Why can't Swarovski get a little thing right? NL Objective cover issues. (2 Viewers)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Just before we left for a three week camping vacation on one the the fabulous Dutch islands (TERSCHELLING), I finished our study about the performance of the NL pure 8x32 , SF 8x32, GPO 8x32 and Kowa 8x32. It is coupled to a study of 100 years of 8x30/8x32 binoculars between 1920 and 2020. As I found out objective covers came late in the picture/production, probably around 1980-1990. So if I am correct objective covers were no item of interest for the great majority of users for many years. So why should we worry about them now, on Terschelling with its high seas and a lot of dust I did not need them and the NL pure 8x32 fuctioned perfectly without any problems and, for those interested: sunlight over waves were abundant, but no glare observed.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

Just before we left for a three week camping vacation on one the the fabulous Dutch islands (TERSCHELLING), I finished our study about the performance of the NL pure 8x32 , SF 8x32, GPO 8x32 and Kowa 8x32. It is coupled to a study of 100 years of 8x30/8x32 binoculars between 1920 and 2020. As I found out objective covers came late in the picture/production, probably around 1980-1990. So if I am correct objective covers were no item of interest for the great majority of users for many years. So why should we worry about them now, on Terschelling with its high seas and a lot of dust I did not need them and the NL pure 8x32 fuctioned perfectly without any problems and, for those interested: sunlight over waves were abundant, but no glare observed.
Gijs van Ginkel

You are missing the point. They are shipped with the objective caps installed ,they are intended to be used (if desired) so they would, should be expected to work /last a long time if used properly .
Just like the objective caps that came with the Zeiss victory fl's for instance,14,years of almost daily use and still looking and functioning like new.
Peter.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Peter, post 82,
Yes and no about missing the point.
First of all the caps are generally useless from my point of view, but you probably do not share that opinion.
Second: you are absolutely right that they should function well if they are made by Swarovski and history has learned that they do not. Jan van Daalen told me that he has to supply quite a few caps by owners who lost them unwantedly and he has a supply of new ones for the unfortunate owners. So it is clear that this is a construction failure.
Life can be hard.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[GrampaTom]

I like rainguards. I/we carry binos in some fashion around the neck/torso with ocular lens up. Rain, snow, sweat and spit comes from above. Debris on the ocular is more disruptive to the image, than on the objective. My 35 year old Zeiss 1040Bs came without objective lens covers. Never missed them. My Els came with them. Im using them, though they are sort of sticky in and out. To date Ive cleaned the oculars several times, the objectives once. I hate to clean lens, for fear of scratching. By the way, NL rainguards solve the sticky EL rainguard on EL ocular problem. Too bad there's no reverse for NL owners.

That said, it seems clear if Swaro supplies objective covers, they should not fail. Thinking more about it, not seeing this as proof of some sort of general "quality decline," and thinking more about John Robert's intelligence on "rubber" sourcing, one wonders. Have the "environmentalists" at Swaro taken over, so that product decisions are getting made favoring those concerns over customer concerns? As I tried to describe yesterday the choice of chemistry in purchased parts like body armor and lens covers is an interaction between Swaro engineers, purchasing folks and the supplier. Its complicated. Finding the balance between environmental concerns and product performance is tricky. If Swaro has made the choice weighing in favor of the environmental, and accepts that its service folks will be replacing lens covers and body armor from time to time, isnt it fair to ask what is the environmental impact of having to make too many of a thing vs making something once that doesn't fail?

What happened to Swaroclean?

Soap and brush... really?

 

[GrampaTom]

This is based on many and varied user reports here on the forum, but also from the experience of others. For example, I have a friend who changed 2 new binoculars from one of the "big four", and only the third one was just right. I also have my own experiences with two of these expensive "big ones". They weren't serious irregularities (a slight difference in coating color between the two lens), but there shouldn't have been any irregularities in that money category. I do not give more details, but I have seen such cases more and more often at the "big four house" in the +2000e range, so much so that it gave me the impression of dropping quality control. It is my personal opinion not only for binoculars but also in general consumer market.

Not to be a jerk, but so an N of ... 5, 10? Quality trends require data. The stuff reported here isn't the best proof of a trend. Some questioned, (not me), at least one naysayer recently. As I recall, generalizations were being made about current quality when the poster's experience was with both older and newer, as well as binos and rifle scopes. As well, is it fair to lump reports of problems with this or that brand, into a trend for all? We read the negative, get excited, remember it and generalize at our peril. I'm fully capable of this.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

Not to be a jerk, but so an N of ... 5, 10? Quality trends require data. The stuff reported here isn't the best proof of a trend. Some questioned, (not me), at least one naysayer recently. As I recall, generalizations were being made about current quality when the poster's experience was with both older and newer, as well as binos and rifle scopes. As well, is it fair to lump reports of problems with this or that brand, into a trend for all? We read the negative, get excited, remember it and generalize at our peril. I'm fully capable of this.

You've lost me!!
Pete.

 

[John A Roberts]

Are you suggesting that it's not:


from: Rick Springfield

 

[GrampaTom]

And now we're found...

 

[Flyingjewels]

I don't use mine either, but dislike the attachment system and the little rubber blanks you have to put in. I haven't lost any yet but have now seen 2 pairs of NLs in use in the field with the blanks missing.

I also dislike the ocular covers - they are so tight fitting that they pull up the eye cups most of the times that I take them off. I just birded spring migration fallout in the rain for 3,5 days. I used the ocular covers non-stop, and would guess that I had to re-lower the eye cups 30-40x per day.

The optics are the finest there are, I would say, barely edging out the Zeiss SF. But the field pro system and the ocular and objective covers are all over engineered and non work as well nor as simply as on any other modern mid to high end binocular. Thus far I enjoy using the SF a lot more, despite the excellent view of the NL.

Same exact issue with the objective covers - only had
Versed my new binoculars less than a full day. And the first time I placed the ocular caps on I thought what a poor design- they will either break the eye cups by twisting or repeated raising or lowering.

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

I have now acquired a pair of Swarovski 12X50 EL SV Binoculars 2015 model with the band on Objective covers which still fit and work like new as does the rain guard and strap.Sometimes things are just left well alone!!

The view is stellar too.
peter.

 

[chuawong]

While I love my NL 8 x 42 binocular, I am a bit frustrated with the objective covers. I have owned my pair for two months and in that two months, I have had to replace objective covers three times, because they spontaneously tear away. It's strange that they tear close to the bezel surrounding the objectives, and not in the middle of the hinge (I have a habit of laying my binoculars down with objective covers open, on the bottom side in a horizontal position. So perhaps, the weight of the barrels on the cover attachment is causing the tear, but that still shouldn't happen. ) While Swarovski service is happy to replace them, they can provide no clues as to what is going on or what I may doing wrong, if anything. The service representative that I called today advised me that he had the same problem repeatedly with his NL's and recommended that I just use the blanks in place of the objective covers. He said the torn covers will fit with the blanks in place. I don't see that as a viable answer for a top of the line product or calling every few weeks for replacement covers.
Certainly, I can't be the only one on this forum with this problem. Any advice will be welcome. I am very frustrated.

Hi I just encountered this problem yesterday. Just bought it 2 months ago. Truly frustrated!

 

[BabyDov]

I have not had the problem with the objective covers tearing since remembering not to lay the Nls on the hinge. Laying them horizontally on the opposite side or vertically seems to have fixed the problem for me. Or perhaps, the most recent batch of objective covers that Swarovski sent have been improved.

 

[pm42]

I never had the problem with the 8x42 but had it with the more recent 8x32. I replaced them with Vortex ones.

 

[GrampaTom]

Hi I just encountered this problem yesterday. Just bought it 2 months ago. Truly frustrated!

This was a problem fairly commonly reported here early on in the NL history. You can see this by the dates of these posts. I believe it was Henry Link who reported an issue with the earliest NL objective covers involving the shape of the hinge/flap that Swarovski subsequently changed. The subject has been very quite lately.

While you report you just bought the NL842, do you know the date of manufacture? There's ways to translate the serial number to the date of MFg. and posts here that explain that. Sometimes what is indeed new, never been unboxed or used, having just been brought, the item has in fact been sitting on a dealers shelf for awhile.

 

[Rg548]

Completely over engineered and complex. It just requires the old simple solution of basic strap, and basic covers, which people seem to be replacing on their 3k binos..... ridiculous.
Gotta justify that price tag somehow.

 

[ragin-cajun]

reviving an old thread but are there any suitable replacement objective covers for the 8x32? like the one on the SLC... had mine replaced by Swaro and the replacements are the same flimsy crap. come on SW. they really dropped the ball here w an expensive bino.

 

[tenex]

I've been very happy with generic replacement rainguards on Amazon or wherever, and I'm sure there are objective covers too. It just may take a second try to get the diameter right. (I needed one a bit larger than my measurement to get the right fit.)

 

[purple highflyer]

The optics are great on Swarovski's, but they need to put another engineer in charge of the accessories. Maybe it is the Austrian mentality.

The Field Pro strap attachment system is a PIA, the strap is way too long, too complex and a PIA, the side load bag is goofy and a PIA, the rain guard is too tight and a PIA, the objective covers break off and are a PIA, and the armor disintegrates and is a PIA.

You said it perfectly. They are overengineered and too complex. I guess they are trying to justify their inflated price.

Swaros remind me of an old Honda Civic I had in the 80s beautiful trouble free engine but the bodywork just falls apart, after my objective cover experience with my 10x42 ELs I asked the dealer to take them off when I bought the 10x 42 NLs. had the NLs about 2 and abit years and the coating is just starting to loosen...

 

[Tot]

While I love my NL 8 x 42 binocular, I am a bit frustrated with the objective covers. I have owned my pair for two months and in that two months, I have had to replace objective covers three times, because they spontaneously tear away. It's strange that they tear close to the bezel surrounding the objectives, and not in the middle of the hinge (I have a habit of laying my binoculars down with objective covers open, on the bottom side in a horizontal position. So perhaps, the weight of the barrels on the cover attachment is causing the tear, but that still shouldn't happen. ) While Swarovski service is happy to replace them, they can provide no clues as to what is going on or what I may doing wrong, if anything. The service representative that I called today advised me that he had the same problem repeatedly with his NL's and recommended that I just use the blanks in place of the objective covers. He said the torn covers will fit with the blanks in place. I don't see that as a viable answer for a top of the line product or calling every few weeks for replacement covers.
Certainly, I can't be the only one on this forum with this problem. Any advice will be welcome. I am very frustrated.

Don't use them there a waste of time

 

[BradRotorhead]

Extremely disappointed with these objective lens covers. Simply rubbing up agains a jacket or generally moving around they pull off very easily, so easy to lose. Swarovski is trying to be high end fancy here for something so simple and they missed the mark entirely. Nothing wrong with the old school covers with the band portion around the barrel. And give me a break, about $70 for a new pair?!?! Swarovski should provide free new covers across the board. Terrible design.