Diafuns Are Underrated!!! (1 Viewer)

Once again I took a chance and purchased a much berrated binocular only to discover that I love it. This time its the Zeiss Diafun 10x30. Mind you, my opinion is based upon the price of a used pair - not the $400 price of a new one. I dislike double-hinged compacts so I do have a prejudice regarding handling. These fit my large hands perfectly. In direct comparison to my Nikon LX 8x42 and Swarovski SLC 10x50 - and to my astonishment - the center sharpness is fully the equal of either. The Nikon's are noticeably more bright and contrasty in any light - the Swarovski's only gain a significant edge in brightness in poor light. In my own version of a NEED test (reading lines of type of varying sizes at a fixed distance in moderate indoor light) the Diafuns greater magnification more than offset the Nikons greater contrast and brightness. I COULD READ SMALLER TYPE WITH THE LOWLY DIAFUN THAN WITH MY BELOVED LX'S! And all of this in a 15 ounce package! I see none of the chromatic abberation I've read about - although sharpness does diminish rapidly away from the center. I am keeping these and highly recomend them as a fine "go everywhere" binocular. This is easily the best view I have seen at this price and at this weight.

They have a narrow 288' FOV. I wouldn't like them for that reason alone. But if you are happy then they are a bargain.
Bob

I had the next level Zeiss, the Conquest, and would agree that center field resolution on the inexpensive Zeiss was the equal of the more expensive glass under normal lighting conditions. The Conquests even held their own in dim light though my LXs were noticeably brighter. The major difference that I noticed between the two in terms of optical quality was the outer portion of the field. The LXs were clear almost to the very edge of the field while the Conquests really lost quality in the outer 1/3rd of the image.

FrankD said:

I had the next level Zeiss, the Conquest, and would agree that center field resolution on the inexpensive Zeiss was the equal of the more expensive glass under normal lighting conditions. The Conquests even held their own in dim light though my LXs were noticeably brighter. The major difference that I noticed between the two in terms of optical quality was the outer portion of the field. The LXs were clear almost to the very edge of the field while the Conquests really lost quality in the outer 1/3rd of the image.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I see with the Diafuns as well. Which has me wondering if there is no significant difference between the optics of the Diafun and Conquest. I think the primary difference between them (in like sizes) is coatings and housings. This too, may speak to the value the Diafuns represent as a sharp, light and relatively inexpensive "go anywhere" bin.