair of optics will likley be Zeiss or Leica
Swarovski are at fault here and they should pay for shipping as Zeiss does at least they did with mine after paying all that money why should a customer have to pay for an error by the maker.
 
They will certainly do that, but expect me to pay US$160 to send it back via DHL on my own dime. Despite having a local distributor in the same country/city. From the customer's perspective, that's not a fair or acceptable "solution" for what I paid for this product. I expect much more at this price point, product and service-wise.
As there are several of you in Singapore with this problem, maybe you could persuade the local Swarovski dealer to gather them all up and send them back all together at Swarovski's expense.

I have heard that in the UK, that's what they do. About once a month they apparently collect them all from the dealers in a region and send them to Austria in bulk together and it just kind of depends where you are in that cycle as to how long it takes to get them back. As I said above I returned them to the dealer, who is about an hours drive away from where I live (and conveniently not too far from a good birding location).

Much more worrying of course is that they will replace them with the same armour only to need the same treatment again in three or four or five years, as you have eloquently pointed out.
 
As there are several of you in Singapore with this problem, maybe you could persuade the local Swarovski dealer to gather them all up and send them back all together at Swarovski's expense.

I have heard that in the UK, that's what they do. About once a month they apparently collect them all from the dealers in a region and send them to Austria in bulk together and it just kind of depends where you are in that cycle as to how long it takes to get them back. As I said above I returned them to the dealer, who is about an hours drive away from where I live (and conveniently not too far from a good birding location).

Much more worrying of course is that they will replace them with the same armour only to need the same treatment again in three or four or five years, as you have eloquently pointed out.
I have just connected with and gotten in touch with another user who has sent back his binos before for armour replacement and the problem has recurred (surprise, surprise!)

In response to complaints about the issue, the local distributor told him that he has never heard anything of the sort. To me, it sounds like a similar refrain to what some Swarovski dealers and their affiliates previously parroted on this forum to deny the existence of this issue.

Swarovski customer service have told me that it's company policy not to cover the first leg of shipping to Swarovski location (not including their local distributor).

I'm not sure if that's worth pursuing when they have no authority nor incentive to effect change or take initiative.

If there's anyone worth persuading, it's the Swarovski Optik top management who I have reached out to recently (including their new CEO Mr Stefan Schwarz) to raise the issue, provide evidence (photos, these forum threads), and ask for a solution. I will update when I hear back from them, hopefully on a concrete, global solution/action plan, (e.g. updates to the material to permanently resolve the problem, coupled with a product recall or repair arrangement through its distributor/dealer network that does not require the customer to fork out for international shipping).

What would help now is for more affected users to come forward here to share their own experience, and information & photos of the disintegrated armour, to document and build a repository of undeniable proof of the problem.

Comments from prospective buyers putting off new/repeat purchases or users considering migrating to other brands due to this issue will also emphasise the impact this issue has, beyond those directly affected.
 
Last edited:
Additional insurance costs makes sense.

I liked the Leica Noctivids - more CA than ELs and NLs, but for me not so bad that I found it distracting. Balance in the hand wasn't quite as good either, but they had a very engaging pleasant view to them -could happily use them.
Have you c
I have just connected with and gotten in touch with another user who has sent back his binos before for armour replacement and the problem has recurred (surprise, surprise!)

In response to complaints about the issue, the local distributor told him that he has never heard anything of the sort. To me, it sounds like a similar refrain to what some Swarovski dealers and their affiliates previously parroted on this forum to deny the existence of this issue.

Swarovski customer service have told me that it's company policy not to cover the first leg of shipping to Swarovski location (not including their local distributor).

I'm not sure if that's worth pursuing when they have no authority nor incentive to effect change or take initiative.

If there's anyone worth .

Comments from prospective buyers putting off new/repeat purchases or users considering migrating to other brands due to this issue will also emphasise the impact this issue has, beyond those directly affected.
I was looking to purchase the ATC scope in a previous post, I'm no longer interested until this armour issue is resolved.
I'm also going to give the Zeiss SF another try and might be selling my ELs to part fund the change from Swarovski to Zeiss.
 
I have heard that in the UK, that's what they do. About once a month they apparently collect them all from the dealers in a region and send them to Austria in bulk together and it just kind of depends where you are in that cycle as to how long it takes to get them back. As I said above I returned them to the dealer, who is about an hours drive away from where I live (and conveniently not too far from a good birding location).
Swarovski customer service told me that it works differently for the UK.

"UK customers have to take over the costs to the UK branch in Surrey andt he UK branch forward it to us.This is possible, because we have a SWAROVSKI OPTIK office there. Our Singapore partner is a sales partner but not a direct SWAROVSKI OPTIK office."

Perhaps the Swarovski office has a special relationship with the UK dealers. But I doubt that the Singapore distributor/sales partner is in the same position to do the same.
 
Here are some more EL Fieldpro from other local birders, contributed by another birder in the hopes of having a proper solution.

Pic on brown desk:
The armour had been changed before around 3 years ago due to disintegration, had to pay $100+ for one-way shipping. Kept for 2 years in a humidity-controlled dry cabinet with no exposure to UV, sunlight, DEET, sweaty hands or whatever factors/contaminants that people have speculated/blamed this on. Material deteriorated soon after it started being used again.

2-in-1 pic:
Belongs to another birder in Singapore

3rd pic with 1 side cracked:
Belongs to a birder from Australia visiting Singapore
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230707_203517_899-01.jpeg
    IMG_20230707_203517_899-01.jpeg
    351.5 KB · Views: 48
  • Screenshot_20230707_204118_Telegram.jpg
    Screenshot_20230707_204118_Telegram.jpg
    114 KB · Views: 48
  • Screenshot_20230707_204208_Telegram.jpg
    Screenshot_20230707_204208_Telegram.jpg
    372.8 KB · Views: 48
Have you c

I was looking to purchase the ATC scope in a previous post, I'm no longer interested until this armour issue is resolved.
I'm also going to give the Zeiss SF another try and might be selling my ELs to part fund the change from Swarovski to Zeiss.
Well good luck with that I would not pay much for Swaros unless they were pretty old this has been going on so long it could finish them altogether.
 
Here are some more EL Fieldpro from other local birders, contributed by another birder in the hopes of having a proper solution.

Pic on brown desk:
The armour had been changed before around 3 years ago due to disintegration, had to pay $100+ for one-way shipping. Kept for 2 years in a humidity-controlled dry cabinet with no exposure to UV, sunlight, DEET, sweaty hands or whatever factors/contaminants that people have speculated/blamed this on. Material deteriorated soon after it started being used again.

2-in-1 pic:
Belongs to another birder in Singapore

3rd pic with 1 side cracked:
Belongs to a birder from Australia visiting Singapore
It's all very sad in my opinion.
 
SGBirder I think you are doing a great job. Contacting different Swarovski users and gathering all this information.
I really think Swarovski should do it better. BUT I am afraid that they kew the THIS ISSUE form long ago..... but hey, what the heck, maybe does not happen or maybe only happen in high humidity environments/countries. It will be a minority(report)(je je). Nothing to worry about!
Now this PROBLEM means millions to the company and many Swarovski user disappointed, at the end a bad publicity for SWAROvSKI.
What they thought they we will cash more money now will/has become an issue for them.
Excellent management decision.
 
It is interesting that there still does not seem to be a single photograph of an NL Pure with degraded armour. The NL Pure came out around three years ago - surely enough time for the armour to break down if it was affected in the same way?
 
I can imagine. What's odd is it doesn't seem to have affected everyone, and I've not seen any reports of people having to return a pair for a second time, which is also odd if people are saying 2-3 yrs lifespan. I do wonder whether some batches were better than others, but it's all guesswork.
My guess is that (and surely the company knows) in European and North american environments, the armour will deteriorate in 15-20 years life span.
But in more humidity environments and some other variables involved ..... the years span will differ.
 
It is interesting that there still does not seem to be a single photograph of an NL Pure with degraded armour. The NL Pure came out around three years ago - surely enough time for the armour to break down if it was affected in the same way?
This is what I'm interested in - it is odd that there's no evidence of it happening to the NLs. I've posted a poll in the binoculars section to see what the numbers are really like.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top