• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Old T*P compared to new FL (1 Viewer)

Kevin Mac

Just sleeping
I was astounded to check out the US based B&H Camera site and see the "classic" T*P 10x 40 Ziess Dialyt binoculars for sale for only $750 US. Advertised as nitrogen purged and O-ring sealed. How much better can the new FL bins be? I think they are retailing for $1450 US!
 
Kevin Mac said:
I was astounded to check out the US based B&H Camera site and see the "classic" T*P 10x 40 Ziess Dialyt binoculars for sale for only $750 US. Advertised as nitrogen purged and O-ring sealed. How much better can the new FL bins be? I think they are retailing for $1450 US!


It has been a few years since I looked through the Classic 10x42, but as I remember, it was lacking in eye relief (I wear eye glasses) and the image seemed to have a green tint.

My 10x42 FL has just (more would be ok with me) enough eye relief and may have a slight green tint.

I don't find is surprising that there is such a large difference between an older part of the product line and the most recent entry in the product line.

Rich
 
I've owned the classics for 14 years and love them. They have to be one of the best bargains at $750 out there. Eye relief may be a problem, and the diopter moves on you a bit, the close focus is poor but otherwise, a great deal!
 
The 10 x 40 Dialyt Classic is also being sold by Cabela's (www.cabelas.com) for $699 including U.S. shipping - a genuinely remarkable deal, which I couldn't resist. Zeiss USA tells me Cabela's bought all that was left in Europe of this now discontinued model in a bulk purchase. The 10 x 40 Dialyt was, for some time, Zeiss's most popular glass, although, as noted, it is not a close focusser, has miserable fold down rubber eyecups, and is not waterproof, despite the Zeiss warranty. It is also not an internal focus binocular (the objectives move in and out), and is not nitrogen purged. It is, however, surprisingly sharp, with excellent edges, and surprisingly bright, with wonderful contrasty images. It is also easy to handle in the field, and was the mainstay for high end high power birders and deer hunters in the U.S. for years. I'm glad I got a hold of one new before the model totally disappeared, and do not regret selling my Swarovski 10 x 40 porro to do it.
 
Last edited:
I saw a survey a few years ago that listed the Zeiss 10x40 Dialyt Classic as the most popular birding binocular in the UK.

Rich
 
My 10x40's are not nitrogen purged but have been waterproof through years of hard use. They are internally focusing though, perhaps chartwell99 was thinking about the 7x.
 
Kevin Mac said:
My 10x40's are not nitrogen purged but have been waterproof through years of hard use. They are internally focusing though, perhaps chartwell99 was thinking about the 7x.

Look at the objective lenses while you focus and you will see what I am talking about. The 8 x 30 Dialyt Classics function in the same way. The 7 x 42s, by contrast, rely on the movement of the ocular bridge (similar to porros) for focussing. Zeiss now grudgingly calls the 8 x 30 Dialyt Classics, which are still being made, splashproof, meaning, I suppose, that dropping these glasses (including our 10 x 40s) into a stream would present a real problem. I would be curious to know if your bins have survived a mishap of that sort.
 
Oooops!

chartwell99 said:
..... into a stream would present a real problem. I would be curious to know if your bins have survived a mishap of that sort.

OTH - I would be interested to know just how many BF members have *actually* dropped their binos in the sea/stream/pond/quicksand/cesspit. Not to discover how 'waterproof' their binos are, just to know how many careless/accident prone members there are!

Chris (who has yet to dunk any of his! Yet!)
 
zurtfox said:
OTH - I would be interested to know just how many BF members have *actually* dropped their binos in the sea/stream/pond/quicksand/cesspit. Not to discover how 'waterproof' their binos are, just to know how many careless/accident prone members there are!

Chris (who has yet to dunk any of his! Yet!)

Chris,

Uhhhh...... yeah.
I admit it - twice... once when falling into a stream after slipping on a rock, and once when changing from my larger 10x50 binoculars to my pocketsize Zeiss at a nearby beach area and having trouble gripping the Zeiss properly due to being in a hurry. Both times the binoculars got very wet, but in neither case did the water completely submerged them. I'm a very careful person too!

I've had my binoculars rained on MANY times, which makes me completely unwilling to carry non-waterproof binoculars on any but the sunniest of days!

Best wishes,
Bawko
 
chartwell99 said:
Look at the objective lenses while you focus and you will see what I am talking about. The 8 x 30 Dialyt Classics function in the same way. The 7 x 42s, by contrast, rely on the movement of the ocular bridge (similar to porros) for focussing. Zeiss now grudgingly calls the 8 x 30 Dialyt Classics, which are still being made, splashproof, meaning, I suppose, that dropping these glasses (including our 10 x 40s) into a stream would present a real problem. I would be curious to know if your bins have survived a mishap of that sort.

Whilst never immersed my 7x42BGATs have been used in torrential rain (Kielder so pretty near immersion) for up to 4 days at a time while hunting. They have never leaked or fogged.
 
Here is my comparative review of the Zeiss Classic 10x40 T*P, and the new 10x42 FL. This review was lost in the server crash, so I post it again, with updates due to several months of use.

The FL is brighter, and not by a small margin. In low light conditions, the brightness is really impressive. However, I purchased the Classic in 1992, perhaps the coatings have been improved on the latest models.

The colour rendition is excellent, clearly better than the Classic, which has a yellow cast easily noticeable in direct comparison. But I find that the warm colours of the Classic are sometime more pleasant.

The contrast of the image is higher in the FL : black objects appear darker in the FL, even if the image is brighter.

I won’t comment on sharpness on axis, because I think now this is more a question of sample variation than a question of design. Off-axis, the falloff of sharpness is nearly identical in both binoculars. However, the FL suffers from a slight amount of field curvature, fortunately only visible when the binocular is tripod mounted.
In the outside 25% of the field, the Classic is better.

For my eyes, chromatic aberration is nearly identical in both binoculars, i.e. invisible on axis and moderate off axis. I can hardly see an improvement in the FL due to the fluoride glass.

There is a perceptible pincushion distortion in the FL, which gives sometimes a strange image on architectural objects. In the field however, I’m not bothered by this small amount of distortion. The Classic on the other hand has no perceptible distortion on static views, but shows a compression of the image near the edges on sweeping views, unlike the FL.

I’ve not noticed any flares in the FL. It happens rarely with the Classic, though it’s not a real problem.

The eye relief is 2 or 3 mm longer in the FL, which makes a clear difference for an eyeglasses wearer like me : I can always see the entire field of view, without pushing my glasses on my nose.

The closest focus distance is really 2 m, as advertised by Zeiss. (instead of 4.60 m for the Classic). There is no play at all in the focus mechanism, contrary to my Classic, which has furthermore different plays in right and left barrels, a flaw that really bothers me.
The focus wheel turns much more easily, and is twice as fast as the Classic :
To focus from 6 m to 30 m, the Classic requires 1/2 turn, and the FL 1/4 turn.
To focus from 25 m to infinity, the Classic requires 1/8 turn, and the FL 1/16 turn.
I can still achieve a very good focus, so it’s a nice feature for me.

The handling is better. The barrels of the FL are bigger, and this allows a stronger grip of the binocular, resulting in a more steady view. Because of the bigger body, the FL seems lighter than the Classic, despite it is not the case. The strap lugs are badly positioned in the Classic : the objectives are leaning against the belly when the binocular is held by the strap. In the FL the strap lugs are near the sides, so the binocular hangs nearly vertically and is far more pleasant to carry around the neck.

The FL comes with better accessories : a nice and wide strap, useful objective covers, a light eyepiece cover, and a very thick and protective case.

In conclusion, I’d say that none of the improvements listed above can justify in itself an upgrade from the Classic to the FL, but their sum can be worth it.
If I had to rank the improvements for my taste, I would rate :
1) the bigger shape of the FL, allowing a steady view
2) the longer eye relief
3) the excellent focus mechanism
4) the closest focus distance
5) the better image quality
This doesn’t mean that the improvement of optical quality is small, but it would be unfair to state that some details are visible in the FL and not in the Classic.

Jean-Charles
 
Thanks for re-posting your review!

I find that with the T*P* that I have, the barrels focus in/out perfectly. Nice and tight, without any real play, unlike my 12x50 Trinovids. I haven't notice any slight yellowish tint, though I don't have a FL to compare it to. I've also tried for ages to see any CA with my 10x25 Trinovids and my 10x40B Classics and haven't, perhaps I'm not as discerning an individual.... I just received my 12x50s, so can't comment on them as of yet.

Anyways, thanks again for your comparison. :)
 
jcbouget said:
Here is my comparative review of the Zeiss Classic 10x40 T*P, and the new 10x42 FL. This review was lost in the server crash, so I post it again, with updates due to several months of use.

The FL is brighter, and not by a small margin. In low light conditions, the brightness is really impressive. However, I purchased the Classic in 1992, perhaps the coatings have been improved on the latest models.

The colour rendition is excellent, clearly better than the Classic, which has a yellow cast easily noticeable in direct comparison. But I find that the warm colours of the Classic are sometime more pleasant.

The contrast of the image is higher in the FL : black objects appear darker in the FL, even if the image is brighter.

I won’t comment on sharpness on axis, because I think now this is more a question of sample variation than a question of design. Off-axis, the falloff of sharpness is nearly identical in both binoculars. However, the FL suffers from a slight amount of field curvature, fortunately only visible when the binocular is tripod mounted.
In the outside 25% of the field, the Classic is better.

For my eyes, chromatic aberration is nearly identical in both binoculars, i.e. invisible on axis and moderate off axis. I can hardly see an improvement in the FL due to the fluoride glass.

There is a perceptible pincushion distortion in the FL, which gives sometimes a strange image on architectural objects. In the field however, I’m not bothered by this small amount of distortion. The Classic on the other hand has no perceptible distortion on static views, but shows a compression of the image near the edges on sweeping views, unlike the FL.

I’ve not noticed any flares in the FL. It happens rarely with the Classic, though it’s not a real problem.

The eye relief is 2 or 3 mm longer in the FL, which makes a clear difference for an eyeglasses wearer like me : I can always see the entire field of view, without pushing my glasses on my nose.

The closest focus distance is really 2 m, as advertised by Zeiss. (instead of 4.60 m for the Classic). There is no play at all in the focus mechanism, contrary to my Classic, which has furthermore different plays in right and left barrels, a flaw that really bothers me.
The focus wheel turns much more easily, and is twice as fast as the Classic :
To focus from 6 m to 30 m, the Classic requires 1/2 turn, and the FL 1/4 turn.
To focus from 25 m to infinity, the Classic requires 1/8 turn, and the FL 1/16 turn.
I can still achieve a very good focus, so it’s a nice feature for me.

The handling is better. The barrels of the FL are bigger, and this allows a stronger grip of the binocular, resulting in a more steady view. Because of the bigger body, the FL seems lighter than the Classic, despite it is not the case. The strap lugs are badly positioned in the Classic : the objectives are leaning against the belly when the binocular is held by the strap. In the FL the strap lugs are near the sides, so the binocular hangs nearly vertically and is far more pleasant to carry around the neck.

The FL comes with better accessories : a nice and wide strap, useful objective covers, a light eyepiece cover, and a very thick and protective case.

In conclusion, I’d say that none of the improvements listed above can justify in itself an upgrade from the Classic to the FL, but their sum can be worth it.
If I had to rank the improvements for my taste, I would rate :
1) the bigger shape of the FL, allowing a steady view
2) the longer eye relief
3) the excellent focus mechanism
4) the closest focus distance
5) the better image quality
This doesn’t mean that the improvement of optical quality is small, but it would be unfair to state that some details are visible in the FL and not in the Classic.

Jean-Charles

Jean-Charles,

Thanks for a very thoughtful analysis. :t:

Elkcub
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top