-
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 15x60 B/GA T*...How good is a late model by today's standards? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rathaus
- Start date
Hi John
Here we are back home from our Western Isles expedition and I see I need to brush up my (non-existent) Greek.
With respect John I have to contradict you, at least on this side of the pond, sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit. Anyhow thank you for your encouragement and I shall do my best to rise to the occasion.
Elsewhere in these pages you expressed a liking for vernacular words and phrases that you haven't encountered before so here are a very few, which I hope the moderators will allow.
Trancklements: miscellaneous personal objects, eg the stuff you take out of one jacket and put in the one you are going to wear, or the stuff a lady might move from one handbag to another.
Ooisit: just pronounce it and you can guess this is an elided form of Who is it? and is used when you can't remember someones name eg 'I must remember to inform ooisit'
M'ont: pronounced moan-t and means musn't (must not) and is patterned on the word w'ont as in 'will not' eg 'you mon't do that'.
Loaf; slang for brain eg 'use your loaf' as in 'think carefully'.
OK thats enough for now.
Lee
John Dracon
John Dracon
Lee - most Americans consider sarcasm wounding and only funny when applied to one's favorite political hypocrite, rival, or enemy. I believe you Brits have come close to perfecting personal insults in the English language. We listen to the exchange in your parliament and chuckle and then listen to our politicians feign civility as they introduce each other as "my esteemed colleague" when in reality they are contemptuous of each other.
English is such a verbal "chowder"; we wonder why real meaning manages to elude us.
John
English is such a verbal "chowder"; we wonder why real meaning manages to elude us.
John
That's pretty much how we view it too, hence the view that anyone who uses sarcasm and thinks its funny is actually scraping the bottom of a very deep, smelly and socially repulsive barrel :king:
Lee
Rathaus
Well-known member
...Oh, I see..you are referring to the comments about camels and kangaroos as freight carrying creatures of 1.5kg binoculars! Yes, that was possibly a gentle old world joke of sorts. I was confused for a second there.
Well, I can confirm that, stastically, the bulbous and rotund stomachs of most of us on this forum account for far far more freight than any big zeiss!
Warm regards,
Rathaus
Last edited:
Its a good word, Bob, isn't it? Lampoon. It sounds gently humorous itself. Unlike its cousin 'lambast' which isn't gentle at all.
L
Zeiss 15x60 B/GA T*
I have yet to try a modern binocular beyond another Zeiss that comes close to these things, the Docter 15x60's I gave my brother are much more "modern" but are not in the same league although very good.
I have not had a chance to compare the Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT T*'s to another binocular head to head.
Many of these are still used by for observation by various Fish and Wildlife agencies and US gov agencies.
I have carried the Nikon 7x50 Tropical's and Fujion 7x50's when younger and now use the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42's....none of these glasses are in the same league as the Zeiss.
YMMV.
For those that complain about the Zeiss is there another glass in the same league....I would be interested to try it.
Art
I have yet to try a modern binocular beyond another Zeiss that comes close to these things, the Docter 15x60's I gave my brother are much more "modern" but are not in the same league although very good.
I have not had a chance to compare the Zeiss 15x60 B/GAT T*'s to another binocular head to head.
Many of these are still used by for observation by various Fish and Wildlife agencies and US gov agencies.
I have carried the Nikon 7x50 Tropical's and Fujion 7x50's when younger and now use the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42's....none of these glasses are in the same league as the Zeiss.
YMMV.
For those that complain about the Zeiss is there another glass in the same league....I would be interested to try it.
Art
NDhunter
Experienced observer
There is an older comparison of large binoculars, and they are rated from high to low.
The big Zeiss is a very good choice, and you should read this review.
Hunters use big binoculars more than any others, so they do know their stuff.
Just Google, "Big eyes, seeing is believing".
Jerry
The big Zeiss is a very good choice, and you should read this review.
Hunters use big binoculars more than any others, so they do know their stuff.
Just Google, "Big eyes, seeing is believing".
Jerry
Rathaus
Well-known member
That was a good read, but I didn't see the big zeiss mentioned....or did I miss something? Were you referring to that particular format as a potent field optic?
Thanks for the read
Rathaus
Elmer Fudd
Well-known member
Congrats to your new purchase, Rathaus! Nice nick name also.
I am still going pregnant with the idea whether to buy a pair of 15xbinos or a spotting scope.
The 15Zeiss is on the top of my list. Just because of the greater comfort by watching with both eyes open.
Would you do me the favor and measure the shortest distance you can focus in on an object?
I am still going pregnant with the idea whether to buy a pair of 15xbinos or a spotting scope.
The 15Zeiss is on the top of my list. Just because of the greater comfort by watching with both eyes open.
Would you do me the favor and measure the shortest distance you can focus in on an object?
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Elmer,
Here's a thread on Optics Talk by PA Redneck that addresses your dilemma. I thought Frank's post was particularly an "eye opener" about the fact that sports optics companies now make WA EPs for spotting scopes, so it's no longer a compromise in FOV to use a spotter over "Big Eyes" binoculars.
spotting-scope-or-big-eyes?
Personally, I prefer "Big Eyes" because "two eyes are better than one." You get about an increase of about 40% in contrast by using both eyes. I also find that using spotters for any more than a short time causes eye strain, because I forget (or can't get comfortable with) keeping my other eye open and tend to clench it tight. Same deal with telescopes w/out binoviewers.
I've used a Zeiss 85 Diascope with a WA 30x EP, and the EP was so wide that I had to shield it from the sun (if you have a fat head and wear a big hat like the cartoon Elmer that won't be a problem
). But it did give a great view of a flying juvenile Eagle that was at least a mile away. Not sure I would have made the ID with 15x60 binoculars. Still, there are some higher powered binoculars, for example, the Doctor Aspectum series, which includes a 30x80 ED and a 40x80 ED if you don't mind paying over $4K. OTOH, a fully outfitted 85 Diascope will cost you $3,000 for just one telescope.
Brock
Rathaus
Well-known member
Yes sure I can do that. I'm not so sure how much this figure can vary depending on the individual's eyes ability to also pull focus...but I'll get you a number.
Btw...how can I translate that article?
Rathaus
Last edited:
Rathaus
Well-known member
Ok, for closest focus I got 13 Metres very nicely. Possibly a tad under. If I move 50cm forwards or backwards it will take it slightly out of perfect focus. Hope that helps.
Cheers
Rathaus
Last edited:
tenex
reality-based
Just saw this thread. Thanks for helping me figure out that my 15x60 from c.1989 is a GAT model, not the BGAT. I thought they had just added rubber eyecups for that final edition, and didn't realize it had an improved ocular. Which I can now wish I had. (Along with that nifty yellow case!)
That said, my GAT is no slouch. It has functional eye relief (without eyeglasses), better than the 1960s model I used many years ago, so there must have been at least three versions of oculars over time. And good modern coatings. Not quite the uber-contrast of today's glasses, but still a gorgeous 3D view across its field, so if you can't find a BGAT, it could be a satisfying alternative.
It handholds surprisingly well at least for short periods of time for nature viewing, and a simple clasp on the shaft fixes it to a tripod. I generally point the tripod handle away (toward the target) to keep it out of the way. The near focus isn't great of course, 30+ ft, never measured it precisely.
That said, my GAT is no slouch. It has functional eye relief (without eyeglasses), better than the 1960s model I used many years ago, so there must have been at least three versions of oculars over time. And good modern coatings. Not quite the uber-contrast of today's glasses, but still a gorgeous 3D view across its field, so if you can't find a BGAT, it could be a satisfying alternative.
It handholds surprisingly well at least for short periods of time for nature viewing, and a simple clasp on the shaft fixes it to a tripod. I generally point the tripod handle away (toward the target) to keep it out of the way. The near focus isn't great of course, 30+ ft, never measured it precisely.
