Why the terrible minimum focus distance on the ELs? (2 Viewers)

[FishingOwl]

I know some people will say it's irrelevant, it doesn't make a difference, people won't notice, etc. - but as a birder who appreciates close focus for looking at things other than birds, it's a deal breaker for me. Which is a bummer, because after enjoying my Trinovids for almost 25 years, I'm in the market for a new pair of bins, and had always thought I'd upgrade to some ELs. And now that I'm here, I come to find that the close focus more than doubled from 4.9' to 10.8' for the current model! What I can't seem to find out is why, and if this is something Swarovski might attempt to address?

I'm also looking for recommendations for an alternative to the ELs that rivals the quality and price point, but has better close focus.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi FishingOwl,

The increased minimum focus distance version of the EL Field Pro x42 is referred to by Swarovski as the Legend version.
It was introduced at the same time as the all new NL x42 line in 2020.

Increasing the minimum focus distance from 1.5 m (4.9 ft) to 3.3 m (10.8 ft), allowed the use of a simpler, less costly focuser mechanism.
Swarovski said at the time, that was necessary to enable the EL x42 to continue to be commercially viable alongside the new NL x42.

For more on the various EL’s see: Swarovski EL with or without field flattener lenses

Unless you're insistent on buying new, one alternative to the Legend, would be a late pre-Legend version of the EL Field Pro
(the link above makes clear how you can distinguish between the two based on the serial numbering).


John

 

[FishingOwl]

Thanks, John - any suggestions on reliable sellers of pre-Legend versions?

 

[Nethero]

Thanks, John - any suggestions on reliable sellers of pre-Legend versions?

Swarovski EL Swarovision Gen 2 Field Pro Binoculars 8.5x 42mm Green

Midway is able to offer you this product at a great value because it has been used as a demo. It may have light handling marks, but still holds the same...

www.midwayusa.com

 

[dorubird]

I know some people will say it's irrelevant, it doesn't make a difference, people won't notice, etc. - but as a birder who appreciates close focus for looking at things other than birds, it's a deal breaker for me. Which is a bummer, because after enjoying my Trinovids for almost 25 years, I'm in the market for a new pair of bins, and had always thought I'd upgrade to some ELs. And now that I'm here, I come to find that the close focus more than doubled from 4.9' to 10.8' for the current model! What I can't seem to find out is why, and if this is something Swarovski might attempt to address?

I'm also looking for recommendations for an alternative to the ELs that rivals the quality and price point, but has better close focus.

Swaroski once again made a move at the expense of its own consumers. In our world guided by marketing, it is possible that newer models to appear with weaker specifications than the older ones! Not only the focus distance was increased, but also the protective coating on the outer lenses has been removed from the newer bino models. Also, the resistant chemical formula of the armor of newer models has been replaced with one prone to stickiness under certain conditions. And for all this, we are asked to pay even more money. I understand, and I know very well, that Swarovski optics are binoculars with universally recognized certain optical qualities. But binoculars, in addition to optics, are also mechanical instruments. I know it's under long warranty, but I'm paying a lot of money for my luxury binoculars to wait in line to be repaired annually?! In this luxury class, the warranty should have been useful only for exceptional situations, not to repair factory defects and weaknesses. It's embarrassing!

 

[Richard D]

The lens coatings that have been removed were not protective - just promoted beading of rain. They weren't removed for cost, but because they contained chemicals that cause environmental damage. Their use is now highly restricted across the world, with most of the outdoors industry having stopped using them in outdoor clothing. Their usage is being further restricted across Europe - and it's unlikely that any binoculars wholly produced in Europe will use them in the near future.

 

[temmie]

The lens coatings that have been removed were not protective - just promoted beading of rain. They weren't removed for cost, but because they contained chemicals that cause environmental damage. Their use is now highly restricted across the world, with most of the outdoors industry having stopped using them in outdoor clothing. Their usage is being further restricted across Europe - and it's unlikely that any binoculars wholly produced in Europe will use them in the near future.

Are we talking PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)?

 

[dorubird]

It seems that Swarovski used other chemical formulas for the past "Swaroclean" than "LotuTec" and "AquaDura". Leica, Zeiss or Nikon, they all use their own recipes with different formulas. It seems that only Swarovski had problems with the environment with the "Swaroclean" formula, and also with the chemical formula of the armor. I'm not saying that the other top companies don't have their problems, but Swarovski has broken a bit, here and there, the mechanical quality and good specifications, obviously compared to how it was in the past:
No more "Swaroclean"
No more good armour
No more close focus in newer EL
If the first two "No more" are related to protecting the environment, this increased focus on EL is related to marketing and to the process of EL outclassing compared to NL.
Ok, you make an armor friendly to the environment, but not sticky under certain conditions.
Ok, give up the much-lauded in the past "Swaroclean", but put another one more friendly to the environment, as others can do.
Ok, you release new models like NL Pure, but you don't need handicap your old EL models
Ok, you can't do these things, then make the binoculars cheaper, because they lost some features found in the top binoculars

 

[Richard D]

It seems that Swarovski used other chemical formulas for the past "Swaroclean" than "LotuTec" and "AquaDura". Leica, Zeiss or Nikon, they all use their own recipes with different formulas. It seems that only Swarovski had problems with the environment with the "Swaroclean" formula, and also with the chemical formula of the armor. I'm not saying that the other top companies don't have their problems, but Swarovski has broken a bit, here and there, the mechanical quality and good specifications, obviously compared to how it was in the past:
No more "Swaroclean"
No more good armour
No more close focus in newer EL
If the first two "No more" are related to protecting the environment, this increased focus on EL is related to marketing and to the process of EL outclassing compared to NL.
Ok, you make an armor friendly to the environment, but not sticky under certain conditions.
Ok, give up the much-lauded in the past "Swaroclean", but put another one more friendly to the environment, as others can do.
Ok, you release new models like NL Pure, but you don't need handicap your old EL models
Ok, you can't do these things, then make the binoculars cheaper, because they lost some features found in the top binoculars

LotuTec and AquaDura continue to use the PFAs, and are as potentially damaging to the environment as Swaroclean was. Leica are likely to be forced into ending it, and Zeiss will on any lenses made in the EU if the full bans on PFAs go ahead. They're all basically the same coating. and no one has found an effective environmentally friendly alternative. To be honest though none of the coatings are particularly effective in dealing with rain on objectives anyway - it's more a case of marketing hype.

I agree the armour issue isn't resolved (although unless you're a heavy user or bird in hot climes it may not effect you), but they are at least replacing it free of charge and working on a long term replacement. It's not a problem that just effects Swarovski - the short lived original grey Zeiss FLs and similar issues and there are reports of problems starting to occur with some SFLs. Armour seems to be a problem for most manufacturers - rubber based armour used to be prone to cracking, and some synthetics like Canon use can turn into sticky messes. Camera lens manufacturers have had similar problems.

When the EL legends were introduced with the simpler focusing mechanism they did reduce the price compared to the older models and were open about why: Swarovski - odd business policy - near point

 

[dorubird]

The fact that the armor happens to be sticky in other companies as well, does not justify the much more abundant presence of this problem in such luxury Swaro binoculars. We pay the normal warranty for unexpected problems, not for design problems already existing in the factory! If it were a mediocre brand of binoculars, I wouldn't even care! But because it is a brand with top claims, our claims must be top as well! And we don't even ask for a complicated things! It's embarrassing! Prices go up and features go down! We have every right to have high expectations from these astronomically priced binoculars. I really like my Swarovski but we don't have to look for excuses!

 

[Richard D]

The fact that the armor happens to be sticky in other companies as well, does not justify the much more abundant presence of this problem in such luxury Swaro binoculars. We pay the normal warranty for unexpected problems, not for design problems already existing in the factory! If it were a mediocre brand of binoculars, I wouldn't even care! But because it is a brand with top claims, our claims must be top as well! And we don't even ask for a complicated things! It's embarrassing! Prices go up and features go down! We have every right to have high expectations from these astronomically priced binoculars. I really like my Swarovski but we don't have to look for excuses!

They've accepted there is a problem and are working on developing a solution, in the meantime they replace it free of charge - I'm not sure what more they can do, that would meet your satisfaction?

 

[jan van daalen]

The fact that the armor happens to be sticky in other companies as well, does not justify the much more abundant presence of this problem in such luxury Swaro binoculars. We pay the normal warranty for unexpected problems, not for design problems already existing in the factory! If it were a mediocre brand of binoculars, I wouldn't even care! But because it is a brand with top claims, our claims must be top as well! And we don't even ask for a complicated things! It's embarrassing! Prices go up and features go down! We have every right to have high expectations from these astronomically priced binoculars. I really like my Swarovski but we don't have to look for excuses!

This much more abundant presence is caused by sales figures. Still it is 75% green, 20% blue and 5% red in 2023.
Having said this, I haven't experienced one single sticky or other armor problem on any red item.

 

[dorubird]

Yes, more Swarovskis are sold because they are very good optically and because it got a name in the past, which I hope it will not lose now. Also, more Swaro are sold because some consumers are satisfied with just a name on the binoculars and it doesn't matter that it has sticky problems! I am not a seller and I am not interested in the number of binoculars sold, but I am interested in the opinions of others regarding the mechanical or optical quality. Here on the forum 20 out of 50 pairs of EL binoculars have armor problems. It's about math not marketing! It seems ridiculous to me to close our eyes to this concrete fact and to be proud that Swarovski sells more than other brands. This sales do not reflect only quality but how much undemanding can be some of us!

 

[jan van daalen]

Yes, more Swarovskis are sold because they are very good optically and because it got a name in the past, which I hope it will not lose now. Also, more Swaro are sold because some consumers are satisfied with just a name on the binoculars and it doesn't matter that it has sticky problems! I am not a seller and I am not interested in the number of binoculars sold, but I am interested in the opinions of others regarding the mechanical or optical quality. Here on the forum 20 out of 50 pairs of EL binoculars have armor problems. It's about math not marketing! It seems ridiculous to me to close our eyes to this concrete fact and to be proud that Swarovski sells more than other brands. This sales do not reflect only quality but how much undemanding can be some of us!

I don't know where your assumption is coming from that some customers are satisfied with the name on the binocular and don't matter they have sticky problems.
It is not my experience, but if it is yours....OK.
Further more, I am not proud that Swarovski sells more than other brands. It is just a fact and only for that reason defects are more common. That was the only point I was trying to make.
IMHO it has nothing to do with me closing my eyes.
If that seems ridiculous to you..... Sorry mate, it is just the way it is.

Jan

 

[dalat]

LotuTec and AquaDura continue to use the PFAs, and are as potentially damaging to the environment as Swaroclean was. Leica are likely to be forced into ending it, and Zeiss will on any lenses made in the EU if the full bans on PFAs go ahead. They're all basically the same coating. and no one has found an effective environmentally friendly alternative. To be honest though none of the coatings are particularly effective in dealing with rain on objectives anyway - it's more a case of marketing hype.

Interesting.
I don't agree with the "marketing hype" though. Although the coatings don't make rain drops magically disappear, I definitely see the benefit. E.g. the lenses on my Ultravid or Zeiss SFL are much easier to clean than with cheaper bins. Or on my recent Costa Rica trip, the oculars on the SFL rarley fogged up in humid and sweaty conditions, while the Opticron Traveller of the same size did frequently.
So I hope the companies come up with a environmentally friendly alternative in future.

 

[dorubird]

It is not my experience, but if it is yours....OK.

I am not alone...Here a fact:

Poll - Trying to get some numbers on Swarovski rubber armour issues.

Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally WOW - I would be VERY upset! I have a pair of 3yr old EL32s and 1.5yr old NL32s and have never had an issue with the rubber.

www.birdforum.net

Is it exaggerated to ask for a top binoculars company, that its new models to have the old good features of the previous ones?! (focus limit of 1.5m instead of 3.3m in EL, new "Swaroclean" instead of nothing, and an new armor without melting tendencies). If it seems exaggerated, I apologize!

 

[jan van daalen]

I am not alone...Here a fact:

Poll - Trying to get some numbers on Swarovski rubber armour issues.

Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally WOW - I would be VERY upset! I have a pair of 3yr old EL32s and 1.5yr old NL32s and have never had an issue with the rubber.

www.birdforum.net

Is it exaggerated to ask for a top binoculars company, that its new models to have the old good features of the previous ones?! (focus limit of 1.5m instead of 3.3m in EL, new "Swaroclean" instead of nothing, and an new armor without melting tendencies). If it seems exaggerated, I apologize!

OK, we seem to misunderstand each other.
I was replying to your assumption that customers are satisfied with the name on the binocular and don't matter they have a sticky problem.

Jan

 

[PYRTLE]

I am not alone...Here a fact:

Poll - Trying to get some numbers on Swarovski rubber armour issues.

Photos of ELs belonging to me and other birders locally WOW - I would be VERY upset! I have a pair of 3yr old EL32s and 1.5yr old NL32s and have never had an issue with the rubber.

www.birdforum.net

Is it exaggerated to ask for a top binoculars company, that its new models to have the old good features of the previous ones?! (focus limit of 1.5m instead of 3.3m in EL, new "Swaroclean" instead of nothing, and an new armor without melting tendencies). If it seems exaggerated, I apologize!

You're asking a company to go back in time, and abandon their modern ethical ideas based around chemicals and products that are harmful to the environment? Can you repeat that, cause it sounds nonsense to me. Close focus is still available though not as you wish.

 

[dorubird]

I expected these new expensive binoculars not to give up the old features (non-sticky armor and Swaroclean), but of course, with new ECO friendly chemistry but with same advantages like older ones. And by the way, is 3.3m close focus also ECO friendly? 1.3m wasn't ECO friendly?

 

[PYRTLE]

And by the way, is 3.3m close focus also ECO friendly? 1.3m wasn't ECO friendly?

Read post # 2 again, and see me after school!👨‍🎓