New compact Zeiss Dialyt scope (1 Viewer)

Maybe I'm just feeling contrary, but I can't understand the interest in this scope (other than just to note that Zeiss has a new product) for any reason, much less birding, travel, or for its price ($1300). To me, it seems bulky and expensive, especially for a nonED scope, and not optimal for birding with its listed close focus of 10 m.

For my money, I'd go with the Nikon 60mm Fieldscope III ED, which with the 20-60 zoom costs $1000, weighs about the same, is substantially more compact, is very robust, close focuses under 5 m, and has all the optical performance one would hope for from an ED scope. If the black color of the Zeiss is the attraction, there was a black version of the Fieldscope III ED (the TF3) that you might find used, or else the current model could be wrapped in gun tape.

--AP

Alexis Powell said:

Maybe I'm just feeling contrary, but I can't understand the interest in this scope (other than just to note that Zeiss has a new product) for any reason, much less birding, travel, or for its price ($1300). To me, it seems bulky and expensive, especially for a nonED scope, and not optimal for birding with its listed close focus of 10 m.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Sort of. The Zeiss is clearly aimed at a different market, and it is in some ways not really ideal for birding. The optics are good, but not quite as good as those of the Nikon EDIII, the close focus isn't really close (but probably close enough for most types of birding), the eyepiece isn't interchangeable. the zoom is pretty narrow at the low end (AFOV is only 45 degrees), but it retains its quality quite well throughout its range.

On the other hand the Zeiss seems very durable, built like a tank with thick armouring, and because of its length it's fairly easy to use handheld against a tree. That's hard to do with the much shorter Nikon fieldscope.

I think may be an alternative on trips where you don't expect to use your scope all that much and where you don't really want to carry a tripod. Many people seem to use the much lighter Nikon ED 50 for that purpose, and while I think the little Nikon is optically better than the Zeiss, I wouldn't want to trust it on a backpacking trip. The Zeiss looks like it can take some rough handling, the ED 50 obviously can't, that much is clear from the user reports here and elsewhere.

Hermann

Hermann said:

On the other hand the Zeiss seems very durable, built like a tank with thick armouring, and because of its length it's fairly easy to use handheld against a tree. That's hard to do with the much shorter Nikon fieldscope.

... on trips ... where you don't really want to carry a tripod.
Hermann

Click to expand...

An end of rope, tie it loose around a tree, then put the scope in the noose, tourniquet the scope until it's firmly held, and you'll have an attachment point apart from holding with both hands.

Idea came from the film " The day of the Jackal " (1973) where the Jackal ( Played by Edward Fox) is using this method for his rifle, in target practice in rural France.

Any long drawtube scope could be used in this mode, for prolonged viewing.

Best regards,

Ronald

Am curious why Zeiss chose the 18 power for the lower end of the zoom, since 15 power is very useful for a big game spotting scope and would result in a wider field, not to mention the larger exit pupil of 4.3 as opposed to 3.6. I have the revolving turret old B&L Balscope Sr. which handles 3 eyepieces, and find it very useful. While I don't hunt anymore, I use to hunt for mountain sheep at great distances, and found the old B&L up to the task. Even with my newer ED stuff at 65 and 80 mm, the B&L compares very favorably. Americans are mesmerized with over sized optics IMO, and the optics people keep feeding our optical egos. My experience suggests that over 40 x we are really just dealing with a bigger blur when mirage, wind currents, etc. take over. John

Eagle Optics have them on the web site but not in stock

http://www.eagleoptics.com/spotting-scopes/zeiss/zeiss-dialyt-18-45x65-field-spotter

Field of View 120-69 feet/1000 yards is a little less (but not by a lot, about 5%) than the 65mm Diascope with the Vario eyepiece.

As a birder I don't mind loosing the bottom end of the zoom. I find I use x15 the least than using a 65mm scope. I think this is the same sort of idea that Swaro and Leica have in making 25x to 50x zooms putting most of the effort in the most used range.

Cameraland have them in stock

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/zeiss.pl?page=528007

$1299

any real life birding usage reports on the dialyt scope?

Eye relief?

Some sites say 19 mm but I can't find that info at Zeiss.com

Quality of view compared to nikon ED50?

Vespobuteo said:

any real life birding usage reports on the dialyt scope?
Eye relief?
Some sites say 19 mm but I can't find that info at Zeiss.com
Quality of view compared to nikon ED50?

Click to expand...

Can't help you on the eye relief, but I thought it was pretty good when I tried that scope in the field. It's mainly meant to be used by hunters without a tripod. A very tough scope, much tougher than the rather fragile ED50, fully waterproof, but quite a bit larger and heavier. The optics were nice I thought, but not outstanding. Some visible CA, even in the centre, especially at the higher magnfications, but not that bad. Good contrast. Field of view rather narrow.

I've been thinking of getting one for trips in the mountains or to northern Scandinavia where I wouldn't really want to use the ED50 because it's too fragile. Not yet decided what I'll do, but at the moment I think I'd prefer to use my EDIII on such trips.

Hermann

Hermann said:

Can't help you on the eye relief, but I thought it was pretty good when I tried that scope in the field. It's mainly meant to be used by hunters without a tripod. A very tough scope, much tougher than the rather fragile ED50, fully waterproof, but quite a bit larger and heavier. The optics were nice I thought, but not outstanding. Some visible CA, even in the centre, especially at the higher magnfications, but not that bad. Good contrast. Field of view rather narrow.

I've been thinking of getting one for trips in the mountains or to northern Scandinavia where I wouldn't really want to use the ED50 because it's too fragile. Not yet decided what I'll do, but at the moment I think I'd prefer to use my EDIII on such trips.

Hermann

Click to expand...

thanks for reply,
probably not a scope for me,
since I'm pretty sensitive to CA,